My son had a session of mediation yesterday. The mediator was trying to ''broker a deal'' to prevent the imminent Court Hearing. She put my son on the spot and he agreed to something that perhaps he should have thought a bit more about. When he got home he wasn''t entirely sure that he had done the right thing. He now thinks he should have said that he did not disagree in principle but he would like to think about it first before committing himself.
The only way it can be legally binding is if an agreement is reached between the two parties,the mediator then writes out a Memoriam of Understanding and sends it to court asking for it to be converted into a legally binding Consent Order.
You can say what you want and then change your mind as my ex did in between appointments.
However in my situation the mediator notified me of this change of mind by letter as it affected my next contact which was to be 4 days later and before the next appointment otherwise she wouldnt have written it. I will now take it to court and I can prove she agreed to this particular point even if it is not legally binding.
In your sons case he should state at the next appointment that he no longer agrees to the point in question.
The mediator should not have put your son on the spot.They are there to be impartial.
According to the print in the letter sent by my mediator setting out the terms/procedure for mediation,it states what is discussed in mediation cannot be brought up in court unless both parties agree so your son should be ok anyway.
I have ignored that and included something specific in my Position Statement discussed at mediation and will try to bring it up in court.
When my ex declares she does not wish to discuss what was discussed at mediation this will be an admission what I have written is true.Why else would she not be willing to discuss this after all.
Lots of things get thrown about in mediation thats what is supposed to happen - its basically a facillitated conversation between both parties and is no more legally binding that a conversation you might have in your kitchen (if you were on the terms to have one that is!)
Regardless of what he might or might not agree to in the context of a mediation session - its only an ideas debate and nothing is binding until settled in Court. Obviously if two people can walk away with an agreement from mediation and have the integrity to stick by it, then thats by far and away better for all than going to court. Alas as we all know some things have to be taken down the legal route and only those are binding.
However this is where mediation might help for example.
My ex was opposed to giving me more staying contact in mediation for particular reasons.She then agreed to staying contact for a midweek night but changed her mind in between appointments.
So we go to court,she informs the Judge of these reasons she feels strongly about.I then tell the Judge in fact she agreed to extra staying contact in mediation which I can prove,she then looks a little hypocritical.Her defence is weakend.The Judge then doubts her motives.