If you are interested in a Tucson divorce and wish to use a Tucson family lawyer, you may wish to explore the use of the collaborative divorce settlement process to resolve your divorce issues. The first step would be to find a Tucson divorce attorney who practices in the area of collaborative divorce or collaborative law. This Tucson lawyer can explain the collaborative process to you. The following article by collaborative divorce attorney Laurie Israel will explain more about how collaborative attorneys can help out.

“Collaborative law is a form of alternative dispute resolution for divorcing couples who prefer not to endure litigation, but desire vigorous legal representation. One of the first issues of concern for every potential Collaborative Law client is whether the attorney will serve as a strong advocate for that client.
Often potential clients believe that everything in the collaborative process is done as a “team”. They believe that all parties (clients, Collaborative Counsel, and other collaborative professionals) work together at all times to achieve a solution to the divorce. There is a fear that this increased transparency in the collaborative process will cause their own Collaborative Counsel to fail to adequately protect the client’s own individual needs, issues, and concerns. They fear that their interests will be “sold out” in the process.

While understandable, these fears are generally unfounded. It is true that some of the collaborative process is purposefully transparent. However, much of the work in the collaborative case gets done in private between Collaborative Counsel and his or her own client. This “off-line” work is done between the group meetings, in person, on the phone, or by e-mail. During these times, Collaborative Counsel (much like ordinary counsel) works alone with the client to provide legal advice and case strategy.

Here are some of the matters that Collaborative Counsel addresses privately with the client as the client’s advocate while the case is ongoing:

Education about the Law

Collaborative Counsel will give the client a “crash course” in divorce law fairly early in the case. Most Collaborative Counsel think about the resolution of a particular case as being consistent with the framework of existing laws, cases, and judicial decisions. This model is termed practicing “in the shadow of the law”. There will be variations to this template, as agreed to by the clients after informed consent.

Legal Advice

Collaborative Counsel will apply the facts of the case to the relevant law and give the client a private, personal, confidential report based on counsel’s legal analysis.

Work on Strategy

Even in collaborative cases, attorneys and clients need to work on strategy. They work privately between the group collaborative meetings, using legal conclusions, as well as information gathered from, and progress made (or lack thereof), in each group meeting. In addition, when an impasse occurs in the process, Collaborative Counsel is trained in methods to help overcome these roadblocks.

Analyze Finances

This is a crucial aspect of virtually all divorce cases. Collaborative Counsel is a divorce attorney experienced in reviewing numbers and finances, who can assist the client greatly in thinking about settlement, and what the finances will look like after the divorce.

Client Receives the Benefit of Counsel’s Experience

Lawyers, including Collaborative Counsel, give the divorcing client the benefit of their experience, both legal and practical. This includes the attorney’s experience with how typical divorce issues have been dealt with, addressed, and resolved in other cases. Counsel’s advice and input goes beyond purely technical and legal advice, and will include other issues such as the practical and the personal.

Be a Sounding Board

Collaborative Counsel provides a sympathetic but rational “ear” for some of the disruption and fears a client may be undergoing during the divorce. Divorce can be very upsetting, and your attorney will be very well-versed in your situation and will be able to provide emotional ballast for you during the process.

Provide Objective Guidance

Collaborative Counsel will provide neutral, unvarnished feedback to the client regarding the matters that arise during the collaborative process. These include interpersonal relationships between the spouse and children (or in-laws), finances and other issues. Having a trained professional give you objective advice during the process is very helpful.

Analyze Agreements/Proposals

As proposals are generated during the collaborative process, they need to be analyzed by the clients and the lawyers. Much of this work is done with Collaborative Counsel and the client “off-line”, in private. Collaborative Counsel will provide an unembellished analysis and evaluation of all aspects of the proposals.

Help with Decision-Making

At many points in the collaborative process, the collaborative client will need to make decisions on various matters. Collaborative Counsel will assist by assessing the matter and providing feedback in private to the client to help the client come to a decision. This will involve evaluating the client’s aims, wishes and desires (and those of the spouse) against the legal and practical considerations. All advice will be informed with the realities (economic and personal) faced by the divorcing client.

Help with Problem-Solving

One of the strengths of the collaborative process is that all parties are included in participating in solving the problems of the divorce. I call this “a marriage to the divorce”. A great deal of brainstorming goes on, some of it usable, some not. Collaborative Counsel participates in this problem-solving both “on-line” in the joint meetings, and “off-line” in private with the client.

Other Functions of Collaborative Counsel

Other functions of Collaborative Counsel include helping the client gather all documents needed, working with financial information, presenting and obtaining financial disclosure, and preparing court-form financial statements. Collaborative Counsel also drafts, reviews, and revises the very important Separation Agreement, a requirement for the divorce. The written Agreement sets forth all the terms of the divorce, including the financial terms and those relating to the children. This Agreement will serve as the roadmap for future interactions between the divorcing spouses.

Conclusion

As is apparent from the above list, Collaborative Counsel actually performs all of the functions for his or her client in private that conventional counsel offers in a non-collaborative case. This should give a potential collaborative clients confidence that their needs and concerns will be protected and safeguarded by their own Collaborative Counsel in a collaborative divorce. In this way, Collaborative Counsel maintains the capability to be an advocate for his or her client.”

We have so long become used to feeling bad in one way or another, or feeling some form of emotional stress, that we often come to take it for granted. We tell ourselves this is just built into being human; it’s just the way it is; there is no way out. So, we do our best to avoid anything external that might be anticipated as unpleasant, or we simply endure.
What we rarely do is begin to question whether feeling bad or anxious or stressed out is mandatory, or whether these states might be something we can look more deeply into in order to find relief. For whatever reason, most of us would rather feel stressed out or just plain feel bad rather than undertake the effort to look more deeply at what is going on with an eye toward understanding whether how we feel is actually mandatory. Unfortunately, to ignore these states can result in taking a physical toll on our bodies that shortens out lives, compromises our immune system and makes us sick.
Were we to actually look more closely at what is going on when we feel bad or when stress is running us, the first (and only) place to make a beeline would be our head. What is the story in our head about the situation? Take, for example, an encounter with a spouse or a friend or even an acquaintance, where a level of honesty is the only approach that will bring relief. Why is it that for one person this encounter is a breeze, just part of what they do and who they are ; and, for another, it is fraught with fear and trepidation and keeps them up at night anticipating what will occur. Could it be that the difference between the two people is exactly this: what story is each telling themselves about the encounter, what story does each believe, if any, about it?
The mind of the first person might be saying that the encounter will be a way to get emotionally closer, or that honesty, being of such a high value for them, such an encounter will only enhance their well being. More likely, however, they have no story running abou8t the encounter. It will just be what it is. Here, the point is not so much what the person without stress is telling themselves or not, for it really does not matter. What matters is that whatever it is, there is no stress attached. This then points to the one who is stressed out about the encounter.
One might imagine what this person is telling themselves. It could be anything,, but some likely stories that might be running through their head are: they won’t like me; they will be angry with me; I have to make them feel ok; They won’t listen to me; They’ll think I’m weird; I’ll mess it up; I’ll forget what I want to say; and on and on and on. Of course such an encounter will be highly stressful for the one who is saying these kinds of things. It would be for anyone who had similar beliefs are running the(ir) show. But, do such beliefs really need to run the(ir) show? Only if they are assumed and not questioned.
A simple question asked of any of these clearly stressful beliefs can help one take a closer look at them and get underneath their apparent veracity. That question would be: IS IT TRUE? Ask this question of any of the stressful beliefs noted in the example, look deeply at the answer and allow it to come on its own. Invariably, when it does the answer that comes back as NO. IT IS NOT TRUE. In fact, if any of these stressful beliefs are turned around to their opposite, one can find this opposite statement is at least as true, if not truer than the original stressful story. Try it yourself. Such a process, if diligently undertaken when stressful beliefs arise, can lead to far greater ease.

The well known Verizon commercial is a reference to the interference experienced by other networks compared to the clear signal Verizon customers are alleged to receive. In the arena of our own communications with spouses and others, this Verizon sales pitch seems an apt analogy for speaking and listening.

As listeners, can we put ourselves aside and listen to what the other is saying; listen with no agenda to contradict or prove myself right; listen with no agenda of (impatiently) biding my time until the other (finally) finishes; listen without at the same time formulating our own rejoinder; in effect, can we listen for the sake of listening. What a radical concept, and, as it turns out, what a gift to the person speaking – the gift of being heard.

As speakers, can we speak so that we authentically communicate what is on our minds and in our hearts; can we speak so that however passionate our voice the words do not blame but take full ownership of the thoughts and feelings spoken. There is a world of difference for both speaker listener between “I feel angry because….” and “you are an insensitive so and so.” The first is spoken with integrity and is much easier for the listener to hear; the second raises the hackles of the listener and puts them on the defensive.

Clear channels of communication – speaker and listener.

There is a well known and simple mode of communication for spouses and others, one that assures being heard and supports listening. When in an important conversation where there is emotional content, the speaker says what is up for them, stopping periodically for the listener to then repeat or summarize what has been said so far. If it is accurate, the speaker continues; if not, the speaker can restate what was not accurately heard. This mode of communication provides a clear channel for communication, one that assures the speaker of feeling heard and supports the listener in listening attentively. If implemented, the Verizon people would be proud.

As a Tucson divorce attorney and Tucson divorce mediation practitioner, it is not often difficult, and mores the pity, for me to observe at least one of the causes of frustration that couples feel with one another. Talking over the other person, interrupting, trying to be right in proving a point and looking bored or distracted when the other person is speaking all are factors that support communication static and hamper clarity and respect.
It is the rap that Verizon is trying to put on its competitors. And, too often in divorces all too true.

Most of us want to experience a full expression of who we are, as well as to lead a congruent life consistent with what we value. Yet to many of us these personal attributes may seem out there somewhere, qualities we will get to some day when the time is right or when the stars align. However, finding such ways of being does not happen out there somewhere in the future. What does happen when we wait for somewhere out there in the future to happen is that we just get older.

Finding the qualities we want for ourselves can only happen Now, as illustrated by this story. A teacher was conducting a class of adult students.The lesson on human sexuality. To start the class, the teacher stated her theory of happiness; namely, that those who had the most frequent sex were also the happiest. To prove the point, she asked the class to raise their hands if they considered themselves happy. A half dozen people did so, and the teacher proceeded to ask each one how often they had sex. The answers ranged from 2 – 4 times per week. When it came to call on the last person, a beaming elderly gentleman who could barely contain his delight, the teacher fully expected him to answer he had sex many times a week. To her surprise the gentleman answered he had sex only once a year. How could that be, the teacher exclaimed, fearing her theory of happiness was about to be discredited. How could you have sex only once a year and be so happy? The man replied: “Tonight’s the night!”

While humorous, can we allow ourselves to know that this “tonight’s the night” possibility is there for us also? It is right now, right here, that we can undertake the journey toward any authentic possibility for our lives. Such an undertaking does not happen if we wait for some future to show up, for some “out there” to arrive on our doorstep. We arrive at our own doorstep now.

We often hear the word “Integrity.” It has a positive connotation. We like to think we have it and we do not like to be thought of as not having it. Yet, few of us could really define integrity, or if we do have a definition it may be very different from another’s definition. For some, integrity relates to morality; for others to our ethical code; for others still it is about being honest under all circumstances; for others the word is value laden and relates to what we prefer or do not prefer.

I would like to provide a whole other definition of integrity. This definition comes from Landmark Education, and is a more real world, practical definition of integrity. It is a definition that is directly related to how effective we are in having peace and clarity and in achieving the results we seek for a fulfilled life.
The working definition for integrity is Workability. How workable is our life; is our life working for us? If any part of our life is not working, if it is ineffective or if there is a loss of confidence or power or a feeling of going nowhere, then our life in that aspect is not workable. To become clearer about what is meant by workability, we might think of any area of our life where we feel whole and complete and confident, where things are going well. Compare that aspect of life with any other where things are not going well, where there is a lack confidence, a feeling of powerlessness or helplessness or discouragement. That aspect of our life is not workable.
This definition of workability can apply to relationships, work situations, our physical health, our eating habits or exercise regime or even how we use our spare time. We can ask in each of these areas is life workable?

So what does workability have to do with integrity? In fact, the two are directly related. This is because in order to have our life be workable, in order for our life to function in the way we want, we must have integrity in that aspect, or know how to restore integrity where it is not present. When integrity is present, life works well.

To restore integrity where it is not present we must look to the specific area where we are without integrity and find what is missing. It may mean an apology to another person; it may mean following through on a promise we made and did not keep; it may mean acknowledging to another that we did make a promise and did not keep that promise and what we can and cannot do about that. In other words, where integrity is not present there is some “mess” we made that has not yet been cleaned up. It is our job to clean up that mess by doing what is necessary to make it right. And, to be clear, this does not always mean following through on a commitment where it is not possible to do so; it does mean coming clean with that inability to follow through, apologizing and doing what can be done to make it right, even if that only be a sincere apology.
At its essence, integrity is about honoring our word; our word to others and our word to ourselves. And, when we look to honoring our word and what that means, we look not only to what we promised but what we expect from ourselves in making that promise, as well as what we believe the other person expects from us in making the promise. It is all of that.
Living life in integrity brings a life that works, a life that is filled with confidence, completeness and wholeness – in all areas where we function in the world.

In such significant, life altering areas as whether to end a marriage, or if a decision to end a marriage seems to have already been made, it is important to know whether the choice was made from a place of clarity or confusion. We need not focus on clarity here, since this state of mind points to a path where doubt is not operative and an open way forward is the predominant sense.

However, confusion around such decisions can be painful and anxiety producing and may result in a feeling of being struck and going nowhere. It can be very helpful to have a way to personally approach a significant decision like the decision to divorce, or even a decision around any aspect of the divorce process, such as whether to use a collaborative divorce process or mediation or litigation; or, how to treat an ex-spouse; or, what kind of attitude do you want in a Tucson divorce attorney; or, whether to proceed with a “take no prisoners” mentality or one that will support preserving an appropriate and cooperative relationship with an ex-spouse, especially if that person is the other parent to your children. These and many others are the kinds of decisions where guidance in the midst of confusion can be helpful.

One way to help become clear where confusion seems to reign, is to know what are our larger choices and how to apply them to the specific decision at hand. We can be helped here by recounting the Cherokee fable told by an elder to his grandson. The fable is about a battle that goes on inside people when making certain decisions, whether large or (seemingly) small. The elder says: “My grandson, the battle is between two wolves inside us all. One wolf is the animal of Suffering; it is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, false pride, lies, superiority and all the negative aspects of ego.”

“The other wolf is the animal of Peace; it is love, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.”

The young boy thought about what his grandfather said and then asked, “Which wolf wins?” The old Cherokee replied: “The one you feed.”

For us, in our own decision making of all kinds and at all levels, what wolf do we feed when we choose this path or that one? When that answer is clear, the decision can make itself.

The use of the collaborative divorce settlement process with an experienced Tucson divorce attorney can save many problems encountered in the contentious adversary system. A Tucson divorce attorney who using the colalborative divorce process will be able to steer the Tucson divorce in the direction of cooperation rather than conflict. The following article by Richard Sharpe outlines one couple’s journey in this process.

The value of Sandy and Rob’s house is falling. The prospect of acquiring one let alone two alternative homes is fast evaporating. Rob fears that, along with the marriage, he may lose his job and with it his mortgage capacity. Sandy hasn’t worked in ten years and the cost of child care worries her.

Breaking up is hard at the best of times but it can get even tougher when money gets tight. There are few things that affect a relationship more than financial worries. Couples strained by disagreements over who should pay the bills or how to keep on top of debt, find it more difficult to ignore their differences and the troubles that surround them. When money starts running out and reality must be faced, accusations start flying and marriages can fall apart.

“They started to fight when the money got tight, and they just didn’t count on the tears” are lyrics from the song “Scenes from an Italian Restaurant” by Billy Joel in his 1977 album “The Stranger”. But must it always end in tears? Must differences over scarce and limited financial resources be determined by divorce court room battles?

Not always. Sandy and Rob, along with other separating and divorcing couples are discovering in Bath, England and elsewhere in the UK, that there are lawyers and other experts with specialist knowledge and experience of divorce, who can offer them less destructive methods of divorce.

Choosing the right method in the beginning could save separating and divorcing couples time, money and tears in the long term.

One such method is Collaborative Practice.

It helps couples to create their own individualised solutions to their issues instead of the restricted range of outcomes available in the divorce court system.
It encourages couples to use their intelligence and energy toward creative problem solving rather than toward recriminations or revenge – fixing the problem rather than fixing the blame.
It keeps control of decisions about restructuring financial and child rearing arrangements in the hands of the couple and not the Judge.
It places a premium on the welfare of children and protects them from the harm associated with litigated disputes between parents.
Sandy and Rob, in meetings with their collaborative lawyers, worked through their fears and emerged with a divorce settlement that would work for them and their family. The collaborative professionals helped them to focus on settling their needs and interests, instead of pursuing their rights and entitlements.
Billy Joel continues his song “….they got a divorce as a matter of course and they parted the closest of friends”. That ideal may not always be possible but how a couple chooses to divorce will impact them and their children for years to come. My practice, at Sharp Family Law, is dedicated to helping couples like Sandy and Rob find creative solutions to their financial circumstances, crafted by them and not the divorce courts

The following is an article by attorney Maury D. Beaulier. It talks about the use of the collaborative law process to reach divorce settlements. If you are interested in a Tucson divorce and want to use a Tucson divorce attorney or Tucson family lawyer familiar with colalborative law and Tucson divorce, go to the website: www.divorcewisely.com to find the attorneys experienced in this divorce process. These are Tucson lawyers who have been trained in the collaborative law model.

Collaborative law is a new way to resolve disputes by removing the disputed matter from the litigious court room setting and treating the process as a way to “trouble shoot and problem solve” rather than to fight and win.

As part of the collaborative law method, both parties retain separate attorneys whose job it is to help them settle the dispute. No one may go to court. If that should occur, the collaborative law process terminates and both attorneys are disqualified from any further involvement in the case.

Each party in the Collaborative law process signs a contractual agreement which include the following terms:

Disclosure of Documents.
Each party agrees to honestly and openly disclose all documents and information relating to the issues. Neither spouse may take advantage of a miscalculation or an inadvertent mistake. Instead, such errors are identified and corrected.
Respect.
Each party agrees to act respectfully and avoid disparaging or vilifying any of the participants.

Insulating Children.
As part of the process all participants agree to insulate the children from the proceeding and to act ins such a way as to minimize the impact of the divorce on them.

Sharing Experts.
The parties agree to implement outside experts where necessary in a cooperative fashion and share the costs related to those experts. (eg. real estate appraisers, business appraisers, parenting consultants, vocational evaluators, or accountants)

Win-Win Solutions.
The primary goal of the process is to work toward an amicable solution and to create a “win-win” situation for all.

No Court.
Neither party may seek or threaten court action to resolve disputes. If the parties decide to go to court, the attorneys must withdraw and the process begins anew in the court system.
One of the biggest differences in the Collaborative law process is that it recognizes that emotional issues exist that cannot be addressed by the legal system. How often have you heard stories of divorcing parties spending thousands of dollars in legal fees to argue about pets or furniture that has limited monetary value. Generally speaking, the parties in such cases are not arguing about dogs, cats or furniture. Instead, they are reacting to psychological pains that they experiencing These emotional issues that are ignored in the Court process. By contrast, the collaborative law process specifically addresses these issues by bringing them to the forefront and using professionals as part of team approach to find solutions.

A team of professionals is assembled to help the parties understand and resolve their disputes i many different contexts. The disputes maybe legal disputes or emotional and include: mental health counselors/ coaches for each party, neutral financial advisors, accountants, parenting specialists, child specialists, vocational experts, and appraisers, if needed.

A child specialist may play a very important role in the collaborative process. So often, children become the unintended victims in divorce proceedings. They internalize the conflict and often blame themselves for the break up of their family. The child specialist works with children of divorcing parents. It is their job to assist the children in understanding that the parental dispute is not their fault and to teach them how to cope and communicate with their parents. In this way, the children have a voice in the proceedings and become part of the team process.

Financial professionals may be used to help define values of assets. In the litigious court process often redundant appraisals are performed by one expert for each party. The end result is a duplication of services at greater cost and with increased distrust. this often results in an expensive war of experts at trial where each expert testifies regarding their different valuations. In the collaborative process, the parties choose a neutral appraiser that is not associated with either party. With a trust relationship established, the parties agree on some division of cost and agree to be bound by the appraised value.

Most Cases Settle. The Statistics state that more than 90% of all divorce cases are resolved without a trial. In the Court system that resolution often comes more than a year after the divorce was commenced and after many hurtful statements have been made part of the public record in the form of affidavits and motions. Doesn’t it make more sense to seek that resolution before the bridges are burned and the missiles are launched in a courtroom? Certainly, collaborative law will not work in every case. After all, it takes two to tango and it takes two willing participants to effectively use the collaborative law process. However, in the cases where collaborative law has been used, even if reluctantly, there have been more rapid settlements at a fraction of the normal cost associated with divorce.

Information provided by:
Maury D. Beaulier, Esq.

Copyright© All rights reserved by Divorce Source, Inc.

Thye following is an article by Brian Don Levy describing a high conflict but successfully resolved collaborative divorce settlement. This is the kind of case that Tucson collaborative divorce attorneys take on and resolve where there is a Tucson divorce.You may find a list of Tucson family lawyers and Tucson divorce lawyers at the following website: www.divorcewisely.com

THE HISTORY:

When Manny first came to see me he was interviewing me as a litigation attorney for his divorce case. I explained to Manny that the most important choice he will have to make is choosing the process through which his divorce case would proceed. As a firm believer in the Collaborative Divorce Process, I explained to Manny why I thought he should consider the collaborative divorce process, as I routinely do with divorcing clients during their initial consultation.

Manny looked at me and said “I have been in a collaborative mediation with two of your colleagues, and after nine months my wife withdrew from the process and all of her commitments. Why should I trust the collaborative process now, given that history?” I thought quickly and came up with the following formula. I told Manny that in spite of the failure, I still believed that the process would serve him well. I suggested that this would be a different experience because we would build a more complete team of collaborative professionals. I also suggested that I would ask the team to implement a protocol of reducing each and every agreement to a Collaborative Stipulation & Order to be signed by the parties and submitted to the Court for a Judge’s signature, thus creating a safety net – if either party withdrew, there would be the underlying agreements that have become Court Orders, thus the failed history would not be repeated. Manny became enrolled in the process that I envisioned for him.

THE CONFLICT:

The family consists of Manny, a successful and employed individual who works in the entertainment industry. Mildred, his wife, lacks trust in Manny because of Manny’s history of drug abuse. Manny lacks trust in Mildred due to her history of making agreements and refusing to honor them. Mildred believes that Manny is not worthy of being a father to their twins (ages 5) and can’t be trusted because of his history of serious drug use, and Manny believes that Mildred is smothering the children and won’t let go. Manny has been practicing sober living for approximately 18 months and believes that as long as he is willing to evidence his sober living, he should not be kept away form his children.

THE TEAM:

The team consisted of two lawyers, a neutral financial and three very strong coaches. We all relied on each other time and again and the channels of communications were constant and open. From beginning to end my electronic file contained nearly 1300 team e-mails. Manny & Mildred both had their respective coaches, and the children had a gifted child developmental specialist whom the team relied upon to keep the parents focused on their children to the greatest extent possible instead of the own individual agendas. The team worked diligently and often times conducted three way telephone conferences to handle impediments and roadblocks put down by the parties. The very first time that Mildred made an agreement on visitation and then refused to honor it, a series of teleconferences ensued late on a Friday afternoon, resulting in an honoring of the agreement and Manny’s first overnight with his children.

TEAM PROTOCOLS:

Three team protocols were created and adhered to. First, Manny agreed that given his history, he had the burden of evidencing his sober living as a condition precedent to being an involved parent to his twin children. Manny submitted random urine tests twice a week to his coach, who then faxed the results to the team members. The second protocol was that every agreement would be and was reduced to a collaborative stipulation and order that was filed with the Court, and became an enforceable court order. The Third team protocol was that the professional team exchanged their personal cell phone numbers and committed to be available to the team members as needed and dictated by the family problems as they occurred.

THE FIRST CRISIS:

After several months of negative random drug tests, Manny tested positive for opiates! When confronted by his coach, he broke down and cried; swearing that he had not fallen and had not used any drugs. What to do? Manny’s Coach and lawyer, and Mildred’s Coach agreed that before reacting to the “dirty test” the possibility of a false positive had to be explored first. The urine test was re-submitted for additional testing, and Manny was asked to take a hair follicle test. The hair follicle test and the re-test of the urine test both concluded that Manny had in fact continued on his path of sober living, and the positive was a false positive. Eventually, Manny was moved from twice a week random urine tests to quarterly hair follicle tests, then to every 6 months.

THE SECOND CRISIS:

Mildred fired her collaborative Lawyer, and Manny saw that she once again reneging on her commitment. As it turned out, Mildred replaced her collaborative lawyer with another collaborative lawyer, and I was able to point out to Manny that in so doing, she evidenced her commitment to the collaborative process. Confidence was rebuilt quickly, trust was re-enforced, and we proceeded forward.

THE VICTORY FOR THE CHILDREN:

As Manny moved through the process of evidencing his sober living in an irrefutable manner, the team worked with Mildred in getting her comfortable in moving from Manny having very little contact with the twins to being a truly involved parent who enjoyed a substantially equal time share with the twins and lots of overnights. The children benefited from the more normal and less restricted contact with their father, and now enjoy having two parents and two homes to grow in.

THE VICTORY FOR THE PARTIES:

Their divorce case is finished, and they take into life the skills that they learned through their collaborative coaches as well as their collaborative team.

THE VICTORY FOR THE PROCESS:

The process which was originally described as failed succeeded in a significant way in that this very high conflict and contentious case was successful after the collaborative team was assembled, an accurate and detailed assessment was made, and a plan for success was carried out by all of the team members.

In a Tucson divorce, one of the first decisions divorcing parties will need to make is whether to use a Tucson divorce attorney who practices the collaborative negotiation process or a Tucson family lawyer who only uses adversary methodology. In this article from the International Society of Collaborative Professionals, there is a description of the process the Tucson divorce lawyer uses in the collaborative process.

Who Controls the Process
Degree of Adversity
Cost
Timetable
Use of Outside Experts
Involvement of Lawyers
Privacy
Facilitation of Communication
Voluntary vs. Mandatory
Lines of Communication
Court Involvement
You and your spouse control the
process and make final decisions
You and your spouse pledge mutual
respect and openness
Costs are manageable, usually less expensive than litigation; team model is financially efficient in use of experts
You and your spouse create the timetable
Jointly retained specialists provide information and guidance helping you and your spouse develop informed, mutually beneficial solutions
Your lawyers work toward a mutually created settlement
The process and discussion or negotiation details are kept private
Team of collaborative practice specialists educate and assist you and your spouse on how to effectively communicate with each other
Voluntary
You and your spouse communicate directly with the assistance of members of your team
Outside court
Judge controls process and makes final decisions
Court process is based on an adversarial system
Costs are unpredictable and can escalate rapidly including frequency of post-judgment litigation
Judge sets the timetable; often delays given crowded court calendars
Separate experts are hired to support the litigants’ positions, often at great expense to each
Lawyers fight to win, but someone loses
Dispute becomes a matter of public record and, sometimes, media attention
No process designed to facilitate communication
Mandatory if no agreement
You and your spouse negotiate through your lawyers
Court-based
Divorce: Collaborative vs. Litigation
Collaborative Litigation