Date of Separation – When was it, and why does it matter?

By Deborah Ewing, Wendy Jones, and Elaine Thompson

 

When? 

The date on which one or both parties clearly communicate to the other their intent to end the marriage.

There are many details which may be helpful in determining the date of separation, including:

-       Are the spouses still living together?

-       Are they sharing finances?

-       Are they still “working on the marriage?”

-       Have they told anyone they are separating/divorcing?

-       Are they still acting like a married couple in public?

-       Are they still having sexual relations?

-       Has either spouse changed his/her mailing address?

Spouses may not agree on their date of separation.  They may each perceive the situation differently or have a different recollection of events.  When spouses disagree on what the date of separation is, it becomes a matter to be determined later, either by agreement or by a Judge.

Why?

Sometimes the date of separation doesn’t really matter.  However, the date of separation can be important for a number of reasons:

-       The “length of the marriage” is determined by the date of separation, not the date the divorce becomes final.  The length of the marriage can have an impact on such things as spousal support and social security benefits.

-       After the date of separation,

• Each spouse’s earnings belong to that spouse.
• New debts incurred by a spouse belong to that spouse.
• New deposits into benefit plans may belong to the participant spouse

Before your first appointment with a lawyer, it will be useful to think about your situation and the circumstances which might help determine your date of separation.

It should be noted that people frequently claim that they are “legally separated.” Usually they are mistaken.  The concept of legal separation has nothing to do with the date of separation.  It is a separate and unusual legal concept, and a true “legal separation” requires an order signed by a judge.

 

Deborah Ewing, Wendy Jones, and Elaine Thompson are all experienced family law attorneys in the Los Angeles area, and are members  of A Better Divorce, a Collaborative Family Law Practice Group.

Frequently Asked Questions for Divorce Coaches

Why do I need a Coach?

You are paying your attorney to guide you through the legal process of divorce, but not do deal with the feelings and grief everyone suffers after a divorce.

Remember that your attorney is your legal expert who guides you through the divorce process helping you to get the fairest settlement you can get.

Your coach is your relationship expert, guiding you through this process emotionally, helping you and your spouse maintain civility and if you have children, pave the way for a future relationship as co-parents.

Who are the coaches?

Coaches and child specialists are licensed mental health professionals and have had special training in the collaborative law process.  All are licensed mental health professionals who use their therapeutic skills to help you through the difficult transition of divorce.  Coaching is not therapy.  Even if you have your own therapist, coaching can ease your transition.

How will having a coach help me through my divorce?

If you are going through a divorce, you are grieving a loss.  Even if you wanted this divorce, you are probably still dealing with the loss of the dreams and expectations you had on the day you married, the loss of financial security, possibly your home, time spent with your children and/or friends.

During the divorce process, people feel wounded and relationships, already damaged, are further and often irreparably impaired.  Feelings are hurt and tempers flare up.    If you use a coach, you will be able to:

• Better deal with your angry spouse
• Make settlement meetings more productive
• Develop better parenting plans
• Lower your anxiety about the divorce process
• Reduce conflict.

How would having a coach help my children?

Coaches may also serve as “child specialists.”  If you have children, they are feeling loss — of their family unit, possibly their home, school, friends and how much time and the quality of time they spend with their parents.   They also feel your stress and tension.  Child specialists can help your children deal with their losses while helping you understand your child’s special needs.

Coaches and child specialists are knowledgeable about child development, family dynamics, and the particular stresses of divorce and its effect on a developing child.  They can make recommendations to you and the entire collaborative team and can help you create a parenting plan that addresses the special needs of your family.

I’m already paying an attorney.  I can’t afford to pay for coaching too.

Utilizing coaches as an adjunct to your attorney is a cost effective process that keeps attorney’s costs to a minimum and gives you the best chance of a low conflict, “better” divorce.

By: Paula Van Doren is a collaborative mental health professional, supporting families through the inevitable stress that arises from transitioning from one household to two. She is also an active member of A Better Divorce.

Frank and Jamie McCourt: a cautionary tale of divorce gone wrong

By Jeffery S. Jacobson, Julie A. Milligan and Cozette C. Vergari

 

This article was originally published in the Los Angeles Daily Journal dated Wednesday, November 9, 2011

 

Many Angelenos breathed a sigh of relief with last week’s announcement that Frank McCourt reached a settlement with Major League Baseball and has agreed to sell the Los Angeles Dodgers.  Combined with the prior settlement with his estranged wife Jamie McCourt, it appears that the McCourts’ epic battle in family court, bankruptcy court and the court of public opinion is finally coming to an end.

It has been frequently cited that Frank and Jamie had the most expensive divorce in California history.  They employed some of the best and brightest attorneys, accountants and public relations professionals that money could buy.  According to court filings, during the past two years, they spent in excess of $20 million dollars on attorney fees and costs.

On the fateful October day prior to game one of the 2009 National League Championship series, it was announced that Frank and Jamie would be getting divorced.  Immediately, both of them had public relations experts spinning their positions.  They expressed their interests publicly: Both Frank and Jamie wanted to keep the team in their family and create a legacy for their four sons; Frank wanted to manage the Dodgers entities; Jamie wanted to be the public face of the Dodgers; both wanted to increase the value of the Dodgers and maintain personal wealth; and both wanted to maintain their public images.

However, none of their subsequent decisions or actions reflected these interests   Instead of working together in collaboration to address these interests, they treated the process as if it were a sporting event, each of them intent upon winning.  Beyond winning, it appears the focus was even defeating the other, without any care for the damage that might result to either or both.  The need to win justified the means.

The highest level of collaboration involves an emphasis on one’s interests, while, at the same time acknowledging the interests of the other spouse.  Instead, Frank and Jamie engaged in the positional battle.

As a result, they lost control of the situation, sacrificing their privacy and personal dignity.

At first, the McCourt divorce was about Frank and Jamie and the end of their 30 year marriage.  However, before long, other entities took control of their destiny and obliterated any chances of a satisfactory outcome: the legal system; Bud Selig and MLB; Fox; the Internal Revenue Service; the media; and ultimately, the general public, particularly legions of Dodger fans who voted with their feet by staying away from Dodger Stadium to protest the horrifying tales of what Frank and Jamie allegedly had done to their beloved team.

Every divorce is impacted by the process choices made by the parties.  Frank set the tone with his decision to fire Jamie from her position as CEO of the Dodgers, publicly humiliating her.  Jamie fired back with a massive court filing, detailing heir opulent lifestyle and discussing the inner financial workings of the Dodgers.  Ironically, while hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent by the McCourts to shield themselves from the general public, their private lives became an open book for all to read in the court files.

Within a year, they went to trial on the bifurcated issue of the validity of a postmarital agreement.  After millions of dollars were spent in litigation, the result was based largely upon a clerical mistake, which made it impossible to determine what the McCourts had actually agreed to.  Perhaps the most memorable part of this litigation was Judge Scott Gordon’s comment in his ruling that both Frank and Jamie had credibility issues with regard to the disputed postmarital agreement.

When the smoke clears, both Frank and Jamie will still be wealthy, at least by the standards of ordinary people.  Jamie was awarded homes in Malibu, Holmby Hills and Vail.  Frank was awarded two homes in Boston.  Both stand to receive tens of millions of dollars after the sale of the team.  However, neither Frank nor Jamie satisfied any of their primary interests and are enduing up with far, far less than what they had at the commencement of the divorce process.

While fans can debate the success of the pre-divorce era of the McCourts’ ownership of the Dodgers, during the first six years, the team reached the playoffs four times.  The McCourts purchased the Dodgers in 2004 for $421 million, all of which was financed.  Based on various reports, the value of the Dodgers today is estimated to be between $1 and $1.2 billion.  Unfortunately, the profit of hundreds of millions of dollars will be largely eaten up by loans – both capital gains taxes and potentially unpaid income taxes – and massive attorney fees.

It did not have to be this way.  Frank and Jamie could have found a way of retaining the team, both could have come out with more money, they could have created a wonderful legacy for their sons, and their public images could have remained intact.

There is another approach to divorce that would have protected the McCourts’ privacy and provided an opportunity for a more civilized negotiation with one another.  There is an option far different from the traditional public forum of the courtroom, an option where nothing needs to be public, other than the fact that a case for divorce has been opened and a final judgment entered.

The state of California has recognized, and eventually codified in 2007, the process of collaborative divorce.  The spouses choosing this path each have a trained collaborative family law attorney, engaged to advise and lead them through the divorce process.  One of the very first steps involves the parties and attorneys entering into a stipulation, agreeing to devote all of their efforts toward a negotiated settlement in an efficient, cooperative manner and providing that, while engaged in the collaborative process, no party or attorney signing the stipulation will file any document requesting court intervention.  This process also protects the parties’ privacy.

Additionally, the collaborative process affords parties the opportunity to work with mental health professionals, trained in collaborative divorce, to identify interests and address the emotional challenges each is facing.  Though not always easy, the parties are assisted by their own professional “coach” in working through the struggles of breaking up a marriage and a family.  The coaches work together as a team with the attorneys and financial professionals to assist both parties in easing the emotional burdens of such a break-up and having an interest-based negotiation.

The McCourts are no different from any family getting divorced.  Like any husband and wife, they had to deal (and likely will deal fro years to come) with the emotion of their 30 year marriage ending.  They both likely have feelings of anger, sadness and fear.  Regardless of the size of an estate, effective processes for resolving family law matters take these feelings, combined with the parties’ shared interests, into account.  Scorched earth litigation is not inevitable, and a choice to proceed collaboratively often best furthers the parties’ individual interests as well as their collective interests.

Frank and Jamie’s win-lose paradigm should have been confined to the baseball diamond at Dodger Stadium.

Jeffery S. Jacobson, Julie A. Milligan and Cozette C. Vergari are family law attorneys in Los Angeles.  All three are members of A Better Divorce, an interdisciplinary group of professionals who are committed to the collaborative divorce process- a private, non-adversarial method of resolving family law issues without litigation.

Divorce Options

What is Divorce?

A divorce is a legal process to end a marriage. The division of property, maintenance (financial support for a spouse), custody/placement of children, child support and other related issues are covered by the Divorce Judgment.

How do these issues get decided?

There are a number of procedural models or methods that may be used. The difference lies in the amount of attorney and court involvement, conflict and cost. Each issue, for example, child support, may be resolved by the couple reaching an agreement, (then approved by the court), or by having a hearing to contest the issue where a judge will make a decision for the couple.

A few years ago, options that focused on minimizing conflict and emphasizing mutual problem solving were not available to divorcing couples. Today, however, a couple can choose the process that is best suited to their situation, including mediation and collaborative practice. These options are less adversarial than traditional litigation.

Choices for the divorce process:

1. traditional negotiation/litigation
2. collaborative
3. mediation
4. pro se divorce

Litigation / Traditional law

Litigation is the traditional divorce process. Both parties hire attorneys who provide legal advice and represent their client in negotiations and court hearings. This model is adversarial — each attorney advocates positions based on the personal wants, needs and viewpoints of his client. Rather than communicating directly with each other, the divorcing couple communicates mainly through their attorneys.

The process may involve the use of formal legal procedures known as “discovery,” to obtain financial and other relevant information. Discovery may include the use of depositions or subpoenas. A deposition is the testimony taken from a party before a court reporter. A subpoena is a court order for witnesses, documents, or materials that are believed to be relevant to the issues, to be presented to the court. During the litigation process each party may hire experts to support his/her position. These experts may include psychologists, real estate and personal property appraisers, business valuation specialists, accountants and others.

Most divorces that employ litigation are eventually settled, but substantial time, money and emotion will be spent. Unfortunately, in the future many parties find they are dissatisfied with the outcome which means they may have to revisit the court to change the Divorce Judgment or to resolve disputes.

Collaborative Practice

In Collaborative Practice, the traditional approach of bargaining from a specific position, backed by threats of litigation and court intervention, is replaced by an approach that settles cases respectfully. The approach meets the needs of both parties and the children, and still involves legal counsel, but it eliminates the threat of or fear of court intervention at any stage.

The collaborative divorce process may involve a collaborative team approach, including financial advisors and mental health professionals as coaches and child specialists. The goal of the experts is to educate the parties and explore settlement options to meet the needs of both parties and their children.

This dispute-resolution process is based on a pledge in which both parties, and their attorneys, contractually agree that the collaborative trained attorneys will not go to court. The most significant aspect of Collaborative Practice is that the negotiation always includes the parties, which is often not the case in the litigation setting. Discussion of issues takes place during meetings where, at the very least, the parties and their attorneys are present. Often, divorce coaches, financial neutrals and other collaborative professionals also participate. This approach ensures that the parties are directly involved in the process and retain control over their outcome. This is the truly unique benefit of Collaborative Practice.

This process encourages creative problem solving, win-win negotiations, and resolutions that meet the needs of all members of the family. International experience indicates that the collaborative divorce process produces greater satisfaction of the parties and better results for children, and participants who are less likely to return to court to litigate issues in the future.

For more information on the collaborative law process please see www.collaborativepractice.com

Mediation

In mediation, the parties hire a neutral third party to assist them in reaching agreements about their divorce. The mediator can provide information about the divorce process and guide a discussion to help resolve issues. The mediator does not need to be a lawyer and does not represent either party. Whether the mediator is a lawyer or not, the mediator cannot provide legal advice.

Mediation may occur with parties who have hired attorneys or parties who are not represented. The parties communicate with each other directly, in the presence of the mediator. The goal of mediation is to allow parties to reach agreements that meet the needs of both parties and their children without the financial and emotional cost of a court battle.

If the parties use mediation without attorneys, they are responsible for preparing all the required forms for the court. The parties must also appear in court for their final hearing to have their agreement approved and the divorce judgment granted. Some mediators require, or the parties may decide on their own to retain “consulting attorneys.” In these cases, the attorney’s role may be limited to reviewing proposed settlement agreements and advising his/her client with regard to what the law is and how the proposed agreement may impact the client’s legal rights.

Pro se divorce

 

In a Pro se divorce, the parties represent themselves and do not hire attorneys. They proceed on their own to draft and file the necessary court documents, including:

• the summons and petition
• financial disclosure statements
• any motions
• the marital settlement agreement, if any
• and the final judgment of divorce.

The divorcing husband and wife must either work out an agreement together or present their legal disputes to the court. If an issue is not agreed upon, the parties have to be prepared to act as their own representatives, meaning they must call witnesses, prepare exhibits, ask questions of the opposing party, and tell the court why their request for specific orders should be granted, within specific procedural requirements. Pro se divorce generally works well when the parties agree and the issues are simple, such as in cases with little property and no children.

For more information or to find a professional in your area visit our website at A Better Divorce.

How to Begin Your Divorce Process

First, take a deep breath. Realize that stress and emotions, from anger to frustration to loss, are a natural part of this life transition. You may feel overwhelmed, but you will live through this.

Find some support. Friends and relatives can be helpful, but a spiritual advisor, a counselor, or divorce professional may be a better choice. Be on guard for bad advice from well-meaning people who may be reacting from their own issues rather than what may be best for you.

Do some research. There are many resources to help you with your particular concerns.

Choose your path. Traditional court divorce is only one option. In fact, more and more people today are choosing some form of collaborative divorce in order to keep matters private, reduce costs and replace bitter fighting with a more respectful process.

Consider others that may be affected. If you have young children, this is especially stressful for them. While you are in turmoil, the services of a child specialist can bring huge benefits to you and the people you love.

Contact a professional. In today’s divorce process, you may choose to begin with a mental health professional specializing in divorce, a neutral financial specialist trained in helping sort out income and assets, or an attorney or mediator to deal with the legal aspects of the process. Any one of these collaborative professionals can discuss your concerns, and help you develop a process where you stay in control and work toward your best outcome.

Visit our website at A Better Divorce for more information on Collaborative Practice.

What is Collaborative Practice?

Collaborative Practice promotes respect and keeps the individuals, not judges, in control of the process.

Developed as an alternative to traditional divorce, Collaborative Practice is an option for divorcing couples to resolve disputes respectfully without going to court. It offers couples a humane, solutions-based approach to ending a relationship.

Collaborative Practice differs from the traditional process because it promotes respect and keeps control of the process with the parties, not a judge. Because clients agree not to go to court, this method is more open and less adversarial. The goal of the process is to enhance communication and to lay the foundation for a healthier relationship during and after the divorce.

Collaborative Practice is based on three principles:

1. The parties pledge in writing not to go to court.
2. Both parties engage in an honest exchange of information.
3. Each solution takes into account the highest priorities of the parties and other related persons, such as children or other family members.

Collaborative Practice can Benefit Your Entire Family

• Better for your children. Children are given a voice in the process, minimizing potential trauma that can sometimes last for generations.
• You remain in control. Decision making is directly in the hands of the parties involved in the dispute rather than the hands of a third party, such as a judge who makes decisions based on a “one size fits all” directive.
• You enjoy confidentiality. Problems and assets are kept private.
• Solutions are mutually beneficial. The collaborative process recognizes and understands each client’s needs, interests concerns and goals, while allowing all parties to be heard.
• Focus on the future. Collaboration changes the notion of a legal conflict from adversarial and win/lose to a problem-solving constructive process.

For More information on Collaborative Practice go to www.collaborativepractice.com  or visit us at A Better Divorce

How to Talk to your Children About Divorce

By Vi Ballard

• Don’t ask your children to choose sides. This puts tremendous pressure and anxiety on children because they don’t want to hurt Mom or Dad’s feelings. They want to please both parents. If you ask them to choose it puts them in a “loyalty bind”.

• Don’t badmouth your co-parent or put them down in front of your children. Remember WHEN YOU PUT DOWN THE OTHER PARENT YOU ARE PUTTING DOWN THE CHILD.

• Talk to your children about the way they feel, but don’t ask “How are you feeling about the fact Mommy & Daddy are getting divorced”?  One of the best ways is to talk about this subject is to reinforce that the  divorce is NOT YOUR FAULT.  Say something like “It must be very sad for you that Mommy and Daddy are getting divorced”.  Then let them take the lead and empathize with their feelings and the difficulty they are having dealing with this. Don’t preach or try to fix it. Just listen and understand how they feel. You could say, “It sounds like you feel_________”.  (Sad, hurt, angry, or whatever they are feeling). The divorce is affecting their world also.

• Be A Parent.  You are the adult and as such you and your co-parent make the major decisions. Don’t allow your children to determine how much time they’ll spend with each parent, for example, or, which dentist they will go to.

• Don’t Embarrass Your Child.    Name calling, or arguments at the soccer game or back to school night only hurt and embarrass your children. Keep the focus on the child and remember why you are at the particular event.  Anytime your child is around is not the time to create a conflict.  If the other parent “starts it”, have the courage to politely walk away.

Vi Ballard is a Marriage and Family Therapist and Collaborative Divorce Coach located in the South Bay. She is an active member of A Better Divorce.

Mental Health Outreach Task Force – Goal to Increase the Number of Collaborative Divorce Cases

by David Kuroda, LCSW and Debbie Bellings-Kee, JD, MFT

Despite the best efforts of the clients and the therapist, the wife decided the divorce needed to happen. The counseling didn’t change her husband. Halfway through the session the therapist asked, “What kind of divorce do you want?” As the therapist explained the different process options for divorce, the couple chose Collaborative divorce. It became the very first Collaborative case for the practice group. The therapist recommended the attorneys, who in turn recommended that the couple retain a therapist for their child specialist. Therapists in our communities can do much to further the development of Collaborative Practice!

Over the years, attorneys have been bringing mental health professionals into their cases in many capacities where they see and experience the benefit. In a Collaborative Practice integrated model, attorneys and therapists work more closely than ever before. As parents learn how to move productively through separation and divorce, attorneys experience clients who are less stressed and angry. Many families and attorneys have come to appreciate the value of hiring coaches and child specialists early on in their divorces. These therapists enjoy working with attorneys. Collaborative Practice groups provide places for therapists to “break bread” and discuss cases with attorneys. In short, Collaborative Practice has enabled many therapists to experience the satisfaction of helping children and families while expanding their practice and raising their fees. At the same time, as therapists learn about the Collaborative process option, they refer the work to the Collaborative attorneys.

Therapists may hold the key to directing more divorcing couples away from the courts and the litigators. “Do you know a good divorce lawyer?” is the question many ask their therapist when beginning their divorces. Therapists want to be helpful to their clients; however, therapists rely on the same list they have had for years. We have no “Yelp” or “Angie’s List” to find the best Collaborative attorneys or mediators. If therapists don’t know about the Collaborative process, how can they refer clients to Collaborative attorneys? In Southern California, A Better Divorce and the State Bar, along with LACFLA and the LAC Bar, put on a program for mental health professionals earlier this year. More than 115 people attended, including the supervising judge of the LA Superior Court family law departments. An educational program such as this helps therapists learn about the benefits of the team and the Collaborative process.

In summary, CP Cal’s Mental Health Outreach Task Force is committed to helping increase the number of Collaborative cases in each of these ways:

1. By educating mental health professionals about opportunities in Collaborative Practice, including having an exhibitor presence at professional conferences such as AFCC, CalCPA, CAMFT, and NASWCA;
2. By providing therapists an opportunity to increase their involvement in the Collaborative movement in the state;
3. By encouraging greater involvement in professional organizations; and
4. By increasing everyone’s satisfaction and income from this work.

The Task Force “meets” in phone calls every other month (odd numbered months) on the second Monday at 10:00 a.m. The call-in number is 1-213-342-3050, access code 811555#. We also have in-person lunch meetings twice a year, one in Northern California and one in Southern California.

We invite any California Collaborative professionals to join us, either as an ongoing committee member, or as a volunteer for one of the professional conferences or another particular task. All professional disciplines are welcome. Please contact one of the co-chairs of this Task Force, David Kuroda or Debbie Bellings-Kee at abetterdivorcemedia@gmail.com.

Is the UCLA on California’s Radar Screen?

By Frederick J. Glassman, Esq. This article was originally published in Collaborative Practice California’s December 2011 newsletter.

By way of background for those of you who have not followed the history of the Uniform Collaborative Law Act (UCLA), it is well, alive and growing throughout the United States. After passage of the UCLA by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), formerly known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, on July 15, 2009, recommendations for enhancement of the UCLA were entertained by the ULC. Thereafter, in mid-2010 the ULC amended the UCLA with three (3) revisions; namely, as follows:

1. Drafted court rules that mirror the statute, thereby giving states the explicit discretion to adopt the amended Act, or adopt court rules, or a combination thereof;
2. Provided states with the express option of limiting application of the Rules/Act to matters arising under the family laws of a state or expanding to application in all civil matters; and
3. Made it possible for the court, in proceeding(s) already underway, to retain discretion to grant a stay of such proceeding (and related calendaring matters) in lieu of the stay being automatically granted as a matter of law.

Now the Act is formally referred to as the Uniform Collaborative Law Rules/Act (UCLR/A) and the full and complete version can be found at www.nccusl.org.

Although not mandatory, it is customary for the ULC to present its approved acts to the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates for endorsement. After submitting the UCLR/A (through Resolution 110B) to the House of Delegates on August 8, 2011, notwithstanding support from the Family Law Section and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the ABA, the ABA House of Delegates failed to endorse the UCLR/A. Opposition came primarily from the Litigation Section of the ABA. According to the ULC, the ABA missed a golden opportunity to assert its leadership with respect to a new and evolving form of dispute resolution. The ULC recalled that back in the 1990s, the ABA House of Delegates also failed to endorse the then growing practice of mediation. According to the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP), the ABA continues to suffer from declining membership while the collaborative community is growing at an astounding pace (in excess of 4500 members, with 320 practice groups nationwide and 36 practice groups in California). Bottom line: neither the ULC nor the IACP is discouraged by the ABA action and will work, side by side, with those states seeking enactment of the UCLR/A.

Here is the tally thus far. Utah, Nevada and Texas have already adopted the UCLR/A (for family law in Texas and for all civil matters in Nevada and Utah). In 2011, Alabama, Hawaii, Massachusetts and District of Columbia have introduced pending legislation. New Jersey is expected to introduce legislation in 2012. Other states, including Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, are considering introducing legislation in the near future.

So, where does California stand on the radar screen at this stage? CPCal has taken the laboring oar for considering prospective legislation. Our task force will consult with state lobbyists for strategic planning. One of the considerations will be whether the recommended comprehensive statute should encompass all civil matters or be limited to family law matters (follow up to existing California Family Code 2013 and the local county rules in Contra Costa, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo and Sonoma). The timetable calls for obtaining input from the community of interested focus groups, including the protective organizations on domestic violence and various Bar associations throughout the state, in order to build a coalition of support from such stakeholders.

A partial list of such anticipated organizations can be found from the signatories in support of the Declaration of Public Health Crisis promulgated by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, California Chapter, as of August 1, 2010.

The present goal is aimed toward introducing legislation to adopt the UCLR/A by the end of 2012.

 

Frederick J. Glassman is a co-founder and senior partner of Mayer & Glassman Law Corporation, assisting clients throughout Southern California in the full scope of family law matters, including divorce and pre-marital agreements. Fred focuses his practice on consensual methods of dispute resolution, rather than litigation, to settle family law disputes. http://www.mglawcorp.com/

New Beginnings

By Susan F. Schwartz, L.C.S.W.  This article was previously posted on The Huffington Post Divorce at www.huffingtonpost.com.

As the New Year begins, it’s only natural for us to think about resolutions and changes. We reflect back on the year that has passed, attempt to weed out the things/behaviors/people that were not working for us, and make a commitment to something new for the coming year. Depending on your situation, divorce can be seen as a way of ending something that no longer works well, in the hopes of being subsequently given the opportunity of beginning something new and more fulfilling, perhaps in the form of a new marriage down the road. Yet, if we look at the statistics for second and third marriages, they are pretty bleak. According to two different sources, (Enrichment Journal, and Jennifer Baker, Forest Institute of Professional Psychology), the divorce rate for first marriages is between 41% and 50%, for second marriages, between 60% and 67%, and for third marriages, between 70% and 73%. So, statistically speaking, the third time around may not be a charm after all. One would think some learning from the first marriage would naturally occur, and thus it would follow that the divorce rate in subsequent marriages should go down instead of up. As the opposite is actually the case, it stands to reason that, many people are missing a step in figuring out how to make their second marriage better than their first.

It has been my experience that people decide to leave a marriage without really ever fully understanding what went wrong. I don’t mean to suggest that people in the process of a divorce don’t have a story to tell about why the divorce is occurring. However, rarely is there an honest exploration and assessment by divorcing couples, to attempt to figure out when and how they went astray. Self-examination, whether alone or in individual therapy, is only partially helpful as it is limited by one person’s perspective. Many believe that marital therapy prior to dissolution counts as a way of understanding what went wrong. The goals of marital therapy, however, are usually to save the marriage or at least help decide whether the marriage can be saved. What I’m suggesting is a process that would encourage the divorcing couple to get together in one room with a trained mental health professional to help the couple explore what mistakes each one made. I believe a process such as this would go very far in reducing divorce rates for second and third marriages.

Currently, however, once entering the divorce process, couples usually end up pointing fingers, and believing, Mistakes Were Made But Not By Me, to quote the title of a wonderful book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. Traditional adversarial divorces often encourage feelings of self-righteousness and victimization. Rather than providing an opportunity to learn and accept responsibility for one’s part in a very sad conclusion to a marriage, divorces done in the traditional adversarial manner encourage self-deception to continue, (he or she is to blame and not me). On the other hand, however, collaborative divorce, which helps people divorce in a respectful way by utilizing a multi-disciplinary team and agreeing not to go to court, offers the opportunity for real learning to occur.

Throughout my practice, I have yet to meet a person who didn’t begin his or her marriage with the expectation of it lasting a lifetime. Some have said things like, “I should have known it wouldn’t work out the first time I heard him lose his temper, but I ignored the red flags” or “I loved how beautiful she always looked, but who knew how much money and time she actually spent on clothes, hair appointments, and skin treatments!” So how do couples get from marital bliss to retaining an attorney? It has been interesting for me to hear the answer to that question in the numerous divorce cases I have worked on over the last ten years as a collaborative divorce coach, in partnership with my colleague, Dr. Rob Rutman. In our role as divorce coaches, we each work individually with one half of the couple to learn their stories and prepare them for a very structured meeting with the four of us. It is in this meeting that there is tremendous opportunity for growth and learning as each person gets to tell the other what life has been like from their perspective for the length of the marriage.

This process is not a dialogue and is not about agreement. It is about listening and understanding life from the spouse’s point of view. Each party gets a chance to be both listener and speaker, and if done correctly, learns what life has been like for their partner, cognitively as well as emotionally. In this format, it is the listening spouse who has the most challenging task because listening without interrupting or engaging in a dialogue is so unnatural, especially for feuding spouses.

I wish I could convey to you how magical and transformational this meeting often is. For the first time in a long time, after both husband and wife each get a turn to speak and to listen, they end up being on the same page from an emotional point of view. They learn that emotionally they both feel the same feelings of hurt, sadness, disappointment at what could have been, as well as frustration and anger. However, the difference between them is that these feelings are usually connected to very different events. Perhaps she may have strong feelings of hurt because he made decisions unilaterally that affected both of them, whereas he may hurt because she never really understood the pressures he felt at his job. So, the events may be different, but the feelings of hurt are the same, and thus an emotional bridge connects the two of them, and understanding and respect can begin. And yes, very rarely, during this process, the couple learns new possibilities for transforming their own failed marriage into something workable, as was the case for Dan and Mary, a couple I wrote about in my previous post.

The goal of this four-way meeting is not reconciliation, however. The primary goal is to help divorcing couples understand the underlying emotional components that contributed to the end of their marriage. During a divorce, emotions often become distractions that interfere with the clear and logical thinking necessary to make good decisions about one’s future. Secondly, it’s to take the opportunity to learn about mistakes one has made, and incorporate them into better choices in future relationships, marriage or not. Thirdly, it helps divorcing couples co-parent more effectively because they can both take responsibility for their own mistakes that contributed to their failed marriage. As both husband and wife accept their own culpability, they no longer have to blame one another and point fingers. They are thus freed to look forward to the best part of their marriage, their children. “Yes, mistakes were made, and made by us both”, is a much healthier attitude and allows for transformation, growth, opportunity and hope for a stronger second marriage and thus no need for a third.

 

Susan Schwartz is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker who has been in private practice in Torrance, California for more than 23 years. She received her Masters of Social Work from UCLA in 1982 and subsequently completed a three year post-graduate fellowship in family therapy. During her years in practice, Ms. Schwartz has assisted numerous families throughout all stages of the divorce process, and has always been particularly interested in trying to help children traverse the challenges of being caught in the crossfire of parents who don’t get along. When she learned about collaborative divorce, a groundbreaking methodology for helping families through divorce, she saw it as a new and exciting way to make a difference in people’s lives. Since 2000, Ms Schwartz has been involved in the practice and teaching of collaborative divorce and is a proud member of A Better Divorce: A Group of Collaborative Professionals.