Let me tell you a bit about myself. I have had a family law practice in Pasadena, California for more than 22 years. I found litigation personally distasteful. I slowly transitioned my practice to settlement to the point where I now do 100% settlement, mostly mediation. Then, just when I thought there was nothing new under the sun, a new approach to divorce blossomed-- "Collaborative Divorce."
I see collaborative divorce as an approach to divorce that falls somewhere between mediation and litigation. It is particularly beneficial when the emotions and tensions between husband and wife make sitting together at a mediation table next to impossible. It is also a valuable option when there are complex financial issues or highly charged custody issues.
The great thing about collaborative divorce is that both the husband and the wife will be represented by their own attorney, but with a twist: as part of that representation, there is the added requirement that each of these attorneys guarantees that he or she will not bring the matter into Court. The client therefore can be assured that his/her respective attorney has no hidden agenda to go to court. Each attorney's sole focus is on using her/his best skills to assist the parties in resolving their issues through settlement.
The added ingenuity of the collaborative approach is that other professionals can be brought into the process and become part of the team, with the mutual goal of bringing the couple through the divorce process in a humane and efficient way. These additional professionals usually are therapists and accountants. The husband and wife, with the help of the attorneys, decide the make-up of their collaborative team. It may be just two attorneys, or those attorneys plus one therapist acting as a neutral mental health professional (coach) helping with both parties, or each party having his/her own therapist (coach), and sometimes an additional therapist representing only the interests of the children (child specialist). Similar combinations can be employed in retaining financial professionals.
The bottom line is that in my opinion you will usually be better off if you resolve the divorce issues through negotiation and settlement. Collaborative Divorce is a sensible, cost effective method of reaching this goal and any minor children will certainly reap the benefit of their parents taking this more peaceful approach.
Anthony J. Hill, Esq.
Showing posts with label how collaborative divorce works. Show all posts
Showing posts with label how collaborative divorce works. Show all posts
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Why a Collaborative Divorce is Better for Those who Seek ANONYMITY
One significant contrast between a case litigated in the court system and a Collaborative agreement merely submitted for signatures is the anonymity provided the parties in the process. Many divorce lawyers advise their clients to say vile things about the other parent to sway the sympathies of the judge. These attorneys are most comfortable arguing the case. Without a thought to the impact on the children (or even the parties, who, after all, once loved each other) they create these abusive declarations to be signed by their client and filed in the public court file.
For example, in a custody dispute, the judge would want to hear evidence of any history of drug or alcohol abuse, physical or emotional abuse, and any other factors the court deems relevant. The law on this can be misused, and often is, since it is left to the judge to weigh all the factors and determine a parenting plan in the best interest of the child.
That is right--anyone who cares to can look into a court file and see what steps were taken through the divorce process. A child entering the courthouse will not be barred from reading the content of the pleadings, not will anyone else. The laws do not allow anyone to easily seal a file in any lawsuit, even one so sensitive as your divorce. In a California Collaborative Case, the file reader will see the initial stipulation that the case is collaborative. The reader will see the final agreed-to judgment with the signature of each party, team members and the judge. Only.
During the Collaborative case, the parties may have had to confront real, wrenching disputes. They may have thrown harsh accusations against the other party. With the help of their coaches, they also may have taken those very difficult confrontations and turned them to good use. Without any public display, they may learn how best to communicate and co-parent in their newly reconfigured family.
Of course, not everyone needs the Collaborative case and the anonymity it affords for this sort of reason. Many simply prefer the control over the result and the speed they can have in a Collaborative case.
Anonymously submitted by a member of Pasadena Collaborative Divorce
For example, in a custody dispute, the judge would want to hear evidence of any history of drug or alcohol abuse, physical or emotional abuse, and any other factors the court deems relevant. The law on this can be misused, and often is, since it is left to the judge to weigh all the factors and determine a parenting plan in the best interest of the child.
That is right--anyone who cares to can look into a court file and see what steps were taken through the divorce process. A child entering the courthouse will not be barred from reading the content of the pleadings, not will anyone else. The laws do not allow anyone to easily seal a file in any lawsuit, even one so sensitive as your divorce. In a California Collaborative Case, the file reader will see the initial stipulation that the case is collaborative. The reader will see the final agreed-to judgment with the signature of each party, team members and the judge. Only.
During the Collaborative case, the parties may have had to confront real, wrenching disputes. They may have thrown harsh accusations against the other party. With the help of their coaches, they also may have taken those very difficult confrontations and turned them to good use. Without any public display, they may learn how best to communicate and co-parent in their newly reconfigured family.
Of course, not everyone needs the Collaborative case and the anonymity it affords for this sort of reason. Many simply prefer the control over the result and the speed they can have in a Collaborative case.
Anonymously submitted by a member of Pasadena Collaborative Divorce
Monday, January 26, 2009
A SAMPLE COLLABORATIVE CASE: A True Story
This will be a very brief description of a Collaborative Divorce Case completed in 2005 in California.
A mother of a 6-year old decided to get a divorce. Father was unhappy about that, but agreed to go along with a Collaborative process. Both hired collaborative attorneys and chose divorce coaches. This case had relatively few assets and only the one child.
The parents were both devoted to their boy, although their communication had deteriorated as a married couple. The coaches helped them to understand the changes their relationship needed to undergo as they moved from an intimate relationship and living situation to living separately and co-parenting from different households. When the "heat" rose between them, the photo of their son seemed to always bring them back to a more reasonable stance toward each other.
Mom learned that her attempts to get emotional support from Dad were jarring and uncomfortable for him, as he was busy grieving. Thereafter, she went to others for her support. Dad learned that his language about "my house, my money" was demeaning to Mom and inaccurate under California laws, and was able to change his language.
Mom's big concerns about Dad's drinking were dealt with sensitively by the coaches, and Dad promised not to drink for a certain number of hours before and during his time with the son. Mom saw that he was keeping his word.
The child met with a child specialist who represented his needs and concerns to the team. She also proposed some ideas for a parenting plan, and provided support for the child and a forum for him to talk through his feelings about the separation and the changes in his life.
The neutral financial professional in this case reassured both clients with his matter-of-fact neutrality. He especially aided this case by projecting the financial settlement into the future, so the clients could see the long-range implications of their settlement, which allowed them to increase their compassion and good-will toward one another.
The attorneys were very respectful toward one another, made efforts to connect with each other's clients, and quickly sent the clients to coaching whenever emotional issues arose. They skilfully managed the financial settlement and support issues so that (although Dad continually referred to his first divorce which had cost him $400.00) both people ended convinced that they had made the very best of a difficult situation.
When I spoke with Mom a year after the completion of this case, she was happy to report that the parents were continuing to work together in a peaceful and businesslike way to provide the best care they could manage for their child.
This entire divorce took about 8 months and cost the family about $13,000. The team was struck by the fact that this case, if it had not been handled collaboratively, could have resulted in numerous expensive hearings and a great dial of emotional upheaval. The team also was extremely pleased by the way that the communication flowed among team members (massive amounts of sharing by email) and by the respectful and peaceful tone the team kept providing for this family.
Respectfully submitted by:
Divorce Coach, Mary Ann Aronsohn, MA, LMFT
www.aronsohntherapy.com
A mother of a 6-year old decided to get a divorce. Father was unhappy about that, but agreed to go along with a Collaborative process. Both hired collaborative attorneys and chose divorce coaches. This case had relatively few assets and only the one child.
The parents were both devoted to their boy, although their communication had deteriorated as a married couple. The coaches helped them to understand the changes their relationship needed to undergo as they moved from an intimate relationship and living situation to living separately and co-parenting from different households. When the "heat" rose between them, the photo of their son seemed to always bring them back to a more reasonable stance toward each other.
Mom learned that her attempts to get emotional support from Dad were jarring and uncomfortable for him, as he was busy grieving. Thereafter, she went to others for her support. Dad learned that his language about "my house, my money" was demeaning to Mom and inaccurate under California laws, and was able to change his language.
Mom's big concerns about Dad's drinking were dealt with sensitively by the coaches, and Dad promised not to drink for a certain number of hours before and during his time with the son. Mom saw that he was keeping his word.
The child met with a child specialist who represented his needs and concerns to the team. She also proposed some ideas for a parenting plan, and provided support for the child and a forum for him to talk through his feelings about the separation and the changes in his life.
The neutral financial professional in this case reassured both clients with his matter-of-fact neutrality. He especially aided this case by projecting the financial settlement into the future, so the clients could see the long-range implications of their settlement, which allowed them to increase their compassion and good-will toward one another.
The attorneys were very respectful toward one another, made efforts to connect with each other's clients, and quickly sent the clients to coaching whenever emotional issues arose. They skilfully managed the financial settlement and support issues so that (although Dad continually referred to his first divorce which had cost him $400.00) both people ended convinced that they had made the very best of a difficult situation.
When I spoke with Mom a year after the completion of this case, she was happy to report that the parents were continuing to work together in a peaceful and businesslike way to provide the best care they could manage for their child.
This entire divorce took about 8 months and cost the family about $13,000. The team was struck by the fact that this case, if it had not been handled collaboratively, could have resulted in numerous expensive hearings and a great dial of emotional upheaval. The team also was extremely pleased by the way that the communication flowed among team members (massive amounts of sharing by email) and by the respectful and peaceful tone the team kept providing for this family.
Respectfully submitted by:
Divorce Coach, Mary Ann Aronsohn, MA, LMFT
www.aronsohntherapy.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
