Divorcing couples often promise to work with one another when they begin the legal process of ending a marriage. However, it is somewhat common for one spouse to rescind that promise, often in an attempt to skew the outcome in their own favor. They may show up to mediation sessions or court hearings with an attorney, blindsiding the other spouse. When that happens, divorce can quickly become imbalanced and unfair, as the spouse with legal representation can potentially dominate the process.
A collaborative divorce is potentially beneficial for many reasons, one of which is the protection it provides from this sneaky change in tactics.
Collaborative divorce requires commitment
Even if spouses agree that an uncontested divorce is their best option, they must rely on one another to keep their word throughout the divorce. Spouses can back out of their promises to work cooperatively without any consequences in most cases.
However, there could be consequences if they choose not to complete the collaboration process and instead employ an adversarial approach to divorce negotiations. Collaborative divorce requires a signed agreement between the spouses.
That agreement specifically requires that they cooperate to settle every issue outside of court without litigating. In cases where one spouse wants to end the collaborative process or the spouses agree that they cannot work together, they have to restart their divorce negotiations. Typically, they also need to retain different legal representation to prevent an imbalanced or unfair outcome.
Committing to collaborative divorce proceedings can prevent heightened emotions and changes in circumstances from derailing a divorce. Spouses who want a private and amicable divorce may want to propose a collaborative approach accordingly.
