Sherri-
I do not have experience with an arbitration clause since we do not have one
in our Wisconsin PA. I suggest that it be an option to discuss on a
case-by-case basis rather than building in a 3rd party decision maker
fall-back in the PA. My concern is it could limit impasse options, be an
easy out which lessens the creativity and work inherent in the collaborative
commitment and be used as "threat of arbitration" similarly to "threat of
litigation" in the settlement negotiation process.
Based on local conversations, I agree with Jim about the different roles,
ethical concerns and legal ramifications that being a potential witness
brings to the child specialist role. Communication by parents and older
children can be very different if they know the specialist may testify at
some future point. I think it is far easier to have open and honest
child-centered conversations and planning when the potential posturing for
litigation is removed. Also, many of our best mental health professionals
want nothing to do with cases where they may end up as a witness so it can
compromise quality and quantity of choices in that regard as well.
Sue Hansen
Hansen & Hildebrand, S.C.
126 N. Jefferson St. #401
(414)273-2422; (414)273-3966 (f)
sah@xxxxxxxxxx
www.h-hlaw.com
-----Original Message-----
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Sherri Goren Slovin
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:12 AM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Sue Purdon'; 'FAMILY LAW COUNCIL'; 'Cathy Gale'
Subject: [CollabLaw] Infor for our Australian Colleagues
Our colleagues in Australia are creating a wonderful resource for
Australian professionals interested in practicing collaboratively.
Draft guidelines for collaborative practice in Australia have been
prepared in response to terms of reference from the Attorney General to
the Family Law Council of Australia.
There are a few issues on which the resources and thoughtfulness of this
list would be very helpful. If you can respond (I prefer on list as I
think it could be helpful to others) to the following, it would be most
appreciated. I will make sure your responses are forwarded to our
Australian counterparts.
1. Arbitration Provision- If your Participation Agreement includes a
provision that allows the participants to take issues out to arbitrate
or send to a neutral evaluator for a decision, what has been your
experience? This type of provision concerns me, but it is not within my
experience and I would like to be able to report back re the pros and
cons. In your responses, please include the following:
A- The terms of the provision I your PA
B. Your experience with the provision
C. Your thoughts on having it in the PA
2. Child Specialist Concern- Some members of the Australian committee
have raised concerns that child specialist disqualification provision
will mean a child who has been interviewed by an expert for the
collaborative law process will then have to
be interviewed by another expert if the matter goes to trial and child's
best interests should not be overridden by a contract between their
parents. Also posed: Are you aware of any exceptions to the general
rule about new experts being
hired should the matter go to court, especially in children's matters?
My own experience is that the child specialist does not interview a
child in the same manner as a forensic expert. The value and safety of
the work, both for the child and the specialist would be significantly
compromised with exceptions.
The wisdom of the List is solicited! And.. if you have the opportunity
to meet some of our new Australian colleagues in San Diego, please give
them a warm welcome!
Best Regards,
Sherri
Sherri Goren Slovin
30 Garfield Place, Suite 920
Cincinnati, OH 45201
513-241-9844
www.slovinlaw.com
OSBA Certified Family Relations Law Specialist
This message may include privileged attorney-client communications. If
you are not the intended recipient, please delete and destroy all
copies, and notify this office. Thank you.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
