Just about everyone can pinpoint something they dislike about their job. For family court judges, I imagine it’s high-conflict divorces with their outrageous pettiness, accusations and scorched-earth tactics. “There are things in life that aren’t the most pleasant,” says Associate Chief Justice John Rooke of the Court of Queen’s Bench when I ask him if judges grit their teeth when divorcing couples duke it out in court.

“We can tell you horror stories of people who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers and experts and still haven’t resolved their dispute,” he says. Some couples simply can’t be persuaded to set aside their acrimony and reach divorce or separation agreements with maturity and respect.

For them, the courtroom becomes a war zone and their children pawns in a sad drama that’s both financially and emotionally costly. “It’s a nasty piece of business and human nature is what it is,” explains Rooke.

Thankfully, however, more and more divorcing couples are using an out-of-court settlement process known as collaborative family law to amicably go their separate ways.

It’s easier, cheaper than years of litigation and spares families the agony of endless tit-for-tat sparring and recriminations. Edmonton’s collaborative family law group just celebrated its 10th anniversary. Calgary has also had a chapter for a decade and there are similar groups elsewhere in Alberta.

Blood-letting. What began as a few lawyers tired of the blood-letting in court moving into collaborative law has become a group that now includes financial and mental health professionals.

On board, for instance, is Edmonton psychologist Graeme Clark, who offers his skills as a divorce coach and child specialist as part of what is formally known as the Association of Collaborative Family Professionals.

“There’s a legal divorce but there’s an emotional divorce, there’s a financial divorce and there’s a children’s divorce, so you have to cover all those bases,” he says.

“We help people with the emotional and communication parts of a divorce.”

Clark often meets with each divorcing parent about the kids, then talks separately to the children. Then he gives feedback to the parents and the overall collaborative law team on what’s best for the kids.

As part of the procedure, the husband, wife and their lawyers sign agreements to negotiate in good faith. If the conflict resolution process breaks down, the lawyers are not allowed to represent the parties in court. The couple and the lawyers involved pledge consensus and co-operation, rather than combat and confrontation.

In Calgary and Edmonton, there are now more than 120 collaborative family law professionals helping couples divorce with honesty and integrity instead of attacking each other like pitbulls in court.

“There are so many reasons why it’s just a great asset and a great alternative to the litigation model,” says lawyer Pierre Boileau, who helped found the Edmonton collaborative family law group.

“The big one is the fact that it keeps the parties in the driver’s seat. They drive the bus.”

A veteran family lawyer, he saw the ripple effect of acrimonious divorce on extended family members and figured there had to be a better way than litigation.

In a bitter custody fight in court, judge-ordered psychological assessments alone can cost $20,000, says Boileau. “Can you find a more perfect example of where the parties have no control?”

The average collaborative family law divorce takes four to six meetings, a lot faster than going to court, points out Sid Kobewka, chair of the Edmonton group. “When you agree you’re not going to court, I think you work extra hard at understanding and trying to get to a solution,” he says.

“What we’re trying to do is get underneath what the parties are arguing over and find out what their real needs are,” he adds. Adds Justice Rooke: “We’re very high on it. It’s another method of turning down the temperature on domestic disputes.”