• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Faculty/ Researcher Works
    • Faculty/ Researcher Works
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Faculty/ Researcher Works
    • Faculty/ Researcher Works
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of TUScholarShareCommunitiesDateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsGenresThis CollectionDateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsGenres

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Help

    AboutPoliciesHelp for DepositorsData DepositFAQs

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    A Case Against Collaboration

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    Rebouche-JournalArticle-2017.pdf
    Size:
    293.9Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Genre
    Journal article
    Date
    2017
    Author
    Rebouché, Rachel
    Permanent link to this record
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/6214
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/6196
    Abstract
    In family law, as in other legal disciplines, the use of alternative dispute resolution has dramatically increased. In a process called collaborative divorce, separating spouses hire attorneys who agree to work together—almost entirely outside of the court system—to reach a settlement ending the marriage. A team of experts, including mental health professionals, financial neutrals, and parenting coordinators, helps the parties resolve conflicts and settle property, support, and custody disputes. For divorcing couples, the collaborative process promises emotional healing and avoidance of contentious litigation. Advocates for collaborative divorce describe the transformational effects of the process in an evangelical tone. But collaborative divorce has costs. Collaboration can include considerations of marital fault that feminists helped eliminate from divorce laws. By focusing on conflict resolution, even for the purpose of building post-divorce relationships, collaborative negotiations introduce judgments of “good” and “bad” marital conduct, potentially reinforcing stereotyped gender roles, such as the blameless wife and the guilty husband. These heteronormative paradigms are out of date: gender roles have evolved, the population of married people has changed, and marriage rights have extended to couples of the same sex. Collaborative processes also have distributive consequences. Collaboration privileges wealthy parties who may understate their bargaining power. At the same time, collaboration may not reach vulnerable spouses who could benefit from therapeutic interventions. Collaborative divorce can be blind to situational power and structural inequality. The purpose of these critiques is not to undermine therapeutic approaches or to argue that law should ignore spousal misconduct. Rather, this Article suggests that advocates for collaborative divorce—including some feminist scholars who have theorized the shortcomings of no-fault divorce laws—might understand better how parties negotiate, and what they may sacrifice, within a collaborative framework.
    Citation
    Rachel Rebouché, A Case Against Collaboration, 76 Md. L. Rev. 547 (2017).
    Citation to related work
    University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
    Has part
    Maryland Law Review, Vol. 76, Issue 3 (2017)
    ADA compliance
    For Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu
    Collections
    Faculty/ Researcher Works

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2021)  DuraSpace
    Temple University Libraries | 1900 N. 13th Street | Philadelphia, PA 19122
    (215) 204-8212 | scholarshare@temple.edu
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.