The court awarded joint custody to both parents but awarded primary physical custody to Complainant's former husband, giving Complainant what amounted to standard visitation. Complainant brought a complaint to the Ethics Committee of the Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution concerning Respondent's conduct as a mediator. At the hearing before the Committee Complainant said that she felt during the mediation that because the Respondent had tested the child and had spent a greater amount of time with Complainant's former husband than with Complainant, Respondent had already reached a conclusion favorable to Complainant's former husband about the appropriate custody arrangement. Complainant said that when she agreed to the mediation she did not realize the implications of accepting a mediator who had already done an evaluation of the child. Complainant said that as a mediator, Respondent's style was more directive than that which she experienced during the two previous mediations.
Complainant contends that several parts of Respondent's report came from the mediation.
She also contends that part of Respondent's testimony at trial came from knowledge that she could have only gained in the mediation. Respondent responded that she was concerned about the confidentiality to which the child was entitled and that she did not want to testify. She also said that she had never served in this dual capacity before and that she made the judges aware of her concerns. Complainant's former husband stated at the hearing before the Committee that nothing at the hearings was gleaned from the mediation. This case presents a troubling combination of ethical issues which touch on each of the major ethical areas discussed in Appendix C to the Georgia Supreme Court ADR Rules, the Ethical Guidelines for Mediators.