A mediator should help parties reach an agreement that is manageable. Neither party should be completely happy or completely dissatisfied. When a case goes before a judge, the judge is, in fact, limited in the types of resolutions he or she can provide in a case.
In mediation, the parties can be far more flexible and creative, and can focus on their individual priorities. A judge in court, on the other hand, might focus on what he or she views is an important factor. For example, the concept of holding a house until the market possibly improves, addressing college while the children are small, offsetting assets against defined benefit pensions, and paying bills directly because of credit issues versus paying alimony are all vague situations which a judge would typically avoid in making an order.
Mediating and agreeing upon these issues, or other extremely complex issues, is often far more effective than leaving it up to a judge. A great benefit of mediation is that complex issues can be resolved creatively and with the parties’ priorities in mind. A court, on the other hand, often imposes orders which are not customized but are uniform and not crafted uniquely for the particular individuals.
Categories: 
Hi,
Enjoyed reading this post. From your experience does having a mediator really make both sides more flexible. I mean I know that’s what the goal is but has this historically happened in courts?
Thanks
Adam