Four Basic Divorce Process Options to Consider
The initial choice a prospective client must make after deciding to pursue a divorce is the process that she or he will use to address decision-making related to child custody, property distribution and cashflow (child support, spousal support, temporary alimony and alimony). The four basic family law process options currently available are kitchen table or pro se negotiations, mediation, litigation/arbitration, and collaborative law. There are many variations of each of the foregoing options, but for simplicity each will be considered in its basic form.
July 11, 2017 at 01:43 PM
15 minute read
The initial choice a prospective client must make after deciding to pursue a divorce is the process that she or he will use to address decision-making related to child custody, property distribution and cashflow (child support, spousal support, temporary alimony and alimony). The four basic family law process options currently available are kitchen table or pro se negotiations, mediation, litigation/arbitration, and collaborative law. There are many variations of each of the foregoing options, but for simplicity each will be considered in its basic form.
Prospective clients come to the initial divorce consultation with a variety of questions and goals, most of which focus on gaining a basic understanding of the procedures and law related to the specific issues she or he has identified as most relevant to the circumstances. Often clients are not aware that there are divorce process option choices. It is our responsibility to sufficiently understand the options to enable us to communicate them to the client as a first step in our role as legal counselor.
In the kitchen table process, the unrepresented parties negotiate and resolve the terms of their separation and divorce based on their personal standards of fairness rather than legal rules or guidelines. They may file documents pro se or obtain legal assistance for this limited purpose. Potential benefits of this process include avoidance of costs other than filing fees, maintaining privacy and control over decision-making, and the ability to combine and consider issues which are typically separated in or excluded from the legal system, such as the isolation of child support calculations from property distribution or the practical exclusion of marital misconduct from property distribution or custody. Disadvantages include the high level of interaction between the parties without guidance or safeguards, communication barriers, potential power imbalances and lack of information concerning legal rights or obligations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All$8M Settlement Reached in Wrongful Death, Negligence Suits Against Phila. Foster Agency
4 minute readState Supreme Court Clarifies Special Immigrant Juvenile Practice in Pa.
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250