Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County
We recommend the following article titled “Seven Reasons to do a Collaborative Divorce” by John Denny, Collaborative Divorce and Mediation Attorney. John expresses some very important views on the subject of Collaborative Divorce in the Orange County Area.
You can read the entire article at: https://collaborativedivorcecalifornia.com/seven-reasons-to-do-a-collaborative-divorce/
Children are the innocent victims of divorce. Divorce ranks second only to the death of a loved one as life’s most stressful experiences.4 Litigation, which by definition is adversarial, can compound that stress exponentially due to the hostility it can engender and the exorbitant costs that parents can incur. “Combat divorce,” a common term for litigation, requires that each parent have the biggest battleship armed with the biggest guns, which take aim at the battleship of the other parent. Let’s remember that, no matter what else changes, each of these soon to be “ex-spouses” forever remains their child(ren)’s other parent. During the process of litigation, that obvious fact can become obscured in the harsh and adversarial language used to characterize the other spouse, thus making it almost impossible for each parent to think of the other parent as their child(ren)’s other parent and as a parent who possesses positive qualities.
So where are the children in this process? To continue the “combat divorce” metaphor, they are huddled together in a foxhole wondering what has happened to the family they once knew. As they tenaciously cling to each other in this bunker, they are shaking, fearing whether the next mortar will land in their foxhole or whiz over their heads. Will they lose one or both of their parents permanently? After all, it seems like it has been a short journey from their happy family with Mom and Dad playing with them in the park to the day when Dad or Mom moved out. They never imagined that one of their parents would not be with them in their home. Recently, they have overheard Mom and Dad fighting and talking about having to sell the house where they grew up and where they created so many happy memories. They hear Dad and Mom discussing that they may have to change schools. The thoughts are whirling through their minds: We will have to make new friends! We won’t be able to be on our same soccer team! What if we won’t be able to keep our doggie Duke and our kitty Miss Trouble because in our new rented house no pets will be allowed! Mom and Dad are so stressed. We can’t bother them with all these questions. We must be very good and very quiet, so they don’t have to worry about us too. We need to forget about how we feel and make sure Mom and Dad are ok.
The children have experienced so much uncertainty and unpredictability recently that on an unconscious level they realize that they cannot predict their future. Nothing seems certain. Life used to seem certain, but not any more. So much has changed in such a short time, it certainly seems possible to them that they could lose their mom or dad. Who will provide them with certainty, stability, and predictability?
When parents are in conflict, their children are in danger. On-going parental strife produces the single most negative impact on children for years into their future. Previously well-adjusted children can become at risk for both psychological and physical symptoms such as anxiety, depression, isolation, sleep disturbance, nausea, headaches, and the inability to focus and concentrate. These symptoms can subsequently cause a delay in children’s development. Difficulties in school academically, emotionally and socially can ensue. Adult children of divorce commonly report that they felt as though they lost their childhood during and after their parent’s divorce, because the toxicity of the “combat divorce” permeated every aspect of their lives, causing them to struggle with the symptoms described above and necessitating that they “grow up” before they were developmentally ready.
Just as wartime combat is a survival state, so combat divorce is an emotional, and sometimes even physical, survival state for children. Parents often need help in understanding this. They need help preventing their children from becoming the innocent casualties of their divorce. Research tells us that 80% of the issues of divorce are emotion-driven. While parents are in the midst of such emotional upheaval, even the most well-intentioned parents can become overwhelmed and lose sight of what is genuinely in their child(ren)’s best interest. Before, during and after divorce, parents and their children can benefit from the guidance and assistance of peacemaking professionals, who are focused on the well being of their family now and into the future. Most parents with minor children are going through divorce for the first time. While negotiating this extremely difficult life transition, they have no experience from which to draw.
Collaborative Divorce and Mediation are confidential, no-court divorce options, which offer parents and children a peaceful, even transformative path for the restructuring of their family. Research shows that mediation can be beneficial for emotional satisfaction, spousal relationships and children’s needs.5 Parents focus not on prevailing but on peacemaking, not on winning but on healing, because real winning means not wanting the other person to lose. No-court divorce offers divorcing parents the best possibility that they can share the joys of parenthood. Such sharing is one of the best gifts parents can give their children, because children feel and treasure their parents experiencing this joy. When divorcing parents learn how to prevent their children from being caught in the crossfire in the middle of a combat zone and put their children in the center of healthy interactions, their children can remain children. They are unburdened by adult concerns. They don’t have to worry about finances, how Mom and Dad are coping, fear of being loyal to one parent and not the other, being in an alliance with one parent against the other. being afraid to express their feelings for fear of hurting Dad or Mom or of having Mom or Dad be angry with them. When their life as they have known it is crumbling around them, children deserve to experience the benefits of no-court divorce.
The first story: Two divorced parents were called to an emergency scene at a lake to rescue their child who had had fallen into a lake. Rather than springing into action and coordinating the child’s rescue, they immediately began arguing about whose fault it was that the child had fallen into the lake. The child drowned.
The second story: (For ease of style, I use the generic pronoun “he” and its derivatives.) Two divorcing parents were attending a co-parenting training class. Ten pairs of parents were present in the class. The instructor gave the directions for the first exercise. “Sit down across from your partner and face each other, with your right elbows on the table. Grab your partner’s right hand with your own right hand and don’t let go. Each parent will get one point every time the back of the other parent’s right hand touches the table. The goal for each parent is to get as many points for himself or herself as possible during the exercise. Keep your eyes closed and be completely indifferent to how many points your partner gets. You will have one minute. Ready, set, go!”
For one minute, the pairs struggled as each parent tried by physical strength to force the back of the other’s right hand down to the table. With much effort and against the physical opposition of each partner, almost no one got more than a point or two. There was a single exception. Almost immediately, one parent remembered that his goal was to get as many points as he could for himself, and then he became utterly indifferent to how many points his partner got. Instead of pushing on his partner’s hand, he pulled it down to the table, gave his surprised partner a quick and easy point, took a quick point for himself, and then gave his partner another point. Without talking to or looking at each other, the two parents, with their elbows on the table, then swung their clasped hands harmoniously back and forth as rapidly as they could, thus collecting a large number of points for each of them.
Upon the conclusion of the exercise, each pair of parents reported to the group how many points each had collected. No one had more than three points, except for the parent pair who had cooperated, each of whom had earned more than twenty points.
Despite the directions to the parents, that used the word “partner” and despite the instructions that they were to be indifferent to how many points their partner collected, virtually all parent participants had assumed that they and the one with whom they were doing the exercise were adversaries. That adversarial assumption dominated their thinking and prevented them from getting as many points as they could have.
(Beyond Reason: Using Emotions As You Negotiate, by Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro, gave me the inspiration for this second story.)
A litigation attorney, tells me that when potential clients consult with her regarding retaining her for litigation, she educates them about the reasons clients should not consider litigation as an option to settle a dispute. She explains that, if they value the relationship with the persons against whom they are considering bringing the lawsuit, litigation is likely not their best choice.
Do you think your children want you, their parents, to value your relationship with each other, just as they value and love each of you? How will they feel most secure, knowing that their parents are partners or combatants? What will they learn from you if you are engaged in combat divorce? What will they learn from you if you model cooperative problem solving with integrity and mutual respect? Who “wins” when one of your children’s parents “loses?” What is the legacy you want to co-create for them?
Original material © 2018 Carol R. Hughes, Ph.D., LMFT
Carol R. Hughes, Ph.D., is a licensed marriage, family and child therapist, a board-certified clinical hypnotherapist, an EMDR therapist and a former professor of Human Services at Saddleback College. In private practice in Laguna Hills, CA, since 1983, Dr. Hughes is a respected expert and sought-after speaker on the effects of divorce on children. In 2003 she became one of the founding members of Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County, and is also a co-founder of and trainer for the Collaborative Divorce Education Institute in Orange County, CA, a non-profit organization, whose mission is to educate the public about peaceful options for divorce, as well as to provide quality training for collaborative divorce professionals. She frequently trains and mentors collaborative practitioners and has appeared on the Time Warner Public television series “How to Get a Divorce”. Carol has been a presenter at conferences of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals and at California’s annual statewide conferences for collaborative professionals. In 2011 Carol was honored with the Eureka Award, which recognizes those who have made significant contributions and demonstrated an abiding dedication to establishing and sustaining Collaborative Practice in California. For a complete listing of her collaborative practice training and teaching workshops please visit www.CollaborativePractice.com, the website of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, and click on the “Locate a Collaborative Professional near you” link. In addition, please visit her website at www.DivorcePeacemaking.com and www.CDEI.info.
As a family law lawyer, I really look forward to my time on duty to volunteer at Riverside County Superior Court for VSC (Voluntary Settlement Conference) day. It is offered two Fridays per month and is THE most successful mediation program in the nation with an over 90 percent success rate!
Why? Because, in order to be a mediator on this panel, you must have the highest training and qualifications as both a family law lawyer and as a mediator. Not only do we donate our time, we must be in practice at least 10 years and have hundreds of hours of mediation training and practice under our belts. Other family law mediation programs that either do not have a structured program with high mediator qualifications, or that pay retired judges to do this work, enjoy a success rate below 60 percent.
Judges have an incredibly difficult job. It takes very specific skill sets to be a good judge. But being a talented judge does not, in and of itself, make you a good mediator.
I also volunteer as a fee arbitrator in attorney-client fee disputes for the California State Bar and for the San Bernardino County Bar Association. My role as an arbitrator is that of a judge: to listen to testimony, review the evidence, and make a ruling based on the law. There is no facilitation or brainstorming to help the parties create agreements together. As a result, the parties tend to stay polarized, hoping I will rule in their favor.
In contrast, a mediator works to find common ground, and assists the parties in bridging gaps, focusing on their goals and the reality of the benefits and risks of resolving versus litigation.
During a recent mediation in Riverside*, I had to use my skills as an arbitrator to attempt to resolve a divorce dispute in mediation. In this particular case, the husband was represented by counsel. The wife was not. The couple was married in the Netherlands and moved to California two years prior to the divorce. They had been married for 15 years. They had already agreed to the division of their assets and debts. The final item preventing them from resolving their divorce for nearly two years (yes, they had been divorcing for two years) was spousal support. The wife was not a legal U.S. resident and had struggled finding employment. During the marriage, she worked as a babysitter. The husband ran his own consulting business and was always the higher income earner.
As an arbitrator, looking at the evidence presented, the ruling is quite simple. Based on California law, Husband would be required to pay spousal support until one of the normal, terminating factors in a long term (over 10 years) marriage: 1) death of either party; 2) remarriage of wife; or 3) further order of the court. Wife, however, would have to make reasonable, good faith efforts to become self-supporting, in order to continue to receive support.
As a mediator, it is important to help both husband and wife craft an agreement that factors in wife’s financial needs and goals, as well as husband’s sense of unfairness of having to pay for so long a time. In this case, wife appreciated this and proposed that husband pay her only what she was short in rent each month ($200) for five years. This would give her time allowing her to get her legal resident papers in order and find a stable job, as she explained it, after which she would agree to “terminate” support.
In a long-term marriage, courts do not, generally, terminate support; they may reduce it to zero dollars, but they will leave open the ability to request it in the future. This proposal, legally, put a lot of value on the table for the husband. As a neutral, and especially given that wife was unrepresented, I did have to educate both parties about that legal value and the implications of a spousal support termination. To all knowledgeable in family law, this proposal was golden.
Husband’s attorney instructed him to reject the offer as completely unreasonable. His argument? In the Netherlands, his wife would not have received spousal support at all. Since the parties lived there for most of their marriage, wife should not be allowed to benefit from California spousal support laws. They argued the wife should agree to no more than six months of spousal support, which would then end. This sounded logical to husband.
Sadly, the husband’s “logic” is not the basis upon which family law judges issue orders. My inner arbitrator asked husband’s lawyer to explain the legal basis for this argument. It was a novel argument to me, and I’ve been in practice for nearly 20 years. His response: “Yes, it is a case of first impression, so I have to research this more.”
Excuse me? You have no legal basis for this argument, which means your client will be paying you for research that will very likely not result in the expected outcome. In addition to this expense, Husband’s lawyer planned on having a vocational evaluation done on wife to determine how much she could reasonably be earning. Really? She’s undocumented, and lawyer wants to do a vocational evaluation. Husband, as the sole income earning, would have to front this cost.
The court had already told the litigants prior to sending them off with their mediators that, if they do not resolve their matters, the next available court date would not be for another six months. This meant that husband will continue to pay his lawyer during that time, for research on an issue that has no support in law. If we calculate the legal fees at $1,750/month (lawyer rate of $350/hour, at five hours of legal work per month, including research on the foreign marriage issue, gathering information on wife’s earning ability, history of income during the marriage, and so forth), for six months, it will cost the husband $10,500 prior to his trial readiness conference. This is not the trial itself. It is a court hearing to confirm you are ready for trial.
The trial would likely be set within the following one or two months after that hearing, and trial preparation by his attorney would be far greater than five hours. But let’s keep it conservative for this discussion and add only another $1,750 to finish this case through trial. Now we have $11,750 in legal fees for the husband, in the hopes the judge will side with him and terminate spousal support, despite the law.
Let’s compare this with the wife’s proposal to resolve their case through mediation, six months before trial readiness. She proposed $200/month for five years = $12,000, and a signed, binding, agreement to terminate spousal support. That’s a guarantee, folks. Remember, by terminating, no court, in any state, would have the legal ability to order more support, ever!
Sadly, husband trusted his lawyer in the above mediation. The parties will end up going to trial, based on his lawyer adding to husband’s sense of unfairness, rather than educating his client as to the reality of the law. Logic would dictate that it would be better to take a sure bet for $250 more, than pay almost the same amount and risk the judge applying the law, as they are required to do.
In mediation, husband had the ability to cut his losses and be done. As a judge, there is no such flexibility. The judge or arbitrator (same function) is required to apply the law. But when emotion (that sense of unfairness) takes over, and a lawyer creates a false hope by feeding into that emotion, the only “winners” are the lawyers. There is no benefit to either spouse. There is no benefit to their families. The court battle continues.
If you expect a judge or arbitrator to “do the right thing” because he or she will see and understand the unfairness of it all, you will be disappointed. A judge does not have that kind of flexibility. They may find one argument more persuasive than another, but that means it follows the law more closely than the other. It does not factor in emotion or “fairness.”
In the above example, the law does not look at where you were married and apply the rules of a foreign country. If you lived in California six months prior to filing your petition for divorce, you fall under the laws of California – no exceptions based on “it’s not fair.” A judge must render decisions based on the law and the evidence properly presented. Don’t forget to factor in the financial and family relationship costs of the continued battle.
*I’ve changed certain facts of the case to protect confidential information, but have kept the substance the same.
Statewide award honors Collaborative Practice professionals
(Irvine, California) – Family law attorney Diana L. Martinez and financial professional Tracy McKenney were honored as recipients of the 2017 Eureka Award, bestowed annually by Collaborative Practice California. Martinez and McKenney received their awards at Conference XII held in Redondo Beach, California. McKenney’s award was bestowed posthumously; she served as CDSOC president before her death due to cancer in September 2016.
The Eureka Award recognizes and honors those who “have made significant contributions and demonstrated an abiding dedication to establishing and sustaining Collaborative Practice in California.”
Diana L. Martinez is a committed Collaborative professional who has tirelessly served the California Collaborative community for many years. Ms. Martinez has devoted 100 percent of her family law practice to out-of-court dispute resolution including Collaborative Practice since 2007. She is passionate about educating others about the benefits of Collaborative Practice through personal contact. Ms. Martinez is a noted trainer and educator for legal, financial, and mental health professionals locally and nationwide on family law topics including Collaborative Practice, confidentiality, cultural competency, and ethics and best practices. She has presented to state and local bar associations and legal organizations, law schools and practice groups.
Ms. Martinez is a frequent guest lecturer for community Divorce Options and Divorce Recovery programs and a volunteer mediator for multiple county superior courts. Ms. Martinez has served on governing boards of Collaborative Practice regional groups in three counties, multiple statewide Collaborative Practice committees, and is a past president and current board member of CDSOC. Her dedication has resulted in “Super Lawyers” recognition and a perfect 10/10 rating in peer and client online reviews.
Upon receiving her honor, Martinez said, “it was an incredible surprise, and humbling honor, to receive the award this year; especially to receive it at the same time as my friend and colleague, Tracy McKenney. I’m so fortunate to have connected with those whom I consider as leaders in Collaborative Practice, education, and awareness, including previous Eureka Award winner Carol Hughes, who presented me with my award. I have so much support from the Orange County practice group, and am surrounded by so many dedicated professionals, that it makes it easy to be passionate about this work.”
Tracy McKenney was a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst and Certified Financial Planner with a passion for training and education in Collaborative Practice. Ms. McKenney devoted her professional efforts to helping families during the divorce process make informed decisions. Ms. McKenney helped couples determine how their decisions would affect their family’s future including sending children to college, property ownership, and retirement.
McKenney supported Collaborative Practice as treasurer and later as President of CDSOC. She was instrumental in bringing the “Divorce Options” workshop program into Orange County colleges and guiding CDSOC toward improved training and higher standards of practice. McKenney was a member of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, Association of Divorce Financial Planners and the Financial Planning Association of Orange County.
McKenney lost her battle with cancer in September 2016 while serving as CDSOC President. Her husband, Scott McKenney, accepted the Eureka Award on her behalf from her colleague and fellow recipient Diana L. Martinez.
“My children and I want to thank CP Cal and Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County for posthumously awarding my wife, Tracy McKenney, with the Eureka Award for her efforts in Collaborative education. I was honored to accept the award on her behalf,” said Scott McKinney.
“At her core, Tracy loved helping people. It’s what she was all about, it was her calling. Tracy was deeply passionate about the Collaborative Divorce process as a way of getting through one of life’s most difficult challenges in any couple’s life with the least amount of stress and breakage: both family and financially.
“Tracy believed so much in the power of the Collaborative Process, and that it was her mission to spread the word throughout Southern California. She developed educational classes and led them with her professional teammates at local community colleges throughout Orange County. Her desire was to educate and raise awareness that there are alternatives to litigation for divorce that reduces pain and suffering for all involved.
“Tracy would be deeply honored and humbled with this award, and I know she is smiling with thanks to be recognized in the field she felt so strongly about and worked so hard to nurture. On behalf of the McKenney family, thank you very much from the bottom of our hearts,” said McKenney.
In her own words, McKenney described why it was important for her to be involved in CDSOC. She said, “Collaborative Divorce represents a significant advancement in resolving divorce respectfully. Going through a divorce is in some ways harder than dealing with the death of a loved one. It worsens when the process is dragged out through contentious, time-consuming and costly litigation in court. In so many cases, couples can avoid the damage of a court battle, even when they aren’t sure they can cooperate. Our approach makes it possible.
“Collaborative Divorce keeps decision-making in the hands of the couple. It spares them and especially their children the duress from an acrimonious divorce, preventing lasting harm, and preserving the family relationships for a healthier future,” said McKenney.
The Eureka Award is not limited to those in any particular practice or career. Previous honorees include members of the core disciplines – mental health, financial, and legal – as well as those who are not licensed in these professions.
Martinez and McKenney join a distinguished list of previous recipients from Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County, including Leslee Newman (2009), Carol Hughes (2011), Bart Carey (2012), Brian Don Levy (2013), and Cathleen Collinsworth (2015), making Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County among the three most honored regional practice groups in California.
The Eureka Award was established in 2006 as part of the very first Celebration of Collaborative Practice in Sonoma, California and actually pre-dates the founding of CP Cal. In its first two years, the Eureka Award Committee chose to play “catch up” and honored several recipients each year. In 2008, the CP Cal Board chose to limit the Eureka Award to three to five Honorees.
About Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County
Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County (CDSOC) was founded in 2003 to advise couples in Orange County about out of court options to traditional divorce litigation. Our group consists of experienced family law attorneys, licensed mental health professionals, and credentialed financial professionals, all of whom are specially trained in Collaborative Practice, mediation, and conflict resolution. Working under the Collaborative Practice model, the result is a divorce guided with respect and compassion in a non-adversarial way so families can make the best possible decisions about their future.
Will serve as 2017-2018 Collaborative Practice California Board President Media contact: Gayle Lynn Falkenthal, APR, Fellow PRSA 619-997-2495 or gayle@falconvalleygroup.com
(Irvine, California) – Orange County family law attorney John Denny, member and past president of Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County, was installed as president of Collaborative Practice California (CP Cal), the statewide organization for Collaborative Practice groups, at its annual conference in Redondo Beach, California on Sunday, April 30.
Individual members of the practice groups include Collaborative lawyers, mental health practitioners, financial specialists, and other professionals. The Collaborative Process is being used in family law, probate law, trusts and estates, and other civil law areas.
CP Cal’s mission is to unify, strengthen and support the Collaborative Practice community and to increase public awareness of the Collaborative Process throughout California.
“My goal during my tenure as Board President is to spread the word about the many benefits of Collaborative Practice in family law, civil matters, and trusts and estates,” said Denny. “Californians who must address legal or financial matters will benefit knowing about their Collaborative options for working through these critically important and sometimes contentious issues. They can resolve even the most difficult disputes while still preserving personal relationships with family members or business colleagues,” explained Denny.
John Denny graduated from UCLA (B.A., Economics, 1980) and Loyola Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1994). He was admitted to the California Bar (1994), U.S. District Court, Central District of California (1994), and the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (1995). Denny is a Certified Specialist in Family Law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization.
Denny is a member of the Orange County Bar Association, State Bar of California, Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County (CDSOC), and the International Association of Collaborative Professionals (IACP).
Denny co-authored “Ethical Issues Involving Minor’s Counsel,” published in OC Lawyer (2009), and “Some Benefits of Mediation and Collaborative Law,” OC Lawyer (2011). He served on the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and the Lawyers Club of Los Angeles County, including a term as President. Denny is a past President of CDSOC. He is a Founding Fellow of the Society of Fellows of the Orange County Bar Foundation.
John Denny is of counsel to Hittelman Strunk Law Group and limits his practice to Family Law Litigation, Mediation and Collaborative Law.
About Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County
Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County (CDSOC) was founded in 2003 to advise couples in Orange County about out of court options to traditional divorce litigation. Our group consists of experienced family law attorneys, licensed mental health professionals, and credentialed financial professionals, all of whom are specially trained in Collaborative Practice, mediation, and conflict resolution. Working under the Collaborative Practice model, the result is a divorce guided with respect and compassion in a non-adversarial way so families can make the best possible decisions about their future.
by Dr. Carol R. Hughes, Ph.D., LMFT
The Holmes-Rahe Stress Scale indicates that divorce is the second highest stressor for humans, second only to the death of a spouse. Why is divorce so stressful?
When we view divorce through the lens of British psychologist, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst John Bowlby’s attachment theory, it helps us understand the reason why divorce is so stressful. Attachment theory states that we humans have a biological predisposition to form attachment bonds (strong emotional ties) with significant others to have a secure haven and safe base where we can thrive and return for support and comfort during times of need, stress, and crisis.
We form these attachment bonds via our relationships with other human beings who are of primary importance to us. Indeed, Dr. Dan Siegel, Professor of Psychiatry at UCLA Medical School, states, “Relationships are the most important part of our having well-being in being human. It’s that simple. And it’s that important.”
From birth to death, throughout the human life cycle, attachment bonds ensure our safety, security and even survival, and these emotional ties are strong and enduring. It is understandable then that we humans tenaciously cling to our attachment bonds, both consciously and unconsciously. Divorce disrupts and often destroys one of the most significant and powerful attachment bonds that we adults form – the bond with our marriage partner, thus also threatening the feelings of safety, security and survival this attachment bond has ensured. As author Pat Conroy lamented, “The greatest fury comes from the wound where love once issued forth.”
The disruption and destruction of this powerful attachment marital bond become even more significant when we view each couple member’s psychological and physical health during and post divorce. In the least case divorce causes the disruption and restructuring of the marital attachment bond and in the severest case, it causes the severing of the marital attachment bond, resulting in the attachment needs of the couple members no longer being met. When this happens, the couple members have lost their secure haven and safe base where they can thrive and return for support and comfort during times of need, stress, and crisis. They become more distressed and thus vulnerable to both physical and psychological stress, while at the same time being less able to deal with the stress and distress.
Researchers have consistently found that, except when compared to those in the most unhappy marriages, separated and divorced individuals suffer higher rates of physical and mental health concerns than married people in general, and often higher rates than widowed individuals. In contrast, researchers have found that those in the unhappiest marriages often feel a sense of relief and hopefulness that their future can be happier apart from their spouse.
The impact of divorce reaches far beyond the disruption, restructuring, and rupture of the marital attachment bond. Divorce affects relationships in every aspect of the couple’s lives – the relationships with their children, both minor and adult, with extended family members, friend and community support systems, both in the present time and into the future. As the author Pat Conroy wrote, “Divorce has many witnesses, many victims… Each divorce is the death of a small civilization.”
We know that grief is part of dealing with the excruciating loss that overwhelms us in death’s wake. Grief is our response to this loss. Divorce is the death of a marriage, the death of a couple or a family living together in one residence, often the death of extended family, friend, and community gatherings, the death of hopes, plans and dreams for the future. Grief is the invisible companion of divorce. Whether we are the one who is leaving the marriage, or the one being left, grief will be accompanying us on the journey called divorce.
Grief will also be the travel companion of our children, both minor and adult, our extended family members, and our friend and community support systems. This grief is inevitable. To many it is also invisible because most of us experiencing divorce, whether it is our divorce or the divorce of our parents, do not think of what we are experiencing as grief. We most often say that we are feeling shocked, angry, sad and powerless, all of which are feelings that arise during grief.
During separation and divorce, both members of the couple are experiencing significant losses. Yet both are often unaware of their invisible companion called grief.
It is common that the one leaving the marriage has already endured months and even years of agony, assessing whether to leave or stay. For the one leaving, the divorce grief process began many months ago as he or she began thinking about less contact with the children, extended family, friends and community, the loss of and even longing for the happier days of the marriage, the possible loss of the family home and financial security, and the loss of hopes, plans, and dreams. So, the one leaving has a head start in the grief cycle of divorce.
When the one leaving says, “I want a divorce,” the one being left is immediately catapulted into the grief cycle of divorce. Often the one being left swings topsy-turvy through feelings of shock, deep hurt, intense sadness, anger, even rage, love and longing for the spouse and grieving the same losses as the one who is leaving the marriage. All of these feelings are part of the grief cycle of divorce.
Researchers have also found that even when adults have experienced such losses, physical and psychological disturbances, and grief, after a period of time most adults cope successfully with divorce.
How can you best ensure that you are one of the adults who successfully cope with divorce?
Acknowledge that you are experiencing an overwhelmingly stressful life event. Assess where you are in the divorce grief cycle. Ask for professional assistance. Work with a team of divorce professionals who are experienced in Collaborative Divorce and Mediation and who understand your needs as you move through this major life crisis. These divorce options are confidential, out-of-court, non-adversarial and respectful. They offer you the opportunity to identify your goals, interests and concerns and craft agreements that are both individual and family focused.
Twelve members of Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County contributed their professional expertise to the annual Collaborative Practice California (CP Cal) Conference XII, held in Redondo Beach, California from April 28 – 30.
Cathleen Collinsworth, a CP Cal Delegate for 2017-2018 and a workshop presenter, said, “This year’s theme of ‘Harnessing the Energy’ came true. The energy was very evident throughout the entire weekend. It is my hope those of us who attended can keep that energy going throughout the coming year.”
Also presenting workshops were Bart Carey, Patrice Courteau, Dr. Carol Hughes, and Diana L. Martinez.
CSDOC member and Orange County based family law attorney John Denny received the gavel from outgoing CP Cal President Lisa Zonder, and will serve as CP Cal President for 2017-2018. Also serving with Denny on the board of directors is Diana L. Martinez.
Collinsworth expressed her desire on behalf of the conference attendees to continue collaborating together in their daily work, as well as their daily lives, and continue to educate all they meet on the value of peacemaking.
Sorry for the silly pun when this is such a serious topic. Seriously, though, pre-nuptial agreements are hot topics which give rise to many emotions.
“It paints the Devil on the wall.”
“It is anticipating failure of the marriage.”
“If he or she really loved me, this would not be necessary.”
“I am uncomfortable talking about finances.”
The list can go on and on. Sometimes emotions are an unnecessary waste of energy. Other times emotions have some benefits, even negative emotions. For example, fear in a dark alley in a dangerous neighborhood will cause you to be zealously vigilant about your surroundings which will lead you into taking appropriate steps for your safety … much like the pre-nuptial agreement itself.
Unfortunately, statistics today are not favorable for a lasting marriage. If and when there is a decision to get divorced, the person you once loved turns into the enemy. There is often a total lack of trust at the time of a divorce. There are fights over money, property, and other issues creating stress for both partners. This stress almost always filters down to the children.
Collaborative Law is a process where couples work with a team of expert professionals.
The mental-health professionals work individually with each partner to a marriage (or a potential marriage). They help curb their emotions and phrase their individual needs and wants in a positive, cooperative and logical way, allowing those needs and wants to really be heard and understood by the other partner.
The financial professional will be able to identify and sort out the financial and property issues of concern to the couple in a transparent and logical way.
The Collborative Practice attorneys will help guide their clients through the legal quagmire. This can all be done in a much less stressful, more cooperative way in the collaborative arena.
While important, none of that is the real reason that Collaborative pre-nups make the most “cents.”
The biggest reason for marriages to fail is the breakdown in communication. Having gone through a divorce in the Collaborative law process, many (if not most) participants say if they’d gone through this process before the marriage, the divorce would be much less likely.
So it makes “cents” to have your pre-nuptial agreement created in the Collaborative setting. Because of the communication skills learned by the couple during the process, it may help avoid a future divorce altogether. This saves a great deal of “cents” paid to attorneys and litigation, or future Collaborative Divorce costs.
Even if the unthinkable happens and there is a future divorce, you will come out ahead. Having learned how to conduct difficult conversations in a way that allows your spouse to hear and understand your position, even discussing issues in the divorce process that were not part of the original prenup will save many “cents.”
Most importantly, the stress level exposed to any children during your divorce will be significantly reduced. This is an outcome which is “priceless.”