Brief Fact Summary. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of a local court rule that required a mediator to make a recommendation as to temporary custody when the parties were unable to reach an agreement but forbade the parties from cross-examining the mediator as to his reasons for the recommendation.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A rule forbidding cross-examination of a mediator regarding his reasons for his recommendations for temporary child custody was unconstitutional.
To deny a litigant the right to cross-examine a witness who testifies against him is a denial of due process of law.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Does the court’s local rule permitting a recommendation by the mediator but forbidding cross-examination of the mediator violate constitutional due process?
Held. Yes, the husband is entitled to a writ of mandate directing the court to not receive a recommendation from the mediator as to any contested issue unless the court has first made a protective order guaranteeing the parties the rights to have the mediator testify and to cross-examine him concerning the recommendation unless said rights have been waived.
This court initially found the petition premature until it was clear that the parties had failed to agree resulting in a recommendation by the mediator. The Supreme Court disagreed, and the possibility of mootness is disregarded because the issue presented is one of broad public interest and is likely to recur.
The feature of respondent court’s policy prohibiting cross-examination of the mediator is consistent with the civil provision that the proceedings shall be confidential. The requirement of the mediator to not state his reasons for the recommendation to the court is consistent with the provision protecting the confidentiality of the parties’ communications to the mediator. Nonetheless, the policy, which permits the court to receive a significant recommendation on contested issues but denies the parties the right to cross-examine its source, is unconstitutional.
Respondent court contends that the policy is constitutionally permissible because only temporary child custody and visitation are involved. However, the word temporary does not appear in the civil code.
These conclusions are consistent with the duty to harmonize the subdivisions of the statute, and the disparities among local court rules have had the effect of guaranteeing due process in some superior courts but not in others.
Discussion. The Court found that a local rule requiring a mediator to make a recommendation as to temporary custody when the parties were unable to reach an agreement but forbidding the parties from cross-examining the mediator as to his reasons for the recommendation was unconstitutional.