AMM STUDIES ADR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

During the month of February 2007, we are inviting comments from members onthe recommendations of the Supreme Court ADR Commission. Theserecommendations, if adopted by the Supreme Court, will significantly impactthe practice of family mediators in the state of Missouri. It isrecommended that the mediation provisions in Supreme Court Rule 88 (familymediation) be removed and replaced by new provisions in Supreme Court Rule17 (general ADR rule). You can review the existing rules atwww.courts.mo.gov Please review the eight talking points below.

By February 15, 2007: Send your comments on the talking points by email to: momediators@mediate.com The Study Group will review comments and prepare a draft report.

On February 23, 2007: You are invited to participate in a telephone conference at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the draft study report. Please contact us at the email address above to receive information for calling into the conference.

TALKING POINTS

1. Education Requirements for Mediators: Supreme Court Rule 88.05 presently requires family mediators to be an attorney or possess a graduate degree in a field that includes the study of psychiatry, psychology, social work, counseling or other behavioral science substantially related to marriage and family interpersonal relationships. The proposed Rule 17.11 requires in the way of education, a bachelors degree from an accredited institution. Issues to consider:
a. Is a B.S. or B.A. a sufficient educational requirement?
b. Should there be any requirement on the substantive area of study?

2. Training/Cross training Requirements: Supreme Court Rule 88.05 presently requires mediators to have at least 20 hours of child custody mediation training in a program approved by the Court. The new proposed Rule 17.11 requires at least 40 hours of mediation training including specific topics, as well as 8 hours of specific “cross training” in the law and behavioral science fields. Issues to consider:
a. Are the training requirements sufficient given no advanced degree is required?
b. Should role playing be required?
c. Is cross training necessary in all matters?
d. What core topics should be covered in cross training?
e. Is the required cross training sufficient?
f. What, if any, qualifications should the trainers possess?
g. Is certification of training or trainers desirable?

3. Continuing Education: Rule 88 does not presently require continuing education for mediators. The new proposed Rule 17.11 requires 6 hours of continuing education in fields related to ADR services or behavioral sciences that are applicable and relevant to issues of child and family development and psychology. Issues to consider:
a. Is six hours per year an appropriate amount
b. Is self study, video watching appropriate
c. Should role-playing be required
d. Should the hours be totally mediation skills (what about substantive topics in your field or in cross training)

4. OSCA Family Mediator List It is recommended that judges only be allowed to appoint mediators from the approved list. Mediators must meet certain qualifications to be on the approved list (Rule 17.11), which will be maintained by the Office of State Court Administrator. Issues to consider:
a. What should be the qualifications of the staff assessing who is a qualified registrant?
b. What is a reasonable fee, if any, to charge for registration?
c. How should “the list” be disseminated – to the courts, to the public?
d. What impact does this have on the Rule 17 list maintained by MOBar?
e. When a mediator is registered on the OSCA list, what designation is it appropriate for a mediator to advertise such a listing?

5. "Reasonable" fee provisions A change in statutory language is proposed that will authorize a court to order mediation for which the parties will pay a reasonable fee. Issues to consider:
a. What information should be gathered to determine “reasonable” fees?
b. What role should the court have in collecting the fee (deposit into the registry of the court; judgment, etc.)

6. Proposed standards of practice (not the same as the national model adopted by AMM) The ADR Commission has proposed the adoption of standards of practice for family mediators that do not follow any of the national model standards adopted by national ADR organizations. You can read the standards adopted by AMM at www.mediate.com/amm Issues to consider: a. Is there a need for another standards of practice?
b. Do the proposed standards differ from the AMM standards in any ways that cause you concern?
c. Are the Commission’s proposed standards more beneficial to romoting public confidence in mediation?

7. Complaint process The ADR Commission has recommended that each circuit establish a complaint process for handling complaints about mediator services. Issues to consider:
a. Is a circuit by circuit complaint process appropriate?
b. What should be the qualifications of personnel administering the complaint process?
c. What are appropriate goals for a complaint process?
d. What are the hallmarks of a qualify complaint process?
e. How should the complaint process be publicized?
f. What due process rights should the mediator have when a complaint is received? When a determination is made?
g. What are appropriate consequences for a valid complaint?

8. Domestic Violence The ADR Commission makes no recommendations for particular handling of cases that have a history of domestic violence. Issues to consider:
a. Do you believe this issue should be addressed for court ordered mediation?
b. What standards for training, if any, should be recommended?
c. What standards for mediator experience, if any, should be recommended?
d. What standards for screening cases for domestic violence, if any, should be recommended? e. What protocols or safeguards, if any, for conducting mediation in such cases should be recommended?