The believing game, the doubting game, and collaborative law: A reply to Penelope Bryan.

In her article (see record 2000-05399-010) in this issue, P. Bryan measured collaborative law by whether it improves the economic conditions of women after divorce, arguing that far broader reform of divorce laws is required to achieve that goal. Collaborative law aims at different goals. Bryan also argued that collaborative law resembles mediation, that mediation harms women and children, and that the same will happen in collaborative law. In fact, Bryan makes faulty analogies between mediation and collaborative law, misconstrues the literature on mediation, and criticizes collaborative law for human failings arising in any profession or dispute resolution modality. Fair-minded research questions would serve the evolution of this new model better than such ill-founded arguments in support of apparently preconceived conclusions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)