Imposition of the duty to visit a mediator

The complainant agreed with mediation, the mother of the child did not. The mother and father have been involved in a long-term parental conflict. The first-instance authority based its decision on, inter alia, the experts’ recommendations concerning the suitability of mediation. The City Hall annulled the decision of the first-instance administrative authority and referred the case back for a new hearing, stating that the mother could not have afforded the services of a mediator, recommended to seek an unpaid service, and ordered both parents to attend family counselling.

The Defender has found several errors in the appellate body’s procedure. When issuing an order to participate in the initial meeting with a mediator, the authorities are obliged to make decisions based on the necessity of mediation, not based on the parents’ financial background. In case of destitute parents, the mediation could be paid from the state budget, either from the budgetary chapter for the social and legal protection of children (in the competence of the BSLPC) or by means of assistance in material need (in the competence of the Labour Office). The Defender spoke for both these options to be equal alternatives, where the BSLPC would decide ad hoc which of them would be better in each specific case.

At the time after the inquiry report was issued, the City Hall was already working on unifying the guidelines for the individual municipal district authorities and approached several institutions, as practical experience brought about a range of ambiguities and problems consisting in overpriced services of certain mediators. After receiving the Defender’s final statement, the City Hall took her conclusions into account when drawing up the guidelines, which will regulate the financial aspects of mediation. The basic principle included in the City Hall’s guidelines is that the individual municipal district authorities may enter into co-operation agreements with mediators, who will provide their services for the same price as stipulated by the decree, as if the initial meeting with the mediator was ordered by the court. The municipal district authorities should also try to search for organisations in their jurisdictions that provide these services free of charge. The guidelines explicitly state that a difficult social situation of the clients cannot be the sole reason to waive the order to participate in the initial meeting with the mediator. The guidelines contain a helpful legal opinion that if an order is issued to participate in the initial three-hour meeting with the mediator, the mediation can be initiated and an agreement concluded based on the regulated price.

As the authority implemented all the remedies the Defender proposed, she concluded the inquiry.