Where did they grow up?

An only child, he grew up in a small town in Northern Indiana. His mother was Hispanic, but he often said he was Italian. “My surname is Anglo but I just didn’t fit in,” he said. “I developed a chip on my shoulder.” His family struggled financially.

She grew up in a large Mexican-American family in Houston. Her parents divorced when she was 10. She was raised by her grandparents and her single mother who often worked several jobs.

What was it about the other?

He was smart and good looking and knew where he wanted to go in life, she said.

“As a Mexican-American, Vanessa was very much like my mom,” he said. “We shared values, she made life more manageable and she brought me out of my shell.”

Where did they live after marrying?

After she graduated from law school in 2006, she moved to Chicago where he had one more year of law school. They made a plan to move to Texas after his graduation.

How were the early years?

For both, the first years were great. They traveled, worked hard, but discussions about where they would live and how many children they would have sowed seeds for future challenges. He didn’t want to leave Chicago for Texas, and when his mom became ill in 2007, it gave him a good reason to stay.

Were they happy?

Yes, — he said, though he thought he had the better deal of the two of them. “Vanessa made lots of concessions, she agreed not to do things because of my fears and I think I held her back,” he said.

“I sacrificed to leave my family, and made concessions in my career in Chicago because in the back of my mind I thought we were going back to Texas,” she said.

First signs of trouble?

His mother died of cancer in May 2009 and after his father came to live with the couple. After the birth of their son in 2010, his father helped with their newborn. “It was a lot to handle all at once,” he said. “A child and the death of my mother.”

Early on they fought about the Texas move, but by 2013, when their son was nearly 3, she felt something was amiss. He was snappish, acting strangely and drinking too much. She discovered he had had an affair. It was a reaction to a “perfect storm” of circumstances, he said: his mother’s death, the pressure of his job and their son whom he at first, felt replaced by. “It was just one of many symptoms of a marriage in trouble,” he explained.

Did they try to work on things? Go to therapy?

They spent the next year in therapy exploring the deep roots of their divide. She wanted to move home to Texas and also wanted another child. He did not.

The final break up?

They reached an impasse and divorce became inevitable. In 2014 she moved to Texas with their son, without him. He traveled often to Texas and spent weekends with their son who was troubled about the split and hated when his father left at the end of their visits.

How did you move on?

For a few years, it was messy. In the summer of 2015, Brendan left his firm where he was then partner and made the move to Houston. “I did the thing I said I would never do,” he said.

Yet just over a year later they all moved back to Chicago, a decision, they both say, made for the betterment of their son’s future. “Culturally and educationally, Chicago better fit our values for raising a young child,” he said.

Now, despite their divorce, they are purchasing a home for their son who will stay in that home with one of them as they each take turns living in a separate residence that is also shared (but not at the same time). This concept is commonly referred to as nesting — providing the child of divorce one consistent, stable place to call home.

Did they feel stigmatized?

He did, and still does. “Divorce is treated like a disease, also what we are attempting to do in keeping the family together isn’t understood by all,” he said. “Marriage has evolved, but we still have horse-and-buggy ideas about divorce.”

She does not feel stigmatized, though at first her family wanted to take her “side.” Because she is adamant that the three of them are a family she asked her family to treat Brendan with the same respect they always did and they have done so.

How did they fare financially?

As seasoned divorce lawyers, they settled their finances easily, fairly and with flexibility. But their incomes now cover two households not one. “Brendan has never been stingy, he goes above and beyond for our son,” she said.

How did their child react?

“I don’t think he knows that we are divorced,” she said. “He knows there was a time when mom and dad didn’t live together, but he knows we are a family.” They always us the word “we” as in “we are giving you this gift” or “we want to …”

They made a conscious decision not to use the word divorce with him. “We have always presented a united front,” she said.

How did they separately move on?

About dating, they have a don’t ask-don’t tell policy but both say their priority is raising their son. Both say having an equal partner helps when one of them wants to travel, or has other commitments. “We are clear the marriage is over, but I care about Brendan and what happens to him because he is my family,” she said. Over the recent holidays, they traveled abroad together as a family.

Should they have divorced sooner?

No. Both say their son is the best thing that happened to them and that they’ve learned much about themselves in the divorce process.

Is their new life better?

In some ways, yes. “Outside of the institution of marriage there is less pressure,” he said. “I have a lot more freedom, and if I am honest with myself I found marriage restrictive.” She concurred: “I always felt I had to ask permission for everything, for having my own life apart from the family.”

Would they have done anything differently?

She says no. “Even the move to Texas, though late, had to happen to prove that wasn’t the answer to all our problems,” she said.

He says he sometimes thinks of the “what-ifs.” What if his mother hadn’t fallen sick and died, what if they had started out living in Texas, what if he had unpacked some of his feeling about his childhood and his ideas about marriage. “In some ways, I let my fears drive me,” he said.

Looking back, what advice would they offer?

As divorce lawyers they agree: The vast majority of people can have good divorces, but that isn’t encouraged in today’s society. “The system sets up adversarial thinking without regard to whether that makes sense. Litigation almost always solves nothing, but it costs a lot and can be very destructive,” he said.

She sees therapy as helpful to the goal of keeping an open mind without the expectation that there is someone to blame.

“Divorces can look like marriages, and marriages can look like divorces,” he said. “Focus on the human issues because the legal issues — income, property and child support — are formulaic.”

Has either person changed?

“A lot and not at all, I’m a lot less selfish, I understand real communication better, and have more respect and admiration for Vanessa,” he said. Divorce also has made him more compassionate with his clients.

“I’m a little less rigid and kinder to myself. Brendan gets the benefit of that,” she said.

Both say they are more open minded about what marriage is and could be.

Advice for others divorcing?

“Have compassion for each other and don’t say anything to the kids until you have a plan. There’s happy divorce and I’ll-never-see-you-again divorce. Regardless of the kind you have, watch for the messages and shame that you take on. We should be nicer about divorce, and more nuanced. Understand the range of options for divorce; it’s not one size fits all,” he said.

“If you have children, minimize their exposure to adult issues,” she said. “All a kid wants to know is that everything is going to be O.K. Be a rock even if you don’t feel like one.”

The Details

Date of marriage Dec. 30, 2006
Date of divorce Sept. 25, 2014
Age when married He, 30 and she, 28; now, 42, 40.
Occupation Both lawyers specializing in divorce.
Children One, a boy, now 8.

But wait…there’s more:

A Q and A by Judge(s) and Juvenile Court Hearing Officers as to above issues and more…. Please attend armed with questions and concerns….”

Download registration flyer

“It’s a growing area of law,” Parker said of the “principled negotiating” introduced in the late 1980s by Stuart Webb. “The scope is very different between collaborative and litigated cases. … It (collaborative law) is useful and respectful resolution of conflict. We need more (of these) lawyers.”

Parker, who has conducted informational sessions for the public on collaborative law, said there are 300 collaboratively trained attorneys in Pennsylvania. She said a collaboratively lawyer will conduct training in Monroe County in March to add at least eight and perhaps 10 certified collaborative lawyers to the two already in the area.

Collaborative divorce means a more reasoned setting that steers children away from the emotional trauma of a combative tug-of-war in the traditional setting. As a result, studies show that children’s schoolwork and behavior is not as adversely affected in a collaborative divorce. Parker provided handouts for members of drawings by children showing the pain and frustration of the litigation process. In one, with stick figures of both parents saying in quote balloons, “It’s your fault” to the other, there are large letters next to them that says, “Please (with many underlines) just stop!”

A collaborative divorce process can bring in other professionals for perspective such as therapists and counselors as well as certified public accountants, certified financial planners and mental health experts.

A proper settlement is the goal from the outset. Two keys that she mentioned are transparency — a voluntary exchange of all relevant information — and interest-based negotiations that keep focus on common goals and common interests and needs, particularly those that would include other family members.

Although Parker said when asked by a Rotary member that 75 percent of her clients involved in divorce qualify for a collaborative divorce, those experiencing substance or domestic abuses in the marriage cannot take that approach.

She said a Uniform Collaborative Practices Act has gotten out of committee for the state Bar Association and through various necessary levels to reach the legislature for consideration. But she was skeptical about it being enacted any time soon.

During negotiating sessions, possible solutions to various problems are discussed, and mutually acceptable options are chosen. Conflict is reduced by the parties’ mutual commitment to the collaborative divorce process which requires the following:

• A ban on litigation or threats to litigate during the collaborative process;
• The disqualification of collaborative lawyers and team members from representation in court;
• The voluntary and complete disclosure of relevant financial information;
• The joint retention of mutual financial and counseling experts as collaborative team members;
• The use of the mediation model of good faith, interest-based negotiations

Collaborative divorce practice provides a unique alternative to expensive and time consuming litigation. It entails a unique settlement process that works within the legal system while keeping the parties out of the courtroom. Rather than relying upon court-imposed resolutions, it fosters an atmosphere of honesty, cooperation, integrity and professionalism within which the parties negotiate a settlement geared toward their future well-being.

Specially trained attorneys, neutral financial advisors and neutral communication or counseling experts assist couples to divorce with dignity and respect. Rather than depending upon the courtroom for solutions, the collaborative divorce team attends a series of meetings with their clients to settle the case in a calm, private and non-threatening environment.

Collaborative divorce is only one of many dispute resolution models available to divorcing couples. The best option will depend upon the facts, finances, goals and personalities involved. However, the collaborative divorce process does offer the following advantages:

1. The focus is solely on settlement;
2. It creates a less emotionally volatile atmosphere;
3. It contains more tools for resolving children’s issues;
4. It can lower the risk of making a bad deal;
5. It often results in a better quality deal; and
6. Legal fees are lower and more efficiently used.

Collaborative divorce practice is not appropriate for all cases and is not a perfect or foolproof system. However, it does offer a hopeful alternative to families facing legal disputes and conflicts who possess a desire to settle their differences out of court.

If you are contemplating or are already faced with divorce or other family law issues, I encourage you to learn about collaborative divorce. Please call me at (570) 424-0460 or email me at mlparker@legalchoicesllc.com. You may also reach me at Mary Louise Parker and Associates, LLC at 570-424-9100; the e-mail address is mlparker@mlparkerlaw.com. You will have a unique opportunity to meet with legal, financial and counseling professionals on the benefits of the collaborative approach to family legal issues and why it should be among the options that you consider.

I look forward to meeting with you to discuss this further.