Because Samuel reasonably relied on Susan's representation to his detriment, Susan is now estopped as a matter of law from relying on the one-year time limit as a basis for refusing to abide by the dispute resolution provision. We therefore conclude that the superior court erred in denying Samuel's motion in its entirety. Samuel requested mediation of his dispute with Susan or modification of the custody arrangement in his motion to the superior court. However, in the body of his motion and in his affidavit, Samuel expressed a preference for mediation. Given the parties' agreement, the superior court should have ordered mediation.
Mediation offers parents multiple benefits.
In particular, mediation expands the variety of possible resolutions to custody disputes because the parents are free to agree to more creative arrangements than those that might be adopted by a trial court. Most importantly, resolving custody and visitation disputes through mediation rather than through an adversarial process benefits the children who are the subject of disputes between their parents. Saposnek, supra, at 19. By increasing the potential for cooperation between parents, mediation decreases the potential for continuing parental strife in a child's life. Our decision in this case that Susan should not be able to revoke her agreement to a change in the visitation schedule without entering mediation is based on the unique language of the custody agreement she and Samuel signed.