Committee Comment: Rule (i)(a) derives from Cook Co. Cir. Ct. Rs. 20.01 (Law Div.) (eff. April 5, 2004) and 21.01 (Chancery Div.) (eff. August 1, 2013).
Committee Comment: This definition is derived from Michigan Court Rules 3.216(A)(2)a nd 3.216(I) (eff. September 5, 2013).
Committee Comment: This definition is derived from the previous Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(vii) (eff. October 16, 2012),Committee Comments to Ill. S. Ct. R. 905 (eff. September 1, 2013), and the terminology used in the Ill. Domestic Violence Act, 750 ILCS 60/101, et seq.
Committee Comment: This definition is derived from Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 20.01 (Law Div.) (eff. April 5, 2004), Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 21.01 (Chancery Div.) (eff. August 1, 2013) and Michigan Court Rule 3.216(A)(2) (eff. September 5, 2013).
Committee Comment: This definition is the same as used in the Uniform Mediation Act, 710 ILCS 35/2(2).
Committee Comment: These rules seek to promote broad use of ADR procedures. As noted in Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e) (ii)(b) and (e)(ii)(c), the court can order mediation, even if a party objects. Under Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e) (i)(c), parenting coordination also can be ordered over objection of a party or the parties. Other forms of ADR may be utilized if the parties so agree.
The court may submit a contested issue to mediation at any stage of the proceedings so long as a trial on that issue has not commenced. Once trial on a contested issue has commenced, the court may recommend that the contested issue be submitted to mediation, but the issue shall not be submitted to mediation unless both parties agree to suspend the trial.
Committee Comment: In keeping with the goals of autonomy and encouraging parties to resolve their own dispute, parties may stipulate to mediation, including by a mediator of the parties' own selection. If, however, an impediment to mediation exists, the court shall consider that circumstance before ordering mediation. See Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(i)(b)(6) for definition of "impediment to mediation". The existence of an order of protection against a party to the case does not automatically mean that an impediment to mediation exists, but that circumstance does require the court to determine if mediation is appropriate. Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(iii)(b) provides that cases referred to Family Mediation Services ("FMS") will be subject to the FMS's procedures. The FMS has multiple procedures to protect against family violence and abuse. In cases in which an order of protection is in effect and the parties are referred to the FMS, a determination by the court that mediation is appropriate is not necessary. Sources for this rule include Michigan Court Rule 3.216(C)(1) (eff. September 5, 2013) and the previous Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(vii) (eff. October 16, 2012) (regarding screening for impediments to mediation).
Committee Comment: This subsection derives from the previous Cook Co. Cir. Ct R. 13.4(e)(i), (ii) (eff. October 16, 2012) and Ill. S. Ct. Rs. 923(a)(3) (eff. July 1, 2006) and 905(b) (eff. September 1, 2013). This subsection continues the practice of providing mandatory mediation of issues related to allocation of parental responsibilities unless an impediment to mediation exists. It applies to initial determinations as well as modification proceedings and also encompasses disputes regarding relocation of the child. For cases referred to Family Mediation Services, completion of Focus on Children is preferred before commencing mediation under the FMS procedures. See Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(iii)(b).
Committee Comment: One of the expansions of the previous version of Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e) (eff. October 16, 2012) is to allow courts to order mediation of issues other than issues related to allocation of parental responsibilities. Such issues may include financial issues and discovery issues. It is anticipated that the court will consider the extent to which the parties have participated in other ADR processes before ordering mediation of such issues. See Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e) (iii)(c) regarding compensation of mediators.
Committee Comment: Ill. S. Ct. R. 905 (eff. September 1, 2013) mandates mediation for cases related to allocation of parental responsibilities and provides for an "excuse from referral to mediation if the court determines an impediment to mediation exists." The rule does not provide for other excuses from referral to mediation such as good cause based upon the parties' wish to utilize a type of dispute resolution other than mediation. Ill. S. Ct. R. 905 does not deal with excuses from referral to mediation for issues other than allocation of parental responsibilities. The proposed rule, which is not in conflict with Illinois Supreme Court Rules, applies a more flexible standard for excuse from referral to mediation for cases subject to discretionary mediation (i.e., allowing exemption from referral for "impediment to mediation" as well as "good cause"). The proposed rule also derives from Cook Co. Cir. Ct. Rs. 20.02(b) (Law Div.) (eff. April 5, 2004) and 21.02(b)(Chancery Div.) (eff. August 1, 2013) and Michigan Court Rule 3.216(D) (eff. September 5, 2013). The proposed rule allows a party to object to mediation "at any time" - including before mediation is ordered; after mediation is ordered, but before mediation is commenced; and after mediation has commenced.
Committee Comment: In keeping with promoting autonomy of the parties, the parties may stipulate to their own mediator, subject only to the requirement that "the mediator is willing to serve within a period that would not interfere with the court's scheduling of the case for trial."
If the parties have not stipulated to a mediator, the court shall assign the parties to a mediation service or a private mediator from the court's list of certified mediators. The court's list shall contain the hourly rate of each mediator. If the contested issues involve allocation of parental responsibilities, parenting time, non-parent visitation or relocation of the child, and the parties have not stipulated to a private mediator, the parties shall be referred to Family Mediation Services and be subject to their procedures. If the contested issues are other than allocation of parental responsibilities, parenting time, non-parent visitation or relocation of the child, and the parties have not stipulated to a private mediator, the parties will be referred to a private mediator on the court's list of certified mediators. See Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(x)(b).
Committee Comment: It is anticipated that most referrals to a certified mediator (i.e., a mediator on the court-approved list) will include compensation for the mediator. Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(x)(b)(5), however, does provide: "Acceptance of a listing as a certified mediator may include the obligation to perform a reasonable amount of mediation services for no charge or at a reduced charge." If the mediator is appointed by court order, the court may enforce the compensation arrangement, including by use of contempt powers. If the mediator is not appointed by court order, only contract remedies would be available for enforcement of the fee arrangement.
Committee Comment: Prompt commencement of mediation is desirable, but some flexibility also is necessary, including to accommodate the schedules of mediators. Hence, the parties are directed to contact the mediator within 7 days of the order of mediation and to schedule the first session within 28 days after an entry of the order for mediation "unless good cause exists for scheduling a later date." The previous version of Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e) provided: "The mediation process shall commence pursuant to Ill. S. Ct. R. 923(a)(3) (eff. July 1, 2006) or as soon as practicable after any issue arises as set forth in this Rule."
Committee Comment: While a case is being mediated or another ADR procedure is being utilized, existing orders shall remain in full force unless the court orders otherwise. Thus, for example, orders for child support, spousal support, payment of particular family expenses, and parenting time would remain in effect during mediation unless the court orders otherwise. To facilitate ADR and to conserve resources of the court and the parties, or for other good reason, the court may suspend the filing of motions without leave of court and suspend proceedings while ADR is being utilized, except in emergencies. In all events, except in emergencies, contested hearings may not proceed during ADR without leave of court.
Committee Comment: Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(h) also deals with status calls and provides: "The number and frequency of automatic status calls during a calendar year shall be pursuant to order of the Presiding Judge of the Domestic Relations Division. Notice of the first status for any case shall be sent by the Clerk of the Circuit Court to the attorneys of record by postcard no less than 30 days prior to the commencement of said call and shall also be published in a newspaper of general circulation and posted in the courtroom. All cases shall be called for status report no later than 6 months after the case is filed. Failure of the petitioner to answer the status call shall result in a dismissal for want of prosecution."
Committee Comment: A goal of these rules is to encourage good faith alternative dispute resolution in order to promote settlements that are in the best interests of children. This rule is intended to clarify that the time spent in ADR in which the parties are attempting to settle issues related to the allocation of parental responsibilities, should not prejudice the parties'time necessary to prepare the case for trial. However, these rules should not be used to waste time or delay a case for reasons other than seeking to resolve the dispute outside of court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 922 (eff. July 1, 2006) provides: "All child custody proceedings under this rule in the trial court shall be resolved within 18 months from the date of service of the petition or complaint to final order. In the event this time limit is not met, the trial court shall make written findings as to the reason(s) for the delay. The 18-month time limit shall not apply if the parties, including the attorney representing the child, the guardian ad litem or the child representative, agree in writing and the trial court makes a written finding that the extension of time is for good cause shown. In the even the parties do not agree, the court may consider whether an extension of time should be allowed for good cause shown."
* Illinois Supreme Court Rule not yet amended to reflect the language of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act of 2015.
The mediator may request each party to produce other documents or information as is reasonable under the circumstances. To enforce production requests, either party, or the attorney for the child, guardian ad litem or child representative, may file a motion to order production, or the court may order production on its own motion. Failure to comply with the reasonable requests of the mediator may subject the non-complying party to sanctions imposed by the court.
Committee Comment: The portion of the rule requiring the parties provide information about "the facts and circumstances of the case" and "the issues in dispute" is derived from Michigan Court Rule 3.216(H)(2) (eff. September 5, 2013). The specific documents that a mediator may request the parties to submit under Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(v)(a)(3) are the same as those the parties are required to serve on each other under Cook Co. Cir. Ct. Rs. 13.3.1, 13.3.2 and 13.3.3. While the parties may file a motion to enforce the mediator's production requests, the mediator does not have standing to present such a motion.
Committee Comment: This rule is derived from the previous version of Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(iv) (eff. October 16, 2012), which provided: "If a party fails to appear at a duly noticed mediation conference without good cause, the court, upon notice and motion, may enter an order the court deems appropriate under the circumstances, including sanctions against a party for failure to appear."
Committee Comment. The first and third sentences of Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(v)(c) are taken verbatim from the Uniform Mediation Act, 710 ILCS 35/10. In many mediations, the mediator may prefer that only the parties attend, but the law allows a party to mediation to be accompanied by an attorney or other designated individuals. See also Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 20.04(c) (Law Div.)(eff. April 5, 2004), Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 21.04(c) (Chancery Div.) (eff. August 1, 2013) and Michigan Court Rule 3.216(H)(4). The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law "Comment" to Section 10 of the Uniform Mediation Act (adopted in Illinois at 710 ILCS 35/10) states: "Some parties may prefer not to bring counsel. However, because of the capacity of attorneys to help mitigate power imbalances, and in the absence of other procedural protections for less powerful parties, the Drafting Committees elected to let the parties, not the mediator, decide." The Uniform Mediation Act approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law (adopted in Illinois at 710 ILCS 35/1 et seq.) with comments is available online at:
http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/mediation/uma_final_03.pdf (last accessed February 21, 2014)
The new Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e), which provides greater autonomy to the parties, eliminates the conflict between Section 10 of Illinois'Uniform Mediation Act (710 ILCS 35/10) and the previous version of Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e) (eff. October 16, 2012). The previous Rule 13.4(e)(ix) provided: "Except as otherwise provided in this rule, the mediator shall have authority to exclude all persons other than the parties from conferences at which negotiations are to occur." The new Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e) also harmonizes subsection (e)(v)(c) with subsection (e)(v)(d)(6) regarding participation of minor children. In the circumstance where one party wishes to have his or her attorney present at a mediation session but the other party does not or does not have an attorney, the mediator might consider caucusing separately with each party. See Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(v)(e).
Committee Comment: This rule is derived from the previous version of Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e) (vii) and(e)(viii) (eff. October 16, 2012). In the above list of duties, the following items are in the previous version of the rule: (1), (2), (3), (4) (regarding legal advice), (7), (8), and (9). Additional duties of mediators are taken from rules of other circuit courts in Illinois.
Regarding Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e) (v)(d)(1) and (7), "impediment to mediation" is defined in 13.4(e)(i)(b)(3).
Regarding Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(v)(d)(3), the differentiation between "legal information" (which the mediator may provide) and "legal advice" (which the mediator may not provide) is not always precise. Generally, however, "legal information" is a description of the law and the legal process whereas "legal advice" involves analyzing the application of the law to a litigant's situation or making a suggestion of what action a litigant should take on a legal issue. Regarding Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(v)(d)(8), under 325 ILCS 5/4 of the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, 325 ILCS 5/1, et seq. , categories of mandated reporters who are likely to be conducting mediations include: social workers, licensed professional counselors, licensed clinical professional counselors, registered psychologist and assistants working under the direct supervision of a psychologist and psychiatrists. The list of mandated reporters does not explicitly include attorneys or mediators. However, Public Act 98-67 amended 325 ILCS 5/4 (effective July 15, 2013) to provide: "The reporting requirements of this Act shall not apply to the contents of a privileged communication between an attorney and his or her client or to confidential information within the meaning of Rule 1.6 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct relating to the legal representation of an individual client."
For further guidance regarding the conduct of mediation, see: (A) the "Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators" (2005), which were approved (or adopted) by the American Arbitration Association, the American Bar Association, and the Association for Conflict Resolution, and which are available online at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/dispute_resolution/model_standards_conduct_april2007.authcheckdam.pdf (last accessed Feb. 21, 2014); and (B) the "Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation" (2000) which were approved by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and are available online at: http://www.afccnet.org/Portals/0/PublicDocuments/CEFCP/ModelStandardsOfPracticeForFamilyAndDivorceMediation.pdf (last accessed Feb. 21, 2014).
Committee Comment: This rule is derived from Cook Co. Cir. Ct. Rs. 20.04(b) (Law Div.) (eff. April 5, 2004) and 21.04(b) (Chancery Div.) (eff. August 1, 2013).
Committee Comment: This rule is derived from Michigan Court Rule 3.216(H)(4) (eff. September 5, 2013).
Committee Comment: This rule is derived Cook Co. Cir. Ct. Rs. 20.04(d) (Law Div.) (eff. April 5, 2004) and 21.04(d) (Chancery Div.) (eff. August 1, 2013).
Committee Comment: This rule is derived from the previous Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(xvii) (eff. October 16, 2012). The requirement of the posting of a Cook County Sheriff's Deputy does not apply to use of private mediators.
Committee Comment: In most cases, resources can be saved without prejudice to the parties by limiting discovery of child- related issues during mediation. Generally, parties will be aware of the main facts related to child-related issues. Moreover, experience has shown that the conduct of discovery of issues related to the allocation of parental responsibilities can undermine the effectiveness of mediation. In appropriate circumstances, however, discovery could proceed during mediation of issues related to the allocation of parental responsibilities by stipulation of the parties or order of the court. The previous Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(iii) (eff. October 16, 2012), provided: "The Domestic Relations Division judge shall have discretion to stay discovery related to the mediation until such time as mediation is concluded."
Committee Comment: Unlike custody-related issues, one or both parties to a dispute regarding financial issues often may not be aware of important facts regarding the financial issues. Thus, discovery is not automatically stayed during mediation of financial issues, although a court has discretion to stay discovery during mediation of financial issues.
Committee Comment: The previous rules governing confidentiality and privilege were Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(ix), (x) and (xi) (eff. October 16, 2012). The previous rules are generally similar to the Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(ix), but the previous rules did not make reference to the Uniform Mediation Act, 710 ILCS 35/1, et seq.
Committee Comment: This rule is derived from Cook Co. Cir. Ct. Rs. 20.07 (Law Div.(eff. April 5, 2004)) and 21.07 (Chancery Div.) (eff. August 1, 2013). Since confidentiality and privilege are governed by the Illinois Uniform Mediation Act, reference is made to that statute. The proposed rule does not include provisions regarding confidentiality and privilege for forms of alternative dispute resolution other than mediation. The scope of confidentiality and privilege in connection with forms of alternative dispute resolution other than mediation will be subject to agreements by which the parties entered into those forms of ADR, as well subject to laws that may govern those forms of ADR. See Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(v)(g) which provides: "The mediator's recommendation pursuant to Evaluative Mediation may not be submitted or made available to the court without the consent of the parties."
Committee Comment: This rule, which changes the name of the formerly named Marriage and Family Counseling Service to more accurately reflect the activities of the Service, derives from the previous Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(5) (eff. October 16, 2012).
Committee Comment: These qualifications and procedures applicable to court-certified mediators were arrived at after review and consideration of the previous Cook Co. Cir. Ct. Rs. 13.4(e)(v) (eff. October 16, 2012), 20.08 (Law Div.) (eff. April 5, 2004), 21.08 (Chancery Div.); Michigan Court Rule 3.216(F), (G) (eff. September 5, 2013); and the rules of other Illinois Circuit Courts.
Certified mediators of allocation of parental responsibilities disputes must have Illinois licensure as an attorney, psychologist, social worker, or marriage and family therapist. Certified mediators of financial disputes must have Illinois licensure as an attorney. Under Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(iii)(a), the parties may stipulate to a private mediator of any domestic relations dispute who does not meet the qualifications in Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(x).
The list of areas of knowledge a mediator must possess [the fifth bullet-point under Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(b)(1)] is drawn from The Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation, Standard II(A) (2000), developed by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and other organizations. The Model Standards are available online at: http://www.mediate.com/articles/afccstds.cfm (last accessed February 21, 2014). The rule specifies that the areas of knowledge shall be "as applicable to the issues the mediator will handle." Thus, a person who will mediate only financial disputes will not necessarily need to have knowledge of child-related issues, and a person who will mediate only issues related to allocation of parental responsibilities, visitation for a non-parent, or relocation will not necessarily need knowledge of financial issues relevant to domestic relations law.
Committee Comment: The first paragraph of Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(x)(c) follows existing state law (Uniform Mediation Act) regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest. The second paragraph of subsection (e)(x)(c) is derived from Lake Co. Cir. Ct. R. 11.13(G) (19th Cir.)(eff. August 6, 2010), although the waiver provision of the Lake County Rule applies only to therapist-mediators.
The previous Rule 13.4(e)(vi) (eff. October 26, 2012) provided: "No mediator shall continue service on a case in which his or her impartiality is impaired by any personal, financial or other relationship with either party or his or her counsel. If the mediator has or has had any conflict of interest, including, but not limited to, a current or previous therapeutic, personal, or economic relationship with either any child, stepparent, other relative, counsel, or anyone else involved in the case, he or she shall decline the appointment."
Committee Comment: Ill. S. Ct. R. 99(b)(1) ( eff. Mar. 1, 2013) provides: "Each judicial circuit electing to establish a mediation program shall adopt rules for the conduct of the mediation proceedings. A person approved by the circuit to act as a mediator under these rules shall have judicial immunity in the same manner and to the same extent as a judge." In accordance with Rule 99(b)(1), it is the intention of the Committee that court-certified private mediators, see Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e) (x)(b), as well as private mediators to whom the parties have stipulated in a court order to mediate a specific matter, see Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e) (iii)(a), will have judicial immunity. However, nothing in these rules is intended to extend such immunity to mediators who are neither court-certified nor designated in a stipulated court order to mediate a specific matter.
Committee Comment: This rule is derived in part from Cook Co. Cir. Ct. Rs. 20.09 (Law Div.) (eff. April 5, 2004), 21.09 (Chancery Div.) (eff. August 1, 2013). In addition, Ill. S. Ct. R. 99(b)(2)(x) (eff. Mar. 1, 2013 ) requires that circuit rules address the "Mechanism for reporting to the Illinois Supreme Court on the mediation program."
Committee Comment: This rule is derived from Cook Co. Cir. Ct. Rs. 20.11 Law Div.) (eff. April 5, 2004) and 21.11 (Chancery Div.) (eff. August 1, 2013).
Committee Comment: The rule regarding the Advisory Committee is derived from the previous Cook Co. Cir. Ct. R. 13.4(e)(xx) (eff. October 16, 2012).
[Amended, effective October 16, 2012].
Ill. R. Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. 13.4