Resolve Parenting Disputes

Simply put, mediation lawyer is much less expensive than litigation. For many custody professionals, the issue is not so much the child’s preference as it is the child’s perspective.  The notion of a preference contemplates that the child is choosing between the parents.  That is one of the worst things that anyone could compel a child to do, regardless of whether it is the parent, the family court judge, an attorney, or a custody professional pushing for the child to do so.  Moreover, for every instance in which the child’s bona fide preference has a true bearing on the determination of the parenting plan, there are many instances in which a parent – maybe both parents – have a mistaken belief that the child genuinely has a preference and the child’s preference should be a determining factor in the parenting plan. The model provides for the involvement of a mediation lawyer and a child consultant.  The child has contact only with the child consultant, not with the mediation lawyer, and certainly not with the family court or either parent’s attorney.

What the child consultant learns from his or her meeting with the child is then shared with the parents and the mediator so that the child’s perspective can be given proper attention as the parent’s attempt to resolve parenting disputes. In the context of a divorce mediation, sometimes it is apparent when gathering the relevant financial information that the couple is living way above their means. If this is the case, the support guidelines calculations may be such that when the parties’ income and current living expenses are considered, one or both spouses may end up running in the red. If such is the case, it may be necessary for them to sell the marital home and downsize, so that they can pay their expenses when their income and the support provisions are considered. Another reason the mediation Lawyer Kirra support guidelines may not work for the divorcing couple is if one or both spouses has non-recurrent income. For instance, let’s say the husband received a relocation bonus from his company that was reported on his previous year’s tax return. Since that is a one-time bonus, which he is very unlikely to receive again in the foreseeable future, that relocation bonus income should be excluded when applying the support guidelines.

For couples who choose a collaborative divorce, however, the stress of the “holiday shuffle” is eased, if not eliminated. The collaborative process allows the divorcing parents to structure a holiday plan for the children tailored to the needs of their specific situation. However, mediation lawyer interfaith co-parents face a unique holiday scheduling challenge this year, one that probably wasn’t anticipated when their divorce settlement agreement was written. This brings to mind an important reason to consider a collaborative divorce. The collaborative process takes couples through a healthy, respectful way of dealing with contentious issues and conflicts. Having experienced this model, Through the collaborative divorce negotiations of mediation Lawyer Kirra, they have incorporated some flexibility into their settlement agreement. Should co-parenting conflicts arise post-divorce, they can draw on their collaborative experience to put the needs of their children first. With the children as top priority, the issue can be discussed with a spirit of good will and a reasonable solution can be found.