Briefs

By Tom Noble
6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 922, LB 72, Dallas, Texas 75206
214-692-1888; fax: 692-8577;
tnoble28@hotmail.com; www.tnoble.com

Friday, January 15, 2010

Give Peace a Chance!

To: Greg Abbott

As Attorney General for the State of Texas, you know that your office files hundreds of lawsuits every year, initiating litigation between ex-spouses and former-lovers-but-still-parents. Over the last 30 years, I have watched the Office of Attorney General (OAG) improve the circumstances of many mothers who would not otherwise collect child support. Let’s face it: there are a lot of bad people in the world, and a lot of them don’t support their kids. Your office goes after those sorry SOBs, and, to be fair, in some cases their female counterparts, which I applaud. I admire your lawyers for juggling Herculean case loads for relatively modest compensation. While acknowledging your contributions and successes, however, I would like a minute of your time to point out what I see as potentially a major problem. My working hypothesis, which is based solely upon my own anecdotal research, is that, after filing all of these lawsuits, your lawyers refuse to participate in mediation! Year in and year out, you file hundreds of lawsuits, but you put no energy into settling them. If I am correct, do you see the consequences of this policy?

I cannot say whether this is a state-wide problem or it is confined to the Dallas area, but I can assure you that it is going on here. OAG lawyers who work in the Metroplex (and who will remain nameless) have told me candidly that when a court orders mediation for one of their cases, they call the mediator, give him/her a cell-phone number, and that’s it. That’s all they do. They don’t show up. They don’t even call in. If other parties appear at mediation (knowing this, who knows why they would?), the mediator can call the number left and hope for the best. The OAG’s policy, which you must have approved, is that this complies sufficiently with a court’s order. I have corroborated this with representatives of Dispute Mediation Service, our local governmental mediation service provider, and a number of local lawyers who work for the OAG.

I tell my friends at the OAG that, if that were sufficient, no one would show up for a court-ordered mediation, which is probably overstating it, but, like most lawyers, I like to inflate for dramatic effect, and, after all, their position does remind us of Kant’s categorical imperative, but we’ll save that digression for another day; everyone would just call the mediator and leave a number. After all, if a lawyer for the OAG can do it, why wouldn’t a claims adjuster in a car-wreck case do the same thing? Custody case? Two dysfunctional parents fighting over a toddler? Just call in and leave a number where we can find you! While this may be giving some of my golf-playing colleagues the wrong ideas, as a mediator of 20 years, I can assure you that when one of the parties, especially the petitioner/movant/plaintiff, does not appear at mediation in the flesh the probability of settlement drops to somewhere real close to fat chance.

“Well, child support enforcement cases are really not good cases for mediation,” they say smugly, as if it should be obvious. Really? But, aren’t they just like your basic debt-collection cases, which get mediated every day, but with the extra leverage of incarceration?

“But, if he owes the back child support, what is there to mediate?” How about disputes over the amount of the arrearage and payment terms? If these cases are so simple, why do you have to take up a judge’s time with them?

“Do you really think that a guy who owes back support is going to agree to incarceration?” No, but the leverage should produce a high percentage of settlements, especially if the courts have clear policies of punishing people who do not pay child support without a damned good excuse.

For that matter, Greg, your office could work with local judges to develop guidelines for incarceration in child support enforcement cases. That coupled with a pro-active mediation policy could save tax payers zillions. In an election year, I would think that would have some appeal. And, who knows? A byproduct of that policy could be helping fractured families solve their problems through negotiation instead of courtroom warfare, making peace, healing wounds. Could that be good for children?