by Christina Blacklaws, senior partner at Blacklaws Davis

Mediation works. I have practised as a mediator for 15 years now and am still shiny-eyed about it.

I have first-hand experience of mediation transforming people’s lives – such as the couple whose nine-year-old son did not even know of his father’s existence.

They had been in court process for five years. After one session of mediation, they had agreed an anonymous meeting between father and son.

After three sessions, regular weekend contact was established, to the genuine delight of all and, most importantly, in the child’s best interests.

However, mediation is not for everyone.

Government statistics show that 90% of divorcing or separating people resolve their problems without coming anywhere near a family court. Of those who cannot sort things out themselves, a significant proportion will not be able to use mediation.

This, of course, is due to inherent difficulties such as domestic violence, mental heath difficulties, or cognitive problems that preclude mediation.

However, plain intransigence can sabotage a perfectly appropriate mediation process.

It is often forgotten that, although, come 6 April, mediation assessment meetings will become the norm for all people wanting to access family courts, this only involves an information-gathering exercise.

‘Proper’ mediation remains voluntary. With mediation it does indeed ‘take two to tango’ and if one person wants to obstruct or frustrate the process then, unfortunately, they can.

So where does this leave those who, for whatever reason, cannot resolve their problems through mediation?

People who can afford legal representation will be able to avail themselves of expert legal advice and assistance from family law solicitors.

Hopefully, they will resolve their issues through negotiation or by means of other solicitor-based ADR solutions, such as collaborative family law.

As a last resort, they can access the family justice system where, again, they will receive expert support and ultimately, a resolution that will be future-focused and, above all, child-centred.

And if you are poor? At the moment, you will receive the same advantages (save, sadly, that collaborative family law is not available under the legal aid scheme) as the wealthy.

Come 2012, however, if the government has its way and the Green Paper recommendations are introduced, there will be no effective help for anyone who cannot use mediation.

That means any person with a private family law dispute (unless they can satisfy the high hurdle of having, or applying for, a court order for domestic violence) will be left high and dry.

Many people take the view that the taxpayer should not fund what are effectively private disputes and that this removal from scope is appropriate.

However, anyone involved in the family justice system knows the appalling toll this will have upon needy children and families.

For example, if a separated father cannot persuade a reluctant mother to agree to him seeing his children or engage in mediation, he has two choices – either to give up or to try and fight his case in the family courts without any legal advice or assistance.

These are often highly complex proceedings involving difficult issues of fact, law and medical evidence.

Research shows that those who are unrepresented are enormously disadvantaged.

Moreover, the already creaking family court system would implode as it fills up with litigants in person who, understandably, have little idea about how to identify and argue relevant points, let alone prepare detailed written documentation.

Let’s say that a father fights a bitter court battle and is – wrongly – unsuccessful.

The outcome for that family is tragic, as it will be for other court users who will have to wait months or even years for their cases to be resolved.

More broadly, society as a whole is diminished if we deny real access to justice to the poorest, the most vulnerable and the disempowered.

Mediation is a good thing, but let’s not get carried away and buy into the government’s simplistic rhetoric. It is not the panacea for all family problems (or indeed the common cold!).