Divorce mediation has become an increasingly popular alternative to traditional courtroom proceedings. Proponents tout its many advantages: it is generally faster, less expensive, and far less adversarial than litigation. Mediation empowers couples to craft their own agreements rather than having outcomes imposed by a judge. For many divorcing spouses, these benefits make mediation an attractive option. However, the enthusiasm surrounding mediation should not obscure a critical reality: in certain circumstances, litigation remains not only appropriate but essential to protecting vulnerable parties. When significant power imbalances exist between spouses, mediation may fail to produce fair outcomes and can even perpetuate harm.
The Problem of Power Imbalances
Mediation operates on a fundamental assumption: that both parties can negotiate as relative equals, each capable of articulating their needs and advocating for their interests. When this assumption holds, mediation can produce creative, mutually satisfactory resolutions. But when one spouse holds substantially more power than the other—whether through financial control, superior knowledge of marital assets, psychological manipulation, or physical intimidation—the playing field is anything but level.
Beck and Sales, in their critical examination of divorce mediation research, observe that “the informal structure of mediation may disadvantage weaker parties who lack the legal protections available in formal court proceedings.” Without the procedural safeguards of litigation—discovery rules, evidentiary standards, and judicial oversight—a less powerful spouse may find themselves outmaneuvered at every turn.
Domestic Violence: A Clear Contraindication
Perhaps nowhere is the case against mediation stronger than in situations involving domestic violence. Ver Steegh’s comprehensive analysis reveals that domestic violence is present in an alarming proportion of divorcing couples, with estimates suggesting it affects between 50 and 80 percent of mediation cases. The dynamics of abuse fundamentally undermine the mediation process.
Victims of domestic violence often enter mediation carrying years of psychological conditioning that makes genuine self-advocacy nearly impossible. As Ver Steegh explains, “victims may be too fearful or too eager to please their abusers to negotiate effectively.” The private, informal setting of mediation—typically praised for reducing conflict—can actually recreate the isolated circumstances in which abuse thrives. An abuser skilled at manipulation may appear reasonable to a mediator while subtly coercing their victim through glances, coded language, or implicit threats.
Litigation, by contrast, offers crucial protections. Court proceedings create a public record. Attorneys can serve as buffers between parties. Judges can issue protective orders and impose consequences for intimidation or violations. The formal rules of court limit opportunities for manipulation and ensure that both parties’ positions receive equal consideration under the law. Attorney Julia Rueschemeyer, a high volume Massachusetts divorce mediator, echoes this sentiment on her website, where she notes that divorce mediation simply isn’t appropriate for couples experiencing domestic violence.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Concerns
Addiction and serious mental health issues present another category of cases where mediation may be inappropriate. A spouse struggling with active alcohol or drug addiction cannot be expected to participate rationally in negotiations that will determine their financial future and, critically, arrangements for their children. The cognitive impairments associated with substance abuse compromise judgment and decision-making capacity.
Moreover, individuals battling addiction may make commitments in mediation that they cannot keep, leading to agreements that quickly unravel. Litigation allows courts to order evaluations, mandate treatment, and structure custody arrangements with appropriate safeguards. Donohue notes that “communication patterns in high-conflict divorces often require external structure and intervention that mediation alone cannot provide.”
Financial Complexity and Hidden Assets
Significant financial disparities between spouses also warrant careful consideration before choosing mediation. When one spouse has controlled the family finances while the other remained uninformed, the knowledgeable spouse holds tremendous advantage. Mediation lacks the robust discovery mechanisms available in litigation—subpoenas for bank records, depositions under oath, and forensic accounting.
A spouse who suspects hidden assets or income may find that mediation simply cannot uncover the truth. Litigation’s formal discovery process, though more expensive and time-consuming, exists precisely to prevent one party from benefiting through concealment and deception.
The Importance of Legal Representation
At its core, the decision between mediation and litigation often comes down to whether a vulnerable party can adequately represent their own interests. Beck and Sales emphasize that “self-determination, a cornerstone of mediation philosophy, may be illusory when parties possess vastly different negotiating capabilities.” An attorney in litigation does more than argue—they investigate, strategize, and ensure their client understands rights they may not have known they possessed.
Emery, Sbarra, and Grover acknowledge that while mediation produces high satisfaction rates overall, these findings must be interpreted cautiously: “satisfaction does not necessarily equate to fairness, particularly for parties who may not recognize when they have agreed to terms that disadvantage them.”
Conclusion
Mediation deserves its place as a valuable option in family law. For couples who can communicate reasonably, who share relatively equal power, and who approach divorce without the complications of abuse, addiction, or deception, mediation offers a humane path forward. But we must resist the temptation to view mediation as universally superior. For victims of domestic violence, for spouses facing partners with substance abuse problems, for those confronting hidden assets and financial manipulation—litigation is not a failure of compromise. It is the appropriate mechanism for protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Recognizing when mediation is unsuitable is just as important as recognizing when it can succeed.
[1]Beck, Connie J.A., and Bruce D. Sales. “A Critical Reappraisal of Divorce Mediation Research and Policy.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6.4 (2000): 989.2]Ver Steegh, Nancy. “Yes, No, and Maybe: Informed Decision Making About Divorce Mediation in the Presence of Domestic Violence.” William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law 9 (2002): 145.
[3]Donohue, William A. Communication, Marital Dispute, and Divorce Mediation. Routledge, 2023. [4]Emery, Robert E., David Sbarra, and Tara Grover. “Divorce Mediation: Research and Reflections.” Family Court Review 43.1 (2005): 22-37. [5]Ver Steegh, “Yes, No, and Maybe,” 158. [6]Beck and Sales, “A Critical Reappraisal,” 1012. [7]Donohue, Communication, Marital Dispute, and Divorce Mediation, 87. [8]Ver Steegh, “Yes, No, and Maybe,” 167. [9]Beck and Sales, “A Critical Reappraisal,” 1008. [10]Emery, Sbarra, and Grover, “Divorce Mediation: Research and Reflections,” 31.