A Christian Divorce

Chapter Six Know Your Options: Collaborative Law “Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company.” Acts 15:36-39 Divorce happens. It just does. There are good people who believe that every marriage is salvageable. I wish it were so. Even as a young child I sensed that my own parents simply weren’t happy. After a while, the unhappiness can rub of on others. I firmly believe that if individuals make a concerted effort to improve the relationship, and relationship still seems irreparable, then parting ways is sometimes best for everyone. That was true for my family. And while many well-intentioned Christian stalwarts may disapprove and argue that all godly unions are reconcilable, I find solace in the scriptural account of the Christian “divorce” between Paul and Barnabas. There can be little doubt that the apostles Paul and Barnabas were two of the most influential early followers of Christ whose missionary impact has never been rivaled. Their friendship and partnership in Christ is one of the most famous Godly unions in history . . . , and yet the author of the book of Acts clearly recounts that Paul and Barnabas experienced “such a sharp disagreement that they parted company.” The partnership forged between Paul and Barnabas was a Godly union that had as its sole objective to glorify God. So, too, are marriages. We clearly intend for our marital unions to glorify God. Our marriage ceremonies directly invoke God’s name. We clearly ask for God’s richest blessings at the time of marriage. So, despite the arguments of some well-meaning Christians that all godly relationships can and should be resuscitated, the story of Paul and Barnabas parting company is a wonderful reminder that God is at work even in the midst of broken relationships. If two of the greatest apostles in the history of Christianity were unable to reconcile their differences . . . if God did not intervene to restore and repair their Christ-centered relationship before they physically parted ways . . . perhaps we should lean less on our human understanding of divorce, and accept that some Godly unions will inevitably end. But how should such relationship end? When divorce is truly inevitable, then it is critically important to investigate what options are available regarding the possible paths that can be taken in the State in which you reside. Up until the 1990s, the litigation path was the sole path towards resolution . . . but that path only leads to the courthouse. In other words, the litigation path is one that makes all issues a potential “contest” or a “fight.” Issues that are not readily agreed upon become topics for legal battle. Litigation quickly polarizes the parties and, more-times-than-not, escalates the conflict (which is naturally present because of the reasons that lead towards any break-up). Only the lawyers profit from the billable moments created by the need to strategically position a case to force the other side into submission. Only the lawyers benefit from the money that is mostly wasted on seeking information that often adds little to resolving the conflict between the individuals. More importantly to the parties who are actually in the heat of a litigation battle, emotional wounds cut deep and heal slowly – if ever. As a child of divorce, I speak with some authority in suggesting that divorce scars all of its willing and un-willing participants . . . and emotionally cripples some for life. It is a contest that is not easily stopped once it’s started. In some situations, litigation may be the only path, but a visionary group of lawyers and judges who were profoundly dissatisfied with the incompatibility of handling family issues in a litigation realm began championing a new approach to resolving divorce: Collaborative Law. At its core, Collaborative Law entirely removes all divorce issues from the courthouse. Instead, it provides a method for divorcing families to try and find solutions for their entire families, rather than forcing them to “win” battles. Moreover, the Collaborative Law process tends to save families money. One law school research article concluded that fully litigated divorce cases cost an average of ~$155,000; cases that involve some litigation and then mediation cost an average of ~$53,000; while individuals who opted into the collaborative process spent ~$39,000 on average. The State of Texas has been a leader in the growth and expansion of the use of Collaborative Law in family law matters. THE COLLABORATIVE LAW INSTITUTE OF TEXAS, which is dedicated to supporting family law attorneys’ use of the Collaborative process, has summarized this new paradigm by describing it as: “The collaborative law approach allows couples to end marriages with civility and respect, making decisions together to help create the best post-divorce life possible for all family members. If you agree with the following statements, collaborative law provides you with a better, smarter alternative to a traditional courtroom divorce: 1. You have control of your own divorce process and outcome. 2. You seek a civil, respectful, creative and individual process for ending your marriage. 3. You recognize the importance of future relationships - even after divorce. 4. You believe it is important to protect children from the harm litigation can inflict. 5. You place a high value on personal responsibility for handling conflict with integrity.” Collaborative Law is the alternative to the traditional litigation approach. It is a process that meaningfully acknowledges that even though a marriage may be ending, relationships and obligations often continue, especially when children are involved. Collaborative Law creates an environment and a highly structured process to allow divorcing couples to creatively craft agreements that focus on their individual and mutual goals. From the outside looking in, Collaborative Law looks like a series of settlement conferences, which it is; however, it abandons the polarizing us-versus-them negotiations, and now enlists everyone onto the same team. In great contrast to the traditional litigation paradigm, Collaborative Law encourages and navigates the parties through exhaustive brainstorming and problem solving exercises after having taken great lengths to identify each spouses goals and concerns. The differing paths to conflict resolution will both culminate in achieving a divorce; however, it is very similar to picking the right path to reach the summit of a mountain. Surely there are many ways to reach that destination – unfortunately some trails are more treacherous and expensive than others, and will leave some individuals worse-off from the journey. That is why choosing the right path is so critical on this particular life journey A good example of what I mean occurred several years ago when I represented a Mother in a divorce matter. Before we opted into the Collaborative Law process, she adamantly demanded a custody schedule with her children that would give her every weekend (as well as the majority of every week). There were absolutely no safety issues regarding the Father, but Mom nevertheless remained insistent that she receive every weekend with the kids. So, given this snapshot of a single issue, this is how traditional litigation approaches conflict resolution differently from the Collaborative Law process . . .