On December 28, 2016, the Intermediate Court of Appeals issued a summary disposition order in a post-decree divorce case holding that the Family Court erred in entering an order that limited one of the parties' ability to discuss issues related to mediation with a third-party outside of the mediation sessions.
In the underlying case, the Husband and Wife were involved in mediation. The appeal involved the Wife's post-decree motion challenging the Family Court's decision that ordered her into mediation but also ordered that she was not permitted to talk about the mediation with her fiancé.
Although the ICA noted that Wife had not properly preserved her claim that the order violated her constitutional right to free speech, the court nevertheless decided that the order was improper. The ICA called the lower court's decision "extraordinary." SDO at 2.
According to the court:
"The Family Court did not cite to any authority, and we find none, that authorizes a ban on a party's communications outside of the mediation sessions themselves, even when it might not exceed the bounds of reason to exclude non-parties from being present at or participating in the mediation." SDO at 3.
Thus, the ICA held that it was an abuse of discretion for the Family Court to forbid the Wife from talking with her fiancé "about any outstanding or unresolved mediated matters during mutually agreed breaks or between mediation sessions, either in person or over the telephone or through another medium . . . ." Id.
Although a short decision, and one that only has persuasive value outside of the case itself, the decision made by the Family Court raised an interesting issue on appeal. To read the full decision, go here.
Social Media