Family Mediation Quarterly

Vol. 11 No. 1 Winter 2012

M C F M

FAMILY MEDIATION QUARTERLYM C F M

FAMILY MEDIATION QUARTERLY

The Massachusetts Council On Family Mediation is a nonprofit corporation established in 1982by family mediators interested in sharing knowledge and setting guidelines for mediation. MCFMis the oldest professional organization in Massachusetts devoted exclusively to family mediation.

PRESIDENT’S PAGE

Family Mediation Quarterly

[email protected]

The New Year and true winter weather have arrived—a time for newbeginnings and warm coats. I want to wish all of you a healthy, joyful, andproductive 2012.

In remembering the past year, I particularly want to note our annualInstitute, held December 9. Our keynote speaker, Chief Justice PaulaCarey, was articulate and impressive. Inviting our creative efforts to helpwith the increasing burdens on our family and probate court system, I havehope that we will rise to this task.

Fern Frolin helped us once again to stay current with changes in the law;especially the new alimony statute (stay tuned for our Members’ meeting inFebruary for more on how mediators are affected).

The afternoon workshops were informative and helpful as well.

But the Institute event described by one member as “worth the price ofadmission alone” was the acceptance speech given by David Hoffman asthe seventh recipient of the John Fiske Award for excellence in mediationand contributions to our field.

With the work that we do, there is always a link between the personal andthe professional parts of our lives. Many of us have lived through ourparents’, our friends’, or our own divorces, and have been motivated toimprove that experience for others. David raised our consciousness to anew level through his willingness to share the pain and vulnerability of hisfamily’s struggles with cancer along with the ways in which this experiencehas deepened his understanding of and ability to empathize with thesuffering of his divorcing clients, and resulted in less impasse and morebeneficial outcomes in his mediation work.

In this New Year, I wish for all of us an increase in our ability to use ourlife experiences—both painful and joyful—to enrich our practices of thefine art of family mediation.

CONTENTS

27 MCFM News31 Announcements

38 Join Us39 Directorate

Winter 2012 • Vol. 11 No. 1

1 THE NEW MUPC: WHAT MEDIATORS NEED TO KNOWBy Terry K. Mond

4 NEW ALIMONY REFORM ACT: Consistency Breeds ConfusionBy Mario C. Capano

7 MODIFICATIONS UNDER THE 2011 ALIMONY REFORM ACT:With an Alimony Modification Decision Tree By Justin L. Kelsey

9 MCFM’S 10TH ANNUAL FAMILY MEDIATION INSTITUTEA Photo Array by Debra L. Smith

17 POWERED BY PARADOX By Michael Jacobs

19 SEVENTH ANNUAL FISKE AWARD HONORS DAVID A. HOFFMAN Presented by John A. Fiske

21 MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY LAW: A Periodic Review By Jonathan E. Fields

22 WHAT’S NEWS? National & International Family NewsChronologically Compiled & Edited by Les Wallerstein

25 MCFM MEDIATOR PROFILE: Shelly P. Chisholm

COPYRIGHT NOTICEMCFM grants permission to reproduce and disseminate

articles & graphics provided that MCFM and the authors are credited, each author consents

and distribution is not-for-profit.MCFM © 2012

40 Editor’s Notice

1


THE NEW MUPC: WHAT MEDIATORS NEED TO KNOWTerry K. Mond

On March 31, 2012, the newMassachusetts Uniform Probate Code(MUPC) will go into effect. While thenew law streamlines probateadministration procedures and makessignificant changes to intestacy laws(including altering the amounts to whicha surviving spouse may be entitled), theprovisions of most immediate interest tofamily law attorneys may be thosedefining the consequences of bothdivorce and marriage on a client’s estateplan.

While the MUPC essentially carries overexisting law revoking in the event ofdivorce any provisions made in a LastWill and Testament for the benefit of a(divorced) spouse, it extends thisrevocation to so-called “will substitutes.”In the past, trusts and estates lawyersassisting family members with thesettlement of estates have with somefrequency discovered instances where thedecedent neglected aftergetting divorced to makechanges to beneficiarydesignations previouslymade in favor of theirformer spouse. In many ifnot most such cases, thisfailure has been thought tobe inadvertent and not intentional, withthe result that the divorced spousereceives a “windfall” as the result of thedecedent’s death.

In recognition of this, the MUPC expands

its automatic divorce revocationprovisions to include other commonlyused vehicles for passing on a decedent’sassets, as long as the dispositionsprovided for were revocable at the time ofthe divorce and not contained in agoverning instrument, court order orcontract relating to the division of themarital estate in the event of divorce. Sounder the new law, if prior to the divorce,a decedent makes provision in a trust fora spouse, or designates a spouse asbeneficiary of a life insurance policy,annuity contract, or retirement plan, ormakes a transfer on death designation onan account (all of which designationsresult in non-probate transfers at death),in each instance the death beneficiarydesignation will be revoked in the eventof divorce. This will be the resultregardless of whether the beneficiarydesignation was made prior to or after theMUPC went into effect.

The new rules causing revocation in theevent of divorce go further, revoking notonly provisions for the benefit of theformer spouse but also provisionsbenefiting the former spouse’s relatives.The notes to the MUPC indicate that this

The new expanded revocationrules should go a long way

towards preventing divorcedspouses (and their relatives) fromreceiving “windfall” inheritances.

2


expansion of the revocation rule wasmade under the assumption that thedecedent’s relationship with the formerspouse’s relatives would likely have beenweakened by the divorce and thatthe decedent would not haveintended inheritance by thoserelatives.

While the new expanded revocationrules should go a long way towardspreventing divorced spouses (andtheir relatives) from receiving “windfall”inheritances, care needs to be taken toinsure that a client’s intentions are notfrustrated by those rules. For example,there are times when a client may intendthat a designation of a spouse (or aspouse’s child or children) as beneficiaryon a life insurance policy survive thedivorce. One method of insuring thiswould be to make specific reference to thebeneficiary designation in the divorceagreement. This might be done evenwhere the designation was not negotiatedby the parties, but is being donevoluntarily and is intended to bechangeable at any time. A perhapspreferable alternative (to avoid disputesover intent that might arise later) may beto have the insured spouse re-execute thebeneficiary designation in favor of theother (divorced) spouse or children afterthe divorce is final.

The new code similarly expands theeffects of divorce on co-owners ofproperty. Under prior law, the interests oftenants by the entirety are severed in theevent of divorce, making the co-ownership interests tenants in common.However, divorce had no effect upon the

interests of former spouses held as jointtenants with rights of survivorship. Underthe MUPC, however, upon divorce theinterests of former spouses holding as

joint tenants are also severed to becometenants in common. Where the partiesintend to maintain a joint tenancy afterdivorce, they should execute, immediatelyfollowing the divorce, a new deedconveying to themselves as joint tenantswith rights of survivorship.

With respect to the effect of marriage onan existing Will, the MUPC reverses theold law 180 degrees. Previously, marriagecaused the automatic revocation of anexisting Will unless the Will specificallyrecited that it was executed incontemplation of marriage. Under theMUPC, marriage no longer causes arevocation. It is important that clients bemade aware of this change, as some mayhave had previous experience with the oldrule and expect that, in the absence of anyaction on their part, their estate will bedivided upon death in accordance with thelaws of intestacy. This new rule makes itincreasingly important that people gettingmarried, particularly those who havechildren from a previous marriage, reviewtheir estate plans and make consciousdecisions concerning how they want theirestate divided in the event of their death.

With respect to the effect ofmarriage on an existing Will,

the MUPC reverses the oldlaw 180 degrees.

Continued on next page

3


The above discussion is intended only asan introduction to some of the basic rulesof interest to family law practitioners (andtheir clients) under the MUPC. In thecoming months, more detailed analysis ofthe many complex rules contained in thenew law will undoubtedly beforthcoming. Divorce mediators and otherpractitioners should encourage theirclients to review their estate plans withcounsel of their choice when gettingmarried or divorced to insure that theirexisting plans carry out their intentions inlight of the new rules.

Terry K. Mond is a partner inthe Quincy law firm of Gordon,Mond & Ott, P.C. He received aMasters in Taxation from Boston

University School of Law, and haspracticed in the areas of trusts and estates,corporate and real estate law for morethan 25 years. Terry can be contacted attel. 617-786-0800 or email: [email protected]

“Gravitation cannot be

held responsiblefor peoplefalling in

love.”

Albert Einstein

4


NEW ALIMONY REFORM ACT: CONSISTENCY BREEDS CONFUSION

By Mario C. Capano

In September, 2011, Gov. Deval L.Patrick signed into law the long-awaited,much-anticipated 2011 Alimony ReformAct, G.L.c. 208, §§48-55. The statutegoes into effect on March 1.

The law sets out specific durations for thetermination of alimony, based on thelength of the marriage and reaching “fullretirement age.” In certain circumstances,it allows current payors to go back tocourt to seek a termination of long-termor indefinite alimony payments based onthe length of their prior marriage. And itallows for alimony to be terminated orsuspended if the payor spouse can prove“cohabitation.”

And while it brings consistency to an areawhere there once was none, confusion liesin the provisions dealing with theinteraction of alimony and child supportpayments, the tax consequences to apayor or payee spouse, and the provisionsthat, rightly so, still allow “judicialdiscretion” to deviate from the statute inthe interest of justice.

“Alimony,” as the term is defined, is thepayment of support from a spouse whohas the ability to pay, to a spouse in needof support for a reasonable length of timeunder a court order. Alimony has alwaysbeen based on “spousal need” on the onehand, and “spousal ability to pay” on theother; the key difference is languagelimiting alimony to a “reasonable lengthof time.”

Alimony is broken down into fourcategories: rehabilitative, reimbursement,transitional and general alimony. Each isdefined in the statute. The first three arealmost self-explanatory and representeither a lump sum payment or periodicpayments for a set term of years.

The one that bears discussion is “generalalimony,” the household, generic alimonythat makes payor spouses or potentialpayor spouses cringe.

All prior alimony awards are nowconsidered general alimony awards underthe new statute. Up until now, generalterm alimony could not be limited, exceptby agreement of the divorcing parties. Inother words, a potential order for futurealimony would always be lurking outthere, even in short-term marriage unlesswaived by agreement.

Under the new law, general alimony shallterminate upon the remarriage of therecipient or death of the payor spouse,except when the court finds reason todeviate from the time limits:

(1) If the marriage is five years or less,alimony shall not continue longer than 50percent of the duration of the marriage;

(2) If the marriage is between five and 10years, alimony shall not continue longerthan 60 percent of the duration of themarriage;


5


(3) If the marriage is between 10 and 15years, alimony shall not continue longerthan 70 percent of the duration of themarriage;

(4) If the marriage is between 15 and 20years, alimony shall not continue longerthan 80 percent of the duration of themarriage;

(5) If the marriage is longer than 20 years,the court may order alimony for an“indefinite length of time.”

As stated above, general term alimonymay be also be suspended, reduced orterminated with proof of cohabitation ofthe recipient spouse by the payor spouse.

The confusion in the new statute lies inthe calculation of the amount to beawarded as “general alimony.” Accordingto the statute, with few exceptions, theamount of alimony should “generally notexceed the recipient’s need or 30 to 35percent of the difference between theparties’ gross incomes. The interaction of“need” and the “percentages” set out inthe statute remains to be seen.

Confusing as well to both judges andlawyers is going to be the interaction ofchild support and alimony, when a payorspouse may be ordered to pay both as“unallocated” or “undifferentiated”support.

The language in the statute is confusingand will be subject to interpretation as thenew law is put to use. What is clear is thata tax analysis may be necessary to assist

the parties and the court to maximize taxsavings to the parties, particularly thepayor spouse.

Finally, the Alimony Reform Actprovides the opportunity for payorspouses, in certain circumstances, tomodify existing alimony awards that gobeyond the durational limits set out in thestatute by filing a complaint formodification in the Probate & FamilyCourt. There are important time limitsunder which such a request formodification can be sought:

(1) Payor spouses married five years orless may file for modification on or afterMarch 1, 2013;

(2) Payor spouses married between fiveand 10 years may file for modification onor after March 1, 2014;

(3) Payor spouses married between 10and 15 years may file for modification onor after March 1, 2015;

(4) Payor spouses married between 15and 20 years may file for modification onor after Sept. 1, 2015;

(5) Any payor spouse who has reachedfull retirement age (generally 66) or whowill reach full retirement age on or beforeMarch 1, 2015, may file a complaint formodification on or after March 1, 2013.

The new law is a welcome change tojudges and attorneys in divorce and post-divorce matters. It will create significantchange to the negotiation and drafting of

6


divorce agreements and provides forpredictability in court judgments inshort-term or medium-term marriages.

It also allows present alimony awards tobe challenged, modified and, in somecases, terminated altogether.

Payor spouses who are already divorced,without an agreement to waive “futurealimony,” need to take a second look todetermine if modification or terminationorders are available and beneficial to thedivorced payor spouse.

Like all new laws, the meaning of thevarious provisions of the statute will onlycome with interpretation by the judges inthe Probate & Family and appellatecourts in Massachusetts.

Mario C. Capano practicesfamily and divorce law atCapano & DeJoie in Lynn. Hecan be contacted at

(781) 599-6056.

“A bank is a place where

they lend you an umbrella

in fair weatherand ask for it back

when it begins to rain.”

Robert Frost

7


MODIFICATIONS UNDER THE 2011 ALIMONY REFORM ACTBy Justin L. Kelsey

On September 26, 2011, The AlimonyReform Act of 2011 was signed into law.The new law becomes effective March 1,2012 and makes significant changes toalimony in Massachusetts. Among thesechanges is the addition of durational limitson general term alimony, a presumptivetermination of alimony upon retirement ageof the payor, and reduction or terminationupon cohabitation of the recipient.

These changes open up the opportunity forthose who are paying alimony under apreviously indefinite order to request anend-date if they qualify.The supporters ofthe Act championed these provisions as thechance to end unfair lifetime alimonyorders, and the newspapers filled withstories of greedy exes taking advantage ofpayors who had fallen on tough times.

But these are also some of the mostcontroversial sections of the Act becausethey will allow the change of alimony orderswhich recipients may have been counting onfor their retirement. Regardless of whichside you’re on, it is clear that theseprovisions will drive many payors to returnto court seeking an end-date to theirpayments. To prevent a rush to thecourthouse steps, the Act provides fordelayed implementation depending oncertain factors.

The flow-chart to the right depicts a decisiontree for determining whether a payorqualifies for a modification of aMassachusetts alimony order under TheAlimony Reform Act of 2011.

The Act sets specific dates after which amodification of the duration of alimonyorders may be requested via the filing of aComplaint for Modification, delaying someactions until as late as September 1, 2015.Which date applies depends on the length of

the marriage in that case. In addition to thisstepped implementation for marital length,the Act also prohibits modifications untilafter March 1, 2013 for payors who havereached or will reach retirement age beforeMarch 1, 2015. Retirement age is defined bythe social security act and may not be theactual retirement age of the payor.

As mentioned above, the Act also allows forreduction or termination of alimony undercertain facts when the recipient iscohabitating. However, there is norestriction in the act for when these casescan be filed and so a Complaint forModification alleging cohabitationpresumably can be filed when the act takeseffect on March 1, 2012.

The Act does not allow modification of theamount of alimony in current orders duesolely to the new definitions and limitationscontained in the Act. Furthermore, if anoriginal alimony order survives then the Actdoes not allow for modification of that orderunder any of the new provisions for amountor duration.

As mediators, though, it is also important toremember that ultimately parties alwayshave the ability to reach an agreement formodification even when the Act wouldn’tallow for it. In the event that they disagreeabout whether an alimony order should bechanged, this chart can help you figure outwhether a court will change the order andwhen.

Justin L. Kelsey is an attorneyand mediator, who also practicescollaborative divorce. His firm,Kelsey & Trask, P.C. is located in

Framingham, MA and concentrates onFamily Law and Bankruptcy. Learn more atwww.KelseyTrask.com.

8


9


MCFM’S 10TH ANNUAL FAMILY MEDIATION INSTITUTEA Photo Array By Debra L. Smith

David Hoffman, Carol Lynn May & Halee Burg

Lynn Cooper, Fern Frolin & Paula Carey

10


Aimee Bonacorsi & Sean O'Leary

David Feldman, Amy Martell, David Burgess, David Matz & Peter Engel

Bruce Shackleton, Jerry Weinstein & Melinda Milberg

11


Judy Salosky, John Fiske & David Matz

Gina Arons, Doris Tennant, Lisa Smith, Mary Johnston & Oran Kaufman

12


Michael Tremblay & Bill Leonard

Rachael Goldman & Lynda Robbins

13


Paula Noe

Jeanne Cleary

Larri ParkerJon Fields

14


Jerry Weinstein, John Fiske, David Hoffman & Janet Miller WisemanALL FISKE AWARD HONOREES

Carla Newton, Amy Bricker & Eileen Sorrentino

15


Doris Tennant & Ellen WaldorfMark Zarrow

Lisa Smith

John LaPré & Michelle Raymond Laurie Udell

Kate Fanger

16


Bill Leonard & Maureen Michaels

Julie Ginsburg

Justin Kelsey & Melinda Milberg

Debra L. Smith is a mediator, collaborative attorney and the photographerwho took all the Institute photos in this issue of the FMQ. Her photographswere on display at the Watertown Free Public Library in December 2007 and2008, and at the Arlington Center for the Arts at the Tufts Street Community

Gallery in February 2010 in shows called “Art of the Seasons.” In April and July 2010,Deb’s photographs were on display at the Watertown Free Public Library in showscalled “Positive Emotions.” To see more of Deb’s photos, please visitwww.debsmithphotography.com

17


In the world of mediation, power isalways an issue. Usually the focus is onthe power – balanced or otherwise – of theparties. Less often mentioned are thesources of power drawn upon bypractitioners.

This reticence isn’t because mediatorsdon’t have power. We do. For one thing,mediators have the power to stop thesession. And as ‘process managers’ wehave considerable control over whathappens in the room. Mediators exercisetheir procedural power when we askquestions, offer summaries, or ensureopportunities for parties to speak.

Mediation, however, is more than process.At the heart of mediation are a set ofrelationships. Human beings engagingwith other human beings. And power ispart and parcel of every relationship. Therelationship between mediator and partiesis no exception. The question isn’twhether we have power in thisrelationship, but rather how to understandour power – and how to use it. Lackingthis awareness, our power can cripple theprocess.

The Power of Paradox As strange as itseems, I believe that as mediators wederive much of our power from anunavoidable paradox. As practitioners,we are expected to embody two opposingand seemingly contradictory qualitiessimultaneously. These qualities lie ateither end of the psychological spectrum.And yet, to do the work that we need to

do, mediators must be fully committed toboth renunciation and care.

Neither on its own will suffice.Renunciation untouched by care can leadto callousness and a mechanical approach.Care without renunciation risks beingoverly sympathetic and the loss ofimpartiality. Only when joined togethercan they function like the opposing shoresof a great sea, circumscribing the territoryin which we work.

Renunciation: Keeping Our Hands OffRenunciation carries a kind of moralovertone. We associate it more withmartyrs than mediators. And yet,mediators are called to ‘renounce’ anystake in the outcome of a dispute. Thisstance is to be maintained even in the faceof repeated efforts by the parties to dragus into the conflict.

From the parties’ perspective, this pulltowards partiality is understandable. Afterall, any opinion or judgment the mediatoroffers can relieve them of theirresponsibility to make uncomfortablechoices.

And this discomfort isn’t confined to theparties. Holding fast to renunciation whilewitnessing parties as they painfullystruggle to find a way forward is far fromeasy. The temptation for mediators tojump into the role of rescuer is everpresent. Doing so not only undermines theprocess, but sends an unambiguousmessage: the parties can’t manage theirown lives.

POWERED BY PARADOXBy Michael Jacobs

18


The dilemma for mediators is clear. If werefuse the power of renunciation, wedisempower our clients. Only by keepingour hands off their lives, can we rightfullyinsist that they steer their own course. Thepower of renunciation, the withdrawing ofour own set of maps, helps create a space.A space for others to fill.

Care: Keeping Our Hearts OpenHaving absented ourselves throughrenunciation, we return via care. Care notonly in the professional sense of ensuringthe smooth running of the process, butmore personally, care for those who arestruggling to use it.

On a fundamental level, I do the work I dobecause I care. Peace matters to me. Thepain and distress felt by those in conflictmatters to me. The world in which theirdisputes unfold is also my world. There isno standing apart.

Care invokes compassion. To care aboutthe parties in mediation is to suffer withthem as they show their hurt, pain anddistress. Sitting there as practitioners wealso sit there as witnesses. As such, we areconstantly reminded how hard the processis, what courage it takes to stick with it.And how much it matters that someoneactually cares.

Care matters because it implies worth.That despite the pettiness of currentbehaviour – the stupid, hurtful things thatare said and done – we are more. Careconfirms the larger sense of who we arethat is currently unavailable. Care keepsour humanity in view.

Practicing Paradox Renunciation andcare are the twin pillars that frame ourwork. On the one hand, we need torenounce any status as savants orsaviours. On the other, we are caught upin lives that could just as easily be ourown. We are simultaneously apart and apiece. This is the paradox. The ensuingtension can feel enormous.

And sometimes we can’t manage.Depending on our temperaments, ourexperience, our exhaustion, we chooseone side or the other. Those who opt forrenunciation risk cutting off. While thosewho choose care risk burning out.

It is only by finding a way to live with theparadox – of letting go and holding close– that we are able to create a mediatablespace. Powered by paradox, we do ourwork in a space created by renunciationand sustained by care.

Michael Jacobs has been apracticing mediator for nearlysixteen years. He loves what hedoes and wishes he had the

humility to refer to himself as apeacemaker. Currently he trains mediatorsin both family and workplace mediation.He lives just outside of Hereford in theUK, and can be contacted [email protected]

Renunciation and care are the twin pillars that

frame our work.

19


Editor’s Note: Below are excerpts of tributes paid to David Hoffman, presented byJohn Fiske.

Woody Mosten Peacemakers throughout the world are delighted and support theMassachusetts Council on Family Mediation decision to honor David Hoffmanwith the John Adams Fiske Award for Excellence in Mediation. David is a treasureto the mediation field and this prestigious award only adds to David’sincomparable legacy.

Gail Perlman What a perfect choice for this award. David is one of the premierthinkers in ADR in our generation. Of course he knows he stands on the shouldersof many of the giants of the past — and I’m betting he must make them proud bythe bold professional decisions he’s made, the leadership he’s provided —nationally as well as here at home — the writing he’s done that never fails to offera whole new way of looking at a problem and one that always touches the heart aswell as the brain. We are so lucky to have David as our colleague. He hascontributed to the professional development and the personal growth of everyonein this room and far, far beyond. Congratulations, David.

John Fiske It’s a special privilege to present the 7th annual award to DavidHoffman because he has made, is making and will continue to make so manycontributions to family mediation. We began on parallel tracks, with me taking ayear off to travel with my family and David taking a six month sabbatical from Hilland Barlow to hike the Appalachain Trail with his son, and both of us concludingthat mediation is how we want to spend the rest of our professional lives.

David’s many gifts to our field include his perceptiveness and his perception. I citeone example, from his excellent book, “Bringing Peace Into the Room,” which allof us should read and keep for reference. In writing about the fascinating subjectof Paradoxes of Mediation he mentions the Hawthorne Effect, which I had studiedat the Institute for Court Management in 1974: people behave differently whenthey know they are being watched. It never dawned on my when I startedmediating years later to realize what was happening in my office until I readDavid’s article about paradoxes of mediation. A client later told me, “Yourvaluable function for me was as a witness,” and I am no longer surprised whenclients ask if they can cc me on their emails because that will help them be nicerto each other. One of mediation’s many paradoxes, and David’s perception makesthe experience that much richer for me, and for all of us.

SEVENTH ANNUAL FISKE AWARD HONORS DAVID A. HOFFMAN

Presented by John A. Fiske

20


MMAASSSSAACCHHUUSSEETTTTSS CCOOUUNNCCIILL OONN FFAAMMIILLYY MMEEDDIIAATTIIOONN,, IINNCC..EESSTT.. 11998822

FFIIRRSSTT TTHHEEYY IIGGNNOORREE YYOOUU

TTHHEENN TTHHEEYY LLAAUUGGHH AATT YYOOUU

TTHHEENN TTHHEEYY FFIIGGHHTT YYOOUU

TTHHEENN YYOOUU WWIINN

GGAANNDDHHII

22001111SSEEVVEENNTTHH AANNNNUUAALL

JJOOHHNN AADDAAMMSS FFIISSKKEE AAWWAARRDD

FOR

EEXXCCEELLLLEENNCCEE IINN MMEEDDIIAATTIIOONN

PRESENTED TO

DAVID A. HOFFMAN

21


Material Change Trumps InconsistencyStandard. Marlene Morales sought to modifychild support when her ex-husband’s hourlywage increased $.87 per hour. Although childsupport would have increased in thisGuidelines case, the Probate and Familyjudge dismissed Marlene’s modificationaction on the basis that she failed to prove “amaterial change of circumstances.” Onappeal, Marlene relied on the “inconsistencystandard” in M.G.L. c.208 s.28 (creating “arebuttable presumption that the amount of theorder which would result from the applicationof the guidelines is the appropriate amount ofchild support”) which, according to her,required the Court to allow her modification.The Appeals Court disagreed. Affirming theProbate and Family Court decision, theAppeals Court noted that a petitioner cansucceed in a modification action only whereshe demonstrates a material change ofcircumstances – inconsistency with theGuidelines is not enough. Morales v. Morales,2011 Mass.App.Unpub. LEXIS 1089(October 17, 2011) (Unpublished).

Don’t Just Agree to Modify. Go to Court. Arecent Superior Court case illustrates thepitfalls of informal modifications. A divorcejudgment incorporated an agreement in whicha merged provision required the father to payalimony to the mother. Later, the partiesagreed in writing to lower the support but theydid not bring the matter to court. The mother,predictably, filed a complaint for contempt.The father brought a breach of contract actionin Superior Court seeking to hold the motherto the written agreement they had. The Courtfound that since the alimony provisionmerged, the parties did not have the freedomto privately contract with one another withoutcourt approval. Yet another reason that wemust make clear to the clients that they must

go to court with their modificationagreements after they leave our offices. Reedv. Luther, 2011 Mass.Super. LEXIS 254(November 30, 2011)

Language Matters or Don’t Draft in theHallway. There can’t be too many remindersfor mediators about how much languagematters. A hallway revision of a separationagreement provided that the parties will“equalize IRA accounts.” The Agreementwas approved and, shortly afterwards, thewife sought to modify the provision on thegrounds that what the parties really meantwas that “all assets” should be equalized. TheProbate and Family Court refused to modifyand, on appeal, the Appeals Court affirmedthe Probate and Family Court decision.Acheson v. Acheson, 2011 Mass.App.Unpub.LEXIS 1335 (December 21, 2011)(Unpublished)

Looking for a Discount? Don’t Look Here.In a divorce trial involving a wife’s closely-held business interests, the Probate andFamily Court found that the value of herinterests should be adjusted by a marketabilitydiscount (an adjustment designed to reflectthe lack of a market for an interest in abusiness) as well as a minority discount (anadjustment that acknowledges a loss of valuethat attaches to a non-controlling interest).The Appeals Court reversed – holding thatsince the sale of the business was not“presently anticipated,” such discounts wereimproper under Bernier v. Bernier, 444 Mass.774 (2007). Caveney v. Caveney, 81Mass.App.Ct. ---- (January 12, 2012).

Jonathan E. Fields, Esq. is apartner at Fields and Dennis, LLP inWellesley. Jon can be contacted at 781-489-6776, or [email protected]

MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY LAWA Periodic ReviewBy Jonathan E. Fields

22


WHAT’S NEWS?National & International Family News

Chronologically Compiled & Edited by Les Wallerstein

Poverty Surges in U.S. Suburbs Thepoor population in America’s suburbs —long a symbol of a stable and prosperousAmerican middle class — rose by morethan half after 2000. The increase in thesuburbs was 53 percent, compared with26 percent in cities, and two-thirds of thenew suburban poor were added from2007 to 2010. According to a seniorresearcher at the Brookings Institutionwho conducted the analysis of censusdata. “For the first time, more than half ofthe metropolitan poor live in suburbanareas.” (Dustin Franz & SabrinaTavernise, New York Times,10/24/22011)

Sexual Harassment in Schools TheAmerican Association of UniversityWomen surveyed 1,965 students andfound that nearly half of both boys andgirls in grades 7 through 12 reportedexperiencing sexual harassment at school,defined by the researchers as “unwelcomesexual behavior” and includingeverything from sexual comments tobeing physically intimidated in a sexualway. Boys were most troubled by thesame kind of harassment found in anysurvey about bullying: taunts about beinggay. For young women, though, whatbothered them most was somethingdifferent, and far less likely to be coveredunder the common rubric of the bullyingprevention program: unwelcome sexualcomments, jokes or gestures. (K.J.Dellantonia, New York Times, 11/8/2011)

Looking For Love Online There aremillions of Americans seeking love on theInternet. Little do they know that teams ofscientists are eagerly watching themtrying to find it. Of the romanticpartnerships formed in the United Statesbetween 2007 and 2009, 21 percent ofheterosexual couples and 61 percent ofsame-sex couples met online, accordingto a study by an associate professor ofsociology at Stanford. (Scholars said thatmost studies using online dating data areabout heterosexuals, because they makeup more of the population.) Research on amajor dating site between February 2009and February 2010 by another professorshows that more than 80 percent of thecontacts initiated by white members wereto other white members, and only 3percent to black members. Blackmembers were less rigid: they were 10times more likely to contact whites thanwhites were to contact blacks. (StephanieRosenbloom, New York Times,11/13/2011)

Mapping Divorce New Hampshire is theeasiest place to get unhitched in America,according to Bloomberg's ranking of theeasiest and hardest states in which to getdivorced. Vermont is the toughest, with aminimum processing time of more than ayear, compared with a zero-day minimumin New Hampshire. In Pennsylvania,grounds for a fault divorce include “suchindignities to the innocent and injuredspouse as to render that spouse'scondition intolerable and life


23


burdensome.” The filing fee for a divorceranges from $50 in South Dakota to $409in Florida. Pennsylvania requires a two-year cooling-off period if one partyobjects to the divorce. One thing is clear:It’s easier to divorce than it was in thepast, though much of the difficulty or easeremains up to the couple. (Joel Stonington& Alex McIntyre, Bloomberg News,11/15/2011)

Massachusetts Transgender RightsLegislation Enacted Gov. Deval Patricksigned a bill designed to protecttransgender people from discrimination inMassachusetts. Advocates said the newlaw protects transgender people fromdiscrimination in the workplace andhousing by adding “gender identity andexpression’’ to the state’s civil rights laws.More than a dozen states have similarlaws. The measure won support fromstate lawmakers after advocates agreed todrop public accommodations languagethat critics said would lead to abreakdown in privacy in rest rooms,locker rooms and other single-genderfacilities. (Boston Globe Staff,11/23/2011)

In Tough Times, a Boom in CremationsAll but taboo in the United States 50 yearsago, cremation is now chosen over burialin 41 percent of American deaths, up from15 percent in 1985, according to theCremation Association of North America.Economics is clearly one of the factorsdriving that change. With the cremationrate rising one-third faster than at themiddle of the last decade, the cremationassociation projects it will pass 50 percent

by 2017 (still lagging behind Canada andmuch of Europe and Asia). Although statecremation rates vary widely, from 13percent in Mississippi to 73 percent inNevada, every state has experienced anincrease since 2005. (Kevin Sack, NewYork Times, 12/8/2011)

Sexual Violence in America Last year,according to the Rape, Abuse & IncestNational Network, 272,350 Americanswere victims of sexual violence, 80percent of whom were under age 30.Among female victims, nearly three-quarters are assaulted by men they know— friends, acquaintances or intimatepartners, according to statistics from thefederal Bureau of Justice. But fewer than40 percent of rapes and sexual assaults arereported to the police. Underreporting ismore common among male victims andwomen raped by acquaintances ordomestic partners. Only one-quarter ofrapes are committed by strangers. Amongyoung children, girls and boys are equallyat risk of being sexually abused. But asthey age, girls increasingly becometargets; among adults, women representabout 90 percent of cases. (Jane E. Brody,New York Times, 12/13/2011)

Percentage of Married Couples atRecord Low The percentage of marriedAmericans has fallen to record lows,reflecting the evolving shift in attitudesabout the role of marriage in society,according to a new census analysisreleased Wednesday by the Pew ResearchCenter. The report shows that marriedcouples are on the brink of becoming theminority, with only 51 percent of

24


American adults currently married. Thatfigure is down from 57 percent at the turnof the millennium, according to Pew. TheWashington Post explains that the currentfigures are likely due to couples pairingoff at older ages: a median age of 26 forwomen, and 29 for men. For comparison,in 1960, when 72 percent of adults weremarried, the median age for brides was 20,and grooms were just a few years older.Pew found that college graduates aremuch more likely to get married. Overtwo-thirds of graduates are married, whileless than half of adults without a collegedegree are wed. (Greg Howard, Posted onSlate.com, 12/14/2011)

Wealth Gap is the Greatest AmericanDivide Conflict between rich and poornow eclipses racial strain and frictionbetween immigrants and the native-bornas the greatest source of tension inAmerican society, according to a PewSurvey: Pubic Perceptions of ConflictBetween Rich and Poor(pewsocialtrends.org). About two-thirdsof Americans now believe there are

“strong conflicts” between rich and poorin the United States. The share was thelargest since 1992, and represented abouta 50 percent increase from the 2009survey, when immigration was seen as thegreatest source of tension. While blackswere still more likely than whites to seeserious conflicts between rich and poor,the share of whites who held that viewincreased by 22 percentage points, morethan triple the increase among blacks. Theshare of blacks and Hispanics who heldthe view grew by single digits. Seventy-one percent of those who earned from$40,000 to $75,000 said there were strongconflicts between rich and poor, up from47 percent in 2009. The lowest incomebracket, less than $20,000, changed theleast. (Sabrina Tavernise, New YorkTimes, 1/12/2012)

Les Wallerstein is a familymediator and collaborativelawyer in Lexington. He can becontacted at (781) 862-1099, or

at [email protected]

“Common sense could prevent

most divorces & most marriages.”

Salada Tea Bag

25


MCFM MEMBER PROFILE: SHELLY P. CHISHOLM

Name: Michelle “Shelly” Chisholm

Address: 272 Chauncy Street, Unit 1, Mansfield, MA 02048

Website/email: [email protected]

Professional background: Attorney

Mediating since/mediation history:Small claims and summary processmediator at District Court divisionsince 2009.

Describe your mediation practice:I am currently building my divorcemediation practice and hope toexpand into the business realm aswell.

Describe your mediation workspace:I am an associate at Richard Law Offices, PC which owns an office condo in Mansfield.

What made you decide to be a mediator? I became discouraged with thetraditional divorce model when I was employed as a paralegal for a divorceattorney. Most couples enter a divorce attorney’s office with an open mind and arevested in the process only to become jaded and discouraged as they begin to losecontrol over the process and the outcome.

Most memorable mediation moment: When I helped a landlord and tenant reachagreement over a highly contested dispute that could not be resolved by the judge.This bolstered my belief in the mediation process.

Most helpful advice offered to you when starting to mediate: Be mindful ofyour biases.

Least helpful advice offered to you when starting to mediate: All advice washelpful.

26


Any advice you can offer to new mediators: Always be open to improving yourskills and knowledge base. Start a networking group with other mediators to shareideas, thoughts and experiences and help support each other.

One thing about you that might surprise people: I am extremely shy.

If you could meet anyone, living or dead, who would it be and why? Mr.Rogers of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood. He was a great humanitarian who hadtremendous compassion, patience and empathy.

Hobbies & interests: Biking, golf, running, networking

Favorite music or sport: Country music, hockey

“Those who educate children well

are more to be honored

than parents,for these only gave life,

those the art of living well.”

Aristotle

27


MCFM NEWS

MCFM’S NEXT FREEPROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP

ALIMONY REFORM: WHERE DOES CHILD SUPPORT

END & ALIMONY BEGIN?Presenters: Justin Kelsey and Michael Tremblay

Wednesday February 8 from 1pm to 3pmWeston Public Library

The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 takes effect on March 1, 2012. One provision of theAct which has caused much controversy and confusion relates to the exclusion ofincome used to calculate child support from the calculation of alimony. How will thisprovision be applied at different income levels? Is this a bright line rule or are thereexceptions? Attorneys Justin Kelsey and Michael Tremblay will guide you throughthese questions and more and demonstrate how the new law will intersect with the ChildSupport Guidelines differently at different income levels.

REGISTER ATWWW.MCFM.ORG

ATTENDANCE AT MCFM PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTWORKSHOPS QUALIFIES FOR CREDIT EARNED TOWARDS

BECOMING AN MCFM CERTIFIED MEDIATOR

CONTACT TRACY FISCHER FOR CERTIFICATION [email protected]

“To invent, you need a good imaginationand a pile of junk.”

Thomas Alva Edison

28


COME CELEBRATE MCFM’S 30TH ANNIVERSARY!AT THE MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS

Thursday, April 12, 2012Starting @ 7:00 PM

As part of our celebration of MCFM’s 30th anniversary, all members are invited toattend the opening night of the “Hollywood Scriptures” Film Series at the Museumof Fine Arts for a showing of “The Squid and the Whale.”

After the film there will be a discussion focused on cinema as a pathway tounderstanding human nature in the service of healthy choices, to minimize thedestructive consequences of family conflict. Discussants will include DavidHoffman, John Fiske, Vicki Shemin, and a Massachusetts Probate and FamilyCourt judge.

All MCFM members are invited to attend cost-free (except for parking), peremail to follow. Pass the word, save the date, and stay tuned for furtherdetails.

CHECK WWW.MCFM.ORG FOR RESERVATIONS & UPDATES

MEDIATION PEER GROUP MEETINGSCentral Massachusetts Mediators Group: We serve mediators in Central Massand towns along Rt. 2 West of Rt. 128. We meet to discuss topics and/or cases,sometimes with guest speakers, in the offices of Interpeople Inc. in Littleton.Interpeople is located about 1/2 a mile off Rt. 495, at Exit 31. Meetings begin at8:30 AM on the last Thursday of every month, except December, July and August.If you are a family and divorce mediator — attorney or non-attorney — you arewelcome to join us. New members are asked to please call ahead of time: 978-486-3338, or email Shuneet at [email protected].

North Suburban Mediators Group: Join fellow mediators meeting to learn andshare and network. Meetings are held at 8:30 a.m. on the second Tuesday of themonth from January to June and from September to November at the offices ofLynda Robbins and Susan DeMatteo, 34 Salem Street, Suite 202, Reading. Pleasecall Lynda at 781-944-0156 for information and directions. All MCFM membersare welcome.


29


Pioneer-Valley Mediators Group: This Western Mass group will be meeting monthlyin December on the first Wednesday of every month at the end of the day, from 4 to 6pm or 6 to 8 pm (depending on the interest) in Northampton at a location to beannounced. Please email Kathy Townsend for further information [email protected].

Mediators in Search of a Group? As mediators we almost always work alone withour clients. Peer supervision offers mediators an opportunity to share their experiencesof that process, and to learn from each other in a relaxed, safe setting. Most MCFMdirectors are members of peer supervision groups. All it takes to start a new group is theinterest of a few, like-minded mediators and a willingness to get together on a semi-regular, informal basis. In the hope of promoting peer supervision groups a boardmember will volunteer to help facilitate your initial meetings. Please contact KathyTownsend <[email protected]> who will coordinate this outreach, and putmediators in touch with like-minded mediators.

OFFER MCFM’s NEW BROCHURES IN YOUR WAITING ROOM

Copies of MCFM’s NEW brochure are available for members. Brochure costs are asfollows: Two for $1; 10 for $4.50; 25 for $12; 50 for $25; 75 for $35; 100 for $45; and150 for $65. Plus Shipping, (unless you pre-arrange to pick them up at a professionaldevelopment meeting or other MCFM event). A blank area on the back is provided formembers to personalize their brochures, or to address for mailing.

TO OBTAIN COPIES MEMBERS MAYcall Ramona Goutiere: 781-449-4430

or email: [email protected]

AN INVITATION FOR MCFM MEMBERS ONLYAll MCFM members are invited to fill out the Member Profile Questionnaireposted on the MEMBERS ONLY page of mcfm.org and submit it for publicationin the FMQ. Please email your questionnaire with a personal photo (head shot) and anoptional photo of your primary mediation space (or office) [email protected]. Since the questionnaire is intended to help others learnabout you, feel free to customize it by omitting questions listed, or adding questions youprefer. Only questions answered will be published, and all submissions may be editedfor clarity and length. Please help us get to know you.

30


CLASSIC MCFM “T” SHIRTSEqual blends of cotton & polyester

Choose black or creamCAN’T DECIDE? ORDER ONE OF EACH!

All lettering & graphics are green

SIZES AVAILABLE: S, M, L, & XLSUPPLIES ARE LIMITEDCost $10 each plus S&H*

*S&H: $3 for 1 shirt, $4 for 2, $5 for 3, etc…Make checks payable to MCFM, Inc.

SEND YOUR CHECK & ORDER TO:Ramona Goutiere

P.O. Box 59Ashland, NH 03217-0059

QUESTIONS? CALL: 781-449-4430

HELP BUILD AN ARCHIVE!

In the spring of 2006, MCFM entered into an agreement with the Departmentof Dispute Resolution at the University of Massachusetts to create an archiveof Massachusetts family-related mediation materials. The two key goals are topreserve our history and make it available for research purposes.

We're looking for anything and everything related to family mediation inMassachusetts — both originals and copies — including: meeting agendas andminutes, budgets, treasurer's reports, committee reports, correspondence,publications, fliers, posters, photographs, advertisements and announcements.

We need your help to maximize this opportunity to preserve the history ofmediation in Massachusetts. Please rummage through your office files,attics, basements and garages. If you discover materials that you are willing to donate please contact Les Wallerstein [email protected].

31


ANNOUNCEMENTS

All mediators and friends of mediation are invited to submit announcements of interestto the mediation community to [email protected], for free publication.

ELDER /ADULT FAMILYMEDIATION TRAINING

February 5-7, 2012in Newton, MA

Elder Decisions A Division of Agreement Resources, LLC

Please visit:www.ElderDecisions.com

for Detailed Information and Registration

SEATS STILL AVAILABLE for

February 5-7 andApril 24-26

ELDER DECISIONS’ 3-DAYADVANCED ELDER/ ADULT FAMILY MEDIATION TRAINING

NEWTON, MA

“This training was an unmitigated success for the organizers and I could not praise theirwork enough, from choosing their topics to their choice of presenters, this was indeeda formidable and professional effort that they can rightly be very proud of. I willcertainly be looking to attend another of their events.” David Bogan, InternationalMediation Services, Auckland, New Zealand

Lead Trainers:Arline Kardasis, Rikk Larsen, Crystal Thorpe and Blair Trippe

For information, please call 617-621-7009

orFor detailed Information and Registration:

http://www.elderdecisions.com/pg19.cfm$100 DISCOUNT FOR MCFM MEMBERS

32


FEBRUARY IN MINNEAPOLISArline will also be the lead trainer for an Advanced Elder/Adult FamilyMediation Training hosted by The Erickson Mediation Institute in Minneapolison February 13-15, 2012.

For information about this program, please call or email:Erickson Mediation Institute

3600 American Blvd. W., Suite 105Bloomington, MN 55431

[email protected]

DIVORCE IN MASSACHUSETTS:WITH OR WITHOUT A LAWYER

Jerome Weinstein & Les WallersteinTHE CAMBRIDGE CENTER FOR ADULT EDUCATION

Winter Workshop: Saturday, March 3, 2012Spring Workshop: Saturday, May 19, 2012

9:30 AM - 12:30 PM42 Brattle Street

When the issue of divorce is raised, most people don’t know where to turn. Howdo I get information? Do I need an attorney? Should I pay a retainer? What willhappen to my children and my home? This course will give you informationabout what you can and cannot do and what kinds of risks are involved. It willalso address when you need an attorney (with the attendant costs) or when youcan use a mediator or do it yourself. You will also receive resources and abibliography.

Online Registration: http://www.ccae.orgPhone Registration: 617-547-6789

Cost: $61 Limited to 20

33


SPRING 2012REPAIRING DISRUPTED FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

A 12-WEEK PSYCHO-EDUCATIONALPROGRAM FOR FAMILIES

Dr. Peggie Ward and Dr. Jane Appell announce a 12-week psycho-educationalgroup program for high-conflict separated or divorced families where a child orchildren are in danger of losing a relationship with one parent. Children in suchfamilies are often in the middle of their parents’ conflicts and forced to make achoice about their allegiance to one or another parent. Research indicates that thesechildren have difficulties trusting others, feeling secure and protected, accuratelyprocessing information, and developing secure relationships as adults. This yearOvercoming Barriers Inc. has selected this program as one of its projects for 2012to supplement the range of its program offerings. Overcoming Barriers, Inc. a non-profit organization that has run summer camp programs and intensive weekendprograms for these families.

This program consists of 4 components for each family:

• Weekly parent groups (11 meetings) with a combination of favoredparents and non-favored parents. Parents from the same family will bein different groups.

• Children’s groups held on Saturdays (5-6 sessions)• Family Intervention Meeting • Development of follow-up recommendations

The program is a research based psycho-education and experiential program whichtargets specific feelings, cognitions and behaviors on the part of parents andchildren in families disrupted by post separation conflicts. The program goals areto help all participants:

• Identify thoughts feelings and actions that trigger negative responses• Develop multiple perspectives that allow for changes in behavior • Learn tools to manage overwhelming affect• Have opportunities for a shift in entrenched relationship patterns

We are seeking 8 families for this pilot program. We will require a minimum of 6families to run this program. We are looking for families that fit the followingcriteria:

34


• One or more children aged 9 or above who have a disruptedrelationship with one parent

• Parents who are in moderate to high conflict who are both willing (orcourt ordered) to participate and are open to possibility of change

• Families who are able to commit to 12 group meetings (one weeknightmeeting for each parent and a Saturday meeting for the childrenapproximately every other week)

The cost of the program, including the weekly group for each parent (separategroups), groups for children, one full weekend of parent-child or family meetingsis $5300. If you would like to refer a family to the program, please contact one of us or havethe family contact us.

Jane Appell, Ph.D. at 978 287-4300, ext. 307; [email protected] Ward, Ph.D. at 508 655-1775, [email protected]

30-HOUR BASIC MEDIATION TRAININGPresented by The Mediation & Training Collaborative (TMTC)

Greenfield, MAMarch 9, 17, 23 & 31, 2012

This highly interactive, practice-based training is open to anyone who wishes toincrease skill in helping others deal with conflict, whether through formalmediation or informal third-party intervention processes in other professionalsettings. TMTC is a court approved mediation program, and this training meets SJCRule 8 and Guidelines training requirements for those who wish to become court-qualified mediators. Social work CECs and attorney CLEs available upon request.

For more details or brochure, contact Susan Hackney [email protected] or 413-475-1505,

or see www.mediationandtraining.org.


35


34-HOUR DIVORCE MEDIATION TRAININGMay 3*, 4, 5, 18 & 19, 2012

In Holyoke, MACo-Sponsored by The Mediation & Training Collaborative

And HCC Kittredge Center for Business & Workforce Development Prerequisite - 30 hours Basic Mediation Training

A 34-hour advanced mediation training for those interested in working with separating,divorcing or already-divorced couples. Topics include the emotional and legal aspectsof divorce, parenting issues, division of assets and debts, spousal support, working withnon-traditional couples, mediator ethics, dealing with high conflict, and more. Feeincludes training manual, coached role plays, parking and refreshments. Social WorkCEC’s or attorney CLEs available upon request.

Trainers are Betsy Williams, Cate Woolner, Larry Saunders, Stephanie Levin,Oran Kaufman and Court Dorsey. Fee is $825. ($775 if postmarked by April 1)

For brochure or more information [email protected] or 413-475-1505

* The four-hour May 3 session will focus on Massachusetts family law for divorcemediators and is open to divorce mediators who want a review of this topic. Fee for thissession alone is $80. Attorneys taking the full training who have extensive experiencein family law may choose to omit the May 3 session. Call for more information oneither of these options.

THE CHILD & FAMILY WEBGUIDEONLINE ACCESS TO CHILD

DEVELOPMENT INFORMATIONThe Child & Family WebGuide was created in April 2001 by Professor Fred Rothbaumand Dr. Nancy Martland of the Tufts University Eliot-Pearson Department of ChildDevelopment. The WebGuide describes trustworthy websites on topics of interest toparents and professionals that have been systematically evaluated by graduate studentsand faculty in child development. The WebGuide is easily searched by subjects,including many of constant concern to family mediators, e.g., divorce, separation andstepparents. It also offers several features requested by parents, e.g., ‘ask an expert’sites and ‘research news’ sites. The goal of the WebGuide is to give the public easyaccess to the best child development information on the Web.

www.cfw.tufts.edu

36


NEW BEGINNINGSAn interfaith support group for separated, divorced, widowed and single adults in theGreater Boston Area. Meets year-round, every Thursday, from 7:00 to 9:00 PM, atWellesley Hills Congregational Church, 207 Washington Street. For more informationcall 781-235-8612. Annual Dues $50.

For program details & schedule visit www.newbeginnings.org

COMMUNITY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CENTERBuilding Bridges • People to People • Face to Face

The Community Dispute Settlement Center Inc. (CDSC), a non-profit mediationcenter, would like to announce a volunteer opportunity. We are currently seekingpro bono mediators who are lawyers with experience in drafting SeparationAgreements as part of our divorce mediation services.

If you would like more information about the many benefits of affiliation withCDSC, including our co-mediation model please contact Gail Packer, ExecutiveDirector, or Nelly Gonzalez, Case Coordinator. They can be reached by phone at(617)876-5376 or email at [email protected].

“In youth we learn;in age we understand.”

Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

37


THE FMQ WANTS YOU!

The Family Mediation Quarterly is always opento submissions, especially from new authors.Every mediator has stories to tell and skills toshare.To submit articles or discuss proposed articlescall Les Wallerstein (781) 862-1099or email [email protected]

NOW’S THE TIME TO SHARE YOUR STORY!

“You have brains in your head.You have feet in your shoes.

You can steer yourself Any direction you choose.”

Dr. Seuss

38


JOIN US

MEMBERSHIPMCFM membership is open to all practitioners and friends of family mediation.MCFM invites guest speakers to present topics of interest at four, free, professionaldevelopment meetings annually. These educational meetings often satisfy certificationrequirements. Members are encouraged to bring guests. MCFM members also receivethe Family Mediation Quarterly and are welcome to serve on any MCFM Committee.Annual membership dues are $90, or $50 for fulltime students. Please direct allmembership inquiries to Ramona Goutiere at [email protected].

REFERRAL DIRECTORYEvery MCFM member with an active mediation practice who adheres to thePractice Standards for mediators in Massachusetts is eligible to be listed inMCFM’s Referral Directory. Each listing in the Referral Directory allows a memberto share detailed information explaining her/his mediation practice and philosophy withprospective clients. The most current directory is always available online atwww.mcfm.org. The annual Referral Directory fee is $60. Please direct all referraldirectory inquiries to Rebecca J. Gagné at [email protected].

PRACTICE STANDARDSMCFM was the first organization to issue Practice Standards for mediators inMassachusetts. To be listed in the MCFM Referral Directory each member must agreeto uphold the MCFM Standards of Practice. MCFM’s Practice Standards areavailable online at www.mcfm.org.

CERTIFICATION & RECERTIFICATIONMCFM was the first organization to certify family mediators in Massachusetts.Certification is reserved for mediators with significant mediation experience, advancedtraining and education. Extensive mediation experience may be substituted for anadvanced academic degree.

MCFM’s certification & recertification requirements are available online atwww.mcfm.org. Every MCFM certified mediator is designated as such in theonline Referral Directory. Certified mediators must have malpractice insurance, andcertification must be renewed every two years. Only certified mediators are eligible toreceive referrals from the Massachusetts Probate & Family Court through MCFM.

Certification applications cost $150 and re-certification applications cost $50. For moreinformation contact S. Tracy Fischer at [email protected]. Forcertification or re-certification applications contact Ramona Goutiere [email protected].

39


DIRECTORATE

MASSACHUSETTS COUNCIL ON FAMILY MEDIATION, INC.P.O. Box 59, Ashland, NH 03217-0059

Local Telephone & Fax: 781-449-4430email: [email protected]

www.mcfm.org

OFFICERS

President Lynn K. Cooper, 262 Kenrick Street, Newton, MA 02458617-527-3152, [email protected]

Vice-President Laurie S. Udell, 399 Chestnut Street, 2nd Floor Needham, MA 02492, 781-449-3355, [email protected]

Vice-President Rebecca J. Gagné, The Renaissance, 180 Belmont Street,Brockton, MA 02301, 508-895-9300,[email protected]

Secretary Jonathan E. Fields, Fields & Dennis, LLP, 20 William Street,Suite 165, Wellesley, MA 02481, 781-489-6776, [email protected]

Treasurer & Kathleen A. Townsend, Divorce Mediation Group, Inc., 1441 Main Street, Springfield, MA 01103, 413-733-4444,[email protected]

DIRECTORS Kate Fanger, S. Tracy Fisher, Tanya Gurevich,Barbara Kellman, William C. Leonard, Steven Nisenbaum,Lynda J. Robbins, Mary A. Samberg, Mary A. Socha, DianeW. Spears, Les Wallerstein, Marion Lee Wasserman, FranL. Whyman

DIRECTORS John A. Fiske, Janet B. Weinberger, Jerome Weinstein & Barbara N. White

ADMINISTRATOR Ramona Goutiere, Goutiere Professional Business Services,P.O. Box 59, Ashland, NH 03217-0059, 781-449-4430, [email protected]

EMERITUS

Past President

MCFMFamily Mediation Quarterly

Les Wallerstein, Editor1620 Massachusetts Avenue

Lexington, MA 02420(781) 862-1099

[email protected]

The FMQ is dedicated to family mediators working with traditional and non-traditionalfamilies. All family mediators share common interests and concerns. The FMQ willprovide a forum to explore that common ground.

The FMQ intends to be a journal of practical use to family mediators. As mediation isdesigned to resolve conflicts, the FMQ will not shy away from controversy. The FMQwelcomes the broadest spectrum of diverse opinions that affect the practice of familymediation.

The contents of the FMQ are published at the discretion of the editor, in consultation withthe MCFM Board of Directors. The FMQ does not necessarily express the views of theMCFM unless specifically stated.

The FMQ is mailed and emailed to all MCFM members. The FMQ is mailed to all Probate& Family Court Judges, all local Dispute Resolution Coordinators, all Family ServiceOfficers and all law school libraries in Massachusetts. An archive of all previous editionsof the FMQ are available online in PDF at <www.mcfm.org>, accompanied by acumulative index of articles to facilitate data retrieval.

MCFM members may submit notices of mediation-related events for free publication.Complimentary publication of notices from mediation-related organizations is availableon a reciprocal basis. Commercial advertising is also available.

Please submit all contributions for the FMQ to the editor, either by email or computer disk.Submissions may be edited for clarity and length, and must scrupulously safeguard clientconfidentiality. The following deadlines for all submissions will be observed:

Summer: July 15th Fall: October 15thWinter: January 15th Spring: April 15th

All MCFM members and friends of family mediation are encouraged to contributeto the FMQ. Every mediator has stories to tell and skills to teach. Please share yours.

EDITOR’S NOTICE


40

INSPIRING SETTLEMENTS SINCE 1982

• INSPIRINGSETTLEMENTSSINCE1982•INSPIRINGSETTLEM

ENTS

SINC

E19

82•

The Family Mediation Quarterly is printed on paper stockmanufactured with non-polluting wind-generated energy, 100% recycled (with 100% post consumer recycled fi ber),

processed chlorine free & FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certifi ed.

MASSACHUSETTS COUNCILON FAMILY MEDIATION

MASSACHUSETTS COUNCILON FAMILY MEDIATION

1982 2012MASS

ACHUSETTS COUNCIL

ON

FAMILY MEDIATION

30th

www.mcfm.org

Family Mediation Quarterly

Documents

Transcript of Family Mediation Quarterly