New York Divorce Lawyer Blog

A recent article in The Huffington Post summarized a University of Missouri study that analyzed the way divorced parents use technology to facilitate (or hinder) their co-parenting arrangements. According to the study, parents with effective communication used technology to improve parent-parent communication as well as parent-child access, while parents with ineffective communication used technology to frustrate both their relationship with the other parent and the other parent's relationship with the children. Establishing positive communication practices between spouses not only maintains a level of civility between the parents; it also provides a more pleasant environment for the children. Whether a couple engaged in litigation, mediation, or collaborative methods in obtaining their divorce, limiting post-divorce conflict between parents is imperative to helping children adjust.

Below are some tips for using communication technology effectively as a tool to foster positive and successful co-parenting arrangements and limit conflict:

• E-mail: E-mail can be a useful way for divorced parents to communicate with each other. Risks inherent in telephone communication are largely absent in e-mail communication: telephone conversations can be impulsive and rash, and since they are generally not recorded, a parent may feel entitled to make any manner of accusation toward his or her ex. Parents can also use the telephone to avoid communication, by ignoring phone calls and voice messages. By contrast, e-mail affords a parent with the ability to express himself or herself, then edit the message to ensure that only a calm, rational tone is used. E-mail also provides a communication trail, which makes it more likely that a parent will limit his or her hostility.
• Text Messages: The idea behind using text messages to communicate is similar to that of e-mail. Text messaging is more immediate, but still allows each parent to edit their message for the appropriate tone, and creates a communication trail.
• Calendar Sharing: With Google calendars or iCloud, parents can share calendars with each other. This can ensure that each parent has access to the children's academic, extra-curricular, and social activities. Shared calendars can also provide a method by which parents can keep tabs on parenting and vacation schedules, including travel details and changes in the usual parenting plan. Creating a shared calendar thus minimizes the likelihood that a parent will miss an important event in the children's lives, while mitigating the interaction between parents regarding their own schedules and those of the children.
• Online Co-Parenting Software: In the event that parents prefer help with limiting conflict in multiple areas, including parenting schedules and child support payments, co-parenting software is an option. The software, which has gained popularity over the past year or so, provides calendars, expense logs, message boards, and child records (medical, academic, etc.). These features allow parents to keep track of schedules and expenses, and to communicate with one another directly. Examples of available software are Our Family Wizard and ShareKids.

As noted in a recent article in the New York Times, communication technology is becoming popular not only with divorced parents, but in the courtroom and amongst lawyers as well. According to the article, settlement agreements often include provisions for non-custodial parents to Skype with their children, and at least one judge has ordered a couple to use Our Family Wizard to avoid disagreements.

Each of the above-mentioned tools can build a successful co-parenting environment for parents and children. As the University of Missouri study concluded, parents who had good relationships effectively used these tools to maintain contact with their ex-spouses and to facilitate the children's transition between parents. As with all aspects of divorce, the children's best interests should be paramount and, to the extent that communication technologies can advance this goal, they should be widely considered.

I help couples end their marriages without destroying their families. That's not just a tagline on my website or part of my elevator speech; it's the actual reason that I no longer use adversarial methods to help my clients who are divorcing or separating. An article in the New York Times that focused on Al and Tipper Gore reminded me that all families - even celebrity families - benefit when the parents are able and willing to divorce with as little acrimony as possible.

By way of background, after more than 40 years of marriage, Al and Tipper Gore separated in 2010 when they grew apart and realized they wanted different things out of life. The article focused on where they and their 4 adult children are now in their lives post-divorce, and how the family support system has remained intact.

A friend of the Gores from Nashville, Christine Leverone Orrall, was quoted as saying that "Tipper and Al may live in different parts of the country, and may be very happy with their own lives these days, but the children always bring them together. I think they're showing how you can be happy and healthy apart while still focusing on their children and their life together as a family."

According to Tony Coehlo, chairman of Al Gore's 2000 campaign, "Al and Tipper were the happily married couple of American politics for 30 years. They packaged themselves that way for political consumption, and have unpackaged that image in the interest of their own happiness. They are still a family, but they have become the kind of family that they want to be."

Whether a couple is contemplating a late-life "gray divorce" and have adult children, like the Gores, or whether they've been married just a few years and have a toddler at home, the goal can be the same: it is possible to end the marriage while protecting the family.

Many couples stay together for the sake of the family while sacrificing their own individual happiness in the process. They may consider divorce, but after witnessing the struggles of friends and family members who divorce with a lot of animosity and anger, they want to protect themselves from that sort of pain. But divorce does not have to acrimonious. It is rarely - if ever - easy; and there is no question that it can be incredibly difficult financially, emotionally and spiritually. However, when both spouses are committed to respecting each other and keeping the animosity and anger in control, they can each move through the divorce and toward a new life that isn't weighed down by the difficult emotions that were played out in their divorce and/or exacerbated by attorneys who are trying to "win" their case.

One important lesson I have learned in my 20 years of practicing divorce law is that no one wins at the end of an adversarial litigated divorce. Neither spouse is happy, the children have frequently suffered, and an enormous amount of money has been spent fighting a war which simply cannot be won.

Regardless of their age, children want and need parents who are there for them emotionally as well as physically; but this may not be possible when their parents are suffering in an unhappy marriage. Couples who are committed to divorcing with respect and dignity are not only setting a good example for their children during the divorce process, but are better able to keep their family strong and healthy after it is over.

It is no secret that litigated divorces are extremely draining, both on finances and emotions, which is why many couples turn to mediation as an alternative. Mediation increases the opportunity for divorcing or separating couples to reach an amicable agreement by working together rather than engaging in a nasty and protracted courtroom battle. Mediation is a voluntary process and the mediator acts as a facilitator to help the couple come to an agreement on all issues that need to be resolved. A mediator does not offer legal advice or make decisions for the couple. Therefore, it is imperative that each spouse understand the benefits of consulting with their own attorney both before and during the mediation process to gain a complete understanding of their legal rights and obligations and to discuss the various settlement options on the table.

1. Why do I need an attorney while I'm in mediation? Isn't it enough to just have the final agreement reviewed?

If you do not consult with an attorney before or at least during the mediation process, you cannot be certain that you understand all of your rights and obligations. You might think that something that you and your spouse have agreed upon is fair and reasonable without fully understanding the repercussions. If you consult with an attorney during the process, you will feel more empowered to deal with important issues that arise during mediation sessions. In addition, you will be better able to make decisions that will work for you in the long run. You don't want to be the client who agrees to waive your share of your spouse's pension, or who promises to pay what turns out to be an excessive amount of spousal support only to learn much later from the lawyer reviewing your agreement that doing so would be a grave financial mistake. You don't want to have to tell your estranged spouse that you have changed your mind when he or she thought you had a deal. This could destroy any trust and goodwill that was left between you.

2. Do all divorce lawyers understand mediation?

Since mediation is not the traditional way of approaching divorce, many attorneys have little experience with this non-adversarial approach. Some even disapprove of mediation, arguing that divorcing spouses should not negotiate on their own but only through their attorneys. These attitudes are slowly changing, as a heightened awareness of the benefits of mediation for divorcing couples is coming to the forefront. If you wish to mediate your divorce you should seek out consulting lawyers who are "mediation friendly" which means that the lawyer will advise you of your rights and provide you with counsel, while respecting your right to give more or take less than a judge may provide. A mediation friendly lawyer will understand that reaching an agreement that feels fair and equitable to you may be more important than getting every dollar to which you are entitled.

3.What questions should I ask to determine whether an attorney is "mediation
friendly?"

- are you trained as a mediator?

- have you acted as a consulting attorney for clients who have participated in
successful mediations?

- are you comfortable advising me of my rights and allowing me to give more or
take less than I might get in court?

To locate a mediator and/or an attorney who can serve as a consulting attorney contact the Family and Divorce Mediation Counsel of Greater New York.

The issue of temporary maintenance for a spouse pending the conclusion of a divorce is often a challenging and divisive aspect of the divorce or separation process, and clarity in how awards should be granted is a key aspect of promoting equity. Kudos to the First Department for providing clarity to the new temporary maintenance guidelines that were signed into law in 2010. In what is the first Appellate Division case to date interpreting this legislation, in Khaira v. Khaira, the Appellate Division First Department ruled that it was an error of a motion court to duplicate an award of temporary maintenance by directing the husband to pay in accordance with the formula set forth in the guidelines and then adding an obligation that he pay the wife's housing expenses as well.

By way of background, the legislature's approach to temporary maintenance awards experienced a seismic change in 2010 when Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5-a) was signed into law, bringing with it a formula that must be used to determine the amount of support. Before it was passed, judges had much more leeway in ordering temporary maintenance. The statute, which is designed to create greater consistency, requires the court to explain any deviation that it makes from the result which is calculated using a specific formula. Rather than aiming merely to "tide over" the non-monied spouse, the new provision creates a substantial presumptive entitlement based upon a formula using a percentage of each spouse's income.

Initially, many divorce lawyers were not happy about the new law, as they considered it to be both rigid and potentially inequitable.

In the Khaira opinion, Hon. David B. Saxe, an Associate Judge at the Appellate Division, First Department wrote:

"No language in either the new temporary maintenance provision or the [Child Support Standards Act] specifically addresses whether the statutory formulas are intended to include the portion of the carrying costs of their residence attributable to the non-monied spouse and the children. As one commentator has pointed out, the new law 'does not factor in child support issues or payment of household expenses. Is the recipient supposed to pay for everything in the house from this money? Is the payor supposed to stop paying those bills? What about all the double counting of housing, child care, and medical insurance between this law and the child support law?" (Referring to an article by Lee Rosenberg, in the February 25, 2011 issue of the New York Law Journal entitled "Multiple Flaws Abound in New Interim Spousal Support Statute").

Judge Saxe went on to say that "....in the absence of a specific reference to the carrying charges for the marital residence, we consider it reasonable and logical to view the formula adopted by the new maintenance provision as covering all the spouse's basic living expenses, including housing costs as well as the costs of food and clothing and other usual expenses."

This clarification from the Appellate Division was sorely needed as it helps to limit the issues that divorcing couples need to resolve whether they are mediating, collaborating or litigating.

I was thrilled to read Hon. David B. Saxe's recent article in the New York Law Journal entitled "Encourage Divorce Clients to Mediate."

Justice Saxe, who is an associate justice at the Appellate Division, First Department, focused on the fact that clients who choose mediation over litigation have more control over their divorce process and the terms of their agreement and this correlates to being more satisfied with the results of their divorce. As he states in his article: "If matrimonial lawyers focus on the larger picture, they might recognize they stand to gain more in the long run from the good will and recommendations of satisfied clients following successful mediation, than from the backlash of dissatisfaction in the wake of a typical unpleasant divorce." Exactly.

Many studies have shown that clients who mediate are much less likely to be dissatisfied with their attorneys. This is because mediation, as well as collaborative law, focuses on the client's needs as opposed to their positions. The client who can look back and see that his or her lawyer was truly committed to finding solutions is going to be much more satisfied than the one who spent long hours waiting in court, was forced to endure adversarial and contentious arguments and suffered through the months or even years of litigation while having little control over the process.

There are certainly clients who "want their day in court." They are driven to prove the other spouse is wrong and they want to be heard. However, as Justice Saxe points out, due to increased case loads, even these clients won't be satisfied in court because trial judges are increasingly focused on encouraging compromise rather than trials.

When clients come to my office, I inform them of all the options that are available to them to resolve their marital and family issues, which include mediation, collaborative law and litigation. I encourage other attorneys to do the same. An attorney who can and will speak knowledgeably about these different dispute resolution models will be able to guide their client to the process that works best for them and their family. Using the court system to resolve family disputes should not be the first, knee-jerk response when a divorcing client enters your office. It should be the last.

A Husband's claim that New York's "no-fault" divorce statute violates his constitutional rights has been rejected in the March 28, 2011 decision of A.C. v. D.R. The statute, DRL §170(7), permits a party to obtain a divorce by swearing under oath that the marital relationship has been irretrievably broken for a period of at least six months. There would seem to be no defenses to such allegations. Yet, the Husband in the Nassau County matter claimed that because he wanted to stay married, the statute violated his constitutional rights to due process.

Justice Anthony J. Falanga rejected this claim and held that "staying married, against the wishes of the other adult who states under oath that the marriage is irretrievably broken, is not a vested right." The Court further held that a party's "self-serving declaration about his or her state of mind is all that is required for the dissolution of a marriage on grounds that it is irretrievably broken."

This case will undoubtedly bring large sighs of relief to other parties facing challenges to their right to a no-fault divorce.

A mandatory mediation program has been implemented in Supreme Court Nassau County for all couples who seek to have their divorces heard by a judge. How successful will this program be in helping couples settle their cases without additional court involvement? After reading the New York Times City Room Blog it appears there is some skepticism among attorneys. As a divorce mediator, I'm obviously encouraged whenever our court system embraces alternatives to litigation, such as the Office of Court Administration's Collaborative Family Law Center. However, I don't know what kind of impact a single 1½ hour session with a mediator can have on parties who have already made the decision to bring their matters to court and have already retained attorneys to litigate on their behalf. By the time the Judge directs them to mediation, both the parties and their attorneys may be too invested in having "their day in court" to appreciate the powerful results that successful mediation can provide. It is hoped, therefore, that the mediators who are meeting with these parties will use their allotted time to help them comprehend that they have a much better chance of having their most important needs met if they and their spouse can find a way to hear and understand each other. Because if that point isn't understood by the time the parties leave the mediator's office, they will walk right back to their litigation attorneys and pick up where they left off in the courtroom.