Because we live in a litigious era, these non-adversarial
concepts may seem counter-intuitive - or even "New Age". Some
methods are relatively new, but for centuries great lawyers have recognized
the effectiveness of out-of-court settlements. Abraham Lincoln, one
of the great trial lawyers our country has ever known, said that lawyers
should;
"(d)iscourage litigation. Persuade neighbors to
compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner
is often the real loser in fees, expenses, and a waste of time. As
a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of becoming a good
(person)."
What was true in Lincoln's time is even truer today, especially
when dealing with family problems that were never really suited for
courtroom resolution.
This site cannot possibly elaborate on all of the advantages
to using non-adversarial resolutions of divorce issues. However, here
are the most commonly identified benefits:
- Protecting children:
Alternatives protect children from much of the harm that a divorce
can cause.
- Saving money: Alternative
methods usually cost only a fraction of the cost of litigation.
- Better results: People
who choose alternatives almost always get better results than either
party gets in a litigated case.
- More Control: Alternatives
give both parties more control over the process.
- More dignity: These alternative
processes allow individuals to retain their dignity and integrity
through difficult times.
To read a thorough discussion verifying a particular
statement above, click on the highlighted words.
Despite the advantages of alternate methods, most divorcing
couples still pursue divorce through many of the traditional adversarial
methods. In many cases these people have not "chosen" to be
adversarial. Rather, they have stumbled into these methods because they
did not fully understand their alternatives.
In many cases, the attorneys they hired may not have fully
explained the alternatives or, indeed, may not have fully understood
them. One of the main goals of divorceChoice.com is to prevent couples
from choosing adversarial methods merely because they did not know about
the other choices available to them.
Despite clear advantages to alternative methods there
are some individuals who may resist employing them. Most people who
reject these options fall into one or more of these categories:
Fear:
They have a genuine fear of their spouse that causes them to believe
that only an adversarial process and the "biggest barracuda in
town" will allow them to reach a fair settlement. In some cases,
they have been victims of abuse and therefore believe that these options
are inappropriate.
Anger:
They are so angry with their spouses that they cannot abandon the idea
that a court ought to somehow vindicate the wrongs that have been done
to them.
Evil
spouse: They believe that, while a low-conflict alternative
may work for most families, it will not work for them because their
spouse is far too disagreeable.
For a response that addresses any of these concerns, please
click on the appropriate highlighted words above.
Fear: Fear of a spouse is very
natural in many divorces. One understandable reaction is to seek more
aggressive help. However, the adversarial methods are usually less effective
than alternate methods in dealing with intimidation or power imbalances.
The alternative methods can be adjusted to meet your particular needs.
For example, you may choose a method that eliminates or
reduces face-to-face contact with your spouse. You can tailor the process
so that you have a professional at your side when you face your spouse,
to alleviate concerns about safety or power imbalances. If you fear
your spouse will conceal or manipulate financial information, you can
actually design methods, within the Alternate
Dispute Resolution framework, making it more difficult for your
spouse to be deceitful.
When you go to court, you accept the available system,
which grants little opportunity to tailor the process to address your
fears. An adversarial system could force you to "face your spouse"
in court in a manner far more intimidating than what you could design
through alternate methods. Moreover, it may be more difficult to restrain
intimidating conduct in formal proceedings than in a system you can
design through Alternate
Dispute Resolution.
Anger:
During a divorce it is common to feel anger toward their spouse. One
spouse blames the other spouse for the divorce or blames the behavior
of the spouse as the cause of the dissolution. It is natural to want
the system to exact some measure of justice, if not revenge. In these
situations, it is understandable that you might think of the more dignified
alternative methods as letting your spouse off "too easily."
However, the court system is almost always ineffective in meeting these
expectations of justice or revenge.
Minnesota, like most states, eliminated "fault divorce"
more than three decades ago. Therefore, the system will not act to "punish"
your spouse. Consequently, placing your faith in a system that refuses
to take your spouse's misdeeds into account can only add to your aggravation.
Anger from divorce is best handled through professional counseling.
To the extent that there is a therapeutic benefit in confronting your
spouse, you could more likely address that desire in an alternate setting
than through traditional methods using the court system.
Evil spouse: The strong emotions that precede
and surround a divorce lead a surprisingly large number of people to
believe that their spouse lacks any interest whatsoever in behaving
fairly. Undoubtedly, some small percentage of individuals will always
refuse to pursue low-conflict resolution of disputes. Nevertheless,
most people do see some benefits in working toward a civil resolution.
That is the reality.
If you view your spouse as having absolutely no inclination
toward being reasonable, you should at least consider the possibility
that the stress and emotions of your pending divorce color your view
- if they do not create it completely.
Again, it is often helpful to sort out these perceptions
through professional counseling in an effort to gain real perspective
on what your spouse may be capable of doing. If indeed your spouse refuses
to pursue more cooperative options, the refusal will show itself very
soon in the process. Traditional options in court can still be pursued.
However, presuming rejection of alternate options, and thus failing
even to offer them, denies you any real opportunity to accomplish your
dissolution in a dignified manner.
Read about available
alternatives.
