The last place two 13-year-old boys need to resolve their disputes is a courtroom.

Cases like these are perfect for mediation. It’s the example offered by Tracy Quadro, a local mediator, when discussing a pilot program in Lewiston District Court offering mediation in protective cases. The rowdy boys were too busy beating each other up to discuss their issues. Mediation gave them the time to ask, “Why don’t you like me?”

The rest is history. So was an unnecessary court hearing.

Mediation for protection cases is a wise safety valve for Maine’s overburdened court system. It’s reasonable that some of the 4,600 orders sought in Maine last year could have been easily resolved through talking rather than litigating, especially childish disputes like the quarreling adolescents.

A no-contact order would never have worked, short of one child’s leaving school. Mediation was an effective alternative, and its proponents – Judge Paul Cote, Quadro, lawyer Fredda Wolf – deserve credit. Cote says he’s seen mediation succeed, “first-hand.” We believe him, as judges often see cases they know are unfit for a courtroom.

Mediation must be used, though, where most efficient and effective. While right for quarreling kids, cases of domestic violence – the trigger most often equated for seeking protection orders – deserve judicial review. Putting domestic violence victims into positions to negotiate, or reason, with their attacker only further victimizes them.

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Justices envisioned this scenario when it addressed bolstering protective-order enforcement way back in 1994. The council, in drafting a model family-violence law for states, said mediation should never be mandated in protective cases involving domestic violence.

“Mediation is a process by which parties in equivalent bargaining positions voluntarily reach consensual agreement about the issue at hand. Violence, however, is not a subject for compromise,” the council stated. “A process which involves both parties mediating the issue of violence implies that the victim is somehow at fault.”

The free, voluntary mediation offered in Lewiston sidesteps this concern by merely putting out the offer for parties – but only if they both appear to participate. For some cases, it’s the best thing, because it was a lack of communication or chronic miscommunication that made a protection order seem like the only recourse.

In serious cases of abuse, harassment or domestic violence, it should be. Protective orders are a key disincentive for bad behavior; although the slip of paper itself isn’t particularly protective or restraining, its symbolism (and stiff penalties) for violators are most important safeguards for victims.

Sometimes, though, protection orders are sought for incidents where they’re viewed as the only recourse. Here, mediation could save valuable courtroom time, allowing people to work through issues with a calm third-party.

Often, though, orders emerge from serious, chronic problems beyond the resolution skills of mediators – like domestic violence. These cases should see a judge, not a mediator.

It’s what the victims – and offenders – deserve.