Georgia Collaborative Divorce and Family Law Blog

5 Tips for Getting out of an Impasse

Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, it seems like you reach a dead end with your spouse on an issue in a Collaborative Law case. It happened while you were together, and it shouldn't be surprising that it still happens after you split up. You've thought about possible approaches and made plenty of suggestions, but no agreement seems forthcoming. While persistence can be a virtue in some situations, it can simply lead to frustration in others. If you keep trying the same tactics that haven't worked on the same issues, you probably aren't going to reach an agreement. What you need is a change. Here are five brief possibilities to help you get out of a negotiation rut and into an agreement.

1. Expand the pie. Review the situation and come up with some other possibilities. If you have gotten down to a choice between two options and neither party is willing to agree to the other side's choice, then back up and come up with some other choices. For example, if the decision is about who will take care of the children after school, and each parent wants a different grandparent to be in charge, maybe you should come up with other possible caregivers. If you rule out the current choices and look for others, you may come up with another satisfactory choice you had overlooked. Avoid assumptions about how the issues should be decided. Open up your imagination to look for other solutions. Get out of the rut.

2. Expand your point of view. Oftentimes, we focus so much on our own thoughts and ideas that we begin to have trouble understanding how anyone could possibly think another way on an issue. When that happens in negotiations, that narrowing of focus can lead to impasse. One solution is to listen to the other party and then reflect back to him or her what is being said. If you can just put into your own words what the other side is saying or asking for, it can increase your understanding of their position and may open up your thoughts to new possibilities. In some Collaborative joint meetings, it has been helpful to ask each party to state the other party's position on an issue and to explain why the party favors that position. It is also common, in preparation for Collabortive meetings or mediations or just plain negotiations at the courthouse, to have my client tell me what the other party would say about various issues. That helps me understand, but it also helps each client/party who works on that. Greater understanding of the issues and the other party can help lead to agreement.

3. Go back to your broad goals. It is very easy in negotiations to get drawn into discussions of small points. As you get into the smaller, lower-level goals, the options available are reduced and the potential for impasse increases. Sometimes you get off track and spend time on things that are irrelevant or just marginally useful. One way to get out of that trap is to stop the discussion and go back to your goals. For example, if you are stuck in a discussion about whether to take part of a retirement account or keep the house (and its equity), it can be helpful to review your major goals. If one of the goals was to maximize your retirement resources, then you probably need to take the retirement account. If a goal was to keep a stable home for the children, you might want to keep the house. If your goal was to obtain or have access to cash, and if you can realistically sell the house quickly, then you would probably want to get the house and sell it. Without constantly keeping the goals in mind, sometimes parties get into emotional arguments over assets because they "love" the house or because their hard work created the retirement account. The goals are more neutral and should always be the ideal in mind as the parties negotiate.

Another problem that frequently occurs is that you have gone from macro level goals to micro level goals. In other words, instead of trying to create ways to stay in daily contact with your child (macro goal), you get into an argument about whether your spouse must guarantee that s/he will be home at a certain hour (micro goal), rather than looking at it broadly and trying to find as many ways as possible to communicate with your child. Dealing with the issues at a broader level increases the number of opportunities to find solutions.

4. Get professional help. We usually work in the team model, using two attorneys, a neutral financial professional (FP) and a neutral mental health professional (MHP). We sometimes have a separate child specialist. The FP and MHP have been extremely helpful in cases where the parties get stuck. On financial issues, the financial professional can ask the right questions as well as suggest alternative solutions. The MHP can help the process generally by redirecting attention to constructive areas and also by maintaining a safe atmosphere for the parties to express themselves. Being perceived as neutrals gives the FP and MHP much more credibility and effectiveness than they would have if they were linked to just one party.

5. Start with areas of agreement. If you come to a standstill somewhere, you should consider switching topics and working on subjects where you expect to agree. Then you can build some momentum. For example, if you get stuck on how to divide up the bills, you might work on how to divide up the motor vehicles or clarify the holiday visitation schedule or clarify college plans for the kids. There are always some areas where the parties will easily agree, and even reaching easy agreements can result in good feelings and a willingness to cooperate. Of course, that doesn't mean that both sides will agree on everything once they start agreeing, but the momentum can be a helpful force for you.

Conclusiont: It's not unusual in a Collaborative Law case to get stuck more than once. Collaborative Law is not necessarily an easy process to work in, but the results are so much better than in litigation that it is worth the effort. When those times come and you start to realize that you are at an impasse point, try out one or more of the above techniques. They should be great tools to help you reach a successful conclusion for your clients.

SOURCE FOR POST: Texas Collaborative Law Blog by Dick Price

Program aims for peaceful divorces

The "collaborative law" process tries to get all parties to work together to reach agreement.

Few words in modern parlance carry uglier connotations than "divorce."

Yearslong court battles. Fights over division of property. Never-ending custody disputes that put children at the center of a tug of war.

A small group of Roanoke lawyers, all too familiar with the potential nastiness of divorce, are determined to spread the word that there's a less destructive way to navigate this already painful process.

The "collaborative law" method involves hiring lawyers to act as counselors rather than courtroom gladiators. Collaborative law often involves a team approach, in which psychologists and financial planners work with husbands and wives and their attorneys to minimize the damage that divorce can do to families.

Cheryl Watson Smith, the lawyer who for four years has pushed the hardest to bring collaborative law to the Roanoke Valley, organized a training session that was held last week for lawyers, mental health professionals and financial planners. It was the first session of its kind in Roanoke.

"I think it's a great approach," said Roanoke financial advisor Lee Brooks during a break in Thursday's training session. "I think it's respectful of the people involved."

Based on his first impression, he said collaborative divorce appeared to be less stressful, more cost effective and more likely to produce a fair settlement.

"This is the kind of practice that I went to law school for," said Diana Perkinson, one of eight Roanoke lawyers trained to practice collaborative law.

"I work a lot with families that are going through divorce," said Michael Chiglinsky, who serves as president of the Blue Ridge Academy of Clinical Psychologists. "Our current adversarial process is destructive in many situations to the very people it's supposed to serve, especially the children."

He hopes that collaborative law will allow families to work out important issues reasonably. "I think that this is a step in the right direction," he said.

In this novel approach to divorce, a husband and wife each hire their own lawyer, but not to pit them against each other in court. Instead, the couple and their lawyers meet together privately to negotiate a settlement.

To ensure a fair agreement, collaborative law requires full disclosure of all assets by both sides. If negotiations break down and the case heads to court, the collaborative lawyers on both sides must withdraw completely from the case.

Similar rules apply to other members of the team. For example, a financial adviser hired as part of a collaborative team would work with information from both husband and wife and would sign an agreement to never work for either party individually in the future in order to avoid any conflict of interest.

Even the language is different. The lawyers refer to one another as "counterpart counsel" rather than "opposing counsel." Custody agreements become "parenting plans" and alimony, "income sharing."

While a collaborative divorce doesn't come cheap -- attorneys charge the same rates they do for litigation, and other professionals such as the financial planners also bill separately -- its advocates argue that it takes less time and thus ultimately costs less than a contested court battle.

A handful of recent high-profile cases have brought some attention to the growing movement. Billionaire Roy Disney chose a collaborative divorce in 2006, and comedian Robin Williams has begun a collaborative divorce proceeding.

Yet collaborative law also has stirred some controversy. In February 2007, the ethics committee of the Colorado Bar Association issued an opinion that collaborative law is unethical, arguing that if someone decides not to go through with the process, it effectively gives that person the power to fire his or her spouse's attorney.

However, six months later, the American Bar Association weighed in with an opinion that collaborative law is ethically sound.

The ruling soothed the worries many other states might have had, Richmond lawyer Kimberly Fauss said.

The movement has become widespread in states such as California, Texas, Minnesota, Ohio and New York.

"Then you've got places like Virginia that are just sort of trying it on," Fauss said.

Though she's only had a handful of cases so far, Watson Smith remains confident that collaborative law will gradually take off in Roanoke as it has in Lynchburg, Charlottesville and Richmond.

Last week's training, which brought local financial and mental health professionals into the collaborative law fold, should ease the process.

Fauss, who attended the Roanoke training session, said she now only handles collaborative law cases.

"It's a big leap to do that because you're not doing litigation," she said.

Fauss asserted that collaborative law improves the quality of life for both the families who use it and the lawyers who practice it.

"You are not out to destroy anybody. You have a higher quality of life," she said. "The leaders of this movement are people in the second halves of their careers who are saying, 'I'm not doing it this way anymore.' "

SOURCE: The Roanoke Times in an article written by Mike Allen

Benefits of Collaborative Family Law?

Why Collaborative Family Law?

• Avoid Court – Everyone can focus on a settlement without the constant threat of “going to court.”
• Cooperative Approach – You are each supported and represented by your own lawyer and, yet, you can cooperate confidently with your spouse and his or her lawyer in resolving your issues.
• Client Participation – You are a vital part of the settlement team (consisting of both parties and both attorneys).
• Clients in Charge – The process is empowering, informative, and less stressful than court. You control the proceedings. Your destiny and that of your family is not in the hands of a third party (court).
• Collaborative Lawyers – Both parties have skilled family lawyers committed to the collaborative process of settling without the threat of “going to court.”
• It Works – The collaborative law process works if problem solving is more important than fighting and you want solutions that are fair for both of you.

How Do Collaborative Lawyers Work?

• Informal four-party conferences where the future well-being of you and your family is the number one goal.
• Complete, honest exchange of information in an informal setting.
• Using creative problem-solving techniques to assist you in producing an agreement tailored to the needs of you and your family.
• Your spouse and his or her attorney are treated as part of a settlement team, not adversaries.
• Both attorneys are concerned about the process, as well as the outcome.
• Your collaborative lawyers are committed to finding constructive ways to achieve a settlement that will work best in your case. Their basic philosophy is to focus on a settlement without a trial.
• The lawyers have a financial incentive to succeed. They must settle your case or withdraw.

What Happens If Settlement Cannot Be Reached?
In the event the parties are unable to reach a settlement through the collaborative process, the collaborative lawyers withdraw from the case and the parties are free to hire trial attorneys to pursue the matter in court.

How Does It Work?
With the collaborative approach, both parties and their attorneys enter into a commitment agreement to the process. The attorneys are involved early in the process to facilitate full disclosure by both parties and to use reasoning and analysis to generate fair and just options for a fair settlement. The goal is to minimize adversity in the process and reach an equitable solution without court.

What If It Does Not Work?
In order for collaborative family law to work, incentives and disincentives are built into the process. The incentives are to eliminate court, reduce time and save the emotional expense that comes with animosity between the parties and lengthy court battles. The disincentive occurs if the process breaks down. As part of the commitment agreement, the collaborative attorneys must withdraw from the case if the process breaks down or proves unsuccessful. Both attorneys will assist in locating trial lawyers for the clients and provide a quick, efficient transition.

What Issues Can Be Resolved with Collaborative Family Law?

1. Separation and divorce
2. Non-marital relationship breakup
3. Custody arrangements and parenting issues
4. Guardianship
5. Spousal and child support
6. Division of assets and debts
7. Modification of existing orders

Key Benefits

1. Avoid court battles
2. Focus on the children
3. Client is empowered by the process
4. Can save time
5. Cost-effective
6. Cooperative approach
7. Informal setting
8. Creative problem solving
9. It benefits everyone
10. It works—the collaborative law process works if problem-solving is more important than fighting and both parties want to reach fair and just solutions.

Getting Started
If you’ve made your decision to proceed, here’s how to get started:

1. Talk with your spouse or opposing party about Collaborative Family Law and share the information provided on this website.
2. Both parties need to choose a collaborative lawyer from the list of trained professionals on this site.
3. Meet individually with your own collaborative lawyer to discuss the details of the collaborative law process in your situation.
4. Both parties and both lawyers sign a collaborative law agreement.
5. Both parties and their lawyers attend the first collaborative law meeting.

About Mental Health Professionals

Mental Health Practitioners serve special functions in the collaborative process. They are trained and experienced in collaboration reducing conflict, finding bridges and generating solutions that work for ALL parties involved, each divorcing partner and child. An annual peer review and certification process ensures that each practitioner has met the following minimum expectations: is licensed and in good standing in his/her profession, has current malpractice insurance, has experience with family court, and has special training and experience in his/her area of specialty.

Mental Health Practitioners serve in several capacities to assist a process where all voices are heard.

As a COACH a practitioner works only during the divorce and will:

• Identify with each divorcing partner issues both individually and within the marital relationship that may lead to barriers to the collaborative process
• Provide support and for each divorcing partner to facilitate solid participation in the process with attorneys, financial consultants and each other
• Provide support and information to other professional team members in the collaborative process around relevant mental health issues that may create barriers to that process
• Identify strengths and weaknesses in communication styles among participating parties, and if needed, teach more effective skills

As a SPECIALIST, a practitioner works only during the divorce and provides specific input in areas of disability determination, chemical dependency evaluation, psychiatric evaluation, psychological assessment, evaluation of child(ren)s needs, etc. All specialists share the following role:

• Help collaborative team mediate discrepancies in plans between parents
• Identify issues that may be barring this process so that coach(es) can assist their clients working through them
• Provide specific evaluations to help further the divorce process and recommend treatment as needed

In addition, a CHILD SPECIALIST is a practitioner who has special knowledge and expertise in working with children and will:

• Assess the child(ren)s emotional adjustment and emotional needs
• Provide parent education on the current and potential impact of divorce on their child(ren), including the need for connection with both parents
• Help parents develop skills to co-parent to the degree possible
• Identify initial aims of each parent around their ideas for living arrangements of their child(ren)
• Provide education and feedback to parents about their approach to and expectations for their child(ren)s reactions to divorce given developmental levels, nature and history of parental conflict, existing relationships between each parent and child(ren)
• Help parents develop appropriate and feasible structure for general living arrangements, vacations, right of first refusal, etc.

A practitioner in a SUPPORTING role is involved with one or both divorcing partners, child(ren), and/or the family in an on-going way, during and after the divorce. A practitioner may be involved by referral for on-going therapy for an individual or family to address specific therapeutic needs identified during the collaborative process.

SOURCE: Kentucky Collaborative Family Network

Collaborative Practice Benefits Children

Other than perhaps the death of a parent, divorce is often the single most traumatic event in a child's life. In America 60% of all marriages end in divorce and a third of those divorces involve bitter conflict. One million children in our country are involved in divorce each year. These children are twice as likely as children from intact homes to develop behavior problems, psychiatric illness and addictions. Children of divorce are 50% more likely to divorce than children from intact homes, perpetuating the cycle and driving statistics up each year.

As typically practiced in America, divorce rips asunder the very foundation of a child's world. It shatters the family structure, destroys communication between the parents, and irrevocably changes the child's relationship with each parent. Children suffer not only their own fears and misery over the loss of the family but, too often, are used as pawns by one parent to hurt the other. Out of anger or emotional need, one parent may seek to monopolize the child's time and affection to the exclusion of the other parent. There are no winners in a divorce. Everyone loses, but the children lose most of all.

Divorce professionals and researchers alike have concluded that how a couple conducts themselves during a divorce has far greater impact on their children than the separation itself. Weary of acrimonious divorce battles that dragged on in court and the expense and emotional damage they cause, attorneys and clients sought a more constructive way of divorcing. The sad reality is that divorce involves far too many complex personal and family issues to be adequately addressed and appropriately resolved by an already overwhelmed judiciary. People wanted to maintain control over their lives, not have decisions that would have such a major impact on their future dictated by an uninvested third party through the courts.

Collaborative Practice (also called Collaborative Law and Collaborative Divorce) became the answer. Founded in 1990 by Minnesota attorney Stuart G. Webb, collaborative practice focuses on the fact that divorce is not just a painful ending but can also be a new beginning. Stressing cooperation over confrontation and resolution over revenge, collaborative divorce is quickly transforming how couples dissolve their marriages, divide their assets, and reinvent their post-divorce parenting relationships. "Collaborative practice promotes respect, places the needs of the children first and keeps control of the process with the spouses," explains the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP) website (www.CollaborativePractice.com).

An alternative to traditional litigious divorce and child custody proceedings, collaborative law is a commitment to a principled, negotiated settlement that focuses on client empowerment. It harnesses the problem-solving skills of both attorneys and their clients to arrive at creative settlements that address the needs of each parent and their children without the threat or use of court action. The collaborative law method provides the tools, resources, and professional assistance in a specialized and structured framework to achieve effective outcomes for families in transition. Interest in collaborative law is growing and is now practiced in the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Switzerland.

Customizing your divorce through collaboration instead of fighting in court

KDKA reports on the benefits of collaborative divorce and the growing number of couples seeking divorce with dignity.

Sonni Abatta reports (excerpt):
It’s divorce without the judge.

The collaborative divorce takes that third party out of the process and keeps control strictly in the hands of the couple.
****
Many more divorcing couples are discovering this option as they look for peaceful and sometimes quicker ways to divorce.

“It’s basically self directed,” said collaborative lawyer Jackie Stevens. “The attorneys sit there as advisers. That’s their sole purpose.”
****
Tailoring their finances to their exact preferences is one benefit of going the collaborative way.
****
There are some things to keep in mind if you’re considering divorcing collaboratively:
1. If you can’t hash it out in collaboration, you’ll be sent back to court to litigate with a judge.
2. Hourly billing: It’s the same as if you were in court. But since you determine the pace of your case, theoretically, cost savings can be a reality.
3. The process works best for amicable couples.

SOURCE FOR POST: Domestic Diversions Blog

How Collaborative Practice Benefits Children

Other than perhaps the death of a parent, divorce is often the single most traumatic event in a child's life. In America 60% of all marriages end in divorce and a third of those divorces involve bitter conflict. One million children in our country are involved in divorce each year. These children are twice as likely as children from intact homes to develop behavior problems, psychiatric illness and addictions. Children of divorce are 50% more likely to divorce than children from intact homes, perpetuating the cycle and driving statistics up each year.

As typically practiced in America, divorce rips asunder the very foundation of a child's world. It shatters the family structure, destroys communication between the parents, and irrevocably changes the child's relationship with each parent. Children suffer not only their own fears and misery over the loss of the family but, too often, are used as pawns by one parent to hurt the other. Out of anger or emotional need, one parent may seek to monopolize the child's time and affection to the exclusion of the other parent. There are no winners in a divorce. Everyone loses, but the children lose most of all.

Divorce professionals and researchers alike have concluded that how a couple conducts themselves during a divorce has far greater impact on their children than the separation itself. Weary of acrimonious divorce battles that dragged on in court and the expense and emotional damage they cause, attorneys and clients sought a more constructive way of divorcing. The sad reality is that divorce involves far too many complex personal and family issues to be adequately addressed and appropriately resolved by an already overwhelmed judiciary. People wanted to maintain control over their lives, not have decisions that would have such a major impact on their future dictated by an uninvested third party through the courts.

Collaborative Practice (also called Collaborative Law and Collaborative Divorce) became the answer. Founded in 1990 by Minnesota attorney Stuart G. Webb, collaborative practice focuses on the fact that divorce is not just a painful ending but can also be a new beginning. Stressing cooperation over confrontation and resolution over revenge, collaborative divorce is quickly transforming how couples dissolve their marriages, divide their assets, and reinvent their post-divorce parenting relationships. "Collaborative practice promotes respect, places the needs of the children first and keeps control of the process with the spouses," explains the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP) website (www.CollaborativePractice.com).

An alternative to traditional litigious divorce and child custody proceedings, collaborative law is a commitment to a principled, negotiated settlement that focuses on client empowerment. It harnesses the problem-solving skills of both attorneys and their clients to arrive at creative settlements that address the needs of each parent and their children without the threat or use of court action. The collaborative law method provides the tools, resources, and professional assistance in a specialized and structured framework to achieve effective outcomes for families in transition. Interest in collaborative law is growing and is now practiced in the U.S., Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Switzerland.

What is Collaborative Divorce?

As defined by the IACP: "Collaborative Law, Collaborative Process, and Collaborative Divorce are terms often used interchangeably. However, they are all components of Collaborative Practice, which has these key elements:

1. the voluntary and free exchange of information,
2. the pledge not to litigate and the withdrawal of both attorneys - and in most cases all of the other professionals on the team - should either party initiate litigation in spite of this pledge, and
3. the commitment to resolutions that respect the parties' shared goals.

"Collaborative Law describes the legal component of Collaborative Practice, made up of the parties and their attorneys. Collaborative Process means the key elements of the process itself."

Collaborative divorce (From Wikipedia)

Overview and History

Collaborative law

(also called collaborative practice, collaborative divorce, and collaborative family law) was originally a divorce procedure in which the two parties agreed that they would not go to court, or threaten to do so. It has expanded significantly since then. This approach to conflict resolution was created in 1990 by a Minnesota family lawyer named Stu Webb, who saw that traditional litigation was not always helpful to parties and their families, and often was damaging. Since 1990, the collaborative law movement has spread rapidly to most of the United States, Europe, Canada and Australia. Per the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, more than 10,000 lawyers have been trained in collaborative law in the United States, with collaborative practitioners in at least 46 states. In some localities, collaborative law has become the predominant method for resolving divorces.

In a collaborative divorce, the parties strive to reach a fair settlement through a series of meetings (sometimes called joint sessions) between the two parties and their lawyers, and sometimes other neutral experts. The primary focus of the four-way meetings or joint sessions is to identify the priorities, goals, needs and interests of the parties, and help them progress towards and create a settlement that is consistent with their priorities, goals, needs, and interests. The parties make their own decisions based on their own standards. Some have critiqued this aspect of collaborative law (and mediation), believing that court processes are better suited towards protecting rights than voluntary dispute resolution processes.

There is a parallel between collaborative law and mediation, in that both are facilitative processes. However, in collaborative law, the parties are fully informed about the law and the consequences of various options, and their advocates facilitate the negotiations. In mediation, the mediator is a neutral third party who doesn't represent or advise either side. A comparison chart between collaborative law and litigation is available here: [1].

Participation Agreement

The key document in a collaborative case is the participation agreement. It is a contract signed by the participants, which sets forth the rules for the process. The parties and lawyers agree that:

The lawyers will not litigate the case. If the process fails, and litigation is the only recourse, the original attorneys must withdraw and the parties must retain new lawyers (the "disqualification" provision);

Neither party will take advantage of mistakes by the other side;

The parties will freely disclose all pertinent information and will not hide any material facts;

What is said in the settlement meetings remains confidential;

All experts will be neutral, and hired jointly by both parties; and

Everyone will behave courteously and in good faith.

The disqualification provision is a key element to a collaborative case. It ensures that the lawyers' interests are aligned with the clients' interests of reaching settlement by eliminating any incentive to take the case to trial. It also ensures that clients and lawyers work more diligently towards a negotiated resolution, because there is a relatively high cost to ending the process prematurely. Collaborative law practitioners believe that when court is no longer a good option, non-court methods of reaching settlement are more likely to be pursued. Additionally, when court is not an option, it is believed that many collaborative law attorneys will retool to learn the additional skills that may be needed to resolve disputes without resorting to a third party decision maker.

Some lawyers who are not trained in the collaborative process believe that the disqualification clause is an unnecessary disadvantage, because all parties are required to appoint new lawyers if the collaborative process ends without settlement.

Collaborative Law in Georgia: Child Specialists, Coaches and the Development of the Parenting Plan

Around the country and indeed the world the Collaborative Divorce process embraces many different  approaches.  In some areas of the country an attorney alone comprises the “team.”  In many others, the prevailing model calls for a full team: two attorneys, two coaches, one financial neutral and one child specialist.  In most of Georgia the goal is to utilize such a “full team.”  But one  area of creative difference between and among Georgia collaborative professionals has to do with the respective roles of the child specialist and the coaches in the preparation of the parenting plan.

The model that the authors subscribe to assigns unique roles to the child specialist and the coaches.  Specifically, the child specialist evaluates the children’s functioning and needs in the context of the pending divorce.  In addition, the child specialist assists the children in developing coping strategies as well as making sure their voices are heard where decisions affecting them are made.  Once the child specialist has completed the initial evaluations, and often after a follow-up or two, he or she meets with the parents and the coaches to discuss the findings and to articulate the child’s special needs, desires, emotional status, etc.  This allows the parents to hear what the children need and want  while simultaneously allowing the coaches to hear the same information. This process fosters a much fuller understanding of that information.  It is then for the coaches to reinforce what the child specialist has said since they have heard exactly the same information as the clients. 

In this model the coaches work with the clients to develop the parenting plan taking into consideration the feedback from the child specialist.  We think it is essential that the coaches develop the parenting plan, since they have a detailed understanding of the family system and the minutia of the clients’ lives. Having the child specialist craft the parenting plan might appear appropriate from the children’s points of view but may not be capable of implementation unless it also works with the parents’ work and travel schedules, availability for transportation, etc.  The coaches, on the other hand are perfectly situated to incorporate the feedback from the child specialist, together with all of the other information they have about the lifestyles of the two parents.  It is the coaches’ responsibility to find the proper fit between the best interests of the children and those of the parents.

This model also allows the child specialist to continue working with the children on their adjustment to the divorce without getting caught up in the parents’ struggles.  The child specialist stays focused on the special needs of those members of the divorcing family who might otherwise not be able to make themselves heard. 

The coaches can maintain their focus on the details of the parenting plan and work with each of the parents on the issues, conflicts and struggles that often emerge when couples talk about final decision making, conflict resolution, schedules, and areas of parental responsibility, etc.  Working directly with the parents, coaches are in the best position to exert positive influences on them to come up with a detailed, well-crafted parenting plan – now legally required under this year’s HB 369 as of January 1, 2008– that will be realistic and work in the real world.

After all, the wording of a parenting plan may look great, but if it can’t be implemented over the long haul it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

SOURCE: Howard Drutman, Ph.D. & Marsha Schechtman, LCSW of Atlanta North Psychotherapy Center

Around the country and indeed the world the Collaborative Divorce process embraces many different  approaches.  In some areas of the country an attorney alone comprises the “team.”  In many others, the prevailing model calls for a full team: two attorneys, two coaches, one financial neutral and one child specialist.  In most of Georgia the goal is to utilize such a “full team.”  But one  area of creative difference between and among Georgia collaborative professionals has to do with the respective roles of the child specialist and the coaches in the preparation of the parenting plan.

The model that the authors subscribe to assigns unique roles to the child specialist and the coaches.  Specifically, the child specialist evaluates the children’s functioning and needs in the context of the pending divorce.  In addition, the child specialist assists the children in developing coping strategies as well as making sure their voices are heard where decisions affecting them are made.  Once the child specialist has completed the initial evaluations, and often after a follow-up or two, he or she meets with the parents and the coaches to discuss the findings and to articulate the child’s special needs, desires, emotional status, etc.  This allows the parents to hear what the children need and want  while simultaneously allowing the coaches to hear the same information. This process fosters a much fuller understanding of that information.  It is then for the coaches to reinforce what the child specialist has said since they have heard exactly the same information as the clients. 

In this model the coaches work with the clients to develop the parenting plan taking into consideration the feedback from the child specialist.  We think it is essential that the coaches develop the parenting plan, since they have a detailed understanding of the family system and the minutia of the clients’ lives. Having the child specialist craft the parenting plan might appear appropriate from the children’s points of view but may not be capable of implementation unless it also works with the parents’ work and travel schedules, availability for transportation, etc.  The coaches, on the other hand are perfectly situated to incorporate the feedback from the child specialist, together with all of the other information they have about the lifestyles of the two parents.  It is the coaches’ responsibility to find the proper fit between the best interests of the children and those of the parents.

This model also allows the child specialist to continue working with the children on their adjustment to the divorce without getting caught up in the parents’ struggles.  The child specialist stays focused on the special needs of those members of the divorcing family who might otherwise not be able to make themselves heard. 

The coaches can maintain their focus on the details of the parenting plan and work with each of the parents on the issues, conflicts and struggles that often emerge when couples talk about final decision making, conflict resolution, schedules, and areas of parental responsibility, etc.  Working directly with the parents, coaches are in the best position to exert positive influences on them to come up with a detailed, well-crafted parenting plan – now legally required under this year’s HB 369 as of January 1, 2008– that will be realistic and work in the real world.

After all, the wording of a parenting plan may look great, but if it can’t be implemented over the long haul it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

SOURCE: Howard Drutman, Ph.D. & Marsha Schechtman, LCSW of Atlanta North Psychotherapy Center

COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE: A Team Approach to Divorce

The following is an article by Pauline H. Tesler about Collaborative Divorce:

Ms. Tesler is an author, a trainer, a specialist in family law certified by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, and a recipient of the first ABA Dispute Resolution Section’s Lawyer as Problem Solver Award.

Psychologist Abraham Maslow said, “If your only tool is a hammer, all problems tend to resemble nails” – a maxim that goes far to explain why the conventional tools and techniques we lawyers have traditionally had available to us for handling divorces so rarely produce satisfied clients.  Many family lawyers initially thought that mediation, which took root in the family law field during the eighties, might bridge the gap between the obvious needs of divorcing families and the poorly-matched tools and resources available to them in court-based legal conflict resolution.  That hope did not bear fruit.  Mediation works well for some, but not all or even most divorcing couples.  As mediator and mediation theorist Bernard Mayer has observed, the strictly neutral role of a mediator does not always serve clients well, because alongside a desire to reach a contained settlement, clients at the same time have a need for support and advocacy that a neutral mediator cannot provide.

In mediation, one neutral conducts the conflict resolution process, with the spouses negotiating directly, face to face.  The mediator, who must maintain neutrality, cannot counsel individual parties or do much to level an unequal bargaining table or to address obstructive or non-constructive participation by a party.  Individual legal counsel may or may not be present during the mediation, but in either case, the lawyers do not participate directly in negotiations. Instead, they advise clients privately about the law, the issues, and the proposed resolutions.  This creates an inherently unstable structure in which the lawyers are not fully aligned with the goal of settlement and, indeed, may advise clients to terminate the mediation process and litigate instead.

Collaborative Divorce Introduced
Collaborative divorce (also called collaborative law, collaborative family law, and collaborative practice) has become highly visible in the field of family law in the United States and Canada since its introduction in the early nineties, and now is spreading rapidly in Europe, in Australia, and in New Zealand.  The remarkable speed of its acceptance among family lawyers can be attributed to the fact that it works toward the same goals that mediation seeks: contained, civilized, constructive, self-determined, interest-based conflict resolution, but without the inherent weaknesses that render mediation difficult for many divorcing couples. 

In contrast to mediation, the negotiations in collaborative divorce take place in direct meetings conducted with clients present and at the forefront, and with collaborative counsel by their sides.  The negotiations are guided and managed by the same two lawyers who provide the legal counsel, advocacy, and support that divorcing clients so often need.  These lawyers are allies and advocates, not neutrals.  Significantly, both lawyers and both clients sign a binding contract that precludes those two collaborative lawyers from ever threatening litigation or taking the matter to court.  If the collaborative process terminates, both collaborative lawyers must bow out and hand the matter over to new litigation counsel. 

The Nuts and Bolts
The nuts and bolts of collaborative law are as follows:

• Each party is represented by a specially trained collaborative lawyer.
• These two collaborative lawyers are bound by the same professional ethical mandates that all lawyers must honor.
• The lawyers are retained pursuant to a “limited purpose retention.”  The sole purpose for which the lawyers are hired is to help their clients reach a reasonable, acceptable settlement of all issues, without litigating or threatening to litigate.
• The clients retain their right to terminate the collaborative divorce process and to take their issues to court, but the collaborative lawyers and other collaborative professionals cannot go with them.                   
• Information is shared fully and freely, on request.  Hence, suspicion and paranoia drop dramatically from what is normally experienced in litigation.

• All negotiations take place directly, face to face, in “fourway” settlement meetings.  The lawyers do not bargain as agents in the absence of their clients.  Interest-based negotiations are the preferred mode, not positional bargaining. 
• In addition to a collaborative lawyer, each party is encouraged to have a divorce coach to help the party constructively articulate emotions and key issues. 
• Instead of being kept in the dark and out of the loop, the clients’ children have a voice as well.  When couples choose a fully-staffed interdisciplinary collaborative divorce team, a neutral child development specialist is included.  This professional listens to the children’s chief concerns and helps the family to address them in a separate meeting with the coaches.
• Finally, a neutral financial consultant helps parties and lawyers gather the financial data, analyzes the family resources, and helps the couple to understand the size of the pie, offering creative solutions for consideration that can be far beyond a court’s power to order.2Plus there are no hidden finances or surprises and as a result many couples under stand their money situation better than before.   Instead of playing the litigation game of “hide the ball,” this consultant ensures that all financial questions are answered and all necessary information is brought to the table so that sound solutions can be devised.  With the financial consultant’s help, many couples do not just reach divorce agreements—they also understand their money situation far better than ever before.
• These professional helpers all work together to help a couple focus  not just on reaching a “quick fix” settlement agreement, but on laying a foundation for optimum communications and problem solving during the period of rapid changes a couple can expect after the legal divorce judgment has been entered.   They remain available as needed to help couples adjust their parenting plans in light of actual experience during the months and even years following entry of judgment.

The following is an article by Pauline H. Tesler about Collaborative Divorce:

Ms. Tesler is an author, a trainer, a specialist in family law certified by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization, a Fellow in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, and a recipient of the first ABA Dispute Resolution Section’s Lawyer as Problem Solver Award.

Psychologist Abraham Maslow said, “If your only tool is a hammer, all problems tend to resemble nails” – a maxim that goes far to explain why the conventional tools and techniques we lawyers have traditionally had available to us for handling divorces so rarely produce satisfied clients.  Many family lawyers initially thought that mediation, which took root in the family law field during the eighties, might bridge the gap between the obvious needs of divorcing families and the poorly-matched tools and resources available to them in court-based legal conflict resolution.  That hope did not bear fruit.  Mediation works well for some, but not all or even most divorcing couples.  As mediator and mediation theorist Bernard Mayer has observed, the strictly neutral role of a mediator does not always serve clients well, because alongside a desire to reach a contained settlement, clients at the same time have a need for support and advocacy that a neutral mediator cannot provide.

In mediation, one neutral conducts the conflict resolution process, with the spouses negotiating directly, face to face.  The mediator, who must maintain neutrality, cannot counsel individual parties or do much to level an unequal bargaining table or to address obstructive or non-constructive participation by a party.  Individual legal counsel may or may not be present during the mediation, but in either case, the lawyers do not participate directly in negotiations. Instead, they advise clients privately about the law, the issues, and the proposed resolutions.  This creates an inherently unstable structure in which the lawyers are not fully aligned with the goal of settlement and, indeed, may advise clients to terminate the mediation process and litigate instead.

Collaborative Divorce Introduced
Collaborative divorce (also called collaborative law, collaborative family law, and collaborative practice) has become highly visible in the field of family law in the United States and Canada since its introduction in the early nineties, and now is spreading rapidly in Europe, in Australia, and in New Zealand.  The remarkable speed of its acceptance among family lawyers can be attributed to the fact that it works toward the same goals that mediation seeks: contained, civilized, constructive, self-determined, interest-based conflict resolution, but without the inherent weaknesses that render mediation difficult for many divorcing couples. 

In contrast to mediation, the negotiations in collaborative divorce take place in direct meetings conducted with clients present and at the forefront, and with collaborative counsel by their sides.  The negotiations are guided and managed by the same two lawyers who provide the legal counsel, advocacy, and support that divorcing clients so often need.  These lawyers are allies and advocates, not neutrals.  Significantly, both lawyers and both clients sign a binding contract that precludes those two collaborative lawyers from ever threatening litigation or taking the matter to court.  If the collaborative process terminates, both collaborative lawyers must bow out and hand the matter over to new litigation counsel. 

The Nuts and Bolts
The nuts and bolts of collaborative law are as follows:

• Each party is represented by a specially trained collaborative lawyer.
• These two collaborative lawyers are bound by the same professional ethical mandates that all lawyers must honor.
• The lawyers are retained pursuant to a “limited purpose retention.”  The sole purpose for which the lawyers are hired is to help their clients reach a reasonable, acceptable settlement of all issues, without litigating or threatening to litigate.
• The clients retain their right to terminate the collaborative divorce process and to take their issues to court, but the collaborative lawyers and other collaborative professionals cannot go with them.                   
• Information is shared fully and freely, on request.  Hence, suspicion and paranoia drop dramatically from what is normally experienced in litigation.

• All negotiations take place directly, face to face, in “fourway” settlement meetings.  The lawyers do not bargain as agents in the absence of their clients.  Interest-based negotiations are the preferred mode, not positional bargaining. 
• In addition to a collaborative lawyer, each party is encouraged to have a divorce coach to help the party constructively articulate emotions and key issues. 
• Instead of being kept in the dark and out of the loop, the clients’ children have a voice as well.  When couples choose a fully-staffed interdisciplinary collaborative divorce team, a neutral child development specialist is included.  This professional listens to the children’s chief concerns and helps the family to address them in a separate meeting with the coaches.
• Finally, a neutral financial consultant helps parties and lawyers gather the financial data, analyzes the family resources, and helps the couple to understand the size of the pie, offering creative solutions for consideration that can be far beyond a court’s power to order.2Plus there are no hidden finances or surprises and as a result many couples under stand their money situation better than before.   Instead of playing the litigation game of “hide the ball,” this consultant ensures that all financial questions are answered and all necessary information is brought to the table so that sound solutions can be devised.  With the financial consultant’s help, many couples do not just reach divorce agreements—they also understand their money situation far better than ever before.
• These professional helpers all work together to help a couple focus  not just on reaching a “quick fix” settlement agreement, but on laying a foundation for optimum communications and problem solving during the period of rapid changes a couple can expect after the legal divorce judgment has been entered.   They remain available as needed to help couples adjust their parenting plans in light of actual experience during the months and even years following entry of judgment.

Is the Collaborative Process Right For Me?

Couples whose marriages are in trouble face many difficult decisions, all of which have the potential for serious consequences.

Some of these may be:

·         Is this marriage worth saving?

·         Will the children be harmed?

·         What will be the ramifications of our divorce?

·         How deeply will it alter our life?

You may also feel:

·         Ambivalent about ending the relationship

·         You are the most hurt, misunderstood, damaged, or least powerful person in the relationship

·         Your partner is using the myriad of divorce counter plays as a way to stay married

·         Intimidated by your partner in addressing and resolving complex and difficult issues

·         We would have a great divorce if it weren't for the other party

·         The divorce is your last chance to destroy the other party

SOURCE: Collaborative Law Institute of Georgia

SOURCE FOR POST: Georgia Family Law Blog