Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Better divorce?

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by Fitty, May 9, 2011.

  1. Read this in this morning's Age, sounds interesting. Never been through the process myself, but I see plenty of people going through it at work - this concept sounds so common-sense I'm suprised no one's thought of it before.

  2. same as a normal divorce except they are all under one roof? (so they save on rent, and are in a position to treat you like a cash cow and monopolise more of your business as its easier than running all over town)

    I like how they say some divorces can cost 10's of thousands of dollars like they are cheaper, then later on in the article go on to say their way also costs 10's of thousands of dollars.

    Nothing new there? the article sounds more like a advertisment they paid for actually
  3. It's completely different from a normal divorce - the point is that the court is not involved at all. And what they said was that $30,000 for the couple is the absolute upper limit of costs for their process. I work in family law, and I can absolutely guarantee you that $30,000 is the absolute lower limit per person in a litigated matter.

    Add to that the fact that the separating couple have access to financial planners and psychologists as well as childrens' specialists... It's a completely new concept, and it's completely different from the kind of work I'm doing now in court.
  4. My divorce cost the amount of the lodgment. See, by staying sensible and realizing that the only people who win are solicitors, we split our assets, made the necessary financial adjustments and went our separate ways.
  5. Cejay, your probably one the few that could do so (not sure if you had children invovled), but this opens a whole new can of worms.

    Its all good for certiain situations with regard to the article, and more and more its being pushed that an agreement between the parties be prefered practised without it being bantered of each owns legal rep, but as often is the case, a mutial agreement can rarely be agreed on, basically because of the amount of power one of the parties can have due to the circumstances.
  6. The Family Court was trying something like this in the mid-90's when I was splitting from my ex.
    We were doing "OK" by ourselves until we were assigned the biggest man-hating biatch on the planet as a counsellor. I got 5 minutes to put my case, then waited for 45 minutes while said counsellor convinced the ex that innocent things I'd said were actually threats etc... We were brought together for long enough to make it clear that everything was my fault and I deserved nothing - it was suggested I'd be lucky to be able to see my son "when she was finished with me"...
    The ex said nothing during the session, but when we were walking out agreed that it was "a bit one-sided" - we went to the nearest coffee shop, planted ourselves in a booth and talked things over for an hours or so, and decided NEVER to go back there again. It all worked out "OK" in the end...
    Based on that, I'd be a little worried about the potential for the same kind of bias in a system like this one; however I'm all for avoiding the courts as much as possible...
  7. For sure. We were lucky and we still remain in contact to this day. No kids does make it easier. It just came down to $$$ in the end.
  8. Mine was the same as Cejay's. Figured on a 75/25 split as she had the kids. And what the courts would have ruled anyway.
    We did not want to put any more pressure on the kids than what it was doing as is. My eldest did not tell me she loved me for about three years. She was nine at the time. Fark that hurt.
    The big trouble is peoples ego's. Or lack of real self worth.
    Kids don't ask to come into this world. And what you do reflects on them for the rest of their life. And their opinion of you.
    It might be a good idea in a perfect world. And it could save money. But I've seen to many nasty divorces for it to really work.
    Cheapest way is to separate and lodge it yourself. but that only works in an amicable divorce. And i think this system will be the same.
  9. Totally agree Bretto, mine was alot more greedier(biatch), with a bit of deception on her part (biatch) and who looked into what would be awarded and went after it and more (biatch).
    But when kids are involved (as in my case) my focus was to make sure it had the least impact on them!
    But all this calm and rational wont work all the time, as i mentioned, really comes down to alot of factors, not to mention (without speculation and generalising,, well maybe a hint), but woman fear for what they will end up with, seeing more often than not, they are awarded custody, so they go for the most they can get... and want to lock it in (court).
    In all, Im just making myself an example how it wont work for all! (biatch)

    Ceejay, I think most of the time, thats the fairest and easiest... never good to hear anyone go through it, but good for you!
  10. Yeah I hear ya Bax. They say it's for the kids and shit. Bullshit. I have had a few mates who get to see their kids less than one day a month. Then it gets awkward when they do have the kids. They never ring or tell the dad when the kids have a sporting or scholastic event.
    Coming from very ****ed up parents helped me a lot with my divorce. They still hate each other forty odd years down the track. And I still don't want or need either in my life. Never going to be that way with my kids, no matter how much the X shits me. I just smile and go home and take it out on the bag, or pound the pavement till i bust. There's no use going off at an X. They feed on it.
  11. I so wish that mine could be that simple. I read the article, with a great deal of interest.
  12. That's awesome, you're both really lucky to have had partners that were ready to be sensible about the whole process. Unfortunately, most aren't like you - and I agree that half of the problem is solicitors that aren't prepared to take a common sense approach. One of the most important things in family law, I think, is never to forget that you're dealing with peoples' lives in a very intimate and very significant way.
  13. I generally prefer to keep out of these matters but I work directly in arranging mediation for over 2500 families a year.

    One thing has become apparent and even acknowledged by solicitors who have later become Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners (mediators) is that their advice can sometimes be focussed on what is a likely outcome if the court were to decide rather than focus on what works well for that particular family and have them negotiate on that basis.

    Further the time that has passed between seeking legal advice or participating in a mediation has cemented a level of distrust, often poor communication and further resentment of the parties to each other making agreements harder to reach than what would have been the case if there were some earlier intervention.

    I am certainly not saying that sols are the root of this evil or seek to exploit it for their own gain but sometimes the perception can be that "doing the best for your client" means obtaining the maximum amount of time and/or $ which in my mind plays second fiddle to actual needs of the family. Some sols are incredibly adept at seeing this other aren't.

    I think what has been discussed in the article is a good wholistic step that could benefit many families but feel the weakest link in the current system and what has been proposed is the ability to get some meaningful early intervention (EI) strategies in place and once it has been established that the children are not at any risk, that discussions take place on what works for a family without any thought being given to what a court may decide. To clarify EI stratergies do not need to seek a final agreement covering the next decade but just a means to exstablish a suitable means of communication and an interim agreement that could lessen any further animosity between the parents.
  14. A buck twenty for a round of buck shot, simple.
  15. are you a violent man chef?
  16. this is why i never married - can not afford the divorce
  17. Chef, Suicide is not the solution!
  18. i think you'll find he was joking about murder
  19. hey, sarcasm is lost on the internet ya know. don't get the claws out