Collaborative Divorce: A Tool to Help Couples Plan for Their Future ... Apart
What if couples similarly planned how to go their separate ways? It's not commonplace for quarreling spouses to put painful feelings aside and work as a team. However, collaborative divorce shows that spouses (and their children) can immensely benefit from jointly making decisions impacting the future of the family, even when the future entails separate households.
October 11, 2018 at 01:36 PM
4 minute read
Weddings are big business. Industries engaged in helping a couple orchestrate a blissful big day to kick off their union generate billions in revenue each year. It's customary for couples to plan together to create their dream wedding, hopefully followed by a fantastic honeymoon and happily ever after.
What if couples similarly planned how to go their separate ways? It's not commonplace for quarreling spouses to put painful feelings aside and work as a team. However, collaborative divorce shows that spouses (and their children) can immensely benefit from jointly making decisions impacting the future of the family, even when the future entails separate households.
Though it's rather quietly been around for a long time without much fanfare, collaborative divorce is currently one of the biggest trends in family law together with other alternative dispute options. This summer, the Pennsylvania Collaborative Law Act was signed into law, creating a uniform standard of practice in Pennsylvania for collaborative divorces for the first time and lending an extra measure of legal clout to a process that has long been well-regarded in the legal community.
How can collaborative divorce help a couple map out an uncertain future? Some key elements addressed in the Pennsylvania Collaborative Law Act include:
- Each spouse is represented by an attorney and enters into a participation agreement with the goal of resolving all issues pertaining to the divorce without going to court.
- Attorneys and other professionals involved in the collaborative process undergo rigorous training, learning to diffuse conflict and foster a respectful environment that promotes open communication. In my firm, we've actually encouraged our attorneys to be collaboratively trained irrespective of their intention to handle collaborative cases because the skills learned in collaborative training are incredibly valuable and enhance our work in our cases generally.
- The parties, their attorneys and a collaborative coach meet to address all elements of the divorce, including custody, support and the division of property.
- Frequently the parties engage the assistance of other collaboratively trained professionals such as tax accountants, forensic CPAs, financial planners, parenting coaches and counselors who are jointly retained by the parties to provide them with information that aids in decision-making.
- Aside from filing the divorce complaint and decree, the collaborative process is completely private.
- Collaborative divorce has the additional benefits of being more efficient and less costly than litigated matters. Since a settlement is reached there are no appeals! I also find there are virtually no enforcement issues once an agreement is reached since it is a result of a joint effort rather than one person being strong- armed to settle out of his or her comfort zone. There are minimal filing fees other than a simple Complaint in Divorce. The process is scheduled around the parties' needs and time frames and realistically can happen in as quickly as four months.
- The parties agree at the outset of the process that, should they fail to negotiate a resolution, they will each be required to retain new counsel at new law firms for any subsequent litigation. This required provision in the participation agreement is designed to help each party and their respective attorneys trust that all participants are fully committed to a satisfactory resolution of the collaborative process. If this withdrawal provision is not contained in a participation agreement, the process is not truly a collaborative one in the technical sense.
Collaborative law is an ideal course if both parties want to avoid the courtroom and maintain family harmony. Many times the process results in creative solutions, which may not be available through the traditional divorce process, benefiting both the divorcing spouses and any children involved.
Collaborative law facilitates a separation that is civil and cultivates healthy communication between the divorcing spouses both now and in the future, which benefits the entire family. A more amicable split can lead to less tension at future milestone events, like graduations, marriages and births.
I truly believe alternative dispute resolution methods such as those outlined in the Collaborative Law Act comprise the future of family law. Pennsylvania has joined 18 states by codifying the constructive and positive process of collaborative law to help spouses resolve differences and move forward on their individual journeys.
Candice L. Komar is a founding partner of the Pittsburgh-based family law firm Pollock Begg Komar Glasser & Vertz. She is a certified mediator also trained in collaborative law. With more than two decades of family law litigation under her belt, Komar is viewed as a strong negotiator outside the courtroom as well.
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 AllImmunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
5 minute readRule 126(b) Citations to Unpublished Opinions: Some of Us Still Don’t Get It
6 minute readProposed 'Bulk Sensitive Personal Data' Rule and the DOJ’s Comprehensive National Security Regulations
7 minute readThe Importance of Plaintiffs Not Letting Defendants Dictate Settlement Tax Strategies
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 2Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
- 3While Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can be Prevented
- 4The Definition of Special Employment
- 5People in the News—Nov. 21, 2024—Willig Williams, Hangley Aronchick
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