Right of Reply: Sheena Adam

Sheena Adam
Thursday 11 November 1999 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The chief executive of the pressure group National Family Mediation responds to an article by our legal correspondent on mediation in disputes between couples

The Independent's front page article by Robert Verkaik ("Couples log on to the Internet to log off from their marriages") gives incorrect information about the role of mediation in the Government's proposed divorce reforms, thereby giving the wrong impression to people considering mediation.

First, it is not correct to say that mediation is "not working". This is a myth, based on misunderstanding of the role of pilot information meetings that were established under the Government's proposals.

These meetings were not held with the sole purpose of bringing large numbers of people into mediation. They were held simply to explain to 600 volunteers the choices before them should they wish to divorce or separate. About half the people who featured in the follow-up evaluation, on which the recent false criticism of mediation is often based, were not even planning to divorce, so mediation would not have been an option.

The truth on the ground - and we should know; NFM is the largest single provider of family mediation in the country - is that pilot projects are working extremely well. Sizeable numbers of couples are successfully entering into mediation and finding this the best way to make satisfactory arrangements for their children, finances and property.

Second, mediation is not "compulsory" under the Government's proposals. Indeed mediation works only if the parties enter into the process voluntarily. Where confusion may have arisen is that, under part of the Family Law Act, people seeking legal aid to help with legal representation are required to consider mediation as an option.

As your item was about an Internet site for parting couples, perhaps I should remind people of the address of our site - www.nfm.u-net.com

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in