Free aid

Robert

Robert lives in a little village and runs a small farm, providing for his family with what he makes with the crops. He accidentally damaged his neighbour’s fence when working. To avoid conflict, he offered the neighbour to pay for the reparations of the fence, however, according to Robert, the neighbour was asking for too high a compensation. Robert felt offended thinking that the neighbour wanted to rip him off, after all it was just an old wooden fence.

Robert asked for an free legal aid consultation and learnt from the lawyer, who suggested a mediation to resolve the conflict, what liability for damages was. The lawyer also explained how mediations worked, emphasised that they were voluntary, and that both parties needed to agree to them.

Robert called his neighbour and suggested taking part in an free mediation. The neighbour agreed and the lawyer made the appointment.

The mediation helped the neighbours to reach a settlement and to avoid conflict.

Katarzyna

Katarzyna’s husband had moved out a couple of years earlier, after a fight when he was under the influence. For religious motives, she did not wish to divorce. She asked a lawyer what she could do to get child support without divorcing and was offered two solutions: filing for separation with child/spousal support or filing only for child/spousal support. The lawyer also mentioned that she could undergo free mediations to work out a compromise.

Katarzyna had no idea that a separation could be so similar to a divorce. Separated spouses were not longer liable for each other’s debts once the separation was announced, and it could also regulate child support and access to minor children, without the official dissolution of the marriage. Katarzyna gathered all the requested documents and filed for separation. She was happy to have an option that could improve her situation. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out, because her husband refused to take part in the mediation.

Jan

Jan, together with his ex-wife, had already undergone mediations to determine what was the best for their son: child support, joint custody, residency (at the mother’s), and access to the parent he did not live with.

Although Jan agreed for his son to travel abroad, the judge, when approving the settlement agreement, did not approve the travel permissions. The mother had already previously tried to limit the access to the father by wilfully taking the son abroad for a couple of months.

She was warned by the judge that such behaviour was inadmissible and that it could even result in limiting her parental authority.

A few months later, the mother requested a limitation of the father’s authority and then went again abroad with the son, without informing the father. Jan decided to inform the court and filed for a modification of the settlement agreement. He did not think that constant changes of the place of residence were good for his son. At the same time, he declared that he and his current spouse were willing to ask for full custody. After the unpaid help consultation, Jan filed for full custody and is awaiting the final decision.