I am not a fan of the collaborative divorce movement. I see it as an extension of the "I'm OK–You're OK" movement of the 70's when young people believed that all conflict could be resolved by a smile (usually illegal) and a hug. The concept is that warring couples surrender themselves to a "team" of experts, including lawyers, psychologists, and forensic accountants who "help the couple "peacefully resolve their differences."
Can't agree on what to do with the kids? The shrinks will happily evaluate the family and advise the parents about the latest studies on joint custody.
Depressed by the process? The same shrinks can provide the latest medication.
Own your own business? The accountants will gleefully inspect every aspect of your private economic life.
All of this begins only after a generous retainer paid is to the experts by the couple. Two lawyers also receive a generous retainer merely listen to all of their expert friends. This keeps up until the couple either comes to an agreement or exhausts their equity line. If the team fails, the work is thrown out and buried in a confidentiality agreement. The couple retains new counsel and the battle is joined anew.
In a complicated case, the use of forensic accountants is essential, and every good family law attorney should have one on speed dial. However, to believe that a band of "experts" can relieve the emotional pain and suffering of a broken marriage is naive. Pain and suffering are a natural part of the death of one identity and the birth of a new one.
Leave collaborative divorce to the very wealthy and the very hip. The last thing you need is more time together.
| 
