Anoka County Taking a Shot at Early Neutral Evaluations in Divorce Cases

Posted on September 5, 2008 by Jason C. Brown

Following Hennepin County's lead, and a statewide trend, the Anoka County District Court has implemented a pilot early neutral evaluation program for divorcing couples. The evaluations focus on the two key issues involved in a dissolution: custody of children and economics.

Couples can divert from the court system and meet with qualified "neutrals" who will facilitate settlement discussions and (unlike traditional mediation) offer opinions about the merits of a party's position. If successful, the process can save litigants months of emotionally-charged litigation and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and costs.

Five Anoka County judges have agreed to participate in the program, including Judge Sharon Hall who says that the early neutral process will allow litigants to "keep some control over their situation." The family law section of the Anoka County Bar Association has been a driving force behind the program, which provides litigants with yet another alternative to traditional litigation.

One big difference between the program in Anoka and Hennepin County involves funding. While Hennepin County covers the bulk of the costs for litigants, the Anoka County program has a very limited budget. Work is done by local lawyers, not county employees, on a sliding fee scale.

Tags: , , , ,

Minnesota Court of Appeals Implements Mandatory Family Mediation Program

Posted on August 29, 2008 by Jason C. Brown

As of September 2, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals will refer all family court appeals for mandatory mediation (with some exceptions for cases involving, for example, domestic violence). The program was designed to decrease costs and conflict for families involved in appellate cases while increasing litigant satisfaction.

Upon the filing of a Notice of Appeal, the Court will immediately refer litigants to mediation. Mediators available to serve include a panel of 12 retired judges and/or experienced family law attorneys. Parties will pay the costs of the mediation on a sliding fee scale.

This pilot program was initiated three years ago as the result of a meeting between Judge Harriet Lansing and William Mitchell College of Law Vice Dean for Academic Programs Nancy Ver Steegh. Ver Steegh is known for her work in the area of family law and alternative dispute resolution, and serves as an Editor for the Family Law Professor Blog. The Chief Judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Edward Touissant, believes the program is here to stay, calling it a "win-win" situation.

A few other states have adopted similar programs, with a resolution rate as high as 76 percent. That's an impressive statistic, given the adversarial mindset of litigants - especially following a trial.

We've seen clients benefit from the trend toward resolving family disputes through mediation.   This new mandatory appellate mediation might just result in additional justification for working with a mediator in the very early stages of litigation and avoiding unnecessary fees, costs, time and emotion.

Tags: , ,

Family Court Trials: What to Expect

Posted on March 3, 2008 by Jason C. Brown

In Minnesota, divorce and family cases are tried to the court, not to a jury. This usually results in significant cost and time savings for each of the parties.  For example, a case that might take a week to try to a jury may conclude in half the time through the use of a court trial.  While some advocate for the use of juries in family court, most practitioners believe that bench trials are more appropriate. The court is in a much better position to ascertain the legal merits of the arguments of counsel without drawing on emotion, as jurors typically do.

A family court trial is very different than you may have seen on television.  There are no large audiences or surprise witnesses.  The process is quite controlled and deliberate. The initiating party, called the "petitioner," presents his or her case first. This may include testimony from acquaintances, family members, experts and others.  Once the direct examination of the petitioner's witnesses concludes, the opposing party's ("respondent") lawyer will have an opportunity to cross-examine them. Once the cross examination of all petitioner's witnesses has concluded, respondent will have an opportunity to present witnesses which the petitioner will have an opportunity to cross examine.

Opening and closing statements are somewhat limited in most family court trials.  Because the judge is the decision-maker, there is no need to explain to the court the concept of a burden of proof, the trial process or explain to the court how to digest the information that  will be presented.  Closing statements often take place in writing.  However, every judge differs in thier preference.

Once the trial concludes, the Court has 90 days in which to render a decision.  The decision is put into writing, filed with the court administrator and delivered to the parties and counsel.  Once the decision is received, either party may elect to file an appeal.  This must be done within 60 days from the entry of the order.  If an appeal should follow a trial, you may expect at least one year to pass until the Court of Appeals affirms or reverses the District Court.

Tags: ,