This testimonial is adapted from the website of the Law Council of Australia
More Information:
Law Council of Australia

 

The benefit of hindsight 

Lucy says:

I guess now, months down the track, the focus is on the fact that I am actually divorced, but in reality, the actual divorce itself was a very small part of the picture and the stress for me.

The focus was more upon how to settle the assets and the custody of the children.

Once the decision was made to make a settlement of our affairs, I remember telling our accountant that I would like my partner and me to sit down and work out what we could do, and then take it to a lawyer to draw up the agreement and leave the lawyers amazed at how civilised and quick it all was.

I was determined to find a lawyer that would abide by my wishes and support me in my desire to see our marriage and business dealings end with ease and grace. I remember Roger [not their real name] going reasonably silent, and I guess looking back, there was a lot of naïveté in my statement, but funny things happen when you “put it out there”. Roger rang not that long after, saying he had met a collaborative lawyer with a wonderful reputation, and that perhaps William and I would consider meeting with him and another with the same approach.

 

What is the collaborative process?

Lucy says:

We agreed to pursue the collaborative approach to divorce and property settlement when we heard what the process was about and what the potential outcome would be — no more convincing was needed, we both recognised that this approach was for us.

The fact we could meet with both lawyers in the one room, although at first glance appearing to be a very expensive way of doing it, meant there were no miscommunications and we could resolve, or at least put on the table all of the possible resolutions, there and then.

It was a very civilised and respectful way to deal with the harsh reality of ending a long term partnership.

I think we were lucky in that we both had a very good grasp of our business, and we were also both in total agreement that in all things, no amount of money was worth risking the future co-parenting relationship — the kids (aged 10 and 7) had to come first in all our decisions, financial or custodial.

With the collaborative process, our lawyers were both trained to read the emotion within the room, and to gently question until both parties had fully expressed their concerns; no mean feat when, even though we were very level headed, our “pattern” in the marriage was miscommunication and impatience with the other’s point of view.

 

Involving Neutral Third Parties

Often in the collaborative process, both sides agree to engage the services of a neutral third party to advise on financial and/or parenting matters. The neutrality of this team member helps to serve the overall best interest of both parties and the children and avoids the skepticism and combative nature of engaging independent advisers on each side to work solely in the best interests of their own client.

Lucy says:

Our asset split was quite complicated, and due to the nature of the business, we chose to work together (independent of the lawyers and a valuer) to come up with a valuation on our stock, equipment and land holdings.

In our case, we both felt that we would know more than a valuer about our particular industry, and therefore would argue with any valuation.

The decision lead to many hours of our own version of collaboration to come up with the value of our business and assets. I am not advocating that this would work for everyone, simply that in our case it was necessary.

Without the initial meetings with the collaborative team, I don’t believe we could have achieved such a harmonious and cost effective result.

While the settlement process was still stressful, we had no bitterness or acrimony, in fact after most of the meetings my ex-partner and I would leave the lawyers offices and head off for a coffee.

That may not be achievable in all circumstances, but we were really ready to cut the ties and much of the emotional work had been done in the previous years.

 

Preparation before and during the process

Some couples elect to add a neutral coach or psychologist to their collaborative team. This person might also perform the role of facilitating the meetings.

The coach helps the parties to prepare themselves mentally for negotiation, assists the parties to stay on track, reality tests their proposals and helps them to manage their emotions throughout what can be a stressful process, by taking breaks and having private, but neutral, discussion with each party.

Lucy says:

Waiting until you are ready to approach the division of assets with a clear head is vital to a successful settlement.

This process did create a bit of confusion within close family and friends, people would naturally line up behind you to take your side, only to find that there was no side!

It was very interesting to see everyone still trying to support you in the ways that they had previously had to for others, eventually, they gave up and relaxed, almost to the point that it was a non-event.

When you consider that we live in a very small country town of 500 people that was an amazing result!

The other amazingly positive outcome has been that my in-laws, who I have had a relationship with for over 25 years, are still able to open the door to me and their grandchildren without any sort of strain between us at all.

If you want a measure of success of the collaborative divorce process I cannot think of any better.

 

Recommendation

Lucy says:

I highly recommend the collaborative process. By choosing the lawyers trained and committed to the ideals of collaborative law, I had the best possible outcome for myself, and my children and the co-parenting relationship that I see as vital to my children’s health and well being. It cannot totally remove the pain and the grief involved with such an ending, but I can say with my hand on my heart that by settling our affairs this way we did not add in any way to our stress load.

In fact, I am sure it significantly reduced the stress simply because there was no guessing what the other team was thinking. There they were, across the table, speaking their minds, or being drawn out if there was hesitancy.

On top of that, we had two lawyers working on the more difficult aspects of our settlement, for the common goal of achieving an agreeable settlement for both parties.

 

More reading: