Why Add a Neutral Process Coach to a Collaborative Divorce?

Collaborative divorce combines several elements of the divorce process into an effective whole.  The result is, in general, a divorce that is more closely tailored to the needs and interests of the divorcing individuals (and their children).  But adding a Neutral Process Coach to the mix may provide great value and lead to a better result. 

Here are some of the features of collaborative divorce:

Face-to-face meetings.  The litigation process is inefficient because the clients and their attorneys are not resolving the divorce directly, through direct communications, but through attorneys.  This is also a problem in non-litigated negotiated divorces. Because there is no face-to-face contact, hurtful and aggressive positions tend to be interchanged by the attorneys and the spouses.

In collaborative divorce, the parties engage in face-to-face sessions with their two collaborative attorneys.  Issues can be dealt with directly.  Miscommunications and misunderstandings can be cleared up or avoided altogether. Spouses tend to be more conciliatory and gentle to one another in this setting, leading to less extreme positioning.  In a sense, the collaborative process is the last act of the marriage, unlike litigation, which is at its essence, an act of war.

Client control of process.  As divorce attorneys, we partner with our clients.  Our clients should be in control and make the decisions that they can live with.  They are the ones who know the history of their marriage, their day-to-day needs and concerns as parents and as individuals.  We, as attorneys, are there to assist and support our clients.  The more we understand their concerns, the better we can help them.  Our skills, experience and legal knowledge benefit our clients.

What does “the law” have to do with it?  Part of what we do is help our clients manage their expectations by providing sound legal knowledge, helping the clients to be realistic in their desires for the terms of divorce.  Divorcing couples need to deal with multiple issues relating to finances and children.  We analyze the facts of their divorce through the filter of the law pertaining to divorce applicable in our state.  This way the client can understand the range of settlement on the various practical issues that the couple needs to resolve.  Issues analyzed may include future inheritance, the amount and duration of support, and whether the law would require an at-home spouse to enter the job market.

This all assumes that the law is worthy of application.  It is a living body of the best ideas of the most competent professionals dealing with the practical issues facing our divorcing clients.  These ideas and rulings are formulated in practicality and a deep understanding of the human condition. In most states, as in ours, divorce law is considered an “equitable” legal system, based on treating the parties fairly and justly. 

I am a lawyer and have great respect for written court decisions, as well as the skills of the probate and family judges in Massachusetts as they make decisions (often unpublished) in the cases before them.  These judges are high-level experts in this area and are worthy of respect.  For all the above reasons, I believe wholeheartedly in the appropriateness and suitability of the law.

Collaborative attorney as advocate.  There is very often a range of results.  When applying the law to the facts of an issue in a divorce, we attorneys seek to help our clients take a reasoned view on any issue, so that our clients feel supported and educated at the same time.  This helps parties to avoid taking extreme positions.  Extreme positions can derail collaboration, or negotiation, and cause the divorce spin into litigation. 

At the same time, collaborative divorce includes lawyer advocacy for the respective clients.  We meet with and speak with our clients off-line (not in the collaborative meetings).  They can truthfully express all the thoughts and wishes for their case that may not be appropriate to express in the group collaborative practice meetings.  In addition, in the separate meetings with the client, the lawyer can provide legal information that may support (or detract) the client’s position.  This helps orient the client as to what is possible.  The collaborative group meetings work best if words expressing advocacy (by the clients, but especially by the attorneys) are limited.[1]  In a collaborative case, because negative interactions and aggressive positioning are highly minimized, the spouses tend to be more generous to each other in offering terms of settlement.

With this as the background, a Neutral Process Coach can make the collaborative divorce case even better.

What is a Neutral Process Coach?  The Neutral Process Coach (NPC) is, most importantly as the term implies, a neutral.  He or she does not take sides and does not advocate for either of the spouses or for any result. 

The NPC is concerned with the process of collaborative divorce – to make sure the process works well.  The NPC does not coach either of the spouses or the attorneys, but facilitates effective discussions.  In that way the NPC is a coach or facilitator for the entire process. 

The NPC makes verbal observations of communication dynamics in real time.  The NPC identifies communication problems and issues on the part of the divorcing couple.  The NPC also calls on the attorneys when the attorneys are acting too much like advocates or litigators, thus detrimentally affecting the collaborative process.

Why attorneys cannot do the job of the NPC. When the communications become unproductive, the NCP can step in to offer a more productive mode of communication.  There are patterns and dynamics of a marriage (conflict, emotional) that come into play in the collaborative group meetings.  It is much more effective for the NCP to deal with these issues than the attorneys, because the attorneys are advocates for their clients and not neutrals.  It is very appropriate for the NPC to identify and address these dynamics.  He or she is a neutral and not an advocate for either of the spouses.  The NPC is on the side of the collaborative process and helping the clients transition through the divorce.  

Who can serve as a Neutral Process Coach? An NPC is generally (but not always) a licensed mental health professional.  However, the NPC can also be a trained collaborative practitioner who is not a mental health professional, such as a businessperson, a coach, or a mediator.  The NPC must be formally trained in collaborative practice and should be an active member (either full or associate) in the local collaborative practice association.  In addition, the NPC should have other training in conflict resolution, including mediation training, advanced mediation training, and advanced collaborative practice training.

Who chooses the Neutral Process Coach?  Generally, the two collaborative attorneys choose the NPC based on their experience in other cases, the needs and personalities of their clients, the location of the meetings and the skill of that particular NPC. 

Does the Neutral Process Coach need to be at every meeting?  Yes.  You never know when something will come up that needs to be addressed by the NPC.  If he or she is not there, the process could derail.  The NPC should be present at all times, especially at the first meeting.

Sometimes a NPC is mostly silent, only entering the discussion at certain points.  However, those points can be very important ones. The participation of the NPC at these times could be crucial to success or failure of the collaborative process. 

The NCP is the only neutral in the room.  The most important value the Neutral Process Coach has in the collaborative process is that he or she is the only neutral in the room.  They provide important ballast to the meetings, balancing the conflicts between our clients and how to resolve them.  They also help reign in the attorneys from acting like attorneys.  (We are highly trained to argue and to advocate for our clients and have to learn other skills in order to be effective collaborative lawyers.) 

Having a neutral person in the room at all times should not be underestimated.  It is a breath of fresh air.  When things get tough, all eyes look towards the NPC, literally and figuratively.  When that happens, if he or she has not already sprung into action, the NPC will assist by addressing what is happening to the process that is making it go awry.

The NPC can identify when the discussion is going off base, either because the attorneys are acting like attorneys, or the clients are reliving their conflicts.  With a few words, the NPC can right the discussion.  Richard Wolman, a Boston-based NPC, likens his role to that of a river boat captain.  When the water is rough and we reach rapids, he sticks paddle in the water and gets us going in the right direction. 

What about the clients seeing the Neutral Practice Coach outside of the collaborative group meetings?  We have found it useful for the NPC to be available as a resource to the divorcing couple in between collaborative meetings.  Sometimes the couple meets with the NPC together, and sometimes they each might meet with the NPC separately.  When the NPC meets with the spouses separately, it can have highly beneficial effect, as it gives each of the parties an opportunity to speak freely without the other spouse present.    It is similar to “caucusing” in mediation. The input obtained in these separate meetings with the NPC helps the NPC do his or her job better. 

Having been present for all group meetings, the  NPC doesn’t have to be brought up-to-date and already knows the clients and has viewed their interactions first hand.  He or she is learning the details of the divorce and the agreements that are being discussed.  He or she can be a valuable resource for the divorcing clients in between meetings.  This is been extremely useful to many of the couples in collaborative cases I have been engaged in.

What about the cost.  The NPC adds an initial cost to the divorce “package” based on the NPC’s hourly charges.  However, the value added by the NPC is great.  I believe that adding the NPC generally reduces the number of group meetings required to conclude the collaborative divorce. In addition, lawyer time between meetings is reduced by the lessening of unnecessary conflict and positioning. The NPC also adds to the quality of the process and the quality of the agreement.  This makes the couple’s post-divorce relationship better.  Finally, collaborative practitioners believe that the presence of the NPC improves the chances that the collaborative process will result in agreement and not spin out into litigation.  So, on the whole, we believe having a NPC does not change the overall cost of a collaborative divorce and may, in fact, reduce it. 

Are there any downsides?  The NPC is a trained neutral.  However, the NPC is not an expert in divorce law.  As a result, the NPC may say something in a group meeting that shows that the NPC assumes that a certain result must apply (due to his or her incorrect or imprecise legal conclusion).  This may arise in issues pertaining to spousal support, a very hot issue in divorces. 

In the background, the two attorneys might be fully aware that there is a range of results the alimony law provides.  The two attorneys might be in disagreement as to how the law of alimony applies to this case.  The attorneys also may have differing points of view as advocates for their clients.  And the clients’ views might be in opposition, not having reached resolution on this issue.

An NPC may come into the group discussion with a view of the law of spousal support and how it would be applied in the case inadvertently imbedded in his or her words.  This view might appear to take a position on what is being contested in the collaborative process.  What results is that the NPC no longer seems neutral to one of the parties, thus impairing his or her usefulness.

When this happens, it is important that the attorneys (especially the one whose client’s view was validated by the remark) immediately remedy the NPC’s presumption at the group meeting in real time (gently and mildly), so that the NPC can understand, be aware of it, and regain his or her neutrality.

Everyone makes innocent mistakes once in a while – even collaborative lawyers.  If mistakes can be immediately identified and corrected and apologies forthcoming, the collaborative process can move on unimpaired.  We are not perfect collaborative practitioners or NPCs.  We can only be “good enough” collaborative practitioners and NPCs. [2]

Conclusion.  Neutral Process Coaches add value in collaborative divorces by ensuring that the communications in group meetings are not derailed by emotional and position-based dynamics on the part of the clients and the attorneys.  The NPC can help the clients address their concerns better and can be the neutral element that the spouses and their attorneys can look to at difficult moments during the process.

© Laurie Israel.  2011

 

---

[1] Another very important feature of collaborative divorce is the contractual agreement of the parties and their attorneys not to litigate the case while the collaborative process is ongoing.  This agreement prohibits the collaborative attorneys and any attorneys in their firms in engaging in litigation for these clients.  What results is a safe place (often called a “safe container”) where the parties and their attorneys can address the issues in the case without fear or threat of litigation. It makes a collaborative divorce different from any other process. 

[2] For a more detailed explanation of what Neutral Process Coaches do, visit Mary Jane Harmless’ informative post at http://neutralcoachincollaborativepractice.blogspot.com/  For the concept of the “good enough” collaborative lawyer, see Donald W. Winnicott’s concept of the “good enough mother” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Winnicott.  See also therapist blog assessing the effectiveness of Dr. Melfi, Tony Soprano’s psychoanalytic psychotherapist, in “The Sopranos” as “a good enough therapist”  http://www.agpa.org/pubs/GC_0103_sopranos.html.

Are California Divorce Laws Bad for Marital Health?

Published in Huffington Post, 2/10/11.

In the US, every state has a different set of divorce laws about distributing assets between ex-husband and ex-wife.  So if you get divorced in California you may end up with a very different financial settlement than if you had divorced in Massachusetts.

“Community Property”  laws v. “Equitable Property” jurisdictions
California and 7 other states (Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, Washington, and Wisconsin) are so-called “community property” states, having adopted community property laws.  Two other jurisdictions, Alaska and Puerto Rico, are “opt in” states, whereby spouses can elect into community property treatment. The community property states are primarily in the West and are based on the Mexican legal system, which was derived from Spanish law. 

Simply stated, in community property states, all income earned (and debts accrued) during the marriage are considered “community property” – property belonging to both spouses.  Community property includes the portion of retirement accounts accruing during marriage, and all property acquired during the marriage.

In a community property jurisdiction, premarital property and property gifted to a spouse or inherited will be considered “separate property”.  This separate property stays with the spouse in whose name it is titled if there is a divorce.  Alimony rules may soften these community property rules if the result is harsh.

Generally “community property” is divided equally upon divorce.  In some community property states, such as Texas, a court has the authority to decree an “equitable” distribution of community property which might be unequal.

Divorce in the other states generally falls under the “equitable property” regime.  Under this system, all property is divided on equitable principles, such as length of the marriage, opportunity for future acquisition, earnings potential, and other factors.  Premarital, gifted, or inherited property may also be included depending on the facts of each situation.  In other words, a Court has the discretion to do what it decides is fair. 

Differences in Divorce Rates
I have been intrigued by the reports of high divorce rates in certain states and low divorce rates in others.  In recent reports on the divorce rate [http://maritalmediation.com/2011/02/divorce-rates-according-to-the-wall-street-journal-and-cdc] among the states with the highest divorce rates are Nevada, Wyoming, and Idaho, three community property states.  California was not included in that study because it no longer provides public divorce statistics. However, earlier data and anecdotal information indicates that California also has a very high divorce rate and southern California may be the highest in the country.

The lowest divorce rates are in Massachusetts followed by the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Iowa and Illinois. These are all equitable distribution states.

Texas is a community property state with a medium divorce rate.  One distinctive aspect of Texas is its extremely restrictive rules on spousal support.  In Texas, no matter how long a couple is married, the party receiving alimony is limited to a maximum order of $2,500 per month for a three year duration and only if the marriage was 10 years or longer.  The courts limit the spousal support to the shortest possible time for the spouse to begin employment to provide for his or her “minimal reasonable needs”.

Although the equitable division of community property can sometimes mitigate the harsh application of this law, Texas may be the state which best personifies Tammy Wynette’s famous song, “Stand by Your Man” as a marriage principle for many women.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew.

Do elimination of  “transaction costs”  increase incidence of divorce?
It makes one wonder why community property states tend to have high divorce rates, and why equitable distribution states tend to have lower divorce rates.

One of the reasons may be the “transaction costs” in divorce.  If divorce is very easy, divorce becomes more frequent.  If people know that they don’t have to share property, divorce is easier. 

Take, for example, a marriage in a community property state where one spouse owns a lot of premarital property or inherited property.  This wealthier spouse knows that they can leave the relationship with no personal financial impact because it’s separate property.  Maybe that’s why community property states tend to have higher divorce rates.

Consider the multiple marriages and divorces of many celebrities.  There may be huge transaction costs in their divorces, but they have enough money to start over in a new relationship without being financially hurt.  So a celebrity can leave their marriage easily, while someone less affluent may be stuck working it out with their spouse.  The less affluent couple may end up in a very good long-term marriage like the one Huey Lewis and The News sang about in the song, “Happy to be Stuck With You”.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Re30H83sIQ  . 

As the lyrics say:

And we’ve had our ins and outs, but that’s the way it’s supposed to be
We thought about giving up, but we could never stay away
Thought about breaking up, but now we know it’s much too late

Perhaps “being bound by all the rest, like the same phone number, all the same friends, and the same address” as Huey Lewis sings, is not enough to make for a viable marriage.  However, a marriage bound up with the familiarity of time, commitment, and affection is something worthy of aspiration.  That is not to say that long-term marriage is the most moral option, but that it can be valuable and enjoyable.   If there’s no easy way out, spouses may be willing to overcome the inevitable obstacles in a marriage.

Which takes us to prenuptial agreements. 

As a lawyer and mediator, I have worked on many of these.  And I have come to believe that they are usually unnecessary and often serve to weaken the marriage at the outset.  A person with a prenup has been given a preset path to divorce with no transaction costs.

While some attorneys and financial advisors recommend prenuptial agreements in order to reduce the financial risk if the couple divorces, a prenuptial can actually serve to increase the divorce risk of the couple.  Why should someone stay and work things out when the exit path is so easy?

Financial convenience, though certainly not a reason to stay married by itself, can take a marriage through a rough period so that the couple can grow and the marriage can flourish again.  Divorce factors that may contribute to divorce,  like prenups, celebrity wealth, or residing in a community property state may lessen the chances of making it through a long-term marriage. 

© 2011 Laurie Israel.  All rights reserved.

“Divorce Tourism” – American Style

In India, only one out of every hundred marriages fails.  But the divorce rate is rising, especially in big cities, due to changing lifestyles, urbanization, women’s economic independence, and growing prevalence of “western” attitudes towards marriage.  Though the divorce rate is low compared to most developed countries, it has reportedly doubled in the past five years.   At the same time, traditional Indian culture views divorce as shameful, and marital counseling is only just beginning to gain acceptance. 

 “Divorce Tourism” is the invention of Vijesh Thakkar, owner of a Mumbai tour company, KV Tours and Travel.  After watching his best friend’s marriage disintegrate, Thakkar wondered if he could help other married couples heading for divorce. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1941208,00.html 

With this impetus in mind, he launched “divorce tourism” packages in 2009 to help couples who are heading towards divorce.  The idea is that the couple embarks on a week-long stay in a resort with time and leisure to heal their relationship. 

At first, Thakkar thought that a relaxing vacation in a quiet destination could regenerate a marriage. But   couples having marital problems often continue fighting during a vacation.  A couple could not identify and resolve their communication difficulties, even in the relaxing atmosphere of a vacation. 

Then Thakkar’s inspiration was to add the option of including a “tour guide” with the couple, who is a marital counselor.  Sometime this tour guide was introduced to the couple as a marital counselor.  But due to the stigma of divorce and resistance to psychotherapy in India, sometimes the vacation and tour guide had been secretly arranged by a concerned friend or parent.  In this case, the tour guide traveled incognito.  As the vacation unfolded, the tour guide would discretely help the couple resolve communication difficulties without revealing his true identity. 

The recent Hollywood comedy “Couples Retreat:  Return to Eden” is a lamehearted comedy about four couples who attempt to improve their marriages by undergoing counseling on a tropical island.  

If we’re to take this concept seriously, we should imagine a vacation involving one couple and one “tour guide”  –  a professional who deals with marital problems.   In societies where therapy is widely accepted, this could be conducted openly and could be a sound approach for marital therapists and other professionals to address marital problems.  In fact, it might be much more conducive to constructive thinking and conversation than the typical therapy session sitting on chairs in a drab office.

The “tour guide” could either be a marital counselor, or another professional who deals with marital problems, such as a marital mediator.  In marital mediation, a mediator works with a couple using mediation techniques to identify and understand communication problems.  While there is some overlap between marital counseling and marital mediation, either approach can be very helpful to a couple whose marriage is in trouble.  http://www.maritalmediation.com.

The advantage of taking a vacation with a “tour guide” is that there is plenty of time to view the couple’s interactions in real time, not bounded by an hour therapy or mediation session.  It is intensive.  The “tour guide” can take notes on the spouses’ verbal interactions, sometimes combined with audio recording.  That way, exactly what was said could be analyzed with the “tour guide” and the couple.   Negative communications and misunderstandings can be revealed.  The couple can be helped with ways to address and minimize corrosive interchanges. 

Often struggling couples will fight quite viciously about trivial matters. The “tour guide” can point out what the couple does not see – they are arguing at times about nothing important.  When the couple sees actual data about their arguments, they sometimes can let go of some thought patterns and bickering that are causing corrosiveness in the marriage.  When a marriage starts to improve, the trajectory for further improvement is set, and things can gradually get better. 

Of course, “Divorce Tourism” would be expensive, based on cost of a vacation for three plus the professional fees of the “tour guide”.  But if it could increase the chance of saving the marriage, it’s certainly worth considering.

While “Divorce Tourism” will not always be successful in forestalling a divorce, in many cases it could be a powerful tool in setting a couple back on a fulfilling marital path.  If two people wish to remain married, but cannot figure out how because of incessant conflict, it may be a creative opportunity for them to get to the bottom of what is destroying their marriage.  

Most marriages are killed by a litany of petty unresolved arguments, unrealistic expectations, and overemphasis on unimportant disputes.    For these spouses, “Divorce Tourism” may be a fruitful alternative to a visit to a divorce attorney’s office.

© Laurie Israel 2011.

Why “Contribution” is So Important to a Marriage

Recently, I was asked to present an evening workshop by an association of professional women on “How to Negotiate with your Spouse”. I was pleased and surprised that they invited a divorce lawyer to present on this topic (which I call, “How to Get Along with Your Spouse”), but it actually makes great sense. Who but a divorce lawyer is in a great position to see what happens when a couple cannot get along.

The association probably found me on the web through my work in Mediation to Stay Married (also known as marital mediation). This is an emerging field of mediations. As a divorce lawyer, I can see how a couples’ interactions are leading them to divorce. I can alert them to the problems, how they lead to divorce, and help them do something about it through mediation.

When we work on divorces with our clients, our clients tell us what went wrong with the marriage. The other spouse generally has another “take” on what went wrong. When you put the two versions together (reminds me of the 1952 classic Japanese film “Rashomon”) you can get a composite view of what went wrong. From this composite view you can “reverse engineer it”, to find out what needs to go “right” in the marriage in order for marriage to succeed.

At the beginning of my presentation to the professional women, I asked them to (anonymously) each write on a 3 x 5 card, a problem in their marriage or relationship, and something they find very annoying about the significant other. The women wrote assiduously with almost 100% participation. I think no one had ever asked them these questions, and they really wanted to unburden.

I used the answers as jumping off points in my presentation. I was not at all surprised that the great proportion of the responses dealt with their feelings of lack of contribution by their spouses or significant others. The notice of “contribution” is a legal term, and is greatly relevant in divorces. Sometimes lack of contribution is reality; sometimes it a perceived lack of contribution, and is not real.

“Contribution to the marriage” is an area where most married couples and committed couples find significant discomfort. It needs to be talked about by the spouses or partners, directly, often, gently, and with humor. The discussion will reveals a treasure trove of history, gender perceptions, culture, religion and family history that will be explored as the couple talks about the issue. The hope is that this discussion will lead to greater clarity, empathy, or appreciation, and maybe some practical changes in the balancing of work needed to make a household run happily and smoothly.

© 2009 Laurie Israel.  All rights reserved.   

 

Laurie Israel,  founder of the firm Israel, Van Kooy & Days, LLC  has a tax background and an interest in what makes marriages break down. She is on the board of the Massachusetts Council on Family Mediation, and is a board member and is active in the Massachusetts Collaborative Law Council.  She writes and presents on prenuptial agreements, mediation, marriage, and collaborative law.

When a Parent Wants to Relocate with a Child

We live in a very mobile society. People come to Massachusetts for their education and for job opportunities from all over the U.S. and foreign countries. This poses a problem when a spouse wishes to go back home  after a divorce– to their state (or home country) where their extended family lives and want to take the children of the marriage with them.  (The technical term for this is “removal”. )

The problem also comes up with job loss and employment opportunities for a spouse who has joint or primary custody of the children. It is a difficult problem for spouses to deal with even in an ongoing marriage. So when spouses are divorcing (or have already divorced), when the level of cooperation and good will may be at a lower point, it is especially difficult.

In divorces, I have seen the following permutations:

Both divorcing spouses decide it’s best to move to the city or country chosen by one. Or sometimes the primary parent spouse moves away with the children and without the other former spouse. Sometimes the non-primary parent moves away without the children. The decision regarding removal needs to be made gently, thoughtfully and carefully, with the utmost attention to the needs and well-being of the children.

It is important to have children near extended family, if possible. But it is also important for the children to be near both parents, if possible.  Sometimes a spouse needs to move to get  family support and help taking care of the children, or to earn a livelihood. No matter how you slice it, when a parent leaves permanently with children, it is a hard situation.

In cases where a parent has primary physical custody, a court may permit that parent with the child or children if he/she shows that there is a “real advantage” to the move. See Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704, 705, 706, 711 (1985). Under the real advantage test, “[s]hould it be found that there is a genuine, recognizable advantage to the custodial parent from the move, the inquiry then turns to whether the move is consistent with the children’s best interests. In the analysis, the consideration of the advantages to the custodial parent still remains a significant factor in the equation. Pizzino v. Miller, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 865, 870 (2005).   In cases that have gone to litigation on this issue, it’s a fairly high burden of proof to meet.

The American Law Institute’s Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution in Chapter 2 has also weighed in on the issue of removal. It asserts that “[T]he court should allow a parent who has been exercising the clear majority of custodial responsibility to relocate with the child if that parent shows that the relocation is for a valid purpose, in good faith, and to a location that is reasonable in light of the purpose”.   And the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys (AAMA) has issued a proposed Model Relocation Act, which in sections 405 and 406 articulates factors to be considered, and factors not to be considered when determining a contested removal. Interesting in the (short) list of what is not to be considered is whether the parent seeking relocation has said that he/she would not relocate if the removal petition was denied.

Because removal is such a difficult juncture for parents with close ties to children, removal issues are good topics to use alternative dispute resolution techniques to resolve, such as Mediation or Collaborative Law. They require the utmost in flexibility, good will, and clear thinking on the part of the parents, with capable assistance by attorneys or mediators.

Laurie Israel  is engaged in helping divorcing and divorced resolve their disputes in the most humane way possible.   She is joined in her practice of family law at the firm with Karen Van Kooy and Ronny Sydney.

Laurie Israel,  founder of the firm Israel, Van Kooy & Days, LLC  has a tax background and an interest in what makes marriages break down. She is on the board of the Massachusetts Council on Family Mediation, and is a board member and is active in the Massachusetts Collaborative Law Council.  She writes and presents on prenuptial agreements, collaborative law, mediation and marriage.