Towards a Brighter Tomorrow
By Marni Becker-Avin

More than any other process in the American legal system, Divorce most adversely effects the citizens of the United States.  The family dynamic is swiftly changing by moving away from the traditional nuclear family unit towards the single parent home.  Divorce rates have risen drastically in the last century, and divorce itself has become commonplace in our culture.  The impact of divorce has widespread effects, not only on the individual family unit but on society as well.  Husbands and wives who thought they would spend their lives together, are consumed with hurt, anger, a sense of failure, and confusion.  Children are faced with pain, anger, and guilt as they watch their parents argue, their parents move out, their parents cry, and their only known security crumble.

Divorce issues of property and custody are often proxies for the real emotional conflict and upheaval. The legal profession has been loathe to admit that when it comes to divorce, the lawyers have, too often, been part of the problem rather than part of the solution.  The ethics of the profession, requiring separate representation, has tended to create an adversarial posture in situations that did not need extra help achieving that status.  Now the legal profession may have a tool to reverse that unfortunate history and lead to a more humane approach.

Think of the friendly lawyer working as a quasi- unbiased facilitator helping to resolve the often emotional tug of war that characterizes most dissolutions of marriage.  This is Collaborative Law, an experimental form of law being practiced mainly in California but in some other states as well.  As an alternative to the traditional forms of  dissolving a marriage, litigation and mediation, collaborative law seeks to resolve the dispute with the least amount of antagonism possible. Each lawyer has his or her own client’s interests at heart, yet the main focus of the collaborative law team is to procure an agreement in the best interest of all parties concerned, including the children.  This innovative approach to divorce is geared toward preserving the post-divorce relationship in order to provide the children with a stable growing environment and the spouses with a way to push beyond the emotions so that they can co-exist and better focus on their child. With collaborative law being implemented across the country, we will begin to see better post-divorce relations between the spouses, better mental health and more inner peace for the children of those marriages, and a better, less adversarial, more empathetic legal system.

The Issues That Need to be Resolved in a Divorce
Divorce is not an easy process, technically or emotionally.  It is not something that can be undertaken lightly. It is the ending of one part of life, and the often frightening transition into a second phase of life.  There are memories and emotions to be resolved, property to be divided, alimony to be discussed, and child custody to be determined. The majority of jurisdictions implements the Best Interest of the Child standard when evaluating custody visitation, and support. 

A Critique of the Existing Divorce Court
The divorce process is no longer fault based because legislatures desired to promote amicable settlements and mitigate the harmful effect of divorce on children.  While these purposes were noble, the no-fault system has made divorce easier to obtain. Now all it takes to dissolve a marriage is a claim that the marriage has broken down because of irreconcilable differences.  Instead of promoting amicable post-divorce lives and stability for the children, the no-fault system only serves to promote a larger number of divorces.  Because divorces are easier to obtain, the no-fault divorce system has the effect of further instigating disruption of the already distressed family. 

Litigation as a forum for dissolution of a marriage fosters hostilities, encourages lying and bitterness, exacerbates bad feelings, and further escalates the stress of a life- changing event.  Since court dockets are so lengthy, it can sometimes take years before a case can be resolved. Lawyers can also delay the process by implementing certain tactics (i.e. failing to respond to discovery requests or deliberately concealing assets) in order to achieve a strategic advantage.[1]

Litigation can also be extremely costly, formal, and procedurally daunting.  Because court proceedings are open to the public, there is the potential for private information to embarrass the individual parties.  Most judges are of the old school and tend to favor women in custody issues while discriminating against them in the financial aspects of a divorce.  Modern judicial decisions are often inconsistent. Satisfaction levels of all concerned decline dramatically because judges do not allow the parties to express their feelings or tell their stories.[2] The courts believe family matters are private and are uncomfortable hearing disputants talk about psychological issues.[3]  Collaborative Law recognizes that parties use money as a proxy for more basic needs.  When people are hurt or angry, they would rather have an explanation or apology than money.[4] Litigation does not provide either one.  Client dissatisfaction with the legal process and family lawyers is high, and critics of the existing system deem family law courts as anti-therapeutic.  People go to court to be heard and by suppressing their voice, the judge ensures that the emotional wounds of the parties are slow to heal.  Because the judge has no education in family matters, implements stereotypes in his decision-making, and suppresses voice, litigation produces unfair results which generate more anger.[5] 

Children are also adversely effected by their parents’ choice to pursue litigation as a means to divorce.  Joint custody is preferred in most jurisdictions in an effort to avoid delving into what the courts considers private family matters.  However, when joint custody is awarded to hostile or abusive parents, children become mentally harmed, emotionally devastated, and possibly put in physical danger.  Even if parents are loving, children may become confused with the visitation schedule or change in lifestyle.[6] 

While many people believe adjudication is better for disadvantaged groups because it focuses on asserting rights, women may in fact feel disempowered because of the judge’s application of old stereotypes and prejudices.  Women may be persuaded to accept less money in return for custody because moms tend to believe that anything less than full custody awarded represents failure. With its overloaded docket, impersonal and unpredictable nature, and adversarial focus, litigation can be a traumatic experience.  There are, however, numerous alternatives to consider when attempting to resolve a dispute.

Mediation and its Downside Examined
Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution whereby a third party acts as a facilitator in order to help the parties reach an agreement on their own.  The mediator’s function is simply to keep the conversation on the right track.  In other words, the mediator is there to help the parties understand each other’s viewpoint, let people vent, get the parties to analyze their positions, and act as a conduit for discussion

There are many advantages to mediation, aside from it being a faster and cheaper way of resolving a dispute.  Most notably, because the parties must both agree on the solution and the mediator has no decision-making power, there is more autonomy.[7] The mediator is there solely to act as a neutral to help the parties resole the conflict impartially and find a mutually acceptable agreement.[8]  Therefore, the compliance rate is higher than litigation because the parties feel good about the outcome and want to comply. Also, mediation is better for family oriented disputes because it establishes an atmosphere where the parties work to settle the situation themselves by focusing on interest-based rather than rights-based resolutions.[9]The parties also enjoy a higher satisfaction level because of the participatory value they have received from the mediation process.  Mediation helps to preserve the post-divorce relationship between the parties which may have been destroyed or severely damaged in the litigation arena.[10]  Because the parties are encouraged to problem-solve in a cooperative manner, mediation minimizes the harsh emotions that may be present in litigation.  The parties are the best qualified to make decisions regarding their children, and parties that do not pursue an adversarial divorce are less likely to use their children as pawns during post-divorce relations.[11]

Although mediation humanizes the conflict resolution process by emphasizing compromise and improving psychological states, the process also has some disadvantages.  Many feel that mediation has a negative impact on women because they tend to be more altruistic, more risk adverse, and less in control.[12]  Men, especially those that have been abusive, prefer mediation because it provides an opportunity for them to create a more favorable agreement through intimidation and coercion.  The women in those instances, are more willing to sacrifice money or time with their children in order to more quickly get out of the relationship. While mediators are good at discovering the real issues (not the ones listed), they also tend to encourage these power imbalances. 

The mediator may make sure that both parties understand the deal, but if one party knowingly makes a bad deal, he may not intercede.[13] In mediation, which strives to avoid discussion of blame and principles in order to maximize compromise, the party’s voice has the potential to be suppressed. 

Because unequal bargaining power due to fear or intimidation may cause one party to have a greater emotional need to get out of the marriage, and thus hastily agree to an unfavorable settlement, mediation may not be the best route for family disputes.  Respected Collaborative Divorce expert, Pauline Tesler, eloquently distinguishes mediation from its collaborative law counterpart: “Mediation by a single neutral works well only for a small group of clients who are high-functioning, as well as similarly situated with respect to information base, negotiating skills, and emotional stance towards the divorce and one another.”[14]

Another form of alternative dispute resolution is arbitration, a process whereby a neutral third party listens to all the evidence presented and then imposes a decision on the matter.  While arbitration models mediation in certain respects (i.e.: less costly, fewer formalities, relaxed rules, less combative, etc),[15] there are other advantages as well.  Parties may participate in choosing the decision-maker and establishing the rules that will govern the procedure, which they are unable to do when utilizing litigation.  Arbitrators are usually experts on the subject being disputed, unlike many judges in litigation.  Because of this, the children may be better protected as their best interests will not be ignored.[16]  In contrast to mediation (where private settlements are not automatically binding if there are children involved), the arbitrator’s decision is binding and may not be appealed.  Finally, the decision of the arbitrator is not a matter of  public record, so the party’s private information is kept confidential. The public, however, does not like secrecy. Moreover, the decisions of the arbitrator do not establish precedent.[17] Because the processes of arbitration and mediation are shorter, less expensive, and private/confidential, it causes less trauma to all the parties involved.

The Need For a New Model
By their mid-teens, half of America’s children have experienced the aftermath of a divorce.  Unfortunately for some children divorce represents fewer educational opportunities, worse health, economic deprivation, worse psychological trauma, and more long-term dysfunction.[18]  Parents are also experiencing the emotional consequences that such a life-change brings.  They become depressed, anxiety-ridden, bitter, and their self-esteem may drop because of the belief that they were a failure at the most important aspect of their lives.  Because of all of these conflicting emotions, parents may not be mentally available for their children at a time when their children need them the most.[19] An adversarial approach to divorce, with techniques designed to mislead the opponent, is not conducive to meeting the underlying interests of all the parties.[20]  In order to fully consider the well-being of all concerned, strategies must be produced for promoting disclosure.[21] Family law has the potential to become a therapeutic agent for the family members who are already going through a traumatic experience.

Parties should be in control of their post-divorce lives, as they are to be the ones effected by the various decisions that accompany a divorce decree. While mediation and arbitration are good alternatives, they each have their disadvantages as previously mentioned.  Mediation has the effect of incidental psychological catharsis, but it is not the point of the interaction.  If two people could not come to an agreement but realized personal growth, then counseling was a success but mediation a failure.  There are negative effects that will attach to both parties if they are unable to interact cordially.  For example, emotions such as fear, anger, denial, guilt, spite, loneliness, and sadness have the potential to spill over into other relationships and create conflict in other areas of life.[22]  Because of this, a legal process is required that would be perceived as just and provide a therapeutic effect for the individual family members as well.

The new legal process would have to inspire compliance by allowing participants adequate voice, providing decision-makers with respected authority, preserving the relationship and reducing hostilities, treating disputants with respect, and displaying empathy.[23] In order to achieve this high demand, lawyers must be selective in who they accept as clients.  They must choose clients who are prepared to focus on the best interest of the children and all concerned rather than being vindictive towards their spouse.[24] The attorney-client relationship should be collaborative and based on mutual respect.  Attorneys should clean up their own backyard (i.e. deal with their own internal issues) and practice techniques such as active listening before attempting to help clients deal with their traumatic life experiences.[25] 

Also, the attorneys should be psychologically minded to help clients deal with those aspects of the divorce involving depression, anxiety, and anger.[26]  This can easily be accomplished by showing empathy for a client’s plight. Empathy can be expressed through validation, understanding, listening, sympathy, support, and genuineness.[27]   The attorneys should focus on a resolution of the marital dispute that will promote healing (a therapeutic jurisprudence goal).  Lastly, the attorneys should aim towards preventing future conflict between the parties in regard to the many issues that will inevitably arise post-divorce (i.e. child’s college education).  A judge or mediator would be hard-pressed to provide all of these requirements to the various parties involved in a divorce dispute………..but collaborative law can and does.

What Exactly is Collaborative Divorce?
Collaborative Divorce is a therapeutic way to approach one of the most stressful  periods in a person’s life.  It is a non-adversarial process in which various professionals work together in order to achieve a settlement in the best interest of the family.  This multi-disciplinary team, made up of both parties, their attorneys, divorce therapists, financial advisors, and child therapists, works together with the goal of minimizing the emotional and economic upheaval that is traditionally a product of divorce.  The parties come to the discussion on equal footing and are encouraged to interact civilly and honestly with one another.  They learn how to relate to one another in a calm productive manner.

Because adversarial mentality hurts everybody involved and worsens an already damaged relationship, Pauline Tesler, a pioneer in the collaborative divorce movement, devised a system whereby all involved make a formal commitment to take reasoned positions and engage in good faith negotiations. The goal of the process is to have no winners or losers, design a settlement that addresses the legitimate needs of each family member, and preserve the post-divorce relationship. 

In Collaborative Divorce each side retains an attorney to advocate for their best interests.[28]  This reduces the risk of an unfair or biased agreement and provides the parties with the much needed legal and emotional support.  The attorneys are instructed, however, that they must advocate for their client in a non-adversarial manner.  Attorneys are to help parties engage in creative problem-solving in an atmosphere of honesty, cooperation, and integrity.  In contrast, judges in a litigation proceeding do not have the time or knowledge to tailor creative solutions for complex family problems.[29]  The attorneys engaged in collaborative law should be geared toward the common goal of minimizing the negative social, economic, and emotional consequences of divorce.[30] 

First, the parties and the attorneys representing them must realize that using the threat of court as a tool in negotiation is strictly forbidden.[31] There are to be no hard line positions, only compromise focused on the underlying issues. If the spouses or the attorneys insist upon implementing adversarial strategies such as threatening litigation, hiding assets, or using children as pawns, then the process comes to an abrupt end. Attorneys are instructed not to take orders from their clients when they are in a “shadow state” (i.e. vindictive, depressed, angry, hurt, etc) because the perspective is on the entire family rather than a one-sided battlefield.[32] Therefore, they will both withdraw from representing their clients in the event that the clients decide to pursue litigation or an adversarial approach to settling the dispute.[33] This retainer provision serves the function of reminding the parties of their commitment to work together in order to structure an agreement that is in everyone’s best interest.  Otherwise, the parties recognize that they will be forced to start all over again with new attorneys, delayed in resolving the matter, and end up with more substantial costs.

The expectations of the collaborative divorce process are realistic and must be made clear to the parties.  This is not where parties come if they are attempting to save their marriage, but rather a place where differences can be resolved and families can separate with the least amount of emotional stress possible.  Towards these ends, each person involved in the process will make a concerted effort to quickly reach amicable solutions that promote the family needs, insulate children from the dispute, and consider the children’s best interest.[34]   Because both sides unite as a team and are not in opposition to one another, collaborative divorce consists of a series of informal discussions where both sides pledge not to take advantage of any inadvertent mistakes of others but shall instead identify and correct them.[35] 

Each party first meets individually with the various experts to delve into their emotions and learn how to come to terms with them, plan a realistic financial budget, and learn how to help their children.  Afterwards, all the parties and the experts work together towards a solution.  They make an effort to dispute in a positive manner so as not to escalate their differences, exchange freely all information so as to promote full disclosure and honesty, and communicate in a manner that will best meet the needs of their child during his post-divorce life.[36] The emotional aspect of divorce must be addressed before the legal and financial issues because divorce occurs at a time when emotions are strong and complex, and these life-altering decisions should not be impeded by negative emotions.  Children are frequently treated as pawns or property in the divorce arena, and therefore, the children must be evaluated by a professional in order to better assess and treat their damaged psyche.[37]  Counseling provides a safe place to discuss disagreements, gives children an opportunity to ask questions and discuss concerns, and assists parents in learning responsible parenting techniques.[38]  In order to produce an agreement tailor-made to the family’s unique needs and create a less stressful post-divorce family life, the clients must be determined to behave in an ethical manner and dedicate their energy toward an amicable, just settlement that would promote their child’s well-being and healthy mental state.

Everyone involved in the process agrees in advance to pursue a settlement that would meet the main objectives of both parties and which is in the best interest of the post-divorce family.  Both spouses and their attorneys sign agreements to follow the collaborative law guidelines.  An attorney from a firm other than one that specializes in collaborative law may be retained as long as he signs the agreement and is committed conducting a process devoid of game-playing or adversarial tactics.  Everyone involved the collaborative divorce process is a team working together towards a common goal.

The Experts
In order to reach an acceptable agreement that is compatible with both party’s goals, the parties must come to the table with the ability to cope with feelings, prioritize needs, communicate effectively, and consider the needs of their children. The collaborative team of experts can best help the client’s achieve these skills.  The divorce counselors are there to assist clients in realizing and understanding their feelings, clarifying needs, and learning effective communication techniques.  The financial advisor helps the parties determine the division of property and money by organizing their portfolio and budgeting.  The child therapist provides a safe forum for children to discuss concerns about the changes occurring in their family unit.  The child therapist also meets with the parents in order to discuss the child’s needs and concerns and learn how best to address them.

The parties must first sort through all the conflicting emotions before they can focus on the financial or custodial aspects of a divorce.  The spouses each meet with a counselor of the same sex to learn conflict resolution skills.[39] Then the couple meets with their counselors in order to discuss feelings and work towards learning how to avoid pushing each other’s buttons.[40] 

In order to relieve stress so that the parties may better focus on long-term plans, the financial consultants must first take care of the short-term concerns (i.e. there is enough money to live on during the divorce).  Long-term financial plans are discussed later. Other experts involved with the collaborative divorce process who are concerned with the financial aspects of the breakup include a CPA to help with tax issues,   an insurance consultant to plan for various post-divorce coverage, an appraiser to determine the fair value of real estate or other assets, and a vocational consultant to help generate career alternatives for a spouse that has been out of the workforce.[41]  Long term financial plans also constitute helping to devise ground rules for anticipating and making future financial decisions about the children (i.e. college).[42]

Children need someone trusting, other than their parents, to talk to during the divorce process.  The counselor provides a safe place for the child to tell his story, discuss his worries, gather information, and ask questions.  Unlike litigation, collaborative divorce consults a child regarding his preferences in the custodial parent.  Because of the long-lasting effects that divorce can have on a child’s psyche, it is very important to provide the child with the opportunity to express his feelings.  The child needs to feel that his or her point of view about the potential changes on the horizon will be heard and validated.[43]  Children experience many emotions during the splitting up of their family unit ranging from guilt and anger to confusion and depression.  Most children want to know what to expect, whom they can count on, and how they can keep connections to both parents without betraying the other.[44] Parents continue to have a common interest in the well-being of their children after a divorce; therefore, they must strive to work together post-divorce in a collaborative fashion for the sake of the children.[45] 

After each person in the family has met with their therapists individually, the entire family meets with all of the therapists in order to best address everyone’s underlying needs.  Because the therapists have already provided the clients with the necessary skills and insight, they are essentially just there to ensure each member receives support to better communicate and be heard by the other family members.[46]  These experts help the parties produce an agreement better tailored to their unique needs by engaging in a less stressful method of resolving divorce.

Advantages of Collaborative Divorce
It is common knowledge that the claims made in court pleadings are not the real issues concerning and upsetting the parties.  Attorneys should have sympathy for clients’ emotions and recognize that legal problems are really secret hopes, fears, prejudices, and beliefs.[47] By respecting client autonomy, acknowledging the client’s feelings, and building a rapport through empathy, the attorney-client relationship can become mutually respectful and collaborative.[48] Parties are more satisfied with the outcome of a dispute (even if they lost) when they feel they have been listened to, validated (taken seriously), respected, and given a forum to express their voice.[49]  

In order to achieve this desired therapeutic effect, attorneys must first begin by spending more than seven minutes with each client and allowing them to tell their story.[50]  Attorneys can be an instrument in the client’s healing process by refraining from interrupting, condescending to, judging, or acting superior to the clients.[51]  By implementing techniques such as active listening, seeing the world through the client’s eyes, and sharing some personal experiences of his own, the attorney will be better able to connect with the client and create a trusting atmosphere.[52]

Attorneys can easily provide clients with some compassion by showing them respect.  Compassion itself has healing power.[53]  Clients feel respected when the attorneys promptly return their phone calls, take the time to really talk to each client to find out who they are as an individual, are available to answer any questions the client may have, explain things in a simple language, make the person feel a part of the process, and are honest and forthright with the client.[54]  Most importantly, lawyers should be less concerned with winning and more concerned with their client’s mental state.  Lawyers should focus on preventing the dispute in the first place, avoiding litigation, and reducing costs and delay in order to maximize the client’s ability to heal.[55] By making an effort to avoid litigation, the lawyer is consciously reducing the stress level on the children involved.  The attorney must recognize that emotions are heightened during a divorce process, and he must encourage the clients not to use threats, not to use the children as pawns, not to argue in front of the children, and not to refuse to exchange information.[56]  This can be accomplished by focusing on the child’s best interest and refusing to accept clients who are determined to be selfishly vindictive towards their spouse.[57]  The collaborative divorce process addresses and implements all of these practices in its effort to provide the family with a way to separate with the least amount of negative consequences and emotions.

Concerns and Critiques about the Collaborative Law Practice
The agreements made between the parties concerning the financial and custodial aspects of their post-divorce lives are essentially settlements drawn up by the knowledgeable attorneys.  This begs the question: Are these life-changing contractual provisions binding?  Presumably the negotiated contracts must become court orders, signed by a judge in a court of law.  As in litigation and mediation, compliance depends largely upon court enforcement.  Since judges do not have the time to check every settlement put before them to make sure it is equitable, no agreement has yet been rejected.  However, that is not to say that it cannot one day happen. 

Another pertinent consideration is whether there are sufficient provisions in the contract to ensure enforcement.  Also, if one party chooses not to comply with any aspect of the contract, would there be a penalty?  For example, husband and wife agree in a collaborative divorce proceeding that he will pay five hundred dollars a month for the child’s care and maintenance.  In return the mother agrees to a liberal visitation schedule.  Assuming that the father becomes what is commonly called a “deadbeat dad,” is there or could there be any type of binding protection for the child in those circumstances?  Similarly, a custody decision can be modified in a court of law if there is a substantial change in circumstances or it can be shown that there is some prospective harm to the child.  Circumstances to consider may include:  remarriage of custodial parent, trouble (abuse) in the new household, or relocation of custodial parent, among other things.  This brings to mind the question: can a collaborative divorce settlement also lend itself to custody modification?  Presumably, modification would be possible since one spouse can always petition the court citing changed circumstances as a ground for revisiting the settlement. 

Also, both parties are supposed to split the costs of all the experts.  As previously mentioned, there are attorneys, divorce therapists, financial consultants, and child therapists, and all of them need to be compensated for their services.  In an ideal world this would not pose a problem as it seems the most equitable solution would be to divide the costs down the middle.  However, there is a stark reality in this type of situation, and that is the extensive cost charged by each of the experts for their time and advice.  If the cost of the experts are so astronomical, will only the wealthy be able to afford the process? 

Traditional divorce is an expensive process, and indigent spouses may not be able to afford anything other than a non-contested settlement.  However, the process  of collaborative divorce boasts of resolving divorce with the least amount of stress with the intentions of serving the best interests of each party and preserving the post divorce relationship. If the impoverished can not afford the experts, then isn’t the process lending itself to accomplishing exactly that which it strives to condemn?

Other ethical dilemmas occur in the practice of collaborative law as well.  For example, who is it that decides exactly what is in the client’s best interests?  Is it the attorneys, the expert therapists, or the clients themselves?  Is money the true objective or is it a better post-divorce relationship?  And, finally, what would the model rules of professional responsibility have to say about the area of collaborative law? 

The clients are the ones who decide what is and is not in their best interests.  Presumably, the attorney’s function is to make sure the settlement is just and legally binding, attempt to preserve the post-divorce relationship by untangling emotions through therapy,  help minimize conflict through unfettered communication, and protect the needs of the children through compassion.     This may be easier said than done considering that prospective attorneys undergo little, if any, special skills training in law school.  Most law schools still focus on an adversarial paradigm for dispute resolution.[58] The curriculum is centered around what is known as the gladiator mentality, where the courtroom is treated as a battlefield, representation is too zealous, ethics are pushed aside in an effort to win, and competitiveness, not empathy,  is the most valued trait.[59]  Not only should law students be provided extensive training in interest-based bargaining and deskside manner, but they should also be required to look within and do some personal “inner work” (i.e. come to terms with their own issues) before attempting to counsel their clients.[60]

Even if the attorneys are skilled in the arts of deskside manner and legalese, and even if they can efficiently apply both to the area of collaborative law, there still remains the possibility of conflict of interests   The lawyer must advise the client on the law, be a non-adversarial advocate for the client, and make an effort to create an agreement that has considered and addressed every family member’s best interests.  However, when the attorney feels that the process has produced a settlement that is not in the best interest of his client, he is presumably free to so advise his client which, understandably, may include advice to pursue litigation.  Yet there is a stipulation that attorneys participating in the collaborative divorce process must sign which states that if the clients at any time decide to resort to litigation, all participating attorneys must withdraw from representation.  While the implications of this rule (i.e. the high cost of starting over) may persuade the parties to continue with the collaborative law process in good faith, the rule may also have the effect of creating a conflict of interest for the attorney.  The stipulation may create a financial disincentive for attorneys to suggest their clients resort to litigation, even if that is what is in their client’s best interests

All of the aforementioned critiques of the collaborative divorce process must be seriously taken into consideration during the evolution and application of this new field of law; however, the advantages of a therapeutically-oriented approach to divorce clearly outweigh any potential ramifications that may be attributed to the process.

Conclusion
More than any other process in the American legal system, Divorce is the legal proceeding that is most pervasive and commonplace in our society.  Divorce can fragment a family, damage a child’s psyche by making him feel as though he is caught in the middle of his parent’s hostilities, and become a costly, ugly battle.  An adversarial approach towards dissolution of a marriage can exacerbate an already painful situation for all concerned.

The collaborative divorce team consists of many professionals working together in a non-combative manner toward a shared purpose of devising a win-win solution.  The clients and their attorneys, in conjunction with a divorce therapist, financial advisor, and child therapist, all strive to meet the underlying needs and concerns of each family member, prevent unnecessary escalation of conflict, and maintain the emotional and financial health of the individual family members. Because of the high emotions, attorneys are careful to keep the clients informed so as to help them make good decisions, allow the clients to tell their story so as not to suppress their voice, and empower the client through validation and choice so as to help them feel in control of their own lives. Clients utilizing collaborative divorce as a means to end their marriage first meet with the individual attorneys and then meet in a four-way meeting to develop solutions acceptable to both parties.  Although this is a non-adversarial approach in which all information is automatically disclosed, the attorneys still represent their client’s interest to the fullest.  Disagreements are respectfully explored with help from professionals who have expertise in developing creative solutions.  The attorneys clearly explain the law and its ramifications to the clients in order to assist them in evaluating the various options at there disposal. Collaborative law is a confidential,  innovative approach to divorce that allows the client to be in control of his/her life.  Clients that choose to pursue divorce in a collaborative manner realize that children should not have to choose between their parents.  During a period of extreme tension and heartache, Collaborative Divorce preserves and protects valued connections between the spouses and their children in post-divorce life.