The term “Disney Divorce” is often used to describe a post-divorce family situation in which one parent, usually Dad, isn’t involved in day-to-day parenting but shows up on infrequent occasion to do something spectacular with the kids, like visit Disneyland.  This is not that story.  This is the story of a real Disney divorce, the collaborative divorce of Roy Disney and his wife Patty.
Last year, the Disneys filed papers with the Los Angeles County Superior Court in which they agreed to “to devote their efforts to attempt to reach a negotiated settlement in an efficient, cooperative manner.”  Each was represented by a collaborative attorney and pledged to comply with the principles of collaborative law.  The case proves a number of important points about collaborative divorce:

•    Collaborative divorce is not just for couples without a lot of money.   Roy Disney is director emeritus of the Disney Company and holds 16 million shares.  Forbes has estimated his fortune at $1.2 billion.

•    Collaborative divorce is not just for couples with minor children.  The Disneys have four children, all adults.

•    Collaborative divorce is not just for young couples who have had short marriages.  The Disneys were married for 52 years.  Roy is 77, Patty is 72.  They were married shortly after the opening of Disneyland in Anaheim, California.

The Disney Company has many devoted followers who were surprised by the news.  According to Clifford A. Miller, managing director of the Disney family investment company, "This has been in the works for a long time. They've just decided to move forward with their lives."  Notably, they decided to do so in a way that respects their many years together, preserves their family relationships, and protects their privacy.  

Governor Gibbons evidently made a mistake common among those who have finally decided to seek a divorce:  he moved first and asked questions later.  Many family law specialists warn against that.

While we’re on the subject of governors(see “Being Ugly in Public, posted on July 27, 2009), another who is in the midst of a difficult divorce is Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, who filed for divorce in late April after abruptly moving out of the governor’s mansion in Carson City and back to the family’s private residence in Reno.  And therein lies the problem.  The mansion is the official residence that Nevada provides for its governor, but he’s not the one living there.  He’s not even living in the State capitol.  Realizing his dilemma, the governor asked First Lady Dawn Gibbons to trade accommodations with him, but she declined.  She says she needs access to her office at the mansion to carry out her duties and that she’s interested in maintaining the 22-year marriage.  So in addition to the divorce filing, the Governor is also suing to get his official residence back.

Leaving Home

Governor Gibbons evidently made a mistake common among those who have finally decided to seek a divorce:  he moved out first and asked questions later.  Many family law specialists warn against that, pointing out that it can be construed as abandonment.  They advise first negotiating a separation agreement that spells out each party’s living arrangements and filing it with the court, particularly if you have an interest in retaining title to the property after the divorce.  Obviously, title won’t be a problem for Governor Gibbons, though the embarrassment of being more or less locked out of the official house may be.

Separate Lives

Figuring out separate living arrangements can be a vexatious problem for divorcing couples, but it’s one of many more easily solved in a collaborative divorce process.  One of the basic premises in a collaborative divorce is that the couple will work together to arrange their finances so that each has the resources to live independently.  In cases where finances are tight, that can require creative problem solving.  Fortunately, collaborative attorneys are trained to work with one another toward solutions that are mutually beneficial for their clients, so they are much more likely to produce a reasonable outcome than litigators who are pledged only to win.  And if it’s financially necessary for both parties to continue living under the same roof while the divorce proceeds, that’s more likely to be workable if the spouses have committed to a collaborative process in which they’ve agreed to treat one another with respect and courtesy.  

A separation agreement may not be necessary in a collaborative divorce process.  Since the couple agrees not to litigate, they may skip the interim step of a separation agreement and simply work out their divorce agreement with the help of their collaborative attorneys and coaches.   Your collaborative attorney can best advise you which course is best in your case.

That’s the thing about a contested divorce:  it’s often ugly and it’s public. There’s no better example than the drama being played out between former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey and his estranged wife Dina Matos McGreevey.

 

An old friend who thought he was quite the wit (and sometimes was) used to say, “She can’t help being ugly, but she doesn’t have to go out in public.”   That’s the thing about a contested divorce:  it’s ugly and it’s public.  There’s no better example than the drama being played out in the pages of the Trenton Times between former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey and his estranged wife Dina Matos McGreevey.

The Shocker that Started It All

In one of those scenes to which we’ve become accustomed, Mrs. McGreevey stood stoically by his side as her husband confessed to an extra-marital affair and announced that he would resign his office.  The only twist was that he also proclaimed, “I am a gay American.”  In an article in Oprah magazine, Mrs. McGreevey says she learned that fact one hour before the news conference and that in part she was emotionless because she was in shock.

The Battle is Engaged

Now the McGreeveys are reporting to court for an estimated six weeks to battle over some of the ugliest allegations imaginable.  He says they had three-way sex with a male staffer. She denies that, but accuses him of duping her into marriage to conceal his homosexuality and advance his political career.  He says he’s broke.  She says he’s conspiring with his millionaire boyfriend to conceal assets.  Another front in the war zone was custody of their six-year old daughter, but the judge mercifully sealed the records in the custody portion of the case.

Privacy Equals Dignity

Granted, the McGreevey divorce is pretty high on the ugliness scale.  And maybe (but not necessarily) the uglier the issues between the spouses, the greater the temptation to seek vindication through public accusations.   But is it worth it?  Do other people really need that much detail about what went on in your marriage?  What’s the impact on your children of detailing their parents’ failings in open court?
Here’s the thing: what happened, happened.  You can’t change it now.  You can’t help it if it’s ugly.  But you can keep from making it public.  Through the collaborative divorce process, spouses – even spouses with deeply hurt feelings – are helped by their coaches and collaborative lawyers to create a mutually acceptable and confidential agreement ending their marriage.  With that, it’s over, it’s private, and everyone can move on with their lives with their dignity intact.

In the second chapter, the judge recommends alternatives to conventional divorce, specifically mediation and collaborative divorce.  He advises couples that by using an alternative like collaborative divorce they will save time and money and be happier with their settlement.  “Alternatives to going to court take place in a private setting in which the goal is to find an agreement acceptable to both of you,” he points out, while “a judge’s decree often produces unpredictable results that at least one of you will hate.”

 Even in the best of circumstances, says the judge, “There is the possibility that even a well-meaning, experienced family law judge will rule for the wrong side.”  He lists a number of factors that make it hard for judges to be sure they are making the right decision, including not having enough information or correct information.  In addition, he says, “Very few lawyers who specialize in divorce end up as judges.”

 When one or both spouses are determined to drag out a divorce case, the process can be interminable.  Judge Duncan was involved with a case that dragged on for twelve years.  In this chapter, he cites several reasons that contested divorces take a long time even when both parties want to get it over with: from courtroom under staffing to overloaded calendars to the fact that criminal courts have a higher priority for funding.  

The judge devotes two entire chapters to legal issues regarding the children of divorce.  But in the first chapter of the book he focuses on the emotional damage children can suffer when their parents engage in a vicious divorce struggle.  “A contested divorce trial ultimately ends up causing terrible damage to any children caught in the crossfire,” he observes.

“Whatever you do, try to keep your divorce out of divorce court,” says Judge Roderic Duncan.   That seems like strange advice from a man who’s ruled on 25,000 divorce cases.

When a judge who’s spent years hearing divorce cases offers you advice about divorce, you should listen.  That’s just what Judge Roderic Duncan does in his book A Judge’s Guide to Divorce: Uncommon Advice from the Bench.  And what is the judge’s advice?  Stay out of divorce court. 

Judge Duncan estimates he ruled on 25,000 cases as a divorce judge.  He’s also been divorced himself.  He understands that not every marriage will endure, and he’s not telling unhappy couples to stay married.  But he begins his book with the warning, “Whatever you do, try to keep your divorce out of divorce court.”   The first chapter cites several reasons that hiring a “bomber,” the term Judge Duncan uses for an aggressive divorce attorney, and suing your spouse for all the marbles is a very bad way to get divorced. 

 Check back soon for more details and a summary of his 6 main points.

 

A couple’s decision to divorce creates a ripple effect among nearly everyone they know.  But there is no process for deciding who gets custody of their friends.   The more contentious the divorce, the more awkward many friendships may become.

Alice and Paul, a young professional couple, enjoyed cooking.  Together with two other couples they knew through Paul’s work, they formed a “dinner club.”   The couples took turns hosting monthly theme dinners featuring elaborate menus and carefully chosen wines.  Everyone got into the spirit, exploring ethnic cuisines and creating table decorations that expressed the dinner’s theme.  The club had been going strong for three years when Paul shocked Alice by moving out and asking for a divorce. 

Some weeks later in the grocery store Alice saw Debbie, one of the wives from the dinner club, coming toward her in the cereal aisle.  As they made eye contact, Debbie abruptly turned around and headed hurriedly off in the opposite direction.  Alice just stood there, stunned.  Was she a complete pariah without a husband, she wondered.  Was Paul saying terrible things about her to their friends to justify his decision to leave?  Would she have any friends left at all by the time the divorce was over?

Whose Friends Are They?

A couple’s decision to divorce creates a ripple effect among nearly everyone they know – family, friends, coworkers, neighbors.   Through the divorce process itself, the couple will formally divide their physical possessions.  If there are children, arrangements will be made for each parent to spend time with them.  But there is no process for deciding who gets custody of their friends.  The more contentious the divorce, the more awkward many friendships may become.
The longer a couple has been together, the more friends they are likely to have in common.  But even those who have been primarily “his friends” or “her friends” can feel as though they are trapped in the middle between two people they genuinely like.  Friends can feel uncomfortable listening to a spouse recite bitter, perhaps intimate complaints.  It seems vaguely disloyal to converse with the “other” spouse during a chance encounter.   Social events that would once have included the couple are strained by the obvious exclusion of one.

Friends Without Drama

Divorce is hard, and those enduring the process certainly should be able to turn to their close friends for emotional support.  At the same time, keeping the divorce civil can ease the emotional turmoil for principals and friends alike.  Couples who choose a collaborative divorce promise to treat one another with respect and civility.   An added bonus is being able to tell friends, “We can’t stay together, but we’re working to have a cordial relationship with each other in the future.”  When friends know they don’t have to take sides, that it’s okay to say hello in the grocery store, everyone can relax a little.  In the end, there’s less lost in the divorce because friends don’t feel the need to distance themselves from one or both spouses.
Alice had no contact with Debbie for several months and so was very surprised when they met by chance and this time Debbie approached her.  After some awkward greetings, Debbie apologized for the incident in the grocery store.  “I just didn’t know what to say to you,” she confessed. 

When you think of a labor dispute, what comes to mind?  The two sides can’t agree, things are at a stalemate.  Maybe one side has walked out, or maybe the other side locked them out.  Harsh words are spoken.  Finally an arbitrator is brought in.  Each side makes demands.  The arbitrator considers the case and decides who gets what.  Neither side walks away happy.

Striking Out

Doesn’t that sound a lot like a contested divorce?  Certainly litigating couples may argue over property division and residency in the family home.  Angry words are not uncommon.  And the bottom line is that in a contested divorce, the judge essentially acts as an arbitrator, considering the position presented by each party’s attorney and handing down a settlement decision.  The couple doesn’t decide, the judge does.

Keeping Control

Couples who choose collaborative divorce retain control over the decisions in their case.  They jointly decide everything:  from how to handle their equity in the home, to who gets the dining room set, to who will provide health insurance for the children.  Although they will work with various professionals on the collaborative team, no one will make decisions for them.  
Joint decision-making can be hard when a couple’s relationship is strained.  Committing to the principles of collaboration at the outset helps keep discussions on track, and the coaches and collaborative attorneys provide support and guidance.  
The decision each spouse must make individually is whether to collaborate and work through the decisions that will shape their future, or litigate and let someone else make those decisions.