History of CMUS
Board of Directors
Mediators
Office Staff

Events
Newsletters
Becoming a Mediator
Volunteer Opportunities
Volunteer Application
Making a Donation

CMUS Logo


MEDIATION STORIES

Tom and Glen

            Tom was taking an auto-garage to court for what he claimed were faulty repairs. He was seeking a full refund for the price of the auto work; he additionally wanted reimbursement for the day of work he missed as result of bringing his car in to be worked on.  This case was referred to CMUS by the District Court, and Glen, the owner of the auto-garage, responded positively to the CMUS letter inviting him to consider mediation instead of going to court. 

            Tom was also eager to try mediation, stating that it would be nice to not have to pay a lawyer to receive his “rightful due.”  As always is the case with court-referred mediations, the session was scheduled to occur several days prior to their trial date so that court could still be an option if necessary. 

            In this case, the topics to be mediated were clear from the beginning.  After an explanation of the mediation process, Tom stated immediately that he just wanted his money.  Glen eventually admitted that the garage was responsible, and expressed regret to Tom for not having rectified the situation earlier.  Glen was sure that the whole thing had gotten blown out of proportion when one of the workers at his garage hung-up on Tom after Tom called to explain his problem with the repair and “cussed them out.”   Tom admitted he cussed the worker out.  Glen stated that it was customary that his garage own up to their mistakes, but that they were put off by Tom’s aggressive demands.  He then offered to fix the repair again free of charge.  Tom stated he wanted money for time missed from work, though after some discussion the men decided together that Glen would fix the repair and they would call it a done deal.  Our mediators helped the men create a written agreement to reflect this decision. Afterwards, CMUS filed a motion of dismissal with the District Court.  Both men expressed satisfaction over not needing to proceed to trial.

Carol, Troy and Rose

Carol called our office upon a referral from her neighbor.  She explained that relations between herself, her husband, Troy , and her teenage daughter, Rose, had gotten so strained that every time they were around one another they argued.  It was a large enough problem that Carol’s other child, six-year-old Ben, had broken down in tears twice over his concern for his parents and sister. 

Carol shared that the problems seemed to begin with her daughter’s approaching 16^th birthday and the decision that Rose would have to wait another year for her license.  Our intake worker explained to Carol that while CMUS is not a family counseling center, we would be happy to work on specific topics the family might want to address.

With two trained, volunteer mediators, the family sat down one late afternoon behind the closed doors of a donated meeting room of a local library.  The mediation process was explained, and each family member was then given time to explain why they had come. This part of the process, allowing each person to adequately express themselves, took the better part of the two hours and a second mediation was scheduled.

On the afternoon of the second mediation the family was encouraged to list specific topics they might want to discuss.  They agreed on a list that included:

·       The date Rose could apply for a driver’s license

·       Eating dinner

·       Ground rules for arguments

Taking each situation one at a time, the family was able to work out some solutions, most importantly, that Rose could apply for her driver’s license once her grades were all C or above.

            During this second session, it became clear to all three family members that their communication difficulties were deep-seated and needed far more work than a few mediation sessions could provide.  The final half-hour of the mediation was spent defining how they would seek out longer term family counseling, and discussing possible referrals with CMUS mediators.

Deborah and Harry

           Deborah and Harry were former roommates.  They were headed to trial because Harry insisted that Deborah owed him payment for the last three months that they shared the apartment.  Deborah maintained that she did not owe Harry any money and that in fact, she was filing a counter suit because he pawned her television and camera after she moved out.  Both parties expressed considerable anger during the intake process; however, each was clearly eager to be done with the problem and so was willing to try mediation.

            The mediation was set up in the afternoon at a neutral location in Queen Anne’s County.  Both parties arrived visibly agitated.  Before the two mediators were able to describe the mediation process and explain the ground rules for their discussion, Harry stood up, followed by Deborah.  They shouted at each other, hurling accusations that seemed to be unrelated to their court case.  Realizing that joint discussion was initially impossible, the mediators asked both if they were willing to go in to separate rooms to discuss their grievances privately with the mediators.  Separate conversations are not the norm in community mediation, but sometimes they help.  In this case we were not successful.  Both Harry and Deborah eventually left the mediation agreeing only to, “See you in court.” 

While we can’t ensure that every party will walk away with a happy solution, 75% of the time mediation participants leave CMUS mediations with a written agreement.  Often, even without a written agreement, we know that the participants have learned something more about each other and about new ways to resolve their conflicts.

 * Names and details have been changed for purposes of confidentiality