Dispute Resolution

People can always find something to argue about. Most arguments are minor and easily resolved when people just sit down together and talk them through. But sometimes a problem is too complicated or the people are too angry or emotionally invested and they can't solve it by themselves.

Sometimes people try to resolve disputes that have gotten out of hand by resorting to a third party. In those cases, each side hires an attorney to represent his or her interests. When circumstances are ideal, the attorneys can communicate with each other and approach the problem from a cooler perspective because they are professional lawyers who see themselves as problem-solvers for hire. Most of the time, they can negotiate an agreement on behalf of their clients without going to court.

However, if the attorneys are unable to negotiate a settlement, the dispute ends up in court where each side argues its version of the story to a judge or a jury. Then, based on the information presented in those arguments, the judge or jury makes a decision that legally binds the parties.

That model of traditional litigation has been around for thousands of years and has both advantages and disadvantages. Among the disadvantages is the fact that pursuing litigation is a way of taking the power to make decisions about your life and handing it over to someone else. A judge or a jury does not know everything about the people arguing before it. The only information they have is what can comes in under the rules of evidence, which are designed to keep out everything that's not relevant to the specific dispute.

Usually, that's a good system, because it keeps lawsuits from getting out of control. But sometimes people use litigation to achieve some other, hidden purpose. Maybe they are angry at the other person and want to inflict financial and emotional pain by racking up attorney fees and court costs and dragging out the process. Maybe there is "bad blood" between the parties. In those cases, the real dispute is not what the judge or jury hears about, but something much more personal between the parties. A final judgment may be the "right" one under the law, yet never touch that underlying problem between the parties. It might even make things worse.

Fighting through a lawsuit is not always the answer. Some problems can't be fixed by the court, no matter how hard your attorney fights for you. One of the jobs of lawyers is to help their clients understand when the court can solve their problems and when it can't. In divorce cases especially, the court only has the power to say who gets which property, who has to pay how much money to whom, and who will get custody or visitation of children and how. The court cannot make the stress and pain of the breakup go away.

If divorcing spouses can see their situation clearly enough to recognize that going to court will only achieve those limited goals, then they might be able to use a process like collaborative law to deal with those issues without litigation.

The collaborative attorneys Erin Rhames-Childs and Jerry Childs, of the law firm Childs Law Group, are committed to helping the people of Fresno and the Central Valley resolve their divorce disputes with the proper tools. Sometimes, the best tool is sitting down and talking through the problem, as in the collaborative approach.

If you are interested in getting through your divorce with the collaborative process, you and your spouse will each need to retain your own collaborative family law attorney. We offer collaborative representation at Childs Law Group and the Central Valley Collaborative Law Affiliates has a list of other collaborative attorneys in the Fresno area.