All suspected cases of contested custody or visitation were referred to the project by judges, investigators, and attorneys in two metropolitan judicial districts. Once referred, cases were randomly assigned to mediation or control groups. Consenting individuals in the control group were interviewed at three different times: when they filed court documents indicating they disagreed about custody and visitation matters, soon after the court promulgated final orders regarding custody or visitation, and 6 to 12 months later. Individuals in the experimental group were offered free mediation services. Interested couples were assigned to male-female teams comprised of lawyers and mental health professionals trained in mediation techniques. They were interviewed four times: before mediation started, immediately after mediation was concluded, soon after the court promulgated final orders about custody or visitation, and 6 to 12 months later. Results show that, in the short term, regardless of the outcome, mediation generated user satisfaction, promoted agreement making, and improved communication and understanding between former spouses. Over the long term, successful mediation clients -- when compared to their adversarial counterparts -- were more optimistic about resolving future problems with their spouses and avoiding court. The discussion examines the benefits and limitations of mediation, especially as they compare to adjudication. Specifically addressed are the decision to mediate, the proportion of mediation cases resulting in an agreement, satisfaction with the process and the agreements generated in mediation and adjudication, perceptions and fairness, compliance patterns, and relitigation behaviors. Study data and 49 references are supplied.