A previous entry here discussed a number of reasons for professionals to “rule out” Collaborative Divorce as a process option under certain circumstances. This post will focus on another dynamic for divorce professionals to consider and to discuss with potential clients who are considering Collaborative Divorce – the clients’ ability to make solid decisions for themselves.
Legal and other professional fees can be crippling for Middle Tennessee divorce clients – sometimes running from $50,000-$100,000 or more in legal and related fees to get all the way through a contested divorce trial, especially if kids are involved. Collaborative Divorce works to streamline and tailor the divorce process so that the clients’ specific needs and goals are addressed for significantly less than the cost of divorce litigation. Here are a number of ways the process works to keep costs as low as possible while still providing a more satisfying outcome:
The Interdisciplinary Collaborative Divorce Trainers (ICDT) will be leading a two-day basic, introductory training into the “team based” collaborative divorce process. The training will be held in downtown Knoxville, TN on March 4-5, 2016.
For more information and to register for the training, click here: http://www.divorcetrainers.com
By the time most couples reach the painful decision to divorce, one or both of them have typically spent a great deal of time telling themselves (and often each other) over and over all of the ways in which the parties are out of sync and how the marriage is not working. In short, they have created a “stuck story” they have told themselves enough times that they have come to believe that being “stuck” is their ultimate and final truth – that there is no other way to think about their life. Collaborative Divorce can provide the tools for parties to begin to imagine a different story for themselves as they come out of their marriage.
This post is the second of three posts that consider the ways in which each of the three types of professionals involved in collaborative divorces – attorneys, financial neutrals, and mental health coaches – miss the mark in performing their professional role on the team. This post will specifically look at the role of the Financial Neutral.
The next few posts will explore some of the pitfalls or roadblocks that can come up for each of the three types of professionals in Collaborative Divorces in Tennessee – Mental Health Coaches, Attorneys, and Financial Neutrals. This post will focus specifically on Coaches and their role in cases.
With the advent of same-sex marriage across Tennessee and the rest of the United States, same-sex divorce will be an inevitable reality in the very near future. In fact, some Tennessee couples married in other states and have wanted to divorce for years in Tennessee, but have been unable to do so until now. Collaborative divorce is an important option for gay and lesbian divorcing couples to consider.
Previous blog entries here have focused mostly on the ways Collaborative Divorce is different from traditional divorce litigation and how the process takes into account the non-legal aspects of divorcing. This post will explore more about the role Tennessee substantive law plays in the Collaborative Divorce process.
While it is my bias that most divorcing couples can benefit from using the collaborative divorce process rather than going through divorce litigation, there is absolutely a subset of couples for whom litigation is the better choice. This post will list some of the issues or dynamics that may be present in cases that should lead collaborative professionals to refer potential clients to a family law litigator.
Previous blog posts have discussed the fact that collaborative divorce is a team-based approach to divorce that allows parties to have the benefit of legal counsel, financial advice, and targeted emotional support both before and during the divorce negotiations. An important part of that mix in many cases is the financial neutral. There is only one financial professional per collaborative divorce team, as opposed to litigated cases where each party has his or her own separate financial professional, if a financial expert is involved at all.