From Jeffrey S.
Elite Legal Services & Mediation
At first, I had thought that I was incorrect in my assumptions concerning the conflict between myself and my exwife, but there were a few issues I had with Tina Seals in mediation. The first was the fact that she pointed out, as though it were fact, that my religion taught my children nothing. This statement alone means that she is prejudice against people not involved in her religion. It was unprofessional, incorrect, and demonstrated how the rest of the mediation would go.
As the mediation continued, Tina spent more time trying to convince me that I was in the wrong than actually mediating . The point of the mediation was to get a response and answer from my exwife concerning statements from the children ("Father is not their real dad"/"Father abandoned the children" as an example) coupled with refused visitation on the part of the exwife.
From the moment that Tina found out that I was not Christian and my exwife was Christian, her entire attitude shifted from mediator between two parents to advocate for the exwife, arguing against basic concepts in English, claiming that permissions and rights given to the children were actually given to the mother (but oddly enough, not the father, despite not using either term in the passage in question).
During mediation, I gave way where way made sense and allowed Tina and the exwife to speak their peace, but I was constantly interrupted and refused time to even talk at certain points, interrupted as I tried to demonstrate the flaws in their logic and claims. The entire mediation was turned into accusations against me, accusations that had no standing, and half of it was spent speaking over them because they refused to allow me to speak.
Further prejudice emerged as Tina allowed the exwife to speak directly to me, despite her claims at the beginning of mediation that this would not happen, with insult and malice in her tone, but the moment I responded to the exwife, Tina would then enforce the rule of 'don't speak to each other'.
Through some miracle, we did agree to make the time-sharing schedule more balanced, but Tina added a large number of additional changes that were never discussed or that had never been agreed to.
One of Tina's proposed solutions was to restrict the parents from recording the children's pleas for help and assistance, complaints when the other parent is doing something either wrong or illegal, and ignore the children solely because they are children, even when they are the only ones who can say that one parent is doing something they shouldn't. (Because why would either parent tattle on themselves?) Given the mother's behavior (and despite Tina's belief that it's prestine), I would never agree to this.
Unless both parties practice the same religion, there will be no balanced or even mediation with this person. Tina is heavily prejudiced when it comes to religion, and she proved that on October 1, between 6 and 8 PM EDT.
Tina claimed that monotheistic agnosticism (my religion and the first time I've told anyone at Elite Legal Services and Mediation what it is) taught nothing, despite having nearly identical teachings to Christianity. And the worse part is, she can't even argue against this, because she didn't even bother to ask what my religion was or what it taught. She just assumed at the start of the mediation that because I wasn't Christian that I taught nothing.
