Divorces can be highly contentious, especially when dealing with heated emotions and numerous assets. But what if there is a better way for you and your spouse to approach your divorce?
Every couple’s situation is unique, but a collaborative divorce may be a viable option for some.
How is a collaborative divorce different from a traditional one?
The traditional divorce process is typically adversarial. It involves each spouse hiring an attorney who represents only their client’s interests. It can be time-consuming, emotionally draining and expensive due to court fees and legal costs. Furthermore, court filings and hearings are public records.
A collaborative divorce is a non-adversarial process that promotes cooperation and minimizes conflict. Each party hires an attorney trained in collaborative law and signs an agreement to work together to reach a mutually beneficial settlement.
Other professionals may be involved in the process. Financial advisors, child specialists and therapists can provide expertise and guidance.
A collaborative divorce is not about winning or losing. Instead, the focus is on problem-solving and meeting everyone’s needs. It can also be less expensive and quicker since the process is designed to be efficient. The divorcing couple meets according to their schedule instead of the court’s, and both parties work to avoid a costly court battle. And since they are meeting outside the courtroom, the proceedings are private and confidential.
In a traditional divorce, the judge will make the final decisions if the parties can’t agree. Conversely, a collaborative process allows the spouses to maintain control over the process and outcome, working together to reach a settlement.
A collaborative divorce may not work for everyone. In divorces where there is abuse, dishonesty or strong emotions, it may be impossible for both spouses to come together in a mutually respectful environment. However, if both spouses can be open and honest with each other, the collaborative process offers a less adversarial and more cost-effective alternative.