healthy-family

Collaborative Divorce with a Child Specialist: Your Children’s Best Interest First

PUTTING YOUR BEST FOOT FORWARD V. BEING HONEST ABOUT ONE’S LIMITATIONS

A father, who may want to hide his ignorance of an infant’s needs during an evaluation, presents himself differently in collaborative divorce, and is more likely to be honest and seek the recommendation of a child specialist. It’s like being in a classroom and the teacher asking if everyone understands. We’re afraid to admit we don’t know if the consequences hurt. With the child specialist in collaborative family law, the parents know we’re there to help, not to judge. Because there is no report submitted to the court, parents are free to discuss their fears and concerns, without the fear that their admissions will be used against them.

THERAPISTS V. COACHES

Therapists don’t always help in a divorce case. Well, a correction. They help the person, but they may not be helpful in the divorce process. A professional therapist was going through her own divorce. Her husband was strong and assertive; she was considerate and often put his needs ahead of hers. During her therapy, her therapist had been helping her to become more assertive. Her husband hadn’t picked up his clothes as promised, so she decided to act.  She told him to come and get his clothes. He didn’t respond immediately, so she issued a confident ultimatum. “If you don’t come to get your clothes by Saturday, I’m going to dump them on the driveway.” Her therapist was proud of her; she was proud of herself. Sure enough, her husband didn’t respond to her request, so she dumped his Armani suits and Ferragamo shoes in the driveway. He planned on picking up his clothes Sunday morning, but late Saturday night, it rained. A coach would have given her better advice. Coaches care about personal growth but they care more about a good divorce and happy children.

Coaches in collaborative law help parents work out their differences and promote the behaviors that result in agreements and resolution. They listen to the story of the divorce as background for understanding the dynamics of the relationship, and help parents do the things that are necessary to resolve disputes not exacerbate them. Although our proximity to Hollywood might lead one to think we are a city of happy families and happy endings, there are many unhappy families who end up in divorce. A father who was particularly upset at the prospect of paying child and spousal support to the mother of his children, the same wife who was having an affair, was helped through the process by his coach. Coaches help parents deal with the difficult emotions of divorce. The goal is not insight as much as it is to help the parents get through the divorce while maintaining respect and dignity.

 

Learn more about Collaborative Divorce

David-Kuroda2David Kuroda is the former Division Chief, Family Court Services, Superior Court of Los Angeles and directed the Mediation and Conciliation Service, the first and largest court mediation program in the nation.

In his 18 years with the Superior Court, he was responsible for the district courts, the PACT and Contemnors’ Programs, Divorce Seminars, and Visitation Monitors. Under his leadership, the service set high standards for the mediation service and other innovative programs serving children and families of divorce.

He has served on numerous committees with the Judicial Council, Los Angeles County Bar Executive Committee, Family Law Section, and has collaborated on numerous programs with the bar associations of the South Bay, Beverly Hills, San Fernando Valley, and Long Beach. He’s the past vice-president of A Better Divorce: A group of collaborative professionals; he also serves as vice-president of the California Social Welfare Archives., on he advisory board of the Los Angeles Collaborative Family Law Association, and was honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) California Chapter and with the George Nickel Award by the California Social Welfare Archives, USC.

In addition to directing the program, he has personally provided mediation services to over 7,000 families from the working poor to the wealthy and famous, including high profile cases and movie producers. Virtually all parents, whatever their backgrounds, love their children, and with some guidance, have been able to work together, even after divorce. Mr. Kuroda has provided training for graduate students from USC, and has taught professionals child custody mediation.

property-title

Vesting Title To Your Real Property

By Cozette Vergari

How you hold title to your real property is critical. There are several options one can choose from, when deciding how title should be vested, with each option having its own serious legal and tax ramifications. When purchasing real property, the buyer(s) should consult with a trust and estates attorney at the beginning of the escrow process. The grant deed prepared during escrow, transferring ownership from the seller(s) to the buyer(s), should be reviewed by that attorney, prior to execution, to insure title is being vested properly. The individual facts and circumstances relating to the buyer(s) estate will dictate the appropriate way to vest title. If you have already purchased real property, without seeking legal advice, this issue may still be reviewed by a trusts and estates attorney. If necessary, title can be changed through a new deed, transferring ownership into the proper vesting of title.

Cozette-Vergari2Cozette Vergari is an attorney in the Los Angeles area with an active Family Law practice since 1996. She has litigated and mediated in hundreds of family law cases and have frequently served as a court-appointed minors counsel.  She is a member of A Better Divorce Group and has been active in the Collaborative Divorce movement since 2003. Learn more about Cozette on her website or her blog.

healthcare

Providing Spouses with the Power to Make Healthcare Decisions

By Cozette Vergari Originally published in LOS ANGELES LAWYER / NOVEMBER 2007

THE RIGHT TO MAKE HEALTHCARE DECISIONS is a protected individual right held solely by the patient. Recently, federal law and state law expanded the scope of exclusivity of this right to the privacy realm by limiting the sharing of patient information and records. Thus a patient’s spouse, domestic partner, and other family members face increasing obstacles when they seek information from the patient’s records-even though some healthcare providers, perhaps motivated by compassion, are disregarding the legal restrictions.

Nevertheless, spouses, in particular, should be very clear about their ability to make healthcare decisions on behalf of their partners. Spouses often assume that when their husband or wife becomes incapacitated and unable to make medical decisions, they have an automatic right to step into the shoes of their spouses. A patient’s incapacity-his or her inability to understand the nature and consequences of a decision or communicate a decision-may be temporary or permanent. Under either circumstances, the patient’s spouse is not statutorily authorized to be first in line to assume the power to make healthcare decisions for the incapacitated patient.

Indeed, the Probate Code statutes applicable to medical decisions grant no such power to spouses. The code only places a spouse inside the category or class of “family members,” with no priority expressly stated for the spouse. Though many healthcare facilities and providers may create a hierarchy within the class of family members and place the spouse at the top, there is no exclusive legal right for a spouse to make healthcare decisions for his or her incapacitated spouse.

It is well-established in case law that marital status alone does not create agency between the spouses. Nevertheless, spouses are fiduciaries under the law and owe a duty to one another. Still, this duty is not accompanied by a spouse’s authority to act as an agent in making healthcare decisions on behalf of his or her spouse.

Since a spouse has no express successor right to a patient’s right to make his or her own medical decisions, all family members have equal standing in the choice of treatment. A family member may challenge a spouse’s choices as not being in the best interest of the patient. It is even possible that a family member other than the one challenging the spouse may be given the right to make healthcare decisions on behalf of the patient. To further complicate matters, when a patient becomes incapacitated and a spouse’s decisions are challenged by a family member, or family members cannot reach a unanimous decision, or the choices made by the spouse or family members are not deemed by healthcare providers to be in the best interest of the patient, the healthcare providers may ultimately make those decisions. The power may not only shift away from the patient’s spouse but also from the patient’s entire family.

In an emergency, these issues too often lead to a crisis. All parties are frequently unprepared. A spouse facing an unanticipated need to make serious medical decisions for his or her spouse faces an overwhelming burden. The chaotic atmosphere can lead to the healthcare  providers assuming the power to make the necessary decisions. By con trast, a patient facing a scheduled surgery has the time not only to consider the issue of future healthcare decisions but also to choose to relinquish decision-making power, should the need arise, through a written or oral assignment to an agent or surrogate. It is an option that many clients should consider long before any medical care is required or contemplated.

AHCDs, Surrogacy, and Conservatorship

Spouses who seek to ensure their ability to make healthcare decisions for one another can make their wishes known in an Advance Health Care Directive (AHCD), a form of protection provided under the Probate Code. AHCDs have replaced the Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, the former statutory device for this purpose. While AHCD forms may be obtained from healthcare providers and online sources, estate planning attorneys may prepare AHCDs as well, tailoring each directive to fit the circumstances of individual clients. An AHCD is often included in an estate-planning package with other estate documents such as a trust or a will.

Spouses can use an AHCD to express their carefully considered choices about future medical treatment and end-of-life issues. These choices may be modified from time to time with an updated AHCD. Among the topics that may be addressed in an AHCD include organ donation, the decision to allow or forbid an autopsy, pain management, and the use of life-sustaining equipment, among others. With an AHCD, a patient who becomes incapacitated temporarily or permanently will still be able to communicate his or her wishes through this writing, which can be legally relied upon by the patient’s designated agent and the healthcare providers.

The AHCD is the means by which a spouse can assert the authority, granted by his or her spouse, to make healthcare decisions on behalf of his or her incapacitated spouse. If the spouse is named as the sole agent in the AHCD, the spouse holds the exclusive right to assume this authority. If the spouse is named as a co-agent, the spouse will work with the other designated co-agent or agents in making the necessary decisions on behalf of the patient. In some cases, individuals do not want to name a spouse as an agent and will designate someone else. There are many reasons why this may be an individual’s choice. If there is no spouse, the individual will appoint whomever he or she deems appropriate.

The agent or co-agents must follow the patient’s directives. These decisions have been expressed in writing by the patient, who has given his or her agents the power to make sure the patient’s wishes are honored by the healthcare providers in the event the patient is incapacitated. No agent may ignore the expressed intent of the patient.

Another way a spouse can gain exclusive authority to make healthcare decisions on behalf of a husband or wife is through the patient’s oral appointment of surrogacy that is communicated to the healthcare providers. Absent an AHCD—the existence of which is often queried by a healthcare provider or facility during the patient intake or admissions process so that the document, if it exists, can be placed in the patient’s records—a patient may orally communicate his or her choice of a surrogate to act on behalf of the patient. This oral appointment, along with the patient’s specific medical wishes regarding treatment, should be noted in the patient’s records by the healthcare provider. The patient may name a spouse to act as the surrogate who will assume the healthcare decision-making power if the patient becomes incapacitated. The medical wishes of the patient, as recorded by the healthcare provider, must be followed and implemented under the authority of the surrogate spouse. The patient may name anyone as a surrogate to act on his or her behalf.

A surrogate, however, might not have the same expansive authority as an agent named in an AHCD. The patient may not have expressed his or her wishes regarding the full range of circumstances that could emerge during a period of incapacity. A decision by the surrogate that lacks a foundation of evidence of the patient’s intent may be disregarded by healthcare providers who deem the decision to not be in the best interests of the patient. An AHCD provides firmer ground for the spouse acting on behalf of his or her incapacitated spouse. A spouse acting as the patient’s agent under an AHCD has the power to implement the patient’s wishes, which have been expressly stated in a writing. This writing constitutes clear and convincing evidence of the patient’s intent.

A spouse appointed as a surrogate may be absolutely certain of what the patient’s philosophical or spiritual choices would be regarding treatment. However, in the absence of specific evidence of intent in the patient’s medical file, the surrogate is powerless. This is true not only when the patient does not address an issue in the oral communication of surrogacy but also when the oral communication is not properly recorded by the healthcare provider.

The least desirable option available for obtaining the right to make medical decisions on behalf of one’s spouse is a petition to the court for a conservatorship. A spouse or other interested party may request to be appointed as a conservator of the patient. This appointment is subject to objections from other parties. Through proper notice, the patient’s due process rights must be considered, along with those of extended family members. The court may decide to appoint an independent legal representative for the potential conservatee and may also choose to limit the scope of the conservator’s authority. This process can be untimely, cumbersome, and expensive. Conservatorship is a highly scrutinized area of the law and requires expertise.

The execution of an AHCD can avoid the need for a conservatorship. However, if the need for an appointment of a conservator arises, even when an AHCD exists, the good news is that the nomination of a conservator by the patient usually is embodied in the AHCD. Therefore, if a petition to the court is necessary, there will be no controversy regarding the appointee. The AHCD is clear and convincing evidence of the individual’s intent and choice of conservator.

Nonspousal Healthcare Authority

Everyone possesses the precious right to relinquish authority for his or her healthcare decisions, when incapacity arises, to a trusted family member, domestic partner, or friend, as well as a spouse. To do so requires express evidence of intent. The Probate Code generally protects the class of family members, but with no specificity. Domestic partners, if registered with the California secretary of state, are given status equivalent to that of a spouse under the Probate Code and the Family Code. Unregistered domestic partners and friends have no standing under state statutes.

Many middle-aged adults are caring for and assisting their elderly parents. An adult child might presume that he or she has the right to make medical decisions on behalf of the elderly parent when that parent lacks the capacity to do so. Under statutory law, however, no power for this purpose is granted specifically to the adult child. The adult child is only one in a class of family members. All family members have equal standing in the healthcare decisions involving the parent, unless the adult child has been authorized to make decisions on behalf of the patient through an AHCD, surrogacy, or a conservatorship.

Many couples choose to cohabit and not marry. Moreover, same-sex couples are unable to create a legal marital relationship, though they may gain marital rights if they register as same-sex domestic partners. Opposite-sex couples also may resister a domestic partnership if one or both of the partners are over the age of 62.

No matter how parties ultimately weigh the pros and the cons of establishing a legal domestic partnership, an AHCD provides a role for a domestic partner, whether registered or unregistered, in making medical decisions on behalf of his or her incapacitated partner. Further, for opposite-sex unmarried couples, an AHCD can establish their rights to make healthcare decisions for one another even as they choose to abstain from the legal entanglements of marriage.

Another relationship to consider is the parent seeking the authority to make medical decisions for an adult child. A parent is part of the class of family members, in which no one family member has any more power, under statutory law, than another. Further, many of the issues regarding a spouse’s limitations—absent the status of agent (under an AHCD), surrogate, or conservator—will also apply to the parent of an adult child if the adult child is incapacitated.

Once a child attains the age of 18, the right to make personal medical decisions becomes an exclusive right of that adult child. Even if the child is still attending high school, he or she gains this exclusive right at 18, and a parent does not automatically possess sole decision-making power when, for example, the child becomes unconscious due to injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Parents too often presume that the power to make medical decisions for their adult children is their right.

Absent an AHCD, parents fall into the class of family members with no more legal standing than another adult family member. Many hospitals create a hierarchy of decision makers and are likely to place the parents of unmarried young adults at the top of the list. However, there are no guarantees under statutory law. Even if the healthcare providers are listening to the parents, should they deem the parents’ decision to be not in the best interests of the patient, they are not obligated to implement the parents’ choices without an AHCD.

Generally, the most efficient way for an individual to protect his or her intent regarding healthcare in the event of incapacity is the execution of an AHCD. A well-constructed AHCD expresses medical choices clearly, appoints an agent or co-agents, appoints alternate agents, and nominates a conservator if needed. In this document, a person is able to direct and instruct his or her agent, who is not only authorized but obligated to carry out the person’s directives. The agent is empowered to speak—and the healthcare providers must listen.

One last consideration are the restrictions mandated by two laws: the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and California’s Patient Access to Medical Records Act. The major goal of these laws is to ensure the protection of an individual patient’s health information while balancing the need to provide quality healthcare. The violation of these statutes could result in substantial fines for a healthcare provider or facility.

While the laws have resulted in their intended effect of providing more protection for patient privacy, they have also led to more limited accessibility by a patient’s family members to the patient’s medical records. These records are strictly protected from disclosure to anyone other than the patient. To overcome this obstacle, a patient may execute a written authorization for use and disclosure of his or her information, enabling the patient’s agent to obtain needed information. This written authorization should accompany an AHCD. Estate-planning attorneys should make sure they execute the necessary instrument when they draft an AHCD.

With the execution of an AHCD and with the execution of an AHCD an attorney will help to empower a spouse, a domestic partner, or other family members to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated loved one. The story of Terri Schiavo, which gained national media attention, was a grim illustration of what can happen to a family without a patient’s expressly written intentions regarding medical treatment. For nearly 16 years, Schiavo existed in a vegetative state while her parents and her spouse battled in court over her end-of-life care. Had Schiavo executed a document like an AHCD, this long nightmare could have been avoided. An AHCD will speak for the patient and will enable the designated agent to carry out the patient’s express wishes.

Cozette-Vergari2Cozette Vergari – principal of Vergari & Associates, has had an active Family Law practice since 1996. During that time, she has litigated and mediated in hundreds of family law cases and have frequently served as a court-appointed minors counsel. In 2003, she became active in the Collaborative Family Law movement, joining A Better Divorce. She regularly participates in workshops and seminars to solidify and further develop her expertise in Family Law with an emphasis in Collaborative Family Law. She is retained by clients as either a consultant, mediator, collaborative family law attorney, or litigator. Learn more about Cozette by visiting her blawg at vergariandassociates.wordpress.com. 

Mental Health of Children in Divorce

Child’s Testimony in Custody Cases

ELKINS TASK FORCE REFORMS – UNCERTAINTY ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION

An important change regarding children’s testimony in custody cases, (Family Code §3042).went into effect last year. “If a child is 14 years of age or older and wishes to address the court regarding custody or visitation, the child shall be permitted to do so, unless the court determines that doing so it not in the child’s best interests. In that case the court shall state its reasons for that finding on the record.” Professionals have expressed concerns about how this is going to be implemented. There is a provision that a minor’s counsel, evaluator, an investigator or recommending mediator may help the court determine if a child wishes to express a preference.

Learn more about Collaborative Divorce

David-Kuroda2David Kuroda is the former Division Chief, Family Court Services, Superior Court of Los Angeles and directed the Mediation and Conciliation Service, the first and largest court mediation program in the nation.

In his 18 years with the Superior Court, he was responsible for the district courts, the PACT and Contemnors’ Programs, Divorce Seminars, and Visitation Monitors. Under his leadership, the service set high standards for the mediation service and other innovative programs serving children and families of divorce.

He has served on numerous committees with the Judicial Council, Los Angeles County Bar Executive Committee, Family Law Section, and has collaborated on numerous programs with the bar associations of the South Bay, Beverly Hills, San Fernando Valley, and Long Beach. He’s the past vice-president of A Better Divorce: A group of collaborative professionals; he also serves as vice-president of the California Social Welfare Archives., on he advisory board of the Los Angeles Collaborative Family Law Association, and was honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) California Chapter and with the George Nickel Award by the California Social Welfare Archives, USC.

In addition to directing the program, he has personally provided mediation services to over 7,000 families from the working poor to the wealthy and famous, including high profile cases and movie producers. Virtually all parents, whatever their backgrounds, love their children, and with some guidance, have been able to work together, even after divorce. Mr. Kuroda has provided training for graduate students from USC, and has taught professionals child custody mediation.

judges-family-court

Proposals For Helping Judges in Court

PROPOSALS FOR HELPING JUDGES

  1. ESTABLISH A MEDIATION PANEL TO REDUCE NUMBER OF CASES FOR HEARINGS

The Superior Court maintains “panels” or lists of professionals who provide child custody evaluations services, parent education groups and co-parent counseling services. A similar list of professionals who provide mediation could be very helpful. The court could require the child custody mediators to provide pro bono services as a requirement for being on the list. Volunteer attorney mediators have already been helping settle cases at no cost to the court, although the ADR program at the court will be eliminated by this summer. The Los Angeles County Bar Association will be taking over the administration of this valuable program.

The Southwest District two years ago has added financial and mental health professionals to its volunteer mediation panel. This could complement the volunteer attorney mediators who serve in the central and many district courts. We in the legal community need to do more to resolve cases and reduce the demands on our family law bench officers.

  1. PROMOTE THE GREATER USE OF RESOLVING DISPUTES BEFORE GETTING TO THE COURTOOM: MEDIATION, COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE

Judge Scott Gordon, speaking at the Beverly Hills Bar Association’s “Meet the Judges Night,” cited consensual dispute resolution as an important response to the court’s budget problems. As described above in this article, there are many ways dissolutions can be resolved without burdening the court. The attorney who can settle cases early on, without having to prepare for depositions, trials or relying on child custody evaluations, will experience less stress and greater rewards as a family law practitioner.

  1. INCREASE THE COLLABORATION WITH PROFESSIONALS IN THE COMMUNITY FOR PARENTS

When the court suspended offering the Parents without Conflict Program by the Family Court Services staff, it freed up staff to be more available for the mandated program of custody mediation and evaluations. As important as the programs were, it was a judicious use of staff to provide the services required by statute.

The court has also eliminated the PACT classes at the courthouses, and instead directs parents to an online program.

The Family Court Services, known earlier as the Conciliation Court, has always been innovative. The Los Angeles Conciliation Court established one of the first marriage counseling programs in the nation, and was recognized by the Board of Supervisors for “saving” many marriages. As the community counselors became trained and more available, the court discontinued offering the marriage counseling services. We used to tag all of the 1284 forms for Confidential Counseling and write letters offering counseling  as a “last chance” to save the marriage. That is no longer being done and mental health professionals are now providing an important service that was originated in the courts.

Divorce Parenting groups are listed on the court’s website, and parents are now able to attend groups in their neighborhoods. Similar programs can be set up to complement the PACT (Parents and Children Together). The innovative and award-winning PACT program, originally conceived by Judge David Rothman and Commissioner Jill Robbins for Santa Monica, has been implemented in courthouses throughout the county. Maybe the time has come for the programs to be offered in local communities. The court should still require the education program, but by encouraging mental health professionals to run the programs, even more Family Court Service staff would be available to shorten the wait times for mediation and evaluations.

  1. RESTORE THE INTERN TRAINING PROGRAM FOR MEDIATION

In the 1980’s and 1990’s, interns from the masters and doctoral programs from the top area universities applied for the year-long program at the court. The selection process was similar to the process for hiring staff. Only the most qualified candidates were selected. These interns provided effective mediation services, sometimes more successful than the more experienced staff. Interns augmented the staff in the central district and in almost all the districts. Their services were provided at no cost to the court. Thousands of cases were settled.

In addition, the morale of the staff was enhanced by the idealistic, energetic and caring interns. One intern once showed me a research article citing the sometimes greater effectiveness of the interns when compared with the more experienced, older staff.

It is notable that the manager, supervisor and some of the most effective staff of the Family Court Services started their careers with the court as court interns. The USC School of Social Work has expressed interest in placing their graduate students at the Superior Court for their internship experience.

Learn more about Collaborative Divorce

David-Kuroda2David Kuroda is the former Division Chief, Family Court Services, Superior Court of Los Angeles and directed the Mediation and Conciliation Service, the first and largest court mediation program in the nation.

In his 18 years with the Superior Court, he was responsible for the district courts, the PACT and Contemnors’ Programs, Divorce Seminars, and Visitation Monitors. Under his leadership, the service set high standards for the mediation service and other innovative programs serving children and families of divorce.

He has served on numerous committees with the Judicial Council, Los Angeles County Bar Executive Committee, Family Law Section, and has collaborated on numerous programs with the bar associations of the South Bay, Beverly Hills, San Fernando Valley, and Long Beach. He’s the past vice-president of A Better Divorce: A group of collaborative professionals; he also serves as vice-president of the California Social Welfare Archives., on he advisory board of the Los Angeles Collaborative Family Law Association, and was honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) California Chapter and with the George Nickel Award by the California Social Welfare Archives, USC.

In addition to directing the program, he has personally provided mediation services to over 7,000 families from the working poor to the wealthy and famous, including high profile cases and movie producers. Virtually all parents, whatever their backgrounds, love their children, and with some guidance, have been able to work together, even after divorce. Mr. Kuroda has provided training for graduate students from USC, and has taught professionals child custody mediation.

attorney-child

Child’s Attorney in a Divorce

MINOR’S COUNSEL, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD – STILL CONTROVERSIAL

In more and more cases, the courts are relying on Minor’s Counsel to assist in the resolution of cases. In some jurisdictions, the use of minor’s counsel is almost routine. A number of factors have led to the greater use of attorneys for children. Because of the limited resources of Family Court Services, fewer cases are being resolved in mediation and it’s also taking longer for child custody evaluations. Even the “fast-track” evaluations have been renamed, in part because it’s not a speedy way of getting recommendations before the court. Minor’s Counsel often provides information to courts in a more timely manner. Often the newer bench officers are utilizing attorneys for children much more than the more experienced judges. Concerns about the greater use of Minor’s Counsel have long been raised by attorneys who believe too much rides on a quick assessment with no written report; mental health professionals have expressed concerns about some attorneys who aren’t experienced in interviewing and assessing the needs of young children. Concerns have also been raised about the uneven quality of the representation. Minimum and uniform training requirements have been established but the program still has its share of detractors.

Because Family Court Services no longer provides comprehensive child custody evaluations, along with the high cost of private evaluations, judges are appointing more Minor’s Counsel in custody cases. The courts appreciate how quickly these attorneys can provide input for the judges.

One of the Elkins Task Force recommendations was for more training for attorneys servicing as minor’s counsel. The next training for lawyers want to serve as Minor’s Counsel will be held in October; completion of the training will be a requirement for Minor’s Counsel Appointments.

Learn more about Collaborative Divorce

David-Kuroda2David Kuroda is the former Division Chief, Family Court Services, Superior Court of Los Angeles and directed the Mediation and Conciliation Service, the first and largest court mediation program in the nation.

In his 18 years with the Superior Court, he was responsible for the district courts, the PACT and Contemnors’ Programs, Divorce Seminars, and Visitation Monitors. Under his leadership, the service set high standards for the mediation service and other innovative programs serving children and families of divorce.

He has served on numerous committees with the Judicial Council, Los Angeles County Bar Executive Committee, Family Law Section, and has collaborated on numerous programs with the bar associations of the South Bay, Beverly Hills, San Fernando Valley, and Long Beach. He’s the past vice-president of A Better Divorce: A group of collaborative professionals; he also serves as vice-president of the California Social Welfare Archives., on he advisory board of the Los Angeles Collaborative Family Law Association, and was honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) California Chapter and with the George Nickel Award by the California Social Welfare Archives, USC.

In addition to directing the program, he has personally provided mediation services to over 7,000 families from the working poor to the wealthy and famous, including high profile cases and movie producers. Virtually all parents, whatever their backgrounds, love their children, and with some guidance, have been able to work together, even after divorce. Mr. Kuroda has provided training for graduate students from USC, and has taught professionals child custody mediation.

family1

Collaborative Divorce: How a Parenting Plan Will Help Co-Parent

 SPECIAL MASTERS, OR PARENTING PLAN COORDINATORS – KEEPING SMALL ISSUES OUT OF THE COURTROOM

Not since the first training session for Special Masters over six years ago, has there been a training program in s Los Angeles County for attorneys and mental health professionals interested in becoming Special Masters. The Superior Court, along with the Association for Family and Conciliation Courts, AFCC, sponsored a training program in March. Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. provided the training, followed by a panel, including Judge Robert Schnider, Lynette Robe, J.D., Angus Strachan, Ph.D. and Jane Shatz, Ph.D. A list of the attendees who attended the training, and perhaps the earlier training, will be developed.

The court may not order the assignment of a Special Master in a case, although if the parties and the attorneys stipulate, the court will usually sign the stipulated order. A few difficult cases require an inordinate amount of judicial resources and are wearing on all the professionals involved, not to mention the adverse effects on the children. Using a Special Master to make decisions regarding more routine conflicts may provide benefits for the families as well as for the bench officers. Mary Lund, Ph.D. and Lyn Robe and convened A Special Master committee and developed a stipulation for the use of the Special Master. It is now available on the Family Law Home Page of the Los Angeles County Bar Website: lacba.org. The use of the Special Master or Parenting Plan Coordinator is not without controversy. Some are concerned about the delegation of authority to non-judicial officers and the absence of the usual protections in a court hearing. The option, however of using an attorney or mental health professional to resolve minor issues may provide relief to the courtrooms that are excessively burdened.

 

See an excellent summary of the case law regarding the Parenting Plan Coordinator by Mara Berke, Law Offices of Marshall S. Zolla, “Planned Parenthood,” Los Angeles Lawyer, March 2009.

 

Learn more about Collaborative Divorce

David-Kuroda2David Kuroda is the former Division Chief, Family Court Services, Superior Court of Los Angeles and directed the Mediation and Conciliation Service, the first and largest court mediation program in the nation.

In his 18 years with the Superior Court, he was responsible for the district courts, the PACT and Contemnors’ Programs, Divorce Seminars, and Visitation Monitors. Under his leadership, the service set high standards for the mediation service and other innovative programs serving children and families of divorce.

He has served on numerous committees with the Judicial Council, Los Angeles County Bar Executive Committee, Family Law Section, and has collaborated on numerous programs with the bar associations of the South Bay, Beverly Hills, San Fernando Valley, and Long Beach. He’s the past vice-president of A Better Divorce: A group of collaborative professionals; he also serves as vice-president of the California Social Welfare Archives., on he advisory board of the Los Angeles Collaborative Family Law Association, and was honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) California Chapter and with the George Nickel Award by the California Social Welfare Archives, USC.

In addition to directing the program, he has personally provided mediation services to over 7,000 families from the working poor to the wealthy and famous, including high profile cases and movie producers. Virtually all parents, whatever their backgrounds, love their children, and with some guidance, have been able to work together, even after divorce. Mr. Kuroda has provided training for graduate students from USC, and has taught professionals child custody mediation.

Divorce10

Collaborative Divorce: Avoid Criticism of Co-Parent

A COACH HELPS A FATHER LEARN: COMPLIMENTING INSTEAD OF CRITICIZING

A father desperately wanted joint custody of his young children. The mother had reservations because he had never spent much time with the children. He persisted in pointing out his strengths and her faults. In frustration he criticized her parenting. She responded by threatening to seek sole custody. The coach suggested a break, and asked him what he really wanted. He said, “I want to be able to take care of my children; I need to spend time with them.” A different strategy was suggested. Rather than criticize their mother, he was advised to tell her she was a good mother and highlight the many things she did well. He did. “Mary, you have been a wonderful mother for our children. You have given them so much; you have taught them so much. You are a wonderful mother.” Her anger disappeared, and instead there were tears in her eyes. A therapeutic response would have been to recognize his anger and value as a father and addressed his basic feelings about being good enough. The coaching helps in different ways.

 MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND ATTORNEYS

 Most mental health professionals don’t like working with attorneys. They don’t like receiving letters from them; they don’t like talking to them. It’s because they don’t understand the role of the attorney. The attorneys in collaborative law are different. They have become tired of fighting; they don’t like having to do whatever it takes to “win.” They too feel like casualties of the divorce wars.

Collaborative family law provides a better way for attorneys and mental health professionals to work together. The best of both professions are available to the parents. Phone calls from attorneys are welcomed, and it’s rewarding being on the same team.

 

Learn more about Collaborative Divorce

David-Kuroda2David Kuroda is the former Division Chief, Family Court Services, Superior Court of Los Angeles and directed the Mediation and Conciliation Service, the first and largest court mediation program in the nation.

In his 18 years with the Superior Court, he was responsible for the district courts, the PACT and Contemnors’ Programs, Divorce Seminars, and Visitation Monitors. Under his leadership, the service set high standards for the mediation service and other innovative programs serving children and families of divorce.

He has served on numerous committees with the Judicial Council, Los Angeles County Bar Executive Committee, Family Law Section, and has collaborated on numerous programs with the bar associations of the South Bay, Beverly Hills, San Fernando Valley, and Long Beach. He’s the past vice-president of A Better Divorce: A group of collaborative professionals; he also serves as vice-president of the California Social Welfare Archives., on he advisory board of the Los Angeles Collaborative Family Law Association, and was honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) California Chapter and with the George Nickel Award by the California Social Welfare Archives, USC.

In addition to directing the program, he has personally provided mediation services to over 7,000 families from the working poor to the wealthy and famous, including high profile cases and movie producers. Virtually all parents, whatever their backgrounds, love their children, and with some guidance, have been able to work together, even after divorce. Mr. Kuroda has provided training for graduate students from USC, and has taught professionals child custody mediation.