BREAKING DOWN A MARRIAGE: HOW CAN IT BE DONE?
This is the first part of a series on the different ways divorce can be settled. This article was first published by OTP Law Corporation.
Divorce is a harrowing process. Beyond the emotional trauma, there are typically a host of issues and complications, especially if there are children or substantial assets involved. These issues, big or small, need to be addressed before the divorce can be finalised.
Sometimes, parties are able to come to an agreement on their own and thus result in an uncontested divorce. However, divorce will often be contested as spouses will usually not be able to totally agree on all aspects, especially for ancillary matters. In many cases, parties turn to litigation to resolve these issues, battling in court for every inch they can squeeze out of the other with rarely any clear winner at the end. This begs the question – is there a better way to resolve these issues?
There are four main ways in which divorce matters can be resolved: being a litigant-in-person, mediation, collaborative practice, and litigation. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, and choosing one depends on the needs and interests of the party in question. Ultimately, this article hopes to show that there may be a better path towards a more friendly and peaceful divorce than litigation, which perhaps should be a last resort.
The first method parties can opt for is to handle their case by themselves, i.e. being a LIP. This method entails either party, or both, choosing not to engage lawyers to act on his/her behalf in the matter and instead, opting to complete the divorce process himself/herself. They would then be responsible for everything normally be handled by a divorce lawyer – drafting and filing paperwork (including pleadings, motions, affidavits, and court forms); communicating with the other party or his/her lawyer; doing the relevant legal research; and attending and presenting arguments at hearings… That’s a lot of work.Clearly, unless the LIP is already familiar with the court process and the law, this requires a great deal of preparation and research on his/her part on top of everything else that’s going on. Between complex legal jargon, legal processes, and financial implications (amongst many other things), not everyone has the time and ability to seek out the necessary information, especially in more complex cases. Being a LIP is no walk in the park, and is a solution perhaps not suited to most cases.
On the bright side, being a LIP cuts out a bulk of the costs of that come with litigation. With legal fees typically amounting to thousands of dollars, representing yourself will cut down on money spent finalising the divorce, leaving more in the pocket to settle other issues. Further, LIPs have full control over the legal arguments, strategies, and communication. This gives them the chance to make decisions independently.
Conversely, there are two main downsides to being a LIP. Firstly, acting for yourself means facing the legal and emotional toil yourself. This can be overwhelming, due to the stressful nature of appearing in court, the emotionally-charged nature of divorce, and frustration during hearings. There is also a wide array of issues to manage – from drafting to research to meeting court deadlines. Unless parties are familiar with the processes, it is likely to be an overwhelming and time-consuming endeavour to find and internalise all the information.
Second, while a LIP can do research and follow the guides on the Family Justice Courts website (link: https://www.familyjusticecourts.gov.sg/Common/Pages/divorce.aspx) to understand what they need to do, they run the risk of not putting in enough useful information to build their case. This is of course, not their fault – after all, LIPs are not necessarily familiar with the relevant case law and documents, as well as what kind of evidence would be helpful. LIPs may also not be fully familiar with the implications of the decisions he/she makes, leading to the risk of making irreversible mistakes which have severe consequences in the long run. This also leads to a general concern by opposing counsel over whether decisions and agreements are made knowingly and voluntarily, especially with regard to bigger issues such as children, retirement benefits, or substantial assets.
Clearly, this method is extremely taxing for parties as there are many things to take into consideration. In this light, this method is perhaps best for two specific cases: firstly, in uncontested divorce, parties with no children, little assets and debts to divide, and comparable income; or secondly, in contested divorce, where disputes are not too substantial, and parties are already familiar with the court processes and laws, and are able to keep a level head during the proceedings.
What is Project Restructure?
Project Restructure is a multi-disciplinary initiative by the founding lawyers of OTP Law Corporation to provide support as you embark onto a new phase in life, whether family or work. Collaborating with our affiliates in PracticeForte Advisory, our approach brings together professional expertise in areas of law, finance, psychology, mediation, counselling and therapy.
If life is about solving one problem to the next let us help – with our suite of expertise honed further with experience.
- Therapeutic Justice in Family Cases: The Mediation Advocate (Part 5)
- The Future of Family Practice
- UZN v UZM – Dissipation of Assets and Adverse Inference– A Lawyer’s Perspective Part 2
- UZN v UZM – Dissipation of Assets and Adverse Inference: A Lawyer’s Perspective Part 1 Rationale Behind Division of Matrimonial Assets
- UZN vs UZM: Undisclosed Assets and Adverse Inference- A Forensic Accountant’s Perspective
- The Life Cycle Of A Start-Up: From Cradle To Grave (Part 1)
- Therapeutic Justice in Family Cases –The Mediator (Part 4)
- Numbers Tell The Story: Therapeutic Justice in Family Cases – The Accountant (Part 3)
- Therapeutic Justice in Family Cases – The Lawyer (Part 2)
- Therapeutic Justice in Family Cases (Part 1)
- “No one is Above The Law- Probation Sentencing Guidelines in the Case of PP v Terence Siow Kai Yuan”
- “COVID-19 Temporary Measures Act- Navigating Temporary Relief With A Peace Approach: Part 1”
- Working from Home – 5 Doable Steps to Protecting Confidential Data
- Working Remotely – What Do I Need to Do?
- Adopting Work-From-Home For Your Company? These Singapore Government Grants Can Help
- Managing your children well during the “circuit -breaker” period.
- CCB Time Capsule
- Covid, Co-Parenting? Just Cooperate
- PF Mediate – MEDIATION FOR HAGUE CONVENTION & RELOCATION CASES PART 2 – Travelling Mediators
- Collaborative Divorce
- An interview with PF’s Co-Founder Susan Tay
- Are Parents Always Liable for Their Children’s Maintenance?
- A Thankful Attendee of the Cross-Border Mediation Masterclass
- Recognition of Foreign Divorce In The Philippines: What You Need To Know
- Adopting the peace approach to avoid unnecessary litigation: The Case of Goh Rosaline v Goh Lian Chyu and another
- Adopting the Peace Approach in the interest of the Child
- Litigation & Mediation: The Hybrid Method
- Cyber law in Singapore: A Quick Overview
- Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act 2019: What is its impact on legitimate businesses?
- Collaborative Practice
- Mediation and Civil Disputes
- Caught Between The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea
- Breaking down a marriage: How can it be done?
- The ABCs of Trusts
- Start Anew, Start Afresh!
- Voice of The Unmarried Mother Heard
- Reflections of An Accounts Intern
- Portrait of the Old Timer – The Not-So-Private-Nor-Secret Life of a Sole Proprietor of a Singapore Law Practice 1990-2018 (with 2-year hiatus 2005-2007)
- Mediation for Hague Convention and Relocation Cases
- PracticeForte 3rd Anniversary
- Between A Rock And A Hard Place – Case Study of UFZ V UFY
- Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: The Other Side
- Mediation for *Hague and Relocation Cases
- On the Move – Parental Relocation in Singapore
- PracticeForte Day Out – FAST
- Basic Guide To Mediation
- Third Party’s Interest In Matrimonial Assets: The Case of UDA v UDB
Please note that the topics of discussion on this website are prepared for the purposes of general information only. They do not constitute legal advice. No information presented on this website, or communicated to our through the website is intended to create a lawyer-client relationship. Therefore you are strongly encouraged to seek legal counsel for appropriate advise,