The appellate court in Rinaker ruled that juvenile delinquency proceed ings are civil actions and 1119 applies. Rather than force the mediator to testify, though, the court struck a balance between the juveniles' constitutional rights and the public policy favoring mediation confidentiality. The court recognized that what the juveniles believed the mediator would testify to she may not have heard or recall. Even if the mediator did remember statements made, the court acknowledged that mediations are not fact-finding hearings, and statements made during them may be of questionable evidentiary value. The court noted that, for example, the mediator's testimony could be cumulative, and that in balancing the competing public interests at issue, preserving the confidentiality of mediation could prevail because the mediator's testimony would not be needed to vindicate the minors' constitutional rights.
Vandalism is a crime, even if that charge is being litigated in a juvenile delinquency hearing.
Rinaker expands mediator protection. Since mediators have no claim of confidentiality in criminal matters, Rinaker can be used to argue that before any mediator is required to testify con cerning criminal matters, an in camera hearing should be conducted. If the court in Rinaker had granted the mediator's request for absolute confidentiality, it is likely that the legislature would have acted quickly to amend 1119 to entirely exclude juvenile delinquency hearings from 1119 confidentiality. The court in Rinaker acted sensitively toward mediation and thought fully struck a balance between competing interests. Rinaker demonstrates that mediation is gaining greater acceptance and benefiting from increased understanding in the courts.