Georgie Binks is a freelance writer living in Toronto. She is a graduate of Queen's University and writes for the Toronto Star, National Post, and Chatelaine. She has written for the Globe and Mail, Homemakers, Elle, Glow and Style at Home, as well as salon.com. Georgie is a former CBC radio and television reporter and editor.

Recently, a friend asked for the name of a family law lawyer. Up until then, his greatest fear was dying of cancer or missing a mortgage payment.

When I told him he'd likely need $5,000 for a retainer, just to get in to see a lawyer, he screamed. Welcome to the world of family—or anti-family — law, as it should be known. Anyone who has suffered through a divorce knows that $5,000 is pocket change in this world. Yes, some people manage cheap divorces, but your normal everyday working class slob slaps down the equivalent of their kids' college education as they wend their way through the legal system.

Here are couple of examples: One woman says, "We've spent $100,000 fighting over 25 cents and we're still not done." Another woman, with a salary of $70,000, spent $30,000 taking her husband to court to establish his salary for child support, which only ended up providing $1,200 a month for the kids. He was offering less than half that. In five years, she'll break even.

Divorce costs take toll on kids

Divorce is extremely costly and takes money away from those who need it most — the kids. Counsellors, lawyers and judges all make noble statements about how important the kids are, but if they really cared, divorce wouldn't be near anyone who stands to make between $200 and $600 an hour off of it.

There has to be a better way than the legal system to deal with divorce. Because dismantling a family is so expensive these days, people without the financial resources to hire a lawyer either go without proper child support or go without access to their kids. Others dip into their savings and go for it, while still others show up in court without a lawyer.

In recent years, more than half those appearing in family court represented themselves. If more than half of population can't afford to use the system in place, what's the point of the system? Others, who initially think they can afford a lawyer, soon realize they were dreaming. The wealthiest partner always wins. It's a common tactic to delay things so much that the other spouse, depleted financially, caves.

Are there really cheaper roads to divorce?

Collaborative law is touted as the newer, cheaper way. Divorcing spouses attend four-way meetings (that's right, you still need a lawyer) after agreeing not to go to court. However, one woman I know spent $30,000 on this process. Her ex kept fighting certain issues even though his lawyer advised otherwise.

Two other methods of solving divorce woes — still within the legal system but supposedly not as expensive — are mediation and arbitration. What few are told when they embark upon these routes is that both utilize a mediator/arbitrator, often a lawyer who is charging. (People are also advised to bring a lawyer with them) Judith Huddart, past chair of the Canadian Bar Association's Family Law Section says, "You have to pay the arbitrator, but you don't pay a judge. Often people say the arbitration process is more streamlined. Why isn't the court process better?"

When people fight in the legal system, it gets dirty. Take Tie Domi's divorce. Adultery isn't the only grounds for divorce anymore, so why mention it in court documents and more specifically with a name attached? Divorce documents are a matter of public record and allegations in the documents aren't always true. If those allegations had been omitted, the rumours would have remained rumours and never hit the media. It must have been pretty awful to be the Domi and Stronach kids going to school next day. This was in the best interest of the kids?

Lawyers' fees too high for most people

I would suggest paying lawyers a flat fee for divorce. Lawyers argue it wouldn't work because some divorces are more complicated. However, many aren't. Says Huddart, "Some lawyers fuel the flames. People come in feeling very hard done by, and a lawyer says they'll fight for them. The next thing you know they're in court and can't turn back."

Judges certainly see it every day when people appear before them without a lawyer. Madam Justice Marvyn Koenigsberg of the Supreme Court of British Columbia told a conference on access to justice last spring that lawyers' fees are completely beyond the reach of most individual litigants.

One judge suggests, "Divorce should be taken out of the courts because it's adversarial and it helps create a contest between people. The costs are astronomical. People are married for ten or fifteen years and build up equity in their homes and it ends up with the lawyers."

In fact, the biggest issues are over money and custody. There are no great legal principles being fought over. Much of the work could be done by public servants.

Legal document not all it's cracked up to be

Right now, people feel divorce needs to be in the legal system because it gives their agreements some kind of validity, that there is power in a legal document. Ever tried to enforce a separation agreement? People ignore what's written in them every day. You have to go to court to enforce it. And yes, that means spending money once again. Next month, the Canadian Judicial Council is releasing suggestions for court administrators on what information they should make available to people representing themselves. It will also include advice for judges on how to approach proceedings when self-represented litigants appear before them. This is one way to deal with those who can't afford soaring legal costs and take on the battle themselves. But we need others.

Four years ago, the federal government proposed changes to the Divorce Act on the terms custody and access, which would have focussed on parental responsibility as opposed to parental rights. Nothing's been done in that regard. And nothing has ever been done to address the cost of divorce.

Huddart says, "Legal aid needs to be available on a much broader basis in family law because it can affect these children's lives for years to come. Aren't children important? Everyone says they are but they don't put the money behind it to back it up."

If the government, lawyers, judges and the rest of us really want to help the unwitting victims of divorce — children — then we have to come up with a new way to deal with divorcing couples. We don't make married couples sit down and sign a long legal document before they take their vows, nor do we do it when they have children. It's only when couples divorce that they realize what the legal implications were. The legal system may be the best place for those accused of crimes, but it's not the place to settle the break-up of a family.