beginning and each discipline making the decision if they are needed. Both are truly  paradigm shifts that must start with the lawyers. No matter what is done in the process of agreeing to dissolve the marriage, it still has to go to Court, which means it has to go through the lawyers or at least through legal papers. Parties that agree to everything without lawyers, file their own papers and get it approved are not the problem. If the lawyers can not, or will not, avoid adversarial language and actions, the process fails.

The solution to Court problems is to simply avoid the Court. So what is the Court’s role? I submit three different judicial functions. First and foremost is to understand the process and publicly support it. Judicial validation leads to public acceptance and confidence in the process. Next is development of procedures and Court rules to allow and support those using the process. Finally is the active promotion of collaborative efforts. Lawyers (and litigants) operate from an adversarial culture and are resistant to change and try new things. Balancing this is the willingness for lawyers to try things they think judges would like tried. If this is a better process for the children and parents in custody/property cases, (I am firmly convinced that it is), then I suggest we use the persuasive power of the bench to encourage its development.