These divorces typically involve four distinct segments.

The first segment of work in a contested case involves the case workup. This is where we put together the initial pleadings in the case and serve and file them. You will complete an initial questionnaire and provide documentation to us so that we can adequately move forward and understand exactly what relief is sought.

Following the service of the summons and petition, we will participate in what’s called an initial case management conference. This is a first meeting with the judge, on an informal basis, to talk about the issues that are in controversy. The court, at that point, might refer the matter for an early neutral evaluation. This is a process where the parties can meet with a court-appointed expert and try to settle the case before becoming too entrenched.

If matters don’t resolve at the early neutral stage, then we move into the next phase - called discovery. This is a process where we’re going to gather information from your spouse. We may do so formally, or informally.

In addition, we may elect to schedule a motion for temporary relief. This is a hearing in which the court will make a determination, on a temporary basis, of who is going to reside in the homestead, who is going to have temporary custody of the children, and what sort of temporary alimony, or child support awards, are appropriate. Quite often cases will settle following the entry of a temporary order, because the parties have a preview into how the judge views the facts of the case.

However, if the case has to continue, we will position your case for the settlement stage. We’re going to attempt to work out matters either through mediation, or some other form of alternative dispute resolution.

If we’re not able to work it out, the court will call us back in, and we will participate in a pre-trial conference, where we’re going to try one last time to get the case settled, with the assistance of the judge.

The fourth phase involves preparation for and actually trying the case. The judge has 90 days to issue a written decision following the end of the trial, and if either party is dissatisfied with the outcome, they have an additional 60 days in which to file an appeal.

An FENE involves a half-day session (or two, or three, or four) with a court-appointed neutral. This neutral typically is an experienced family law attorney, or a CPA familiar with the financial issues involved in a divorce. The parties, and their lawyers, sit down with the evaluator very early in the case - in an effort to catch people before they become too embroiled in conflict, or stuck in their position.

The process begins with the exchange of information, to ensure that there has been a full and fair disclosure of all income, assets and liabilities. A balance sheet is often created, which defines the universe of assets and debts, attributes value, provides a basis for the value, carves out any non-marital claims, and then allocates the relevant item to one of the parties. Once all allocated assets and debts are added up for each litigant, the cumulative value for each should be equal. This is typically the least controversial portion of the FENE, but can take some time.

The more controversial portion of the FENE involves the issue of spousal maintenance. With the assistance of the evaluator, the income and budgets of the parties will be scrutinized. A range of possible outcomes may be discussed, and recommendations may be made by the evaluator concerning the amount, and duration, of alimony in the event that the judge is left to decide the issue. Settlement discussions begin with that opinion as a backdrop.

Why does FENE work so often? A few points:

• The parties have direct conversation with one another, and the evaluator, in a natural way. A far cry from the robotic "question and answer" method of introducing evidence during a trial.
• The rules of evidence go out the window at an FENE. Any issue is up for discussion, empowering participants to voice their real-life concerns.
• Emotions may be taken into account at an FENE. Issues concerning "fairness" and "hurt" may be addressed as part of the process. Frankly, the law of "no-fault divorce" precludes alot of this in the courtroom.
• The process can be therapeutic. People feel like they can speak their mind, and they are listened to. Sometimes all a party needs is to be heard by someone. 
• Spouses have to look each in the eye as they discuss the issues. Very different from sitting 25 feet apart in the courtroom, facing front.
• There is a real sense that the parties can "get it done" during the process. Litigants believe that closure has real value, and may be worth a compromise.
• The process is a respectful one. Most evaluators know how to keep tempers from flaring.
• The evaluators, not the lawyers, control the agenda. Both parties feel they are on a level playing field. 
• Opinions matter. Litigants afford substantial weight to the perspective of the evaluators. They know the evaluator has no stake in the outcome, and the experience to back up their opinions.
• The neutrals are forced to "show their work." What I mean is that the parties are literally walked through each of the elements of the case, together, and hear the same thing at the same time. They see how the opinions of the evaluator are created right before their eyes, giving them more credibility.
• The surroundings are comfortable. There are no robes, no gavels, no court reporters, and no security. Just people sitting around a table, with their favorite beverage, talking.

As time goes on, I suspect the FENE process will gain statewide acceptance. Most of the counties in the Twin Cities metro area have adopted such a program. Why wouldn't they? With a 3/4 reduction in divorce litigation, everybody wins....except those lawyers whose practice model is based on "dog fight" mentality. But, who's feeling sorry for them anyway?

Two years ago, the Court of Appeals began experimenting with voluntary participation in mediation immediately following the filing of an appeal. Most, including myself, were skeptical. Mediation has traditionally involved negotiation prior to trial, not after. Trial typically leaves the litigants even further at odds with one another, with litigants on appeal considered the most conflicted.

However, the Court reports that since inception, the pilot program has resulted in a 52% settlement success rate. I find that astonishing, given the temperment of those participating in an appeal.

As many have commented, it appears family court litigants continue to appreciate an opportunity to "take the law into their own hands" and control the outcome of their dispute. I say that because of the exploding trend toward early settlement of divorce cases through early neutral evaluation. Some counties report 80% of divorce cases settling through ENE.

Last week, I heard grumblings from a court administrator that some lawyers are flustered by the settlement rates. What a shame. I suspect attorneys who work at firms with billable quotas can't stand the idea of losing out on an opportunity to bill hours for the flurry of letters, phone calls, hearings and trials that necessarily accompany conflict-loaded cases.

This appears to be a win-win-win. The courts? Fewer resources needed in family court. The clients? Less cost, less turmoil, more control. The lawyers? A more rewarding, productive practice model.

The keys to success in early resolution, in my mind, are two-fold. You need to find a lawyer with two seemingly competing characteristics: (1) a reputation for success in the courtroom; and (2) a sincere desire to settle matters early. We find that cases tend to settle early when the opposing attorney knows we aren't afraid to (capably) try cases. But, our goal for every client is to litigate only when absolutely necessary. That combination has worked well for those we represent.

• Child Custody;
• Parenting Time
• Child Support;
• Property Valuation;
• Property Division;
• Debt Division;
• Spousal Maintenance; and
• Attorney's Fees

Depending upon the preference of the mediator, and the parties, the mediator may work with the participants in one large group, or may bounce back and forth between two conference rooms.

The mediators that we utilize are experienced family practitioners with specialized training in alternative dispute resolution. Fees for mediation are typically split between the parties. Mediators charge an hourly rate for their services.

Mediation is a much less expensive option than traditional litigation, and leaves the parties in control of the case outcome. The case may be resolved much quicker and the relationship between ex-spouses tends to be much more respectful after reaching a collective settlement. Children are the direct beneficiaries of this improved level of communication.

For these reasons, we strongly encourage our clients to participate in the mediation process. Our commitment to those we represent involves taking the least expensive road to resolution first. Certainly, if we can't settle a case, we're prepared to take it to trial. But, most clients appreciate our common sense approach to concluding the dissolution process. 

Couples can divert from the court system and meet with qualified "neutrals" who will facilitate settlement discussions and (unlike traditional mediation) offer opinions about the merits of a party's position. If successful, the process can save litigants months of emotionally-charged litigation and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and costs.

Five Anoka County judges have agreed to participate in the program, including Judge Sharon Hall who says that the early neutral process will allow litigants to "keep some control over their situation." The family law section of the Anoka County Bar Association has been a driving force behind the program, which provides litigants with yet another alternative to traditional litigation.

One big difference between the program in Anoka and Hennepin County involves funding. While Hennepin County covers the bulk of the costs for litigants, the Anoka County program has a very limited budget. Work is done by local lawyers, not county employees, on a sliding fee scale.

Today, a party to a divorce in Minnesota must merely demonstrate that there has been an "irretrievable breakdown" in the marital relationship. One spouse must simply acknowledge as much, and the court will grant their request to dissolve the marriage. A relatively low threshold - and a tough pill to swallow for those who feel that there is no "justice" in their case unless the court takes into account marital misconduct.

Potential clients often ask, "Should I fight the divorce?" Yes, if you intend to do so outside of the legal arena through counseling or therapy. Once it is obvious that the marriage cannot be saved, your resistence should be limited to that which is necessary to obtain a favorable court order. Not wanting the divorce can be used as leverage against your spouse if they are anxious to conclude matters. Often, the impatient spouse will buy a quick resolution by making an extremely attractive settlement offer. This strategy should be balanced against overdoing it. If you are fighting the dissolution process out of anger or spite, you are likely to cause significant economic and emotional harm to you, your spouse and your children.