Spanish couples face compulsory mediation as courts see sharp drop in family law cases

A procedural reform requiring couples in Spain to attempt mediation before proceeding to court has led to a sharp decline in contentious divorce and family law cases, according to recent figures from the legal profession. The new requirement is part of Organic Law 1/2025 on Measures of Efficiency in the Public Justice Service, which came into force in April 2025 and introduced Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias (MASC), or “adequate means of dispute resolution”, as a mandatory step for certain legal disputes. 

Under this reform, couples who cannot agree on the terms of separation, custody, visitation or related issues must first demonstrate that they have engaged in an attempt at negotiation or mediation before a court will admit a contentious divorce filing. This change affects both married couples seeking divorce and unmarried partners disputing custody or other family matters. 

Significant drop in contentious filings

Data covering 2025 shows a 24.7 % fall in contentious divorce demands compared with the previous year. Separate figures indicate similarly steep declines in other family law cases that depend on judicial intervention. For example, filings for contested custody and visitation matters dropped by about 22.1 %, while overall dissolution filings, including agreed separations and divorces, fell around 11.5 % from 95,650 in 2024 to 84,424 in 2025. 

Family lawyers attribute much of this decline to the MASC requirement rather than a sudden change in family behaviour. According to the Asociación Española de Abogados de Familia (AEAFA), many couples are deferring or abandoning formal filings because they must now provide proof of mediation or negotiation attempts before a judge will accept their case. 

How the mediation obligation works

Under the procedural rules introduced by Organic Law 1/2025, a spouse or partner seeking to take a case to court must first demonstrate that they have attempted a negotiated solution. This negotiation may take place directly between the parties, through their lawyers, or with the assistance of a neutral third party. Documentation of the attempt, whether successful or not, must be submitted to the court. 

If one party fails to engage in the process or does not respond, the negotiation attempt must still be documented, including evidence that communication was sent and received. Only once this procedural step is completed can a contentious claim proceed to be heard by a judge. 

Legal profession voices concern

Lawyers specialising in family law have expressed concern about the impact of the mandatory mediation requirement. They argue that while negotiation and mediation can be beneficial in some cases, imposing it as a strict pre‑condition to filing may delay access to justice, especially in disputes involving children. AEAFA has highlighted situations in which parents are unable to resolve urgent issues, such as custody, visitation, or child support, without first completing a lengthy negotiation process. 

In some documented cases, professionals say, delays caused by the procedural requirement have left parents without formal custody arrangements for months and without timely orders for child support or visitation rights, prolonging uncertainty and financial strain. Anecdotal reports suggest that, in some disputes, mediation deadlines and negotiation extensions can extend for several months before court proceedings can be initiated. 

Children and family welfare concerns

Family law practitioners have also raised concerns about the impact on children caught in the middle of prolonged disputes. The association estimates that around 300,000 minors are involved each year in cases concerning custody, visitation, or child support. Delays in resolving these cases, they say, can affect children’s schooling, access to activities and stable living arrangements, particularly when parents disagree on key issues. 

Critics argue that the mandatory mediation requirement, although aimed at reducing litigation, can inadvertently prolong uncertainty for families and create additional barriers for those with fewer resources to engage in repeated negotiation attempts. 

Political and legal challenges

The mediation requirement has also become a topic of political debate. In late 2025, the Spanish Congress of Deputies passed a non‑binding motion urging the government to remove the MASC obligation in cases involving disputes with minors, reflecting cross‑party concern over the rule’s effects on children’s rights and access to the courts. The motion received support from several parliamentary groups, although the government has defended the reform as part of broader efforts to modernise the justice system. 

At the same time, the issue has reached the Defensor del Pueblo, Spain’s ombudsman, who acknowledged that not enough time has passed to fully evaluate the reform’s impact while noting that delays in family law proceedings are “particularly serious” where timing is critical, such as in custodial matters. 

In addition, at least one challenge concerning the procedural requirement has been taken to the Constitutional Court, with the claimant arguing that mandating alternative dispute resolution before judicial review may infringe the constitutional right to effective judicial protection. 

Looking ahead

Supporters of the reform argue that encouraging negotiation could reduce the burden on courts and incentivise agreed resolutions, but lawyers and advocacy groups stress that adjustments may be needed to ensure access to justice is not unduly restricted, particularly for vulnerable families. As implementation continues, further data and legal scrutiny are likely to shape debates on how best to balance mediation with efficient judicial access in Spain’s family law system.