What is the Difference Between Collaborative Practice and Traditional Divorce?
In a traditional, or conventional, divorce most couples become adversarial and end up spending time and money on an extensive in-court process to settle their disputes regarding property, inheritance, custody, and more.
By going to court, couples and families are subjected to an unnecessary level of distress. This distress often has the most noticeable effect on children. As opposed to a traditional divorce process, the collaborative family law process strives to avoid using the courtroom as a mediator for settling marital disputes.
Partners who engage in the collaborative family law process agree to meet with their lawyers, as well as any other family law professionals they choose to involve. The series of meetings, in which the separating parties agree to participate, are centered on reaching an agreement that satisfies both parties and is the best solution for any children involved.
By giving couples the opportunity to create child support and parenting agreements without relying on a court ruling, the collaborative family law process can save families months or years that they might spend waiting for a ruling to be returned.
From an emotional perspective, the collaborative family law process can significantly relieve the strain that a divorce often causes both parties. If the process falters and one party decides to bring the dispute to court, the collaborative lawyers are required to resign from the case.
This ensures that everyone involved in the collaborative family law process works diligently and respectfully to come to an agreement that satisfies all parties involved.