Putting An End To Divorce Wars

Reconcilable Differences: Some Couples Seek Mediation, Not Litigation, To Keep The Peace

(CBS)  Eighteen years ago, the movie "War of the Roses" came to symbolize the no-holds-barred marital break-up, where winning was everything. But recently, people have sought a kinder and gentler sort of divorce proceeding, one that allows both sides to hold on to their dignity as well as their rightful share of the joint property.

Most importantly, it keeps anger to a minimum, which enables families to stay intact. This week, The Early Show is looking at some changes taking place in modern divorces.

---

Messy, long-winded divorces no longer have to be norm, now that more people are opting for mediation rather than litigation.

The Early Show contributor Jill Brooke recently met with a divorcing couple with three children who wanted very badly to keep their divorce civil for the sake of the children.

Historically, "in nasty courtroom battles, divorce evolved into the winner-takes-all mentality," said Brooke. "But now a movement called mediation and collaborative law makes it possible for both parties to win while reducing the emotional and financial costs to the family."

To dissolve their 20-year union, Meg and Russ Fein turned to Dr. Jonah Schrag, who met with the couple as they tried to resolve custody and financial issues. Schrag is guiding them through the process and helping them diffuse the emotional bombs that could prevent them from reaching a settlement.

"Some of the final points about custody of the children where Meg and I had very opposite desires, and sort of her gain was my loss and vice versa," said Russ, "those points were very divisive — if we had attorneys that were aggressively whispering in our ears, we could have veered off into this World War III. And in mediation, it didn't happen and we were able to come up with a solution."

Dr. Schrag "was phenomenal in being able to interpret our feelings," said Meg. "There were so many things we couldn't say to each other and he was able to draw that out so that we could understand how we felt."

According to Schrag, with mediation "You're not sacrificing your right to go to court. All you're doing is saying, let's give a different way a chance here ... Maybe it will come out much better."

So far, so good for the Feins, who avoided the emotional and financial drain of a court-based divorce.

"Irregardless of whether we're married or not, we support our kids," said Meg Fein. "We're there for the kids. And we're a family."

[linfinster]

Good article, divorce is a horrible thing. But if it has to happen, much better for all involved when it can go smoothly and fair.

[mythoughtsr]

Imagine if people worked this hard at keeping their marriage together to be "there for the kids"?

[finelass7]

I had a fight free divorce, I am still good friends with my ex-husband. I am lucky. We put our daughter first and helped her grow up to be a positive and productive young lady.

[oleander8]

"%u2014 if we had attorneys that were aggressively whispering in our ears, we could have veered off into this World War III."

That says it all - if you can keep lawyers out of your business, you can retain civility. They aren''t necessary to ending a relationship.

[puzzler125]

My divorce cost me $25 in Ohio and my exhusband $8,000 in New York City. Once my lawyer talked to his lawyer suddenly I was expected to pay at least another $1,000. I said, "get lost" and never had to pay another dime by being communicative and amicable with my exspouse. Once the lawyers get involved everything gets more expensive and far more time consuming. My dear friend went through the same situation with her lawyer costing her thousands of dollars more than originally estimated.

[adian1-2009]

Excellent article. It brings to light again that the rift of a marriage is not a legal problem if true that it brings some legal issues, especially regarding property rights. Our court proceedings are adversarial. As such, each party to a lawsuit is an opponent to the other. Almost all the times each side has its own lawyer. Even if both parties are inclined to use the services of one and the same lawyer to try to resolve their matters in a civilized way, that lawyer will be reluctant to intervene in such a capacity given the fact that the rules of ethics and professional behavior in the legal profession do not allow a lawyer to "represent" the interests of two opposite sides of an issue. The system is meant to put both sides to clash against each other. It would take two very mature and exceptional lawyers to deal with any kind of case without each one of them going for the jugular of the opponent. But then we have the problem that lawyers are trained to fight against the position of his/her adversary. And such fight is based on winning and on profit. You see? It is the system what is ill based and rotten.