Traditionally, parties whose marital relationship that has broken down sometimes results in either or both parties filing for a divorce action. In most, but not all such actions, historically have been actions of contention and distress for the parties, and any family members who are associated with the action. The contentions and distress lead to parties litigating the action that leads to an extreme divide between the parties, and has a consequence of financial strain or excess, and parties who want to win by having the last say on what each party deserves.
What if there was a way to come to an amicable agreement that would facilitate each party possibly gaining their fair share of community property, and meaningful resolutions to issues such as child custody, and other agreements that may be in the party’s best interest?
One option is to go through a Collaborative Divorce Process. The Collaborative Divorce Process originated in 1990 with an attorney from , MN by the name of Stu Webb.
This option can foster mutual respect between the parties instead of hostility as they go through the divorce process, allowing meaningful decisions to be made in the best interest of all parties without the traditional war and the high cost of litigation that may ensue after a divorce filing. This option is a voluntary, non-adversarial process in which parties work with specially trained attorneys and neutral experts that will assist the parties to move toward a mutually agreeable good faith settlement without having to litigate their action in court.
Two authors, Randy J. Heller, PhD., LMFT and Adam B. Cordover, J.D., M.A. wrote an article titled the “Statistics on Collaborative Divorce in Florida”, which gave some insight on the collaborative process, its successes in Florida, and implications overall from a survey conducted between 2014 through mid-2024, that analyzed 299 responses submitted.
The different types of matters that were reported during the survey were 93% as divorce related actions. The collaborative process can be beneficial in other areas under the umbrella of family law other than just divorce actions.
Out of 299 submission the success rate 85.1% were concluded with full resolutions on all issues. The other responses concluded with partial resolution, terminated without a resolution, or the parties reconciled or went to mediation. The Collaborative Process is not necessarily simple, as issues of distrust between the parties, infidelity, power imbalances, spousal support and the division of assets being the most substantively challenging matters. Also noted, some parties may not have had realistic expectations regarding the outcome of the process.
The team of professionals that would be involved in this process may be comprised of each client being represented by their respective counsel, a neutral financial professional, and mental health
coaches that assist the parties to deal with the emotions that inevitably arise during a divorce action.
As to the cost of engaging in the Collaborative Process, the survey noted that out of the 217 responses, the implication is that although parties may pay more up-front, there is an opportunity for significant savings overall. The study also showed that demographics of the participants show that not just one particular racial, socioeconomic, or sexual identity engaged in the Collaborative Process.
When you choose to engage in the Collaborative Divorce process, you still maintain a confidential relationship with your attorney. All decisions are made by the parties.
Collaborative divorce is a perfect solution and alternative to the traditional divorce process by mitigating stressful arguments and lengthy court battles. Parties will have the opportunity to come together to make decisions, and to negotiate resolutions until both parties have a result which they are truly satisfied with.
References:
Heller, J. Randy, PhD, LMFT, LMHC, and Cordover, B. Adam, J.D., M.A. Statistics on Collaborative Divorce in Florida
The Florida Bar Family Law Section Commentator, Vol. XLV, Issue 1 – 2025; pp. 14-19