Divorce is so pervasive in the San Fernando Valley just north of the heart of Los Angeles, that one might suspect that everyone who lives there would know all the legal details by now.
Lawyers would be unnecessary unless just to check the final documents.
Not the case.
Even in the exclusive Encino area, Divorce Attorneys are not endangered.
In fact, a common question even there is extremely basic: What's the difference between dissolution and divorce? There isn't one-it's just a difference in terminology.
When you file for divorce, the first document that you file is called a Petition for Dissolution.
In California, a no-fault state, it doesn't matter the reason for the divorce, and it doesn't matter who files first.
The person who files first is called the Petitioner and the one who answers is the Respondent.
However, the court does not care who is who, and does not look more or less favorably on the Petitioner over the Respondent.
The reason most commonly stated in the Petition for the divorce is simply "irreconcilable differences.
" The only other choices are incurable insanity, bigamous marriage, incestuous marriage, or voidable marriage based on one party's age at the time of marriage, prior existing marriage, unsound mind, fraud, force, or physical incapacity.
It is exceedingly rare to see a Petition for Dissolution based on any of these reasons.
Even though there is basically only one reason for divorce, "irreconcilable differences," there are different kinds of divorces.
They are:

• Summary Dissolution - where the parties have no children, few assets, and a short marriage.
  The paperwork is simpler, the filing fee is cheaper, and you may be able to do it without a lawyer.
  But if you own a home in California, chances are your assets are too high to qualify for a summary dissolution.
  
• Default - where one party files for dissolution and the other party just doesn't answer or participate.
  In the absence of opposition, the filing party basically gets whatever he or she asks for, in the discretion of the court.
  
• Mediated - a trained, neutral mediator will help both parties work out a settlement agreement, which will be reduced to a writing and stipulated judgment, and prevents a contested trial.
  It is not necessarily cheap, unless you compare it to the cost of a contested divorce with numerous court appearances.
  
• Collaborative - each spouse hires an attorney, but it is similar to a mediated divorce, in that the assets are distributed and other issues are resolved through the process of 4-way meetings with attorneys and parties, and the agreement is reduced to a stipulated judgment.
  
• Arbitrated - similar to a contested divorce, except that, instead of going to a courthouse, the party hires an arbitrator, usually a retired judge, who will hear both sides and make a decision, which will be binding on both sides.
  It is similar to a contested divorce, but it's faster, and slightly less expensive.
  It's also more private, because documents that are filed in connection with an arbitration are not available for public viewing, as court files are.
  
• Contested - the parties hire lawyers and battle in court over issues of property distribution and custody and support.
  This can be hugely expensive, can go on for years, and benefit nobody but the attorneys involved.
  It is also stressful, damaging to children, and makes it very difficult to maintain a cordial relationship with your future ex-spouse, which is critical for the emotional health of the children you share together.
  This is not a method I recommend, and try to avoid at all costs.
  

Which one do you need? It depends on the unique circumstances of your particular case.
It is generally in the interest of all parties, especially any children, to try the friendly, less expensive, quickest method first, and see what happens.
Sometimes it's necessary to get "down and dirty" in a fight with the other side, and your attorney should be ready, willing and able to assist the client in doing this.
But it should be a last resort.