“There are men who can think no deeper than a fact” – Albert Einstein.

We live in a world of absolute truths. History, math and science tell us that facts exist, that questions have answers, and that formulas can be applied to resolve many of life’s mysteries. We make firm projections about the future just as we reflect with conviction on the past. We rarely pause to wonder whether the way we experience a situation is indeed that objective – whether the person sitting next to us who has lived on the same block and eaten at the same diner and talked to the same street vendor for the past ten years has experienced the picture entirely differently.

Vantage point is the depth beyond fact that individuates personhood. But what happens when one identity has been enmeshed with another for years? You often hear husbands and wives lovingly relate that they can’t tell where one person ends and the next one begins. They feel they are supposed to say this – that this is a necessary aspiration. A fortunate few may be able to thrive in that dynamic, but then there are the rest – the people who wake up one day and wonder:

• “If we’re supposed to live as one, why do I see the world so differently?”

• “Why can’t we communicate any longer?”

• “It suddenly seems we don’t care about any of the same things!”

They struggle with these torn expectations and create a framework for broader value differences, causing them to drift even further.

• “He doesn’t love the kids as much as I do.”

• “She doesn’t value savings and spends all the money I earn.”

The tensions build.

Mediation is a self-selected process. While couples walk through the door with varied abilities to engage with one another, there is most often a recollection of a time when they were indeed able to communicate, excited by their similarities and respectfully intrigued by one another’s differences. Over the course of time and erosion by the realities of experiencing life together, something snaps. The expectations of being entirely unified are inevitably left unfulfilled. The similarities seem fewer and further between. The differences become irritating.

A mediator does not preside as a judge. Mediation is not a process of assessing fact. Rather, it is a safe space in which each couple can say, with open candor and certainty of being respected, what it is that they truly care about. They are able to reacquaint themselves with their individual truths, ceasing to exist merely in reaction to one another. In this space of clear identity and genuine interests, intelligent decisions can be identified.

• “So it seems that you both care about the best interests of your child.”

• “So it turns out that only one of you really wants to stay in this house.”

The years of antagonism that evolved from unmet expectations are set aside and the couple is able to approach the impending dissolution of their relationship with new clarity.

Empirical facts may surely exist, but life as we experience it is individual and varied. It is only through the empowerment of this individuality, and respect of everyone’s entitlement to it, that we can hope to address life’s challenges with dignity and identify the best possible outcomes.

Lara Traum
laratraum@goodlawfirm.com
The Law Firm and Mediation Practice of Alla Roytberg, PC
www.goodlawfirm.com
Phone: 718-575-9479
Fax: 718-575-8163
Contact Us

Lara Traum is pleased to be joining the Law Firm and Mediation Practice of Alla Roytberg, P.C. as a mediator and project director of the Moderate Family Mediation: Low Budget Family and Divorce Mediation Project. Lara is a certified Family and Divorce Mediator, integrating her background of working with teens and members of the music non-profit world with her own experiences as a child of divorce. She looks forward to providing people with a constructive and understanding framework in which they can work together to resolve their family conflicts, achieve a healthy divorce, and move on with their lives. To learn more about Lara, please refer to her bio on the Our Team page of our website, www.goodlawfirm.com.

A man builds a fine house; and now he has a master, and a task for life; he is to furnish, watch, show it, and keep it in repair, the rest of his days.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 – 1882)

A condominium is another type of apartment; however, owning a condominium is very different from “owning” a co-op. In a condominium, owners actually own their space as real estate, as opposed to owning shares in the co-op building. They have a deed, the same way you have a deed on a house. When a person owns a condominium apartment, he/she owns whatever is inside the walls/unit and also a proportionate share of the common elements of the building. For example, if there are 4 apartments in the building, the owner would have a deed for their apartment and a 25% interest in the common elements in the building as well.

Just like with the co-op, the building has an offering plan. It has a budget and, depending on its size, they may have a management company and it can borrow money, if needed. Monthly maintenance payments in condominiums are usually called “common charges” and they relate to the unit owner’s proportionate share of the costs needed to run the building.

Because the person owns the apartment and has a deed, it is considered “real property” in the same way a house is considered real property. The owner of a condominium apartment would be responsible for the real estate taxes, whereas in a co-op, a unit owner is a shareholder in the corporation, so a portion of the real estate taxes of the building is incorporated into that unit owner’s monthly maintenance payment. In a condominium, the same way as with a house, you pay the real estate taxes that are allocated to the property that you own, which is your own apartment.

In a divorce situation, where a party or the parties decide that ownership may need to be transferred, it is much simpler to transfer ownership of a condominium than that of a co-op. Usually, the Condo Board does not have to be involved. It merely receives notice that the condominium ownership has changed.

Many condominium boards still maintain a Board application process for purchasers, however the only way a Condominium Board can reject the transaction, is by opting to purchase the apartment themselves. This is called, “the right of first refusal” and Condominium Boards usually simply issue a piece of paper, called “Waiver of the Right of First Refusal” to the parties, prior to the closing of a sale of one of their units.

Whether parties decide to sell or buy a Condominium in their normal daily life or transfer ownership during a change in a family structure, such as a divorce, death, estate planning, etc. it is critical to understand how condominium ownership works and to insert clear and effective language in the agreements that would govern the process.

Do you know anyone who would find this article useful? Please feel free to forward? I’d also appreciate feedback. Please share your thoughts in the comment box below.

Alla Roytberg
The Law Firm and Mediation Practice of Alla Roytberg, PC
www.goodlawfirm.com
Phone: 718-575-9479
Fax: 718-575-8163
Contact Us

“A cooperative apartment is an apartment in a building owned and managed by a corporation in which shares are sold, entitling the shareholders to occupy individual units in the building.” – A Definition from Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Very often, one of the most critical disputes a family may have revolves around housing. Where will the children reside? Who stays in the marital home? Do they own or rent? If the parties own their home, it may be a condominium, a cooperative apartment (co-op) or a house. How should one structure a delayed sale, exclusive occupancy or a buyout if a family unit is restructured?

While in other states a co-op is not such a common phenomenon, in New York State, and especially in New York City, a co-op presents a frequent form of ownership for many people. Most pre-war buildings in Manhattan are co-ops and so are many in Queens, Brooklyn and other boroughs. When you own a co-op, you don’t actually own real property. There is no deed, like in a house or a condominium. Instead, your form of ownership consists of a stock certificate that represents the number of shares allocated to your unit by the cooperative corporation, i.e. the building. The co-op has a Board of officers and members. These people make a lot of decisions. If you want to sell your co-op, your purchaser will have to complete an application for Board approval. The Board can approve or deny this application if it believes that the buyer is not financially secure, or, for any other reason at all under the “business judgment rule”.

When you buy a co-op and you finance the purchase with a bank loan, your bank will hold onto the original stock certificate for your apartment and the original proprietary lease (another document that confirms ownership and the rights of the owner to use common elements of the building) until either the loan is paid off, or you sell the apartment. If the owner sells the apartment, a representative of the bank comes to the closing, receives the balance of the loan, and returns the original stock certificate and proprietary lease. The stock certificate for the owner then gets cancelled by a representative of the Co-op Board and a new stock certificate is issued in the name of the new owner.

If spouses separate and they own a co-op apartment, they may own it in the name of one or both of them. If they decide to transfer ownership to whoever will retain the apartment, they must involve the Co-op Board and, if they still owe a mortgage, their bank.

For example, let’s say that Bill and Mary own a co-op and both their stock certificate and the mortgage are in joint names. If they decide that Mary will get the apartment in a divorce, they have to think through the transfer process fully, and it will include both mortgage/loan issues (common to all homes) and transfer of ownership through the Co-op Board.

• Can Mary refinance the loan to remove Bill’s name from it?

• Will her income and credit qualify her to complete a refinance?

• Will she need to borrow extra money if their settlement discusses her “buyout” of his interest?

• Even after she succeeds with the refinance, will the Co-op Board approve the transfer?

• Will the Board have a concern about Mary’s ability to pay maintenance and mortgage on her own?

There are many ways to address these potential issues in the parties’ settlement agreements and ensure that, regardless of the possible scenario, there is a way out. It is very important to include all required provisions and contingencies to ensure that there are no loopholes that would require unnecessary litigation in the future.

Do you know anyone who would find this article useful? Please feel free to forward? I’d also appreciate feedback. Please share your thoughts in the comment box below.

Alla Roytberg
The Law Firm and Mediation Practice of Alla Roytberg, PC
www.goodlawfirm.com
Phone: 718-575-9479
Fax: 718-575-8163
Contact Us

On February 11th, a grandfather shot and killed his grandchildren’s mother in a Delaware Family Court. Christine Belford, a contact lens technician, and David Matusiewicz, an optometrist, were married from 2001 to 2006. As reported by delawareonline.com on February 12th, they had 3 daughters, who were the subject of a custody battle during their divorce. One of the girls is autistic.

In 2007, the father and the paternal grandmother told the mother they were taking the girls to Disney World, but instead took them on an 18-month odyssey to Panama, Costa Rica, Mexico and Nicaragua. After an international manhunt, the children were found in 2009. The father and the paternal grandmother went to prison.

That made the paternal grandfather very angry. He repeatedly contacted news sources stating that they inaccurately portrayed the situation. His family fell on hard times. He and his wife declared bankruptcy in 2011. They also owned a handgun.

On February 11, 2013, the parents were due in court for a child support hearing, and that was when the 68-year-old paternal grandfather shot and killed Christine, leaving the 3 young girls without a mother.

This story has particularly struck me. What drove the 68-year-old man to commit such an act? Was it sheer desperation? Mental Illness? Easy access to a handgun? Could this tragedy have been averted with intelligent and sensitive intervention of a mediator at the right time in the process? How many institutions, therapists, psychiatrists and social workers will it take to help these 3 girls live their lives after suffering such a tragedy? Will they ever succeed?

Do you know anyone who would find this article useful? Please feel free to forward? I’d also appreciate feedback. Please share your thoughts in the comment box below.

Alla Roytberg
The Law Firm and Mediation Practice of Alla Roytberg, PC
www.goodlawfirm.com
Phone: 718-575-9479
Fax: 718-575-8163
Contact Us

“In the little world in which children have their existence, whosoever brings them up, there is nothing so finely perceived and so finely felt, as injustice”

One of the most difficult decisions a judge has to make in a divorce case where children are involved, is who gets custody. In New York State, as well as most others, the standard for deciding custody is relatively fluid. A judge has to base his/her decision on what is in the best interest of the children, but the problem is that it is a very subjective standard. What you or your spouse may think is in your child’s best interest may be very different from a particular judge’s view. This view is influenced by the personal and moral values and background of the person making the call, whether it is the judge, an attorney who represents the children, or a forensic evaluator. One of these decision makers may feel that a child needs the best possible education with the goal of achieving professional and financial success as an adult and thus may align with a parent who shares the same view. Another decision maker may place more value on a parent who allows the child to have a more relaxed and less ambitious childhood.

In a recent article in the New York Law Journal published Jan 4, 2013 and entitled “Child Custody Factors: Relationship With Both Parents Gains in Importance”, Timothy M. Tippins analyzes this issue. If you have to have a third party decide what is in the best interest of your children, you are putting the life of your family in the hands of a person whose personal and social views and value system are unknown to you.

For example, one may think that a judge would see the point of view of a mother complaining that the father does not provide nourishing meals, takes the child to McDonalds and doesn’t have him wear a sweater or scarf when it is cold. However, a judge or the child’s attorney may say, “So what? They can grow up happy on McDonalds and if they need a scarf, they will learn to put it on themselves.”  

Despite distinct value systems and personal view, the courts have consistently agreed on one single factor; it is clearly in the child’s best interest to have as much parenting time with each parent as possible. Therefore, in recent years, New York judges increasingly focus on whether a parent can facilitate a positive relationship with the other parent, the one who wouldn’t get custody. Judges consistently grant custody to the parent who is more likely to foster a positive relationship with the noncustodial parent.

Any parent who decides to battle for custody must be aware of this critical issue. When one parent seeks to diminish the relationship between the child and the other parent, the court knows it could lead to psychological or emotional problems in the child. A parent who does this raises a red flag in a judge’s mind and is more likely to lose custody.

The takeaway? First, try to keep your custody issues out of court. You cannot predict your judge’s value system, which will, often subconsciously, be applied to your situation. Second, if it is impossible to settle the custody issue out of court, make sure to show that you encourage a positive relationship with the other parent.

Do you know anyone who would find this article useful? Please feel free to forward? I’d also appreciate feedback. Please share your thoughts in the comment box below.

Alla Roytberg
The Law Firm and Mediation Practice of Alla Roytberg, PC
www.goodlawfirm.com
Phone: 718-575-9479
Fax: 718-575-8163
Contact Us

In the 21st century, family members often reside in different parts of the world. What happens if the parties live in one country and one of the parents just leaves and disappears with the children? Or, the parties’ relationship is amicable and they are simply trying to understand which country’s laws should govern their separation and divorce?

Recently I mediated a divorce case through video conferencing, where the husband lived in New York, the wife lived in London and the children were in the Ukraine. And suddenly, the complexity of the regular world of negotiating custody, support, equitable distribution, and filing for divorce tripled:

• Which country’s law, if any, do we use as a frame of reference?
• What are the residency requirements and where can the divorce ultimately be filed?
• Which countries are likely to enforce the settlement agreement in the future and would they?
• What country’s laws should be used in the Agreement and Divorce filing?
• Would the Hague Convention’s provisions on custody and removal of children apply to a particular jurisdiction and how would they interplay with local laws?

In mediation, all of these things can be discussed and worked through, if the mediator is sufficiently savvy to understand and flag international legal issues. Clients can then get appropriate advice in terms of whatever jurisdiction they are located in, from the lawyers in their country. And all of this can be worked out and not turn into a big huge mess that ends up in court.

A recent New York case illustrates the issues involved in international custody disputes and how New York judges view the Hague convention. (See New York Law Journal – October 2, 2012.) In that case, the mother and father lived in London with their daughter. The relationship deteriorated and the mother left England and took the parties’ daughter to New York. At first she lived in a shelter but then moved out and enrolled the child in school. There was a history of abuse, confirmed by the daughter’s therapist and the child did not want to see her father.

More than a year had passed before the father was able to track the whereabouts of the mother and the child. He came to New York and filed the petition in Manhattan Federal Court under Article 2 of the Hague Convention International Child Abduction Remedies Act, asking that the child be returned to England. The mother’s defense under the Act was that, since over a year had passed, the child was to be considered “settled” in the new country. The father said the defense should not apply because the year should run from the date on which he discovered where the child was located and not from the date of the actual move.

Result? Judges are people, and often, when there is no clear precedent or statute, a lot rides on what a Judge feels would accomplish a fair result. If they like the litigant, they will rule in his/her favor and then … make the law fit, which is exactly what happened here. There was a history of abuse. The child was settled in New York. The court held that the mother was able to assert the “resettlement” defense from the date of the “move” and not the date of “discovery”.

The moral of the story? If at all possible, settle these matters out of court!

Do you know anyone who would find this article useful? Please feel free to forward? I’d also appreciate feedback. Please share your thoughts in the comment box below.

Alla Roytberg
The Law Firm and Mediation Practice of Alla Roytberg, PC
www.goodlawfirm.com
Phone: 718-575-9479
Fax: 718-575-8163
Contact Us

The child’s home state is generally defined as the state where the child has lived with a parent for six consecutive months before the case was started in court. If the child has not lived in any state for at least six months, then jurisdiction will likely lie in a state that has (1) “significant connections” with the child and at least one parent and (2) “substantial evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships”. If more than one state has “significant connections” and “substantial evidence…”, the courts of those states must communicate and determine which state has the most significant connections to the child.

Once a court makes a child-custody determination consistent with UCCJEA, that state’s jurisdiction will continue until either (1) that court determines that neither the child, the child’s parents, nor any person acting as a parent has a significant connection with the State that made the original order and that substantial evidence is no longer available in the State concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships, or (2) that court or a court of another State determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the State that initially made the child custody order.

But, what if a parent resides in a different country?

One interesting case to illustrate this issue was in December of 2011, Serihy M vs Olena O M. The parents marry in the Ukraine and live there when their daughter is born in 1997.  A year later the father moves to New York to look for work while the mother and daughter remain in the Ukraine. The family lives apart during the next ten years and briefly attempts to reconcile during one month in 2007 and one month in 2008, when they try to live together in the father’s Brooklyn apartment. Reconciliation does not succeed and the mother and the child return to the Ukraine where the parents divorce a few months later. That same year, the mother moves to New Jersey to work as a nanny and leaves the 11-year-old daughter in the Ukraine under the care of her family members. As of 2011, the child visits the United States a few times but continues to live and go to school in the Ukraine.

In 2010, the father goes to Brooklyn Family Court and files a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, asking the court to order the mother to produce the child in court. The mother, who at that point resides in New Jersey, appears in court in New York and responds that the child has returned to the Ukraine. A month later, the same Brooklyn Family court orders the mother again to produce the child and in September of 2010 the father petitions for custody and the mother cross-petitions for custody as well. What a mess!

What happens next is even more interesting. While the New York case is pending in court, in October 2010, the mother filed a separate petition for custody in the Ukraine asking the Ukrainian Court to determine the child’s place of residence. The Ukrainian Court then holds a hearing in which the Ukrainian legal representative for the child, as well as representatives for the mother and father are present. The Ukrainian Court then issues a decision stating that the child’s place of residence is in the Ukraine.

After the Ukrainian decision, the mother requests that the Brooklyn Court dismiss the father’s custody petition claiming that Ukraine now has continuing exclusive jurisdiction since it has already determined custody. Besides that, New York is an improper place to decide this case, since the child has lived in the Ukraine all her life.

The Court reviews UCCJEA and analyzes the case under DRL § 75-d,  which provides that a New York court shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States and its child custody determination must be recognized and enforced if (1) the determination was made under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards set forth in DRL § 75-g, and (2) the child custody law of the foreign country as written or applied does not violate fundamental principles of human rights.

The Brooklyn Court acknowledges that there was due process in Ukraine and states that while Ukraine’s family law and its application differ from New York’s, Ukrainian law does not violate fundamental principles of human rights. In addition, the Court states that parties did not present enough proof to show that Ukraine should be treated as a state under UCCJEA. However, in this case, even if UCCJEA would apply, the Court holds that New York would not have jurisdiction because of the definition of the child’s “home state” under DRL § 75-d. After all, the child did not reside in New York but in the Ukraine six months prior to the father’s filing of the petition for custody in New York and just because the parents are not present in the Ukraine does not necessarily mean that the child has no “home state.” The home state would be in the Ukraine and Ukraine has the most substantive connections with the child.

The quagmire of international custody issues can prove extremely complex and costly for most families. Laws of different countries must be applied and analyzed. Proceedings must be commenced often in various states and various countries. Without first confirming jurisdiction, a court would not even look at the substantive issue in the case. It may take years to sort through various jurisdictional issues and this means that a judge does not even begin to look at the real dispute between the parties. Unfortunately, many of the people involved in complex international disputes are unaware of the existence of alternative dispute resolution. A mediator with international experience and cross-cultural sensitivities can help the parties resolve it much faster and with less emotional and financial cost.

Do you know anyone who would find this article useful? Please feel free to forward? I’d also appreciate feedback. Please share your thoughts in the comment box below.

Alla Roytberg
The Law Firm and Mediation Practice of Alla Roytberg, PC
www.goodlawfirm.com
Phone: 718-575-9479
Fax: 718-575-8163
Contact Us

Parental relocation post-separation or post-divorce often creates unprecedented challenges for the parent who wants to move, the parent who stays behind, and especially for the children. Most frequently, a dispute arises when the parent with whom the children primarily reside, moves from the residence where they are currently located and far away from “the frequently visiting and involved” parent. For example, if the children’s primary residence is with the mother and the father sees them both during the week and on weekends, what happens if the mother has to move? If that move is far away, the children and the father will be unable to see each other during the week, making it more difficult to maintain a meaningful relationship. If the move is so far away that regular weekend parenting time with the father becomes impractical, then the continuity of the relationship with the father is even in greater danger.

To handle this problem, a relocation clause, also known as a radius clause, is commonly inserted in Separation and Settlement Agreements. In general, such a provision describes the process of how the parties would go about agreeing on this issue and possible limits on the move placed on the primary residential parent, if the other parent does not consent. The movement radius may be described as a distance in miles, as a school district or as a geographical location (such as “The New York Tri-State Area”).

If this clause is not inserted then the default position is that the residential parent can’t move so far away that it would interfere with the other parent’s regularly scheduled parenting time. If the parties are divorced and their Settlement Agreement and/or Judgment does not contain language addressing relocation, the non-custodial parent can go to court and prevent the primary residential parent from moving if that move interferes with his or her ability to continue regularly scheduled parenting time. Often, it is a good idea for the parent who wants to move and can’t obtain the other’s consent by discussion or through mediation to go to court first and ask for a court order allowing the move to take place.

When the court looks at whether or not the mother, for example, should be allowed to move, let’s say to California, they consider a variety of factors. However, the primary factor is what is in the best interest of the children. The mother may present evidence that wherever she is moving would provide a better environment for the children. She may also present evidence that the move is necessary for her due to a job loss and the only job opportunity is in another state, or she has remarried and depends on her new husband’s source of income. The court has to take that information and decide if the benefits of moving to a better school district, better environment, better job, etc. are strong enough to outweigh the general benefit to that the children derive by having an ongoing relationship with the non-residential parent. Will the fact that the parent and children are not going to see each other during the week or on weekends, or only see each other during school breaks or vacations, be detrimental to the children?

This is a very tough issue for the residential parent who wishes to move, and the non-residential parent who worries about losing meaningful contact with the children. Usually these cases come up as several years after the parties’ divorce. In New York, they can be filed in Supreme Courts or in Family Courts. When a relocation case is fully litigated, it takes a very long time and neither spouse really knows the way the judge is going to come out on the issue because a lot of the benefit-detriment analysis is extremely subjective.

When the parties first separate, mediation presents a very good opportunity to explore all possible scenarios which you usually don’t get to do in a court room. Whether it is a judgment of divorce or whether there is a settlement agreement, quite often the issue of future relocation of the residential parent doesn’t come up and is only dealt with when it is imminent which can be several years after the divorce judgment. In mediation, the parties can think about what could happen if the father moves away for a job or if the mother moves away due to remarriage or a nicer neighborhood.  How far is acceptable to maintain the current parenting schedules? Would the parties consent to a more distant move and an adjustment to the parenting schedule? What kind of adjustment would be envisioned?

With the flexibility to sit down and think through all of these scenarios, various potential decisions could be talked about and discussed. A lot of divorcing people are not thinking about what is going to happen to them and their family 5 years down the road which I think is a great flaw in the traditional adversarial process. When this kind of thinking doesn’t take place, it causes a lot of litigation and hostility post-divorce.

In mediation, often a mediator would point out these scenarios and the parties have the ability to fashion an agreement in such a way that it would be comprehensive and address all possible outcomes. If they absolutely can’t agree, at the very least they can put a clause in the agreement that says if the residential parent needs to move and they cannot reach an agreement, they will try to resolve it through mediation before running to court, hiring attorneys and dealing with the financial and emotional expense of this process.

Do you know anyone who would find this article useful? Please feel free to forward? I’d also appreciate feedback. Please share your thoughts in the comment box below.

Alla Roytberg
The Law Firm and Mediation Practice of Alla Roytberg, PC
www.goodlawfirm.com
Phone: 718-575-9479
Fax: 718-575-8163
Contact Us

The tone is supposed to be one where the parties work together in a positive and respectful manner where they find creative solutions that meet the needs of each individual party. Following collaborative divorce, clients are more inclined to find amicable solutions, they are more likely to communicate in a non-threatening manner and they are more likely to produce a friendly co-parenting relationship for the children. In a number of states, attorneys can receive board-certification for family law. To get this type of certification, the attorney needs to demonstrate significant trial experience as well as pass a difficult exam. There is also the result of alimony. During a divorce the court will take time to observe both parents and find an agreement in a child custody case.

How do you think I can find the best resources on Divorce Application in New York

Neither is protracted litigation over financial assets or a drawn out custody battle. The difference is that, with collaborative divorce, parties can create an environment that encourages them to move forward and which preserves financial resources and helps protect their children. Mediation is not always easy – it can be challenging and uncomfortable. It is also common for parties to feel part way through the mediation that they are wasting their time, that the other side are not prepared to give anything at all and that they might as well leave. A successful collaboration will help the divorcing spouses move on with their lives, whether they have children together or not. Collaborative Divorce is separate and distinct from mediation and arbitration. Mediation is a structured process during which a neutral third person assists those involved in disagreement or dispute to work towards finding a mutually acceptable agreement which empowers all parties taking part. It is a voluntary process. In a collaborative divorce, lawyers work not as opposing counsel but, instead, as members of a team that is committed to achieving the best result for both parties and their children. Collaborative divorce is not a fix all solution.

There is a difference between trust between the parties and trust in the process. Collaborative divorce creates an environment of process trust by requiring full disclosure and enforcing the parties obligation to do so.

Find the best review for Divorce Costs in Bronx

Divorce Law is one of the most complex and challenging areas facing any American citizen. A divorce is more than just two people separating; it is the untangling of a lifetime of co-mingled finances, living space, and relationships that extend far beyond the couple who are divorcing. In addition, because marriages are sanctioned by the states and not the federal government, divorce laws have fifty different sets of rules, and sometimes the same divorce will be wrangling with two or more of these sets. In any negotiation you want to persuade the other side that you have a strong case and that they should therefore settle with you on terms favourable to you. The parties and their solicitors should therefore prepare themselves for a negotiation. Coming to mutual agreements is at the core of collaborative divorce, as opposed to a compromise where neither spouse is happy with the final result. If you and your spouse would like the benefit of legal professionals, without having to go to court, this type of divorce is a good option for you.

Having trouble finding resources on Divorce Costs in Bronx?

It is hard to create a good case for your divorce without an attorney. If you try to approach a divorce without one, your case won’t have a successful turn-out. Collaborative divorce seems like a good concept in theory but not in practice. When it comes to divorce, there is often a lack of trust between the parties and a great deal of anger. You shouldn’t ever have to doubt your attorney-and if you do-then he isn’t the right one for you. If divorce has entered your life, be patient. Solicitors have of course always settled cases for their clients without mediation. However mediation provides a process for those cases which have not settled for whatever reason.