Family Law Collaborative Divorce Blog : Bath Divorce Solicitors : Sharp Family Law : UK Collaborative Law & Family Mediation : Bristol, Swindon & Southern England

Pop singer, Cheryl Cole’s divorce from her England football husband Ashley would be “clean, swift, amicable and smooth” reported The Sun Newspaper at the end of May. And yet the divorce papers filed on her behalf were said to cite the reason for the breakup of the marriage as being Ashley Cole's "unreasonable behaviour".

if Cheryl truly wanted an amicable and smooth divorce, Ashley may have wondered why irreconcilable differences or the like wasn’t cited as the reason for the divorce. Few like to be accused of behaving so badly that their partner cannot ‘reasonably’ be expected to live with them. 

Every so often, at my family law practice in Bath & Bristol, I am approached by clients who say they want a divorce based on "irreconcilable differences". They are in an unhappy marriage and just want to bring it to an end. I explain that it is not possible to obtain a divorce based on "irreconcilable differences" in the divorce courts of England and Wales.

Divorce in England & Wales is based on a marriage having "broken down irretrievably ". But there is a complication. This breakdown must be proved by evidencing only one of five "facts" laid down by the law - Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. They are Adultery, Unreasonable Behaviour, Desertion, Two years’ separation with consent and Five years’ separation without consent.

Three of these methods of proof - Desertion, Two (with consent) and Five years’ separation - involve a considerable period of delay (at least two years) before a divorce is possible at all. Similarly, adultery can only be relied upon if it to has taken place. This means unreasonable behaviour is the method of choice for most couples in cases where no adultery can be proved and a divorce is wanted sooner rather than later.

I recently worked with a husband from Bath who was separating from his wife. They had decided their marriage had irretrievably broken down. To help them work through the legal, financial and  practical issues arising from their decision, they adopted the dispute resolution process known as Collaborative Law Practice. At a face to face meeting between them, her collaborative family solicitor and I, we discussed how to prove that the marriage had irretrievably broken down for the purposes of a divorce 

The lawyers helped the husband and the wife together draft allegations of the unreasonable behaviour that were not unnecessarily confrontational and yet fulfilled the requirements of a District Judge sitting in the Bath Divorce Court. A task not so easily done at a distance

Despite the apparent fault based process, the collaborative law process enabled this divorcing couple to meet their goal and achieve an amicable divorce. I am interested in hearing how others have dealt with meeting the criteria for "Unreasonable Behaviour" AND achieve an amicable divorce

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Rob was a successful entrepreneur who had built up a business in Bath during the marriage. He came to see me as his marriage of 10 years to Sarah had come to an end. I learnt that Sarah knew little about the business and was concerned that she would lose out. Rob felt that the business was "his" rather than an asset to be shared.

A Nasty Divorce can mean trouble for Business

The impact of a marriage breakdown and divorce does ripple out well beyond the family home. A business caught in the cross fire of a divorce will suffer. Inattention from a stressed-out, depressed or preoccupied owner can lose customers and business opportunities. Divorce costs can escalate as competing lawyers and forensic accountants pick over the assets of the business.

A business interest is an asset to be divided between both spouses. It can often be the most valuable asset in the marriage and the biggest bone of contention in a divorce. Valuing it is complex, costly and time-consuming. How and who values it can be a major flash-point of conflict. Aside from its financial value, the emotional attachments can inflame the one who created it as he or she faces the prospect of sharing it with the other who has had no involvement in it.

The process you choose for your divorce can determine its outcome

What Sarah really wanted was the security of keeping the family home, not an interest in the business. Rob wanted to keep control of his business in Bath and the future benefits it might bring. They both wanted to avoid the acrimony and trauma of a traditional adversarial divorce court process. They feared that might destroy the business and the wealth they were trying to divide. They didn’t want a Judge sitting in the Bath County Court determining financial arrangements in their place.

Rob and Sarah selected me and another Bath Collaborative family lawyer to work with them and together we committed to resolve matters between us without involving the court.

We committed to resolve matters …… without involving the court

We introduced a collaboratively trained financial advisor. He looked from a neutral perspective at the assets of the marriage including the business and the family home, and helped Rob and Sarah understand the division options open to them. A family consultant worked with them to address their emotions towards each other, develop communication and a level of trust between them. Through a series of meetings attended by Rob and me, Sarah and her lawyer, we found a solution from the options available that met their interests and needs without either feeling disadvantaged.

The collaborative divorce process proved to

• preserve the wealth held by Rob & Sarah and not destroy it.
• ensure the right professional dealt with the right problem for Rob & Sarah.
• encourage Rob & Sarah to think creatively and craft solutions that worked for them and their family
• enable them to decide and keep control of what happened & how fast it happened.

Every divorcing couple is different, and a collaborative divorce process is not for everyone. But Rob & Sarah found that a collaborative divorce can enable solutions to be found and destruction to be limited to those things that were important to them and their family.

For a free copy of “A Client’s Guide to Collaborative Divorce” contact me at richard@sharpfamilylaw.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"Our children aged 16 & 14 were reassured by seeing us working together to resolve our issues.” - “It really was by far the best thing we could have done. I would have been more damaged without it.” - “It is probably best summed up as “communication, not confrontation"

 – Quotes highlighted in the section headed “What clients have said about the collaborative approach” in “A Client’s Guide to Collaborative Divorce: Putting your family first” written by Gillian Bishop

As the title suggests, this guide is designed to assist us understand the collaborative approach to separation and divorce. In particular it will help those individuals and couples who are:

• Contemplating a divorce or separation and genuinely want to find a way of resolving issues without involving the court – the guide will assist them in making the right choice for them.
• Already using the collaborative approach for resolving these issues – the guide will be a useful aide memoire for preparing for the 4-way meetings.

The Guide sets out Collaborative Divorce in a nutshell, how the approach works, how to know if it is right approach for the individual and their family, the roles of those participating including the lawyers and other possible professionals. It contains lots of frequently asked questions and a useful resources section packed with self-evaluation questionnaires. Comparisons, ground rules etc.

In addition to explaining the “no-court commitment” at the heart of the approach, what I like best about the Guide are the stories that are placed amongst its pages. They tell how couples – Clare & Peter, Matthew & Ingrid, Rachel & Joachim – were helped through their separation or divorce by the collaborative approach and the long-term benefits that that brought them as individuals and as families.

We made the right decision to deal with this collaboratively. I feel that although separated our family is still intact

I recommend this guide to my clients in Bath and Bristol who may be thinking how to go about separating and/or divorcing. If you would like a copy contact me on 01225 870336 or email me at richard@sharpfamilylaw.com. It can also be ordered online at www.flip.co.uk/about/downloads.asp

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

After trying to make a 12 year marriage work that included attending sessions at Relate and individual counselling, Liz realised it was a lost cause and wanted a divorce. With that she also wanted her husband to remain a big part of their children’s lives and hoped that they could become good co-parents in the future. But Liz wasn’t confident that that would happen. She feared that her husband wouldn’t be able to see anything positively and was very worried that his anger with her over the divorce would affect his on-going relationship with their children.

Liz had done her research reading articles, blog posts, searching the net, buying books, talking to professionals and had looked at conflict resolution options including mediation and collaborative practice. She had learnt that conflict was the major cause of unhappiness and poor outcomes for the children. She got it that it was about them and not about her or her husband.

Unfortunately, all too often one side “gets it” and other parent can’t or won’t bring themselves to take the fight out of the conflict and truly focus on what is best for their children. A common theme, both in marriage and divorce, is that “It takes two.” It is no different when trying to end the acrimony and develop a post-separation co-parenting relationship that works.

That fear of how best to deal with the spouse who didn’t yet “get it” opened an opportunity for me to refer Liz to Chris Mills. Specialising in supporting divorcing and separating couples in Bath to understand and manage the complex emotional dynamics of their separation, Chris was able to hear the problems and challenges that Liz faced in dealing with her husband and then contact and invite her husband to tell things from his perspective. Chris then offered to assist with both Liz and her husband without representing either, to develop a parenting plan that worked for them both and their family.

Getting both parents engaged in the process of conflict resolution is no easy task. Often little thought is given to how the other parent is doing particular if they continue to make life miserable. But getting both to “get it" as soon as possible can make all the difference to how the separation and divorce impacts the children affected. My experience is that family consultants like Chris Mills accredited by Resolution to work from Bath in the specialised field of divorce and separation can help make that difference.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Amongst the 10 Bizarre Divorce Settlements Mental_Floss reminded us that to help foot the bill for his 1977 divorce from Anna Gordy, the singer Marvin Gaye agreed to record a new album and give all of the royalties to Gordy as maintenance.

Princess Diana lost the title “Her Royal Highness” when she and Prince Charles divorced in 1996 but amongst other things it was agreed that she retain Kensington Palace, her jewellery and the ability to entertain at st James’s Palace with the Queen’s permission.

The actor David Hasselhoff’s as part of his 2008 divorce settlement with ex-wife Pamela Bach, kept possession of the nickname “Hoff” and the catchphrase “Don’t Hassle the Hoff.”

Not only are the lives of the rich and famous complicated but so are many others that separate and divorce. Paul and Deborah’s marriage of 19 years ended in divorce last year. Before the settlement, Paul wanted to minimise the changes for the family. Deborah wanted to stay in the family home but was worried about the costs of keeping it going. Paul and Deborah agreed the family should stay in the home until the children finished their schooling and Paul would pay for any maintenance and repairs to it until then. When the house was sold, Paul’s maintenance expenses would be deducted from the proceeds.

The children got to continue their regular routine, Deborah didn’t have to budget for costly repair works and Paul will receive recognition for his financial support. Identifying what was most important to this couple was crucial. The court would not have been able to make such a mutually satisfactory arrangement without the cooperation of the couple.

Mark and Linda were married for 25 years. He had been the primary wage-earner, she the homemaker. Mark wanted to cut back on the hours he worked and freedom from potentially lifelong support payments. Linda wanted a settlement that reflected the sacrifices she had made to support Mark in his profession and raise their children. She also wanted his support whilst she re-trained.

Face to face negotiations helped to ease tensions between them as they both recognized and acknowledged the contributions that each had made to the marriage. By taking out loans, Mark made a lump sum payment to Linda that enabled her to return to school and train for her own career. He was pleased that she would shortly be able to support herself and relieved not to be making support payments at a time when he wanted to cut back on his hours. A court might have imposed spousal support payments that would have hindered Mark’s career change and impeded Linda’s ability to invest in her future.

Both Paul and Carol, and Mark and Linda were able to negotiate the divorce settlement that worked for them and their families by using the dispute resolution process called Collaborative Practice. It helps separating and divorcing couples:

• To think creatively and craft their own individualised solutions to their issues instead of the restricted range of outcomes available in the divorce court system.

• To use their intelligence and energy toward creative problem solving rather than toward recriminations or revenge – fixing the problem rather than fixing the blame.

 • To keep control of decisions about restructuring financial and child rearing arrangements in their hands and not those of a Judge.

• To take control over what happens, how fast it happens, who is involved and ensures that those who are, including their solicitors, work only towards a mutually satisfactory settlement. Everyone has an input and brainstorming and creative ideas can emerge to resolve differences and issues.

Your divorce settlement may not need to be as bizarre as some highlighted by Mental Floss but no court will be better able than you to create and craft a settlement that works for your family.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"The contact schedule has it that our 3 year old son stays with me on a Tuesday and Thursday night.  So he should be with me on the Thursday night in two weeks time. My Ex-partner insists he be with her - Why? Because, it will be Christmas Day that Friday morning. We both want him to wake up and open his presents in our separate homes!"

The dilemma over with whom children spend Christmas morning taxes all too often Judges at this time of year, as separated and divorced parents fight over the date in the divorce courts. The ensuing judgment leaves few contented, not least the unfortunate children, as wonderfully illustrated in the Dear Santa letter posted on Judith’s Divorce Blog

The Parents of the 3 year old son, worked out with their family lawyers through a Collaborative Practice dispute resolution process, that it was the joy of watching their son open his presents that they missed the most. So, they agreed to meet on Christmas Eve to open presents together. The contact schedule remained in place, and the child had both his parents with him as he opened presents.  

The greatest gift you can give your child in 2010 and beyond is to love your children more than you hate your spouse and work cooperatively with the other parent to co-parent your children

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The value of Sandy and Rob’s house had fallen in the recession. The prospect of acquiring one let alone two alternative homes was no longer possible. My client Rob (a fictional name) feared that, along with the broken marriage, he would lose his job and with it his mortgage capacity. Sandy hadn’t worked in ten years and the cost of child care worried her.

“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 increasingly discovering that there are lawyers and other experts with specialist knowledge and experience of divorce, who offer less destructive dispute resolution processes. One such process 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 family 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. Choosing the right process in the beginning can save separating and divorcing couples time, money and tears in the long term.

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 can impact them and their children for years to come.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"A Collaborative Family Law approach allows separating couples and their lawyers to sit down together to reach an agreement face to face in a much quicker, less traumatic process, that can provide a more satisfactory conclusion for all involved." so said Lord Bach, the justice minister in charge of legal aid, earlier this week.

The support from the Minister, for Collaborative Law, comes with the announcement from the Legal Services Commission (LSC) that it is to consult for the first time on whether legal aid funds should be made available to separating and divorcing clients who choose to use the collaborative law dispute resolution process.

In addition to the benefits voiced by the Minister, Collaborative Law is seen by him as a process that will help settle a divorce without going to court. "The breakdown of a family is an extremely distressing time for all involved, particularly children, which is why I am determined that courts should be the last resort. Sadly that is currently not the case, with only one in five legal aid clients experiencing a family dispute opting for the benefits that mediation can bring”.

It will still be 1st October 2010 before collaborative law is added to the range of process options funded by the LSC. But it would then give all families, whatever their financial means, access to the same range of dispute resolution options offered by family law solicitors, when faced with separation or divorce. With the extended range that is affordable to more couples, Lord Bach will be further towards ensuring that the divorce courts are the last resort for many more families working through divorce.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Collaborative Law is proving to be successful when used by divorcing couples said one of the UK’s most senior judges last week at a meeting of 200 of London's family lawyers (....yes including me)

Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, a justice in the UK’s new Supreme Court, in giving his backing to collaborative law highlighted that:

"one of the most inspiring facts about it was that 85 per cent of couples who used the collaborative approach had been able to agree an amicable settlement. On any view no further testament to the success of the system is required” (statistics from family lawyers’ group, Resolution).

Lord Kerr went on to tell all of us present that he thought that the collaborative approach – recently used by comedian Robin Williams - was now having a profound impact on matrimonial law. As the Times Online reported, Lord Kerr explained that the essence of the new approach was conciliation, not “victory by one side over the other” or "the vindication of one viewpoint at the expense of an opponent's. Rather the fundamental purpose is to shape a solution to the problems experienced by the parties that not only resolves the immediate dispute, but which will endure to sustain a relationship after the parties have left the stage."

This goal was not just "an incidental side effect of civilised negotiations", he added. "It reflects its centrality to the entire process. It required more than civility and courtesy; it required the mindset that asks: how can we fashion an outcome that was best for all those affected, such as the children, in the dispute.”

Comprehensive information on Collaborative Law can be read on the website of The International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP). In brief, Collaborative Law (sometimes called Collaborative Practice) helps separating and divorcing couples to resolve their differences respectfully, in private and without the threat of court action. The Collaborative process differs from a divorce Court process by retaining control of it with the divorcing couple and not with a judge.

The aim of a Collaborative process is to help separating and divorcing couples to:

- Focus on what are their most important issues, especially children;
- Communicate more effectively throughout the process;
- Lay the foundations for a healthier relationship during and after, the separation or divorce.

At the end of this coming week, some of those same family lawyers from London and other parts of the World (....yes including me) will be attending the 10th Annual Forum of The IACP in Minneapolis, USA.

As the legal profession learns to focus on settlement rather than trial and the Judiciary continues to back out of court processes like Collaborative Law, many more divorcing couples will be able to get through their divorce with their dignity intact, do what is best for their children, come up with fair financial settlements and move on with their lives. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

You are not alone, if you are thinking of getting divorced. Sadly, around 150,000 people get divorced every year and almost 40% of all marriages end in divorce in England and Wales.

But maybe you and your spouse agree on one thing: you don't want a bitter fight. You are determined to avoid the ugly battles over property and child custody that you have seen others endure. You care about the emotional and financial wellbeing of your family and, in particular, your children. You want to be able to dance at their weddings.

If so, a "collaborative divorce" could work for you.

In one recent divorce case that I handled Mrs T of Castle Cary and her husband were keen for their divorce to be as amicable as possible and found that a Collaborative divorce or practice process was the right solution for them.

Mrs T remarked that the relaxed nature of the process came as a complete surprise, and that she had no idea that getting a divorce could be so painless. "All four of us - my husband and I and our two lawyers - signed up to a mission statement to ensure we all communicated openly. Our four-way face-to-face meetings meant that everything moved through smoothly, swiftly and cheaply."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks