The Cost of Divorce !

A Family Court judge has delivered a stinging criticism of how the legal profession is using the emotional state of the people seeking a divorce to prolong litigation and justify outrageous legal fees for their services. A " win at all costs " attitude prevailed and he cited one example where obtaining a divorce resulted in a bill of $ 800,000. The two areas most contested concern the division of property and the parenting arrangements for any children of the marriage. The whole concept of the Family Court when it came into being was supposed to make divorce more " civilized " and allow a judge to make a fair division of property and settle each child issue to obtain the best outcome for the child. It was hoped that most divorces would avoid the need for legal representation. In the dim, dark past a divorce threw a shadow of shame. A divorced person found that shame an obstacle on the promotional ladder and many churches refused to recognise - or remarry - those who had undergone a divorce. In Royal circles, no divorced person was deemed suitable to be included in any gathering at which the Queen would be present. The law leaned heavily on the aspect of justice that required someone to be responsible for the marriage breakdown. The law did allow divorce on the grounds of one party deserting the other, but it required a seven year time frame, so the preferred grounds were " adultery " by one of the parties. That opened a Pandora's box. It became a world of private investigators peering though bedroom windows and recording court evidence on film. The divorce courts drew crowds of spectators keen to hear the titillating evidence presented in court. Divorce became a public spectacle. What really applied was a clash between the legal aspect of marriage and the laws of the churches. The churches insisted on that " until death do them part " vow. That delivered a life of misery when incompatible couples make the mistake of going to the altar. A more merciful approach was thankfully applied when the Family Court became the only means of legally terminating a marriage. Today, a lot of divorces are processed without the need for legal representation. The problem is that many marriage breakdowns are acrimonious and both parties call in the lawyers and fight to the bitter end over even minor matters. This Family Court judge was criticising the enthusiasm some law firms have for encouraging this attitude and chasing ever legal rabbit down every bolt hole - to justify the bill they present at the divorce conclusion. Many firms advertise as " Divorce Lawyers " and promise rewarding outcomes. That $ 800,000 legal bill would be a shattering experience to most middle income families - and it probably had little bearing on the result achieved. The Family Court adheres to a recognised formulae of an even split between most couples and the only contentious aspect is which parent is awarded custody of the children. The non-custodial parent pays maintenance according to a court approved rate applicable to the child's age. The award of visiting rights can also cause conflict. This Family Court judge asked the Legal Services Commissioner to investigate whether the fees charged in that $ 800,000 case could constitute professional misconduct. It seems evident that some legal practices are specifically milking that emotional aspect by encouraging litigation that only serves to enhance the bill for services that they will charge. Unfortunately, in divorce the acrimony is often so intense that common sense will rarely apply. The only winners will be the divorcing people who take a pragmatic approach and adhere to the formulae dictated by law. In this day and age, obtaining a divorce is quite possible with minimum legal representation. Unfortunately, the " revenge " motif is usually the prime motivation where divorce is concerned.