Collaborative Divorce After 50: Top 5 Reasons

Newtown, PA Patch:

It's never an easy decision to end a marriage. But if you find you've made the tough choice to divorce, it's important to do so collaboratively, rather than go through litigation, especially if you are a Baby Boomer over age 50.

Here are the top five reasons to do so:

Read the whole story: Newtown, PA Patch

Comments

[Laurie Israel]

06:12 PM on 04/17/2011

I have done many collaborative divorces for couples over 50. (I have been doing collaborative divorces in Massachusetts for 11 years.) It is a respectful, clear way to divorce, and it demonstrates good will and fairness. Collaborative divorce is less psychologically impactful and upsetting for the grown children, who tend not to lose respect for a parent if the divorce is done this way. It's one of the biggest motivating factors for people over 50. Collaborative law relies on good faith. So if a party uses it to delay (as in not selling the marital home as described in the comment below), it does not work well. Usually collaborative divorce results in a reasonably timely conclusion (i.e., a settlement). If there is unreasonable dragging of feet, maybe it's time to leave the process and go more conventionally. In the instances where parties or a party opted out (there were a few, though rare), the work gained in the collaborative process made the conventional divorce process more streamlined. I would say collaborative divorce is especially suited for divorces of couples over 50, where the parties generally have complex, intertwined financial and personal lives. Doing the work on separating this out fairly -- and doing it directly in collaborative practice is so much more efficient than using the court process.

[Phoebe917]

06:44 PM on 04/17/2011

when my ex and i divorced 8 yrs ago, we were in our mid forties. the only attorney involved was the one who drew up the papers. my ex was worth a lot of money at the time: we discussed it amongst ourselves, and decided to follow our instincts. neither of us wanted to s c rew the other. we had two children, ages of 11 and 13. our custody agreement was that i had physical custody, but they could visit their father any time they wanted. we wanted them to full access to both of us. the attorney, i hired to draw up the papers says he has never seen such an amicable divorce in his entire career. he actually made me sign a disclaimer because i only wanted half of what i "deserved". it was more than enough for me, as he earned it. he was also very generous on the matter of child support. we still remain friends.

[Nastasia]

07:39 PM on 04/17/2011

Well done. Kudos to you and your ex for being cool-headed and mature about a painful process.

[MaryDamianakis]

01:57 PM on 04/17/2011

All ADR modalities have the potential to offer viable solutions, during this difficult transition period. All of the alternatives to litigation are a positive but perhaps we need to explore how to make permanent changes to our legal system and take families out of family court.
Mary Damianakis

[John Ehrhart]

05:36 PM on 04/16/2011

Alternative dispute resolution, including mediation and collaborative divorce, puts more power in the hands of the parties involved. This can be a double edged sword, particularly in the midst of the emotional upheaval discussed in the article. You are empowered to create a collaborative outcome of your choosing, but you must also take responsibility for that outcome. Directly addressing the capacities for taking fully empowered responsibility for oneself in this process can transform the process, the outcome, and the people involved. Restorative Divorce offers a process that runs prior to or concurrent with mediation, which addresses the harm, to all affected, that has occurred in the relationship and the divorce, and supports the paradigm shift that occurs in the relationship, by marking, in a meaningful way, the capacity building nature of our experiences.
www.restorativedivorce.com

[TonyR62]

09:12 AM on 04/16/2011

A topic that hits a sore spot with me. I spent approximately 3 years trying to get her to agree to a collaborative divorce. Every time (and there were various) I thought we reached a financial agreement, and all the terms were reached, she would refuse to sign the papers. She always had some excuse. I gave up trying. Now that we are separated (living 1,100 miles apart from each other), I feel as though there is only one choice left; file for a contested divorce. Simply, BOTH parties need to reach an agreement early in the process (with or without the use of professionals) and it needs to be documented without games or renegotiating. As it turns out in my case, she confessed not long ago that she stalled all that time to avoid a divorce all together. Now, don't think she did it because she wanted to stay together (which she used to tell me). She did it to avoid having to sell our home and being inconvenienced with respect to having to move. She was way too comfortable in the lifestyle she grew accustomed to and I ended up paying the price. Can anyone say "selfish"? From my own experience, give the process one round of negotiations and reach an agreement that everyone can sign. If not, just go ahead and file a contested case. If you can agree on terms amicably, that is great. If not, act decisively. I now need to.

[shaden3]

09:23 AM on 04/17/2011

The transformative form of divorce mediation may very well have gotten to the core of her concerns, but it's a good thing that you saw the value in attempting to work things through via a less adversarial process. Yes, sometimes people in the collab. process don't want to sign the agreement and this, in itself, is a fine point about the flaws of collaborative divorce. Number one: the professionals are usually not highly-skilled enough to get into the core interests (because all they did was "paradigm shift") and Number two: you then lose your money and attorney because a signed agreement was not reached and litigation was preferred.

Innate flaws in collaborative divorce that make it a heck of a risk.

[divorcementor]

01:29 AM on 04/16/2011

Getting divorced at any age is pretty scary, collaborative divorce practices should be the way to go but I must admit that I tend to agree with shaden3 on this. Collaborative divorce binds the clients to ristrictions that they may want or need to break and then they must start from scratch.
I also have a problem with tthe professionals in a collaborative divorce, especially the coaches walking away when the divorce is finalised or the process falls to bits. Surely this is the time a person going through a divorce needs support.

[David Roman]

03:14 PM on 04/15/2011

Isn't collaborative divorce the way to go (if you are divorcing) regardless of age?

[shaden3]

07:39 PM on 04/15/2011

After years of not only learning about the collaborative divorce process, but also training collaborative divorce professionals in basic mediation skills, I would have to disagree, David.

I'm afraid that there's one issue that is unavoidable, and often played down by collab. practitioners. Should the parties not sign an agreement and wish to litigate, they lose their representation. I can't list every reason why this is a terrible turn of events, but the most disturbing one is that many sign under duress. They've lost their money, and their freedom to take the matter to court. Often the collaborative pros are sorely underskilled and ill-informed in the best practices of mediation, and the reality simply does not match the magical vision these practitioners put out there.

They need to be frank about the great risks before they take on clients, or they need to give people their money back if they wish to litigate.

[taikan]

05:18 PM on 04/20/2011

I don't understand what you mean when you say the parties lose their representation if an attept at pre-filing settlement fails and they end up litigating. Assuming the "collaborative divorce professional" or "mediator" is a neutral, he/she would not have been representing either party. Therefore, ending the attempt at a pre-filing settlement process and switching to litigation should not result in losing that person's "representation."

I also don't understand why you think that a pre-filing settlement is likely to be signed under duress. Anyone who is not satisfied with the outcome of a pre-filing settlement attempt can simply choose to end that process and commence litigation.

[healthychanges1]

02:34 PM on 04/16/2011

Mediation or Collaborative Divorce are by far better options than protracted litigation. As a trained divorce mediator, I have seen couples be able to work out an agreement but I have also seen couples frustrated by the fact that I, as the mediator, could not provide legal advice. When I was a practicing divorce litigator, I saw couples agree in litigation just because of the extreme expense. Collaborative is typically less expensive and provides much needed assistance with regard to the long term impact of financial decisions made in divorce, models appropriate conflict resolution for children and assists people with the emotional impact of divorce.

[shaden3]

04:37 PM on 04/16/2011

There certainly are some benefits to some of the collaborative process. However, my point - and I guess I will reiterate - is that no one's talking about the duress created by the fear of losing your atty and your money if you choose to litigate. It's a flaw that should be discussed in an upfront manner and collab pros should really do some best practices reconsideration on this issue.