Working under the premise that a Divorce is really just the judicial recognition of the break down of a social/financial compact, we need to question if we are really qualified to do what we are required to do. It has been said that “Court is the absolute worse place to make these decisions, but is better than anything else we have.” Contested litigation is even more brutal. The Courtroom is where they bring those survivors of the process to be shot. Pessimistic? Not really. Challenged to make a change? You bet!

Twelve years on the bench and 1500 cases convince me the resources we have are not up to the job presented. The root of the problem lies in the adversarial model being the engine that drives the settlement. Litigants are taken at their absolute worse point of decision making ability and called upon to make the most important decisions in an arena that builds toward bigger and bigger confrontation ending in the spectacle of trial.

Many of the players in the process are not trained to identify, much less address, the emotional needs of their clients. Most of the judges, while well meaning, do not have the training, interest, energy or judicial resources to identify the real problems in most custody cases. The process itself discourages concern for the wellbeing of the opposition, thus making this a zero sum game. The children rarely have an effective voice. Enter the need for the Collaborative Divorce process.