What does a Collaborative Law Coach do?

Guest Post Introduction: Gina Arons, PsyD is a clinical psychologist with over 25 years experience working with adults, children, couples and families at her practice in Lincoln, MA.  She is a Collaborative Law coach-facilitator and mediator.  Dr. Arons serves on the board of The Massachusetts Collaborative Law Council (MCLC) and is a member of The International Academy of Collaborative Professionals and The Massachusetts Council of Family Mediation.  She wrote the following guest post for us regarding:

WHAT DOES A COLLABORATIVE LAW COACH DO?

By Gina Arons, PsyD

When a couple decides that their marriage has come to an end, Collaborative Law offers an open and respectful divorce process in which clients, attorneys, and other collaborative professionals work together to develop an agreement that is acceptable to each of the parties.

As an integral part of this collaborative team, the Collaborative Law Coach serves as a neutral facilitator who works to understand the client’s emotional concerns, share important information with the attorneys, and offer communication strategies. Coaches are licensed mental health professionals with specialized Collaborative Law training who bring unique perspectives and expertise to the collaborative process.

Within the context of a divorce, clients often feel hurt or disappointed by their spouses and may find it difficult to listen or remain open to one another’s ideas. Throughout this process it is very useful to have a Collaborative Law Coach who can facilitate communication and help mitigate tensions that may hinder the success of the collaborative process.

From the very beginning, the coach helps to build a strong foundation for the collaborative process by serving as a useful resource for both clients and their attorneys. Before the first 5-way meeting, the coach meets with each client to address their concerns and gain insight into their needs, interests, and goals. The ideas and issues raised during this initial meeting serve as a guide to developing a divorce agreement that feels viable to both parties.

The coach also meets with both attorneys to establish a good working relationship and to share essential information that will enable their clients to feel comfortable and understood throughout the process. Taking into account current or potential areas of conflict, the coach and the attorneys develop plans to ensure that each client will feel heard and supported during the collaborative process. A coach may also meet with clients independently in order to assist with other aspects of the divorce. For example, a coach with child development expertise may help clients to develop a parenting plan which is sensitive to the needs and well being of their children and is manageable for each of the parents. Additionally, if volatile or complex emotional issues arise that may interrupt the collaborative process, it can be very useful for clients to work through the problem with their coach before moving forward in making difficult decisions. It is important to note, however, that the coach does not serve in the role of a psychotherapist, but rather is a member of the collaborative team―sharing all relevant information with both attorneys in the service of enhancing the collaborative process.

During all the stages of a Collaborative Law case the coach works to ensure that the process is proceeding in a positive way. Through regular contact with the attorneys and clients via email, phone and meetings, the coach is a vital part of the team of professionals who work together with the clients to reach a peaceful resolution.

The Huxtable's Divorce: Collaborative Law, Mediation or Litigation - Part II

The Huxtables and Collaborative Law:

Cliff is a doctor and Clare is a lawyer. They have five children. They both share in parenting and managing the finances. Cliff's office is located in the home. Some of the children live at home but the number is constantly changing because Clare and Cliff keep their doors open to their children.

Clare recently informed Cliff that she has met another lawyer who she feels has more in common with and she wants a divorce. Cliff is shocked but after dealing with the initial shock, he realizes that he does not want the process to be acrimonious or to affect their relationship with the children. He has seen how other doctors have had their families and practices torn apart by drawn out litigation and does not want his children or patients to suffer.

Both Clare and Cliff consult with attorneys and are informed of the possibility of proceeding through mediation, collaborative law or litigation. Although, Cliff is wary of litigation, he is afraid of mitigation because Clare is a lawyer and he feels she would have an advantage. He agrees to hire a lawyer trained in Collaborative Law and requests that Clare does the same.

Cliff's lawyer presents a proposed Collaborative Law agreement in which both Cliff's attorney and Clare's attorney agree not to represent the parties if they change their mind and decide to litigate. Clare sees the value in having two attorneys who are vested in the settlement and would be motivated to avoid litigation.

Clare, Cliff and their attorneys meet ten times over the next twelve months. At times the process seems to be dragging and Cliff becomes very frustrated with the significant difference in values presented by his expert and Clare's expert for both his medical practice and Clare's interest in her law firm. He feels like they are spending too much money on experts and lawyers and are no closer to a settlement.

Clare has become very defensive in the Collaborative Law meetings because Cliff has begun requesting more and more restrictions on the parenting plan with the children, which has become overly complicated in her opinion. She feels that Cliff is trying to punish her for having an affair and not focused on what is best for their children.

Both Clare and Cliff explore litigation with new attorneys but because of the cost already invested with their Collaborative Law attorneys, they agree to give it another try and after two more meetings they are able to reach a Separation Agreement, which is presented to the Court with a Joint Petition for Divorce.

Cliff remains very bitter after the process because of the very high cost spent by both parties on their counsel and the length of time the process took.

COULD THIS HAVE GONE BETTER: Because of Cliff's fears and Clare's legal expertise it is unlikely this process could have gone much better. It is probable that Mediation, if successful, would have been a much quicker and cheaper process. But it is also possible that Mediation would have failed because of the imbalance of power between Cliff and Clare when it comes to their legal knowledge (although financially they are probably on fairly equal footing). Depending on the mediator and their style, Cliff's anger over Clare's affair could also have hampered this process.

Because of the business interests and the difficulty of assigning values to their business when they represent both assets and income, they could have been better served by having one agreed upon business valuator. This could have been done by the Collaborative Law attorneys or through mediation. Separate business valuations can often drive up the cost of a case, whether in Collaborative Law or Litigation.

Don't forget to vote for what the Kramdens should do: leave a comment here.

I've hired a Collaborative Attorney, how do I convince my spouse to hire a Collaborative Attorney too.

Collaborative Law has many advantages over litigation. It is usually far less expensive than going to trial.  When you go to court, much of your attorney's time will be spent on court strategy or on waiting to be heard in Court. Collaborative Law can help you avoid the backlog in the courts, allowing for a more expedient resolution.

In addition to these practical concerns, though, Collaborative Law offers something that the Courts do not offer: the chance to resolve your case on your terms. If you are unable to settle your case in Court a Judge, essentially a stranger who will only meet you for a very limited period of time, will make major decisions about your life. Collaborative Law is your opportunity to make these decisions together. After all, who knows what is better for you and your family than you do.

Instead of trying to convince your spouse of these advantages, we suggest that you simply request that your spouse interview an attorney who is trained in Collaborative law.  This will help them understand all of their options whether or not they choose to proceed with that attorney or the Collaborative process.  Let your spouse's attorney explain the benefits of the process.  A list of attorneys who have been trained in Collaborative Law in Massachusetts is available on the MCLC website.

Alternatively, if your spouse has shown reluctance to speak to an attorney first, you could also suggest that they speak to a Collaborative Coach.  A coach can also explain the Collaborative process and may be less intimidating than speaking to an attorney.  A list of coaches who have been trained in Collaborative Law in Massachusetts is available on the MCLC website as well.

In addition it might be helpful to tell your spouse where they can read more about Collaborative law online.  Click here to read more about the advantages of Collaborative Law or visit the MCLC website.

Finally, the MCLC Metro West Practice Group has created a brochure to help people considering the Collaborative process.  Contact Attorney Kelsey to obtain copies of the MCLC brochure.

The Honeymooners' Divorce: Collaborative Law, Mediation or Litigation - Part III

The Kramden's and Litigation:

Ralph is a bus driver and Alice is currently unemployed but has worked as secretary at times when Ralph has been laid off. They have no children and Alice is primarily responsible for the management of the finances. Ralph often gets involved in ridiculous schemes that Alice claims have wasted their money. Ralph and Alice often insult each other, and Ralph makes constant threats such as "One of these days... Pow! Right in the kisser! One of these days Alice, straight to the moon!."

Recently Ralph was caught using his cell phone while driving and lost his job as a bus driver. When he came home and told Alice she berated him for his stupidity and Ralph became extremely angry. He got right in Alice's face and said, as he so often has, "One of these days... Pow! Right in the kisser! One of these days Alice, straight to the moon!." Alice replies "I'd like to see you try" and in response Ralph steps closer to her and pulls back his arm making a fist. Rather than wait to see if Ralph would actually hit her, Alice immediately backs away. Ralph does not follow her, but Alice is afraid and leaves the apartment.

She goes into a friend's apartment down the hall and calls the police. The police arrive and after interviewing both parties they indicated that they are not going to arrest Ralph. They ask Alice if she wants to request a 209A restraining order against Ralph and she states that she does. The police call the emergency Judge who approves an emergency restraining order. The police escort Ralph out of the apartment who has calmed down and accepts the police's request without any fight or argument.

Ralph, escorted by the police, collects some of his clothes and moves in with his friend, Ed Norton.

The following morning, Ralph and Alice both show up without lawyers at a hearing in the Suffolk District Court. Alice indicates during the hearing that she was afraid that Ralph was going to hit her during their argument, even though he has never carried out his threats in the past. Alice also states that she is not afraid of him right now and that she feels safe so long as he does not move back in. Alice also indicates that she intends to file for Divorce and that she doesn't want Ralph to move back in. Ralph agrees that he won't move back in and that he will continue to live with Ed. The Judge indicates to Alice that he can only extend the Restraining Order if she has a "reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm," and given her testimony he cannot extend the restraining order.

Both Ralph and Alice consult with attorneys. Alice does not consult with a free Legal Aid service because she is back to working as a part-time secretary and she believes that she does not qualify for their services.

Alice borrows money from a friend to hire the attorney she consulted with because she doesn't feel safe negotiating directly with Ralph. Alice's attorney files a Complaint for Divorce.

Eventually right before the Pre-Trial, Ralph hires an attorney as well and the Divorce case is settled via Separation Agreement at the Pre-Trial. Both parties end up with some debt because of the cost of their legal fees.

COULD THIS HAVE GONE BETTER: Unfortunately, when domestic violence is an issue in a case, it is practically impossible to make use of mediation or collaborative law. Although mediation or collaborative law could have been cheaper, both options depend on a certain amount of trust between the parties and it is necessary for there not to be any threat of coercion.

Even in an instance where no physical violence has occurred, the threat of violence can be just as damaging and puts the victim at a disadvantage in any negotiation (notwithstanding the ongoing safety concerns).

As was suggested by one of our voters, DGVE law, Alice, might have been better served by having a trained domestic violence advocate work with her. Resources for domestic violence victims in Massachusetts are available here. Alice should have also discussed her case with potential legal aid services before assuming she didn't qualify. Resources related to finding legal counsel and/or legal services are available here.

What can we learn from Katie Holmes divorce filing against Tom Cruise?

If you live in a cave, then maybe you haven't heard that TomKat is no more.  As reported by TMZ, Katie Holmes has filed for divorce from Tom Cruise and according to the pleadings she is seeking sole legal and physical custody of their daughter Suri.

What I find interesting is not the fact that another celebrity couple has called it quits.  Celebrities getting divorced is hardly even surprising news anymore.  Okay, it is a little interesting that this would be Tom's third divorce and, according to the Huffington Post, all three occurred when his wives turned 33.

But what I find most interesting is how the media has been reporting the divorce filings and what it says about how we perceive custody battles. Specifically the Huffington Post had the following headline on an article about the divorce filings: Suri Cruise Custody: Katie Holmes Reportedly Seeks Full Custody In Divorce From Tom Cruise

When I first read this I immediately cringed, because I am so often telling clients that the words "full custody" are meaningless.  What is "full custody"?  Is it sole legal and physical custody, or just sole physical custody?  Does it mean Katie doesn't want Tom to ever see their daughter?  Does it mean Katie thinks she is the only parent to Suri?  Probably not, but that's what asking for "full custody" can sound like to the person who is being asked to give up custody of their child.

The word "custody" is a loaded term already, and the term "full custody" is even worse.  The terms "legal custody" and "physical custody" have legal meaning but they don't actually tell you how to co-parent a child as separated parents. Parents who are separated or are separating should be considering what is in the best interest of their child.  Except in very unusual circumstances (when a parent is destructive and dangerous), a child always benefits from having both parents involved in their life.  In addition, in most cases both parents will feel strongly that they should stay involved in their child's life.

Telling the other parent that you want "full custody" is akin to saying "I'm a parent and you're not."  Is that what Katie Holmes meant to do?  Probably not, despite the way it was being reported by the media.  In fact, the legal document for filing divorce requires that a request be made on custody.  Many times the legal pleadings are restrictive on what you can ask for depending on how you plan to proceed with the case and this may have been the best way for Katie's attorneys to complete the form even if "full custody" was not their intent.  Because Tom likely has a team of lawyers he probably already knew the difference between the legal document and the practical reality.

Unfortunately, though, many divorcing parents begin the divorce process with the misunderstanding that they should seek "full custody" or that their spouse is trying to do so.  Imagine someone/anyone trying to take your child away from you and you can begin to understand the amount of hurt that causes parents.  These parents are already hurting because of the loss of their marriage, and now add to that the perception that their spouse is trying to take away their children. That is a recipe for disaster, and it is not hard to figure out where the term "custody battle" comes from.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

There are two movements towards greater civility in the Divorce process which overlap in this instance: Collaborative Divorce, and Shared Parenting.

Collaborative Law is a form of alternative dispute resolution where both parties in a dispute have their own attorney, but those attorneys agree not to go to Court. The goal of the Collaborative process is to reach agreements through negotiation and to avoid the expensive and emotional experience of Court. In the context of family law, Collaborative Law can be used to resolve disputes involving divorce, child custody and support, alimony, division of assets, paternity, and actions for modification. The process can also include other professionals such as financial planners and mental health professionals using a team approach to help negotiate and settle disputes.

Shared Parenting doesn't necessarily mean "equal parenting" but rather a recognition that both parents will be involved (in most cases) in the child's life.  The goal of speaking about parenting in these terms as opposed to adversarial terms is in recognizing the shared roles that parents have and the cooperation necessary to parent a child together even if from separate households.  That relationship is defined through a parenting plan, that may still use the legal terms "custody" but is focused primarily on the relationship and only uses the legal terms to ensure understanding by the courts.

A Parenting Plan is a comprehensive agreement which sets out both the time that children will spend with each parent as well as the rights and obligations of each parent to the children and the other parent during their parenting time. It can include a holiday visitation schedule, pick-up and drop-off locations, and even agreements relating to what will happen if one of the children becomes ill. Parenting Plans can be made specific in instances where it is necessary to prevent future conflict, and they can be made flexible so that you and the other parent can make agreements outside of the parenting plan in unforeseen circumstances.

As we learn more and more about the destructive effect that custody battles have on the children, shared parenting and collaborative divorce will become more and more popular.

Even between Tom and Katie, despite the supposed request for "full custody" in the initial filing, they saw a way through the 'battle" to quickly reach an agreement and release a statement that they "are committed to working together as parents to accomplishing what is in our daughter Suri's best interests" (as reported by CNN).  In a divorce, that's the only commitment that still matters.
Read more about Collaborative Divorce here.

Read more about Parenting Plans here or try out our Parenting Plan Worksheet.

The Cleavers Divorce: Collaborative Law, Mediation or Litigation - Part I

The votes are cast - The Cleavers and Mediation:

Ward is a businessman and June is a stay-at-home mom. They have two children Wally and Beaver. Ward handles all of the finances and June handles most of the home care including parenting, although once in a while Ward is needed to help discipline the children (in a very stern but fair kind of way).

Ward and June agree that the spark and color had left their marriage long ago and that they were only staying together for the children. They have agreed that a divorce would be best and have already sat down to a family meeting with Wally and the Beaver and explained that although Mom and Dad are getting a divorce, they will still both be involved regularly in the children's lives, that it is not the children's fault and that they both love the children very much.

Ward, eager to move forward with the divorce quickly and as cheaply as possible, suggests that they attend mediation and provides June with the name of a mediator he has found. Agreeing with the logic of using a mediator, June agrees and they attend their first mediation meeting.

At the first meeting, the Mediator explains how mediation works, telling Ward and June that the mediator does not represent either of them, and that their job is only to help Ward and June reach an agreement, not to steer them in any particular direction. The mediator explains that they will both have to provide a Financial Statement and that they should begin thinking about what they each want for a custody and visitation plan, and for the division of assets and liabilities.

After the meeting Ward informs June that he wants joint custody and that he will help her do her Financial Statement since he has all of the financial information. He also wants to sell the house and he asks her to agree to this immediately so they can list the house for sale as soon as possible.

June is worried that she doesn't know enough about their finances to know whether the house has to be sold. She also realizes that she doesn't really know what joint or sole custody means. June talks to her friends who all suggest that she meet with an attorney. After meeting with a few attorneys, June realizes she needs help and hires an attorney. Upon realizing that June has hired an attorney, Ward feels like June was trying to get an advantage behind his back and hires an attorney as well. They end up proceeding through litigation, because June's attorney insists on filing the Complaint for Divorce to protect the assets with the Automatic Stay and to provide for mandatory discovery. Eventually they settle their case at Pre-Trial.

COULD THIS HAVE GONE BETTER: Because of June's lack of knowledge about the finances it was likely that she would feel uncomfortable at some point in the mediation, even if Ward hadn't pushed her at the beginning to be more ready to make decisions. Her lack of information was going to make it difficult for her to make decisions. This could have been resolved by June being more aggressive, but if this has not been the pattern in the marriage it was unlikely to change now. For these reasons June needed an adviser/advocate, i.e. her own lawyer.

If the parties had communicated their intentions better, it is possible June and Ward would still have been able to use mediation, and just have their lawyers advise them individually as to the Agreement and disclosure of financial information.

This was likely a more ideal case for Collaborative Law, because of June's need for a representative. In Collaborative Law both parties and lawyers agree to commit to working towards a settlement and to not file litigation. In a true Collaborative Law agreement, the lawyers also agree that if the case goes to litigation that they will not represent the parties, i.e. both lawyers are thus committed to the settlement path as well. Although there's the danger of having to pay two lawyers each, the advantage is the great potential for a less acrimonious process.

Because both Ward and June committed to settlement, but just had an imbalance of power/knowledge, they would have been best served by Collaborative Law.


There's still time to vote for what the Huxtables and Kramdens should do: leave a comment here.

Why You Should Try to Avoid Divorce Court?

Although sometimes necessary, appearing in Court is often a lengthy, expensive, and disappointing trial (pun intended). Any combination of failed preparation, miscommunication between client and attorney, or incomplete discovery can cause the process to result in imperfect and incomplete Orders. Sometimes just the limitations of the court process (such as the limited time of the Judge to hear each case) can result in frustrating court appearances.

In order to avoid unnecessary costs, you may want to consider alternatives to litigation such as Mediation or Collaborative Law. For more information about those processes read our past posts:

What are the Advantages & Disadvantages of Mediation

Dramatic Impact of Mediation on Children of Divorce

Mediation, Collaborative Law or Litigation: What's your Vote? - A 3 Part Post:

The Cleavers Divorce: Collaborative Law, Mediation or Litigation - Part I

The Huxtable's Divorce: Collaborative Law, Mediation or Litigation - Part II

The Honeymooners' Divorce: Collaborative Law, Mediation or Litigation - Part III

Even if mediation or collaborative law is not available in your case (these processes both require joint and volunteer participation), it is still possible to reach agreements with the proper preparation and forethought. Make sure that you provide your attorney with all of the information necessary for them to properly and timely prepare your case, and they should be able to make appropriate and timely proposals for settlement that could help you avoid costly and disappointing court appearances.

Mediation, Collaborative Law or Litigation: What's your Vote?

One of the first things I explain to clients in our free one hour initial divorce consultation is that there are three types of professionals in Massachusetts who can help clients resolve their divorce case: Mediators, Lawyers trained in Collaborative Law, and traditional Litigators. Each of these methods has strengths and weaknesses, and they can be demonstrated by showing you how some well known couples might have experienced these various options:

Couple #1 - The Cleavers. Ward is a businessman and June is a stay-at-home mom. They have two children Wally and Beaver. Ward handles all of the finances and June handles most of the home care including parenting, although once in a while Ward is needed to help discipline the children (in a very stern but fair kind of way).

Couple #2 - The Huxtables. Cliff is a doctor and Claire is a lawyer. They have five children. They both share in parenting and managing the finances. Cliff's office is located in the home.

Couple #3 - The Honeymooners/The Kramdens. Ralph is a bus driver and Alice is currently unemployed but has worked as secretary at times when Ralph has been laid off. They have no children and Alice is primarily responsible for the management of the finances. Ralph often gets involved in ridiculous schemes that Alice claims have wasted their money. Ralph and Alice often insult each other, and Ralph makes constant threats such as "One of these days... Pow! Right in the kisser! One of these days Alice, straight to the moon!."

Please Vote for whether each couple should use mediation, collaborative law or litigation, by leaving your Comments below.

P.S. Thanks to DGVElaw for giving us the idea for this post with her estate planning couple.