Judges don’t make decisions inside the Collaborative Process (except, depending on jurisdiction, whether to ratify agreements). Yet their influence over the future of Collaborative Divorce is profound. Where judges go, lawyers follow, as do mental health professionals and financial professionals who work within the family law system. That makes judicial understanding of Collaborative Practice critically important, even when judges are not directing the process itself.
When judges have an incomplete or distorted view of Collaborative Divorce, the ripple effects extend far beyond the courtroom. Referrals shift. Professional confidence wavers. Growth slows. The process gets a bad reputation.
The challenge is that many judges are never aware that an uncontested case before them was successfully resolved via Collaborative Divorce. But it can be all too obvious when a Collaborative Process terminates.
This is not a failure of the judiciary. It is a visibility problem. And visibility problems are solved with context and information.
Why Judicial Reception of Collaborative Practice Varies
In reviewing Collaborative outcomes and speaking with judges across jurisdictions, a consistent pattern emerges.
Judges with a background in family law tend to be receptive to Collaborative Practice. They understand that divorce is not only a legal restructuring, but also a financial and emotional transition. A process designed to address all three dimensions feels logical and familiar.
Judges without that background often approach Collaborative Divorce with more skepticism. Some worry about accountability. Others question efficiency and efficacy. Some express concern about whether power imbalances are adequately addressed.
In most cases, these concerns are not philosophical. They are experiential. Judges form impressions based on the cases they see and the information they have.
The Visibility Gap: Why Judges See Termination, Not Resolution
Successful Collaborative Divorce cases typically resolve without judicial involvement beyond approval of final documents. They conclude quietly, efficiently, and without adversarial motion practice. Without a lawyer making a judge aware that the agreement was reached via the Collaborative Process, the judge has no context. Terminated Collaborative cases, by contrast, commonly land in court.
Over time, this creates a skewed sample. From the bench, Collaborative cases may appear disproportionately likely to fail simply because those are the cases judges are aware of. The vast majority of matters that resolve successfully through the Collaborative Process never get their attention.
Fortunately, we now have data that can begin to help with this misperception.
What the Florida Data Shows and Why It Matters
To better understand how Collaborative Divorce functions in practice, Dr. Randy Heller and I (Adam B. Cordover) examined data collected by the Florida Academy of Collaborative Professionals between 2014 and 2024. The data was submitted by Collaborative team members, most often during post-case debriefs, and reflects nearly 300 reported Collaborative matters across the state.
Our analysis of the data found that approximately 85 percent of Collaborative Divorce cases reached full resolution without litigation. This result was nearly identical to the success rates in a 2010 study from the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, which looked at nearly a thousand Collaborative Matters throughout the U.S. and showed an 86% resolution rate. Across time and geography, the Collaborative Process demonstrates a consistent ability to resolve even complex family matters outside of court.
The FACP findings were published in an article Dr. Heller and I authored in the Florida Bar Family Law Section Commentator Magazine (Volume XLV, Issue 1, 2025), analyzing the reported Florida cases in detail.
Placed in context, this data changes how termination should be understood. Terminated cases are not representative of Collaborative Practice as a whole. They are the exception.
Why Outcome Data Matters to Judges
When judges understand the broader data, the rare Collaborative case that reaches them looks different.
Termination no longer appears to be evidence that Collaborative Practice is fragile or ineffective. Instead, it becomes clear that the Collaborative Process is intentionally designed to identify and exit cases that cannot be ethically or safely resolved within it, or where the Clients were just not yet ready to agree.
Outcome data does not ask judges to endorse Collaborative Practice. It allows them to accurately contextualize the limited slice of Collaborative cases they encounter.
Judicial Influence Extends Beyond Decision-Making
Even though judges do not participate in the Collaborative Process itself, their perceptions shape the professional ecosystem around them.
Lawyers pay close attention to judicial attitudes when advising clients. Mental health professionals and financial professionals who regularly work in family law environments also take cues from how courts respond to different processes. Over time, judicial skepticism can quietly chill referrals and interdisciplinary participation, even without any formal ruling against Collaborative Divorce.
Conversely, when judges have an accurate understanding of Collaborative outcomes, Collaborative Practice becomes normalized rather than viewed as risky or exceptional.
And, fortunately, even beyond providing courts with the data, we Collaborative Professionals can take steps to make judges aware of resolved matters.
Making Collaborative Success More Visible in Court Filings
Because perception is shaped by experience, Collaborative professionals can help address the visibility gap through intentional and respectful practice choices.
One such choice is language, and how we title documents. Instead of filing a generic marital settlement agreement, practitioners can title the document a “Collaborative Marital Resolution Agreement.” What’s more, resolution more accurately reflects what the clients achieved. Few people aspire to “settle.” Most want to resolve.
Similarly, parenting plans in Collaborative cases are rarely about teaching someone how to parent. Rather, they tend to be about structuring a future of shared responsibility. Labeling these documents “Collaborative Co-Parenting Plans” aligns the language with the substance of the work.
Titling for court education does not have to stop at agreements. You can name your initiating document “Petition for Dissolution of Marriage (Utilizing Collaborative Process).” If a final hearing is required in your jurisdiction, you can file a “Notice of Final Hearing (For Collaborative Divorce).”
And, by the way, if you are representing a client where the spouse or their attorney has not (yet) agreed to a Collaborative Process, you might consider adding a line in the petition/complaint saying “[Name] wishes to resolve this matter amicably via the Collaborative Family Law Process.”
Courts take cues from the documents they review. Clear and consistent naming helps judges associate finalized agreements and court filings with the Collaborative Process that produced them.
Introducing the Team at the Final Hearing
For those jurisdictions that require them, final hearings offer a rare opportunity for judges to see Collaborative Practice in full context.
In jurisdictions where remote hearings are common, it may even be feasible in appropriate cases for the full Collaborative team to attend by Zoom. Seeing lawyers, financial professionals, and mental health professionals together reinforces that Collaborative Practice is structured, ethical, and professional.
Judges rarely see the interdisciplinary team that supports families through Collaborative Divorce. Final hearings provide a respectful opportunity for that visibility.
Why This Matters Across Jurisdictions
The dynamics described here are not unique to Florida. Courts everywhere see a distorted sample of Collaborative cases, and professionals everywhere face the same challenge of explaining a process that succeeds quietly.
Judges do not need persuasion. They need context.
By pairing data with intentional, transparent practice choices, Collaborative professionals can help courts develop a more accurate understanding of what Collaborative Practice already achieves for families. When judges see the full picture, the Collaborative Process is no longer defined by the rare cases that terminate, but by the many that resolve with dignity, structure, and care.
---
Adam B. Cordover is a member of My Collaborative Team. He is managing attorney of Family Diplomacy: A Collaborative Law Firm, with offices by appointment in Tampa, St. Petersburg, Sarasota. Adam is co-author of an American Bar Association book on Collaborative Family Law and a former Board member and former Chair of the Research Committees of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals and Florida Academy of Collaborative Professionals. He has trained judges, lawyers, financial professionals, and mental health professional in Collaborative Divorce and other forms of dispute resolution throughout the United States, Canada, Israel, and France. Adam accepts clients throughout the State of Florida. You can learn more or schedule a virtual planning meeting at FamilyDiplomacy.com.
