One of the main advantages of mediation is that it is often more affordable than entering a legal action and taking that case to court before a full jury or a judge.  In cases where the mediators can improve the problem-solving skills of both parties and help them to prevent further conflicts or clash of opinions, then that mediator is pretty decent.

In divorce or separation proceedings, mediation may be obligatory with respect to the policies of the city court.  This is oftentimes necessary for child custody and visitation conflicts, so that both dad and mom could talk to a court-appointed mediator and find out if they can resolve their issues even before getting their case before a judge.

On the contrary, when one or both sides are concealing information or declining to cooperate, mediation won't get the job done.  A perfect instance of this is in reconciling monetary troubles.  If one side is trying to hide resources or revenue, the opposing party may not know it unless they advance it to court and have their attorneys carefully investigate the problem.

One more pitfall with mediation is if one party is very unaggressive and oftentimes swamped by the opposition.  They can come up with an arrangement yet it usually is lopsided to benefit the more prominent faction.  Other examples of a good mediator in this particular scenario is when he/she helps to ensure that each party’s needs are evenly safeguarded and articulated.

A good example of this would be in a situation involving domestic violence.  Many professionals feel that mediation is inappropriate here because it could simply present another environment for the abuser to hurt the victim again.  Likewise, a physically abused person is almost always incapable or could have a substantial difficulty in expressing and protecting their own concerns, particularly in front of the perpetrator.

Finally, one prospective downside to this entire procedure is when no agreement is reached, which implies the mediation is unsuccessful.  The concern will be escalated to court with all of the expenses and problems involved, and mediation may have been a waste of resources and time.

The American Bar Association defines mediation as “a process where the parties to a divorce process (or some other dispute) make an effort to deal with their disagreements outside of court with the help of a mediator. In divorce procedures, mediators are usually involved in child custody and visitation disputes.  They also can manage property arguments, child support conflicts, and other issues.”

So it's indeed a legal procedure that is less formal when compared to a case that is tried in the courtroom.  Nonetheless it involves several discrete steps that will ideally cause a mutually beneficial conciliation.  But what actually occurs in mediation?

In mediation, two or more people sit down and get involved with seeking to come up with a means to fix their concerns.  There usually is a third person, a mediator, to guide them on the process.  He or she should normally have some kind of education in handling situations, which may greatly vary.  Either she or he is a legal counsel or mental health specialist, with qualifications in psychology or social work; however, mediators that are lawyers or mental health professionals do not serve as such when in mediation.

The mediator also shouldn't side with any individual or come up with decisions unlike a arbitrator or a judge.  His or her primary job is to show the alternatives, guide each party in examining their goals, and assist in their finding of a acceptable answer that is amenable to both disputants.

No conclusion will be achieved until each party acquiesce to it because the mediator doesn't have power to impose or necessitate any decision.  And also for this primary reason, the prospect of any partaker clinging to an drastic demand and the tension among all parties are greatly reduced.

Personal concerns, like neighbor to neighbor problems for instance, are usually solved in only a few hours.  Divorce or disputes in business owners or partnerships would require several half day negotiations and deliberations that often take a couple of months to be over.

It is no suprise that our families and children are being harmed by paternity fraud.  Consider this...  In a Woman's Day Poll over 50% of women surveyed stated that they would willfully lie about who the father of their children is in order to collect child support.  DNA tests performed against men named by the mothers show that 30% of them are totally innocent.. was found to not be the father of the child.  But the State has decided that they want the victims of paternity fraud to have no recourse.    That if you, your husband, your son, your father is named as "the dad" then they will pay... forever.  The very real damage this inflicts on the deceived children, the misnamed men, their families and marriages is preventable.

And it seems that there is nowhere to turn.  Complaining to State agencies to affect change is like talking to a post.  Federal funds are distributed to States for every child support case they process and manage.  As long as they can name anyone and make them pay the State government gets the benefit of Federal largess.  There arn't support groups, financial assistance, counseling, or any other help available to the families who are paying for children they had no part in bringing in to this world.  "But what about these children?" is a common rebuke we hear.  Well, let's look at it?  since these childrens mothers either have no idea who fathered them, or they have decided to lie about it, they will never know their true family medical history.  They are scarred emotionally because they have been living the lie their mother created.    No amount of money collected in their behalf can fix this.  Only full honesty and truth can.

This fraud only benefits a mother who doesn't know which man is the real dad, and/or chooses to lie about it.  This is not in the best interest of our children.    The States think that by forcing these men to pay child support they are also enforcing the already established father/ child relationships.  We've looked at many cases and in most of them there has never been any contact with the children, the mother has prevented contact, or there is a large geographic seperation between them.    Sometimes this is the man’s choice.  There are many thousands of cases where the only objective of these mothers is to get money. They do not believe that having a father in their child’s life is important and even if they do they are ignoring the real father of the child.  When these children learn that the man they thought was their father, isn't... a wound that can never heal is inflicted upon them.  The stress of not knowing who, and where, their real father is causes further damage.  All since their mother either doesn't know who fathered her children or has chosen to lie about it.

Looking at the real children of this same man....  They have to bear the result of their real father beset with financial burdons, physical and mental stress, and likely depression.    These children have to suffer financially and emotionally throughout their lives. Many times these children are in an environment filled with stress, hardship, and marital difficulty caused solely by paternity fraud.  The hardships of this are something they should not have to suffer.  They see that committing fraud and lying pays.  What kind of example are we setting for these children?  Allowing the continuation of paternity fraud in the age of DNA testing is not in their best interest.

We need to stop the injustice harming our children.  We need to get off our duffs and let our State Representatives and Senators know that Missouri's promulgation of paternity fraud by government authority must change.    It's time we put a stop to paternity fraud in Missouri, and everywhere else.  Our children cannot afford less.