I have been watching this show this evening. I feel bad for all parties involved. However, nothing is said about parents that don't bother with their children, or they are not paying support. How can we det a divorce, when we can't find the other spouse? How can we divorce, when there isn't money to do do?

I know this is tearing up my kids, and myself. My boys have gone through hell in the last 7 years, due to all this.

collaborative divorce is amazing but on Feb. 1st
divorcewealth.com will set the new standard for divorce around the world with the premise that "your divorce has already been settled, you just need to find your divorce match".
See you soon

Living through the immoral nightmare endorsed by the conventionl system, one wonders why collaborative is not mandatory. Both parents and the kids end up better off, the only ones left wanting are the lawyers. Sounds good to me!

watched the show and i was very impressed
Do the joint custody laws and child support apply in Ontario? I loved the 2 lawyers and how they worked things out.

d.

I watched the documentary to see if my divorce was close. I saw my own divorce in many frames and heart felt moments. The kids and I appreciated the light and attention CBC spent on the end of the institution of marriage. I remember my friend telling me we have a choice on how we react to the end of the relationship, I think my children benefited from this pause.

Thank-you for this excellent and evocative documentary.

My (ex)wife and I have been dragged through more than two years of legal hell where the family courts legislate a broken, adversarial, and biased system, (in our case) reducing women to child-like victums without considering truth and justice.

Our lawyers play freely into a mafiaiic cartel and work with salacious indignation, draining the both of us of our economic and emotional capital, all the while not truly seeing how destructive this is for all of us .

I can only hope that we continue to be challenged by the need to keep our children's interests first and reconcile ourselves to the truth of what matters. My hope is to keep a strong grip onto my faith and look for brighter days ahead. After all, our children will be in our lives for a very long time and we need to keep reminding ourselves that we are Garrett and Aleya's parent's for life. No lawyer's bill can compare to the worth of this.

Great show, I found it really engrossing. One area I wonder about is how young adult children, say 20-25 years old, respond to their parent's separation and divorce. I fear that these young people have so many ways available to them to express their sadness, anger, resentment, etc, whether by depression, substance abuse, sex, etc, etc. At least little kids still place a lot of trust in what each parent tells them, whereas I'm not so sure this holds for older individuals. Another option for young adults is to simply refuse to participate in any discussions, or perhaps even to move out of the family home. Any ideas or experiences to share? Thanks.

Watching How To Divorce it becomes SO OBVIOUS that one must aquire a licence to drive a car. Yet, when it comes to kids, none is required. What a HUGE GLARING OVERSIGHT!

Canada should immediately institute a license requirement to parent a child after viewing the sorry failures of all these parents, especially Sally, the worst offender!
SHAME ON ALL OF YOU TIMES 10!

As a family law lawyer, I found the documentary excellent in showing the challenges for parents going through separation, however, there is one misleading statement in the video that definitely needs to be corrected. Viewers are left with the impression that if parents decide to share parenting of their children equally, no child support is payable. That is not what Canadian law says. In a situation where each parent has at least 40% of the day to day responsibility, it is possible to deviate from the fixed amounts payable under the Child Support Guidelines, but that might just mean a lower amount of child support is payable. For example, if one parent earns $30,000 and the other earns $70,000, how could it be in the children's best interests to leave the $30,000 income parent with half the financial responsibility for the children?

Further expanding on child support payments, if child custody is shared equally by both parents (at least 40%), the parent with the higher income is offset against other parent's lower income and child support payments are based on the net difference. This creates a fair and equitable balance so each household has the proper financial resources.

Kudos to CBC for addressing this in a documentary format. It was riveting to watch and having been through a divorce myself, painful at times.

I too am curious about applying these principles to young adults. What about a non-cooperative spouse who is intent on alienating the children from the other parent? You can't force a 16 year old into counselling. What are the repercussions for the alienating parent?

Please consider doing a follow up on How to divorce a narcissist and not wreck the children. And then how to repair the adult children of alienation.

Sign me a grieving mother who hasn't seen her adult children for almost 4 years....

The biggest problem with Divorce is the legal system, lawyers and vindictive spouses.

Somehow between a system that is designed to be adversarial and heartbreak that manifests itself into the most vial and reprehensible conduct between spouses, no one comes out a winner except for the lawyers who's main focus is the money and "victory" at all costs,

Thank you for your clarification re: cases where custody is shared 50/50 and still someone pays child support.

From the perspective of lawyers, we surely can appreciate why concerns are raised about using the phrase: “Truly shared 50-50 custody generally means neither parent pays the other support.” I know in your world, that phrase may cause problems because it fuels that group whose motivation for seeking 50-50 custody is more monetary in nature. But in Canada, that group relatively speaking is small. And of course, there are those parents who do have 50/50 and one still pays child support. But in your world, the statistics come ONLY from those who have engaged in a formal legal process. Many many Canadians arrange affairs themselves now, without the use of lawyers, and so the word "generally" was used to reflect the general experience of Canadians breaking up, not just those who worked with lawyers.

I am uneasy about using statistics collected only through the court-related dissolution of formal marriages to project a reality that is not consistent with the way most people in Canada break up. People who end up in lawyer’s offices tend to go there because they have a problem they can’t resolve themselves. Their experience isn’t representative of the majority of Canadians. In lawyers’ experience, YES, you may see more cases where 50-50 joint custody still means someone pays support and someone may be agitating for it because they don’t want to pay support. You see the cases where there is an unresolved dispute.

But in this documentary we are trying to reflect the reality of life post-separation for the majority of Canadians, which is frustrating because – most of the break-ups in Canada aren’t registered in an easy way for statistics gathering. The only true statistics available are the ones culled from official divorces registered with the courts and I think it’s unfair to most separating Canadians to view their reality through a prism that applies to so few.

Here is what we DO know. Statistics Canada released findings in its General Social Survey of June 13, 2007. In it, “ over one third of parents who had recently been separated or divorced when the survey was taken, did NOT have agreements in place for child support or for residential custody. Among those who did, many worked out arrangements between themselves without lawyers, judges or other professionals.” Those people do not register on your radar, because they don’t need a lawyer or other professional to work out a problem. From anecdotal and web-based research, many of these people who work out 50-50 joint custody tend to be amicable, around the same income – and prefer to sit down every few months or so and rationalize expenses between them. They verbally agree as to who pays what – eg: he pays for hockey, she’ll pick up piano tuition. Neither parent pays child support per se. Now that represents what Stats Can was able to find out from the break up of formal marriages, BUT..

(Again, from the General Social Survey of 2007) Between 2001 and 2006 – 2 million people broke up – half left a marriage, half left a common-law relationship. That’s a million relationship break-ups over which NO ONE has collected any data. Some of them may indeed end up in your offices, but experts extrapolate that the vast majority of the demise of these relationships, also do not end up in lawyer’s offices, or in court.

In statistics gathered from formal court proceedings which involved shared custody (and there aren’t many here either) In 2004, Canada’s Department of Justice issued a BACKGROUND PAPER called “Shared Custody Arrangements: Pilot Interviews With Parents.” In it, 31 couples responded and over half - 17 of them, had no formal child support mechanism in place.

In speaking with a few mediators and many separated and divorced couples – and I have spoken with many- outside of the court world, truly 50-50 joint custody generally did mean, no one paid the other support. The word "generally" of course, allows for exceptions

I hope this helps you understand my perspective and happy to continue the discussion. Clear as mud?

cheers Maureen

While the documentary was nice to watch and it is good to see the younger generation really think of the kids first. Truthfully, for every one couple that goes this route another 5 play out their anger towards eachother in the court room with the majority od women preventing children from parenting their kids.

Many times its simply " I wont let him have equal time cause its going to decrease any support I get" is this in the best interests of the kids? and is this how we dont wreck out kids.....preventing them from having a meaningful relationship with dad because mom is too angry?

Sadly the documentary fails to address the inequalities of family law in Canada towards fathers and their right to be in their childrens lives.

Lawyers have a field day with family law abusing the system...og course more lawyers will get into collaborative divorce...who wouldn't want to cash in? and be left not going after this market? many of them practise both!

I hope that women who watch this show can make the proper decisions and put anger out of the equation...kids deserve BOTH parents its not their fault that the two of you couldn't get along. So why make them as the only ones who truly suffer?

Notice that 2/3 of all divorces are initiated by woman. Also notice that in Divorce court Men typically are the biggest losers when it comes to finances, custody rights, and visitation. I would suggest to my brothers from another mother, to avoid marriage at all costs. Stay single and Mingle. Woooooo Weeeeeeee!!!!!!!

It broke my heart to see these children thrown into a situation created by the adults who were supposed to provide them with a safe place, a sense of security and stability. For these children, there's no such thing as a "no-fault divorce" nor do I think there can ever be such a thing as "a good divorce."

When we have children, there is an unwritten, unspoken contract for life, that we have with them. Breaking their lives apart is not part of it. We adults like to think we are doing the best for the kids, but really it's just our own justifications to cover our lack of maturity in dealing poorly with our partners and our own "past stuff."

Kim above, wonders about the impact of divorce on these children when they're in their 20s. The counsellor in the film didn't even go further than childhood when discussing the life impact. The greatest consequences will be on teenagers who are already in turmoil trying to build their identities. The devastating effect on the children in the film may not be seen until they become teenagers and start "acting out" with drugs, alcohol, premature sex, trouble with the law, among a variety of self-destructive acts.

For that, we can look at "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: The 25 Year Landmark Study" by Judith S. Wallerstein, Julia M. Lewis and Sandra Blakeslee that became a New York Times bestseller. I don't think we can make premature assumptions about how well the kids are doing. It just looks like we're calming them in the present. Maybe it's just our own rationalization that everything will be alright for them.

I watched this episode and was a little disappointed. I found the situations rather sugar coated. There was not one situation where one partner walked out for another person, tells the child they were leaving and they'd see their other parent infrequently, introduce the child immediately to a new partner etc. How do families manage through something like that? Is the damage done at that point?

On the upside it appears that each of these couples looked to outside counselling before making this painful decision. In any situation where a child is involved it is the responsibility of both parents to seek outside counselling to ensure that this is the decision that is best.

So while this show portrayed the various routes to take in a divorce, by no means did it even come close to addressing some of the more extreme issues and how they may or may not be able to be dealt with collaboratively.

A good start though.

THANK YOU Judith for pointing out that misleading error. I worried about the expectations that would be raised by this show.

I thought this film was basic and misleading. It skimmed over how complex the most collaborative divorce can be. The practicalities and challenges of shared custody were simplified. It was a good starting point, but any concerned and diligent parent proceeding through a divorce has already looked at the research and saw these basics about what, "should be done"...it's the 'how' that gets complicated. Do you live in the same school district? Who takes care of the children's needs (clothes, school supplies, etc) in a so called 50/50 split?

Although I wasn't fond of Sally's approach in the show, I was amazed to see that no one discussed her retirement and the disadvantages she will face because she parented 3 children with her husband. I would like to know if she ever considered forcing him to take responsibility for his children at least 50% of the time, so that she could devote more time to establishing her career security now that she cannot rely on his. Of course, this is not best for the children, but it is not "shared parenting" if she is the only one making sacrafices!

Your never divorced when you have kids.

The kids get it your not together anymore, why do you continue to shelter them from the reality that you don't want to be together anymore. Parenting schedulle should not include both parents together (your not together) Why get divorced it you have to share events with each other, for the kids!

After watching this show I thought the adults showed complete ignorance to what it is their children need. It is a parents responsibility to provide a child with a safe and stable environment. Subjecting children to divorce only shows how immature the adults are, and how selfish they appear by putting their needs and wants first.

It is absolutely horrible that we have to live in a disposable society were we are forced fed psychological BS about how are children are better off living with divorced parents.

The so called adults in the show need to work out their issues for the betterment of the children, and in that sense making a commitment to stay together, if not for them, for the children.

This show only adds to the disgust that I have for those who devalue the love and devotion we need to show our children, to decide what's best for them based upon what's best for us.

I feel sorry for their children and their families, and only hope that they truly put their children first, after-all we invited them into this world.

Regarding the stories on conflict in divorce that extend to what is often termed "Parental Alienation", I am a lawyer of 27 years with a background in child development, and have worked extensively with child psychiatrists, etc., in these cases. This extremely poor behaviour is not just immaturity or combativeness, but speaks to issues of attachment and abandonment, defining the almost incurable nature of Personality Disorders.
It is critical that all the stake-holders in these matters, including clients, lawyers, Judges and those who administer the Court system, understand this clearly and develop strategies to address those who use their children as extensions of their anger in lack of coping or acceptance of the separation itself.
The Unified Family Court and Case Management system as first developed in Hamilton and being refined here in Manitoba, has been a tremendous tool and resource in addressing these most difficult individuals who, unconstrained by any effective system, tend to effectively "tear up the scenery" as their personalities express themselves in these particular circumstances (as they similarly impact on their employment environment or every other interaction that stresses them).

“The divorce machinery” writes Dr. Stephen Baskerville, “has become the most repressive and predatory sector of government ever created in the United States and today's greatest threat to constitutional freedom." (Baskerville, 2009). Same can be said of our Canadian system.

It is no wonder that the divorce industry is a multi-billion dollar business that feeds off the pain and suffering of others, especially by lawyers, judges, psychologists and other "cultural vultures". This is morally unacceptable and diminishes the dignity and integrity of a human being, principally that of children.

The Divorce Act violates basic human rights of non-custodial parents, who are “treated like criminals” by family court, and promotes inequality in parental responsibilities. The Charter of Rights & Freedoms on gender equality is too often violated and ignored by this system of family practice. For some, the Act violates all types of human rights: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Civil Rights, Parents Rights, Children’s Rights, Legal Rights, Democratic Rights, Privacy Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and every other basic human right.

In other words, mothers and fathers should have a seamless and continuous relationship with their children after separation and divorce. "Research shows that if it were an ideal world, children fare better in nurturing two parent families than do those in single-parent and stepfamilies" (http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pdfs/fcs482.pdf).

However, the paramount rights that should be upheld, first and foremost, are those of children. The children's best interest is to be with both parents on a 50-50 timeline, unless a parent has a documented and persistent criminal record of violence or neglect. It’s important to note that the majority of divorced parents are decent people who do not have a history violence or neglect.

The Act's longstanding requirement that those children of divorce should generally have "maximum contact" with both parents after divorce is shockingly de-emphasized. The "maximum contact" principle is intentionally ignored by judges, lawyers and bureaucrats. They hold the scale of justice like a revolver in Russian roulette. This said, it’s a game of predictable chance that uses children as the spinning wheel. Thus, family court and law implicitly promote emotional abuse of children and parental alienation by forcibly separating children from one parent, traditionally the non-residential parent, given the fact that this non-residential parent has had a wholesome relationship with his or her children. This retains both parents’ passion “about being there for all the important moments in the children's lives”.

Family court and law are also responsible for encouraging animosity amongst parents because it has a vested interest in making a load of money off a couple's misery or disagreements. Family court and law should be compassionate and proactive in promoting, even forcing parents through parental plans and mandatory family counseling, to execute their parental responsibilities in fairness to both sexes and children. If both parents were involved with their children during marriage it should be the same after marriage break-up.

It is no surprise that polls show that 80% of Canadians support equal parenting (http://www.familylawwebguide.com.au/spca/pg/news/view/625). Why is the Canadian government so behind in this public opinion? CBC should investigate this.

Finally, in 1998, the SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CHILD CUSTODY AND ACCESS made 48 recommendations to amend the Divorce Act. It was left on the shelf and abandoned for some bizarre reason. What a waste of money and time for Canadians involved in making these recommendations for the better. We must dust off these recommendations and implement them now, chiefly shared parenting. Recommendation 25, states that, “as much as possible, provincial and territorial governments, law societies and court administrators work toward establishing a priority for shared parenting applications, above other family law matters in dispute. (p. 64)” (see: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pad-rpad/rep-rap/sjcarp02.html).

We live in an age of gender equality and parental responsibility. We don’t live in the 60’s anymore when the Divorce Act was written by the Trudeau government and his cronies. I encourage every Canadian to contact their Member of Parliament and make it known that the Divorce Act is appallingly unethical, detrimental to society’s sense of fairness, families, children and is very un-Canadian.