Stig Bolgen, Esq. - Divorce Mediator

Divorce Mediation: How Smart People Get Divorced

Video Conference Divorce Mediation Available

Bolgen & Bolgen, Attorneys at Law

110 Winn Street, Suite 204, Woburn, MA
stigbolgen@bolgenlaw.com

781-938-5819

  • Home
  • About Divorce Mediation
    • Why Choose Divorce Mediation
    • The Divorce Mediation Process
    • What Can Be Mediated
  • Pricing
  • About the Mediator
  • Divorce in MA
    • About Alimony
    • About Child Custody
    • About Child Support
    • About Property Division
  • Contact
  • Mediation Blog

Probate Court Looking At Expansion of Dispute Resolution Options

September 9, 2016 By Stig Bolgen

The Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, which hears cases related to divorce and other family law matters, has proposed changes to its Standing Orders (rules) which would promote greater use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) case settlement techniques such as mediation, conciliation, dispute intervention, and settlement conferences. The proposed rules are in the public comment process and the public will now have until September 20, 2016 to comment on the possible rule changes.

One of the purposes of the proposed rule changes is to provide a “child-focused” process that is better adapted to cases which involve conflict between parents and care givers regarding children. The Preamble to the proposed rule changes states that a “consistent research finding is that children are harmed when they are exposed to conflict between their parents.” My own experience handling hundreds of divorce cases confirms what the research suggests – a high conflict divorce and parental separation process can have profoundly negative effects on children. The process of battling out a divorce via courtroom litigation correlates with negative effects to children because it is almost impossible for two parents to hotly litigate a divorce case without increasing their children’s exposure to negative conflict. The Preamble to the proposed rule change essentially acknowledges this when it states that the “importance of resolution without trial is reaffirmed.” The proposed rule changes are intended to reduce conflict between divorcing parents and they would apply to all divorce, paternity, and modification cases involving custody or child-related disputes or property division, debt allocation, or alimony disputes.

Proposed Standing Order Xa-16 would facilitate the early settlement of divorce or family law cases by establishing an “Early Case Settlement Process” having the following characteristics: (1) Limited discovery (the process of obtaining documents or information relevant to a case); (2) Limited Motions (a limit of 2 court appearances to obtain a temporary decision or relief from a judge while a case is pending); and, (3) Required participation in a “Settlement Conference” before the court will schedule a Pre-Trial Conference date or a contested trial date(s). The Early Case Settlement Process will be available in cases where both parties agree to utilize it . To participate in the Early Case Settlement Process both parties must make a written request to the court using a court supplied form and both parties must have already complied with certain specified discovery tasks. The discovery tasks which must be completed include the exchange of asset and liability documents, pension documents, deeds, loan applications, appraisals, credit card statements, Social Security statements, tax returns, paystubs, credit reports, and other specified documents.

Proposed Standing Order Xa-16 also includes a requirement for mandatory ADR screening in Hampden, Norfolk, Plymouth, and Worcester counties in all cases involving a contested custody dispute. The proposal defines “contested custody in divorce” as any case where the parties “are not in agreement as to all terms of a parenting plan including legal custody, residential and parenting schedule.” In these cases, the Court will refer the case to an approved provider of court-connected dispute resolution services (as defined by S.J.C. Rule 1:18) before a Settlement Conference or Pre-Trial Conference date is assigned by the Judge. This significant change in court procedures would essentially require that the parties to a child custody dispute participate in mediation/conciliation/dispute intervention before their court case could proceed into the more substantive parts of a litigated child custody case. This watershed change would not require that the case be resolved via ADR but it creates a process where the parties would have to attempt to resolve their child custody dispute via ADR before their contested custody court case could proceed.

In addition to the establishment of an “Early Case Settlement Process” option and required ADR screening for contested custody cases, the proposed rule changes would also require “Settlement Conferences” in all contested divorce and divorce modification cases involving disputes over child custody/parenting, property division, debt allocation, or alimony. The Settlement Conference would be required before the case could be assigned a contested trial date. The Settlement Conference would take place after the parties had completed their parent education course (if applicable) and after discovery had also been completed. Under current Probate and Family Court procedures, most divorce cases cannot obtain comprehensive settlement input from the assigned judge until the date of the Pre-Trial Conference. If the proposed rules are enacted, a divorce case would more or less get settlement assistance from the judge on two separate occasions prior to a contested trial date – at the Settlement Conference date and then again later at the Pre-Trial Conference date. As a practical matter, this change should increase the number of divorce cases that settle without contested trial because the parties will be exposed to substantial input from their judge on what the fair terms of settlement might be.

So what is the bottom line of these proposed changes ? The courts themselves appear to be acknowledging that divorce and family law type disputes are often poorly suited for resolution via the litigation process. Notwithstanding that mediation is growing more popular every day and is being embraced by Judges and court administrators – divorce cases involving physical abuse, significant financial fraud, or criminal type conduct will likely continue to be resolved primarily by the courts – and that is proper and appropriate. But for everybody else, and that is most divorce cases, mediation will be your lowest cost, lowest conflict, and most child friendly process for ending a marriage or addressing a family law issue.

Filed Under: Divorce Mediation

Shared Physical Custody May Be Better For Children

August 6, 2015 By Stig Bolgen

Social scientists and individuals involved with the divorce process have often debated the pros and cons of shared or joint physical custody arrangements where children reside approximately equally with both parents. Conventional wisdom has suggested that frequent moves between parental households may be stressful for children. However, a study recently published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health suggests that children raised in a shared physical custody environment typically report better psychosomatic health than children living mostly or only with one parent. The study, which relied upon data from a national classroom survey of all sixth and ninth grade students in Sweden, investigated the association between children’s psychosomatic problems and their living arrangements.

Several past studies have established that children with separated parents show “higher risks” for emotional problems and social maladjustment than children raised by cohabitating parents. Children whose parents do not reside together may experience more psychosomatic problems than children brought up in nuclear families. Notwithstanding this situation, children raised in a two-parent, but high conflict, nuclear family also experience higher rates of social or emotional problems. High conflict between cohabitating parents is also a negative for children.

In many western countries, including Sweden where this study took place, an increasing number of post-divorce families have joint or shared physical custody of their children. The study indicated that in Sweden about 30 – 40 percent of the children with separated parents were in a shared physical custody situation. The authors of this study suggest that children having everyday contact with both parents is more important, in terms of stress, than living in two different homes.

So what is the bottom line here? When parents can no longer reside together, a divorce with a shared physical custody outcome where the children spend substantial time in each parent’s household may be the best possible outcome when evaluated from the perspective of the children’s best interests and the children’s post-divorce mental and emotional health.

The divorce mediation process, with its emphasis on cooperation and collaboration, is the best method for getting to a mutually agreeable shared parenting arrangement that secures your children’s emotional health after the parents have split up. When parents cannot cooperate and a contested courtroom divorce process takes place, judges typically will not order shared physical custody. This is because the parents’ participation in a contested custody/parenting case suggests that those parents cannot communicate and cooperate as required to implement a shared physical custody outcome. If you bring your custody and parenting dispute to a judge, the likely outcome is no shared physical custody of the children.

See: “Fifty moves a year: is there an association between joint physical custody and psychosomatic problems in children?” Bergstrom M, Fransson E, Modin B, et al. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2015;69:769-774.

Filed Under: Divorce Mediation

Why You Shouldn’t Hire A Non-Lawyer Mediator

April 15, 2015 By Stig Bolgen

Two main types of professionals that offer divorce mediation services are family law lawyers and therapists/social workers. A skilled divorce mediator must be comfortable diffusing tense discussions and situations. Sometimes (but not always) trained therapists may have the edge over lawyers in familiarity with this skill. However, you are still better off hiring an experienced divorce lawyer to be your mediator.

Why?

Because divorce mediation is not counseling. Divorce mediation is essentially the negotiation of the dissolution of a marriage “in the shadow of the law.” If a therapist-divorce mediator has no idea what judges do in the particular court where your divorce will be on issues like alimony, child support and property division, he or she will be unable to be very helpful in giving the legal information so crucial to reaching a fair and reasonable result.

Why is a fair and reasonable result of mediation important?

Because, at your divorce hearing the judge will not approve any mediated separation agreement that the judge does not feel is fair and reasonable. Thus, a couple could spend many hours and alot of money on a mediated separation agreement that a judge in that court would never approve. An experienced divorce lawyer would know how to prevent this big problem.

The other big reason why hiring an attorney-mediator is the better choice is because the mediator also drafts the “separation agreement”. The separation agreement is a legal contract and it is very important to have it written correctly. If a non-lawyer drafts this contract, there will likely be mistakes and things that are unclear. Any problems with the agreement can become unfixable or very expensive to fix after the divorce judgment incorporates it.

In short, if you are looking for marriage counseling to save the marriage you should hire a therapist. If you are looking for help in getting divorced, the best choice is a lawyer-mediator.

Filed Under: Divorce Mediation

Copyright © 2025 Bolgen & Bolgen. All rights reserved. These materials have been prepared by Bolgen & Bolgen for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. The material posted on this website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship, and readers should not act upon it without seeking professional counsel.