There are many reasons that there are currently fewer Collaborative cases than there are mediation and litigation cases.  Just to name a few of the challenges: the process is newer and less well known to the general public; there is still confusion about the cost and benefits of the process; and there aren't as many practitioners trained in the process as there are in mediation (and no additional training is "required" to go to court).  Collaborative Law, like mediation, requires that both parties choose the process.  If one party wants to go to court then the other essentially has no choice.   There are many seminars on informing the reluctant opponent, and about educating other professionals regarding Collaborative Law and hopefully these strategies will help more cases resolve amicably. However, there will always be some cases where one side chooses to hire an attorney who believes litigation is the best route, or at the very least is not willing to be disqualified

In the case of Bower v. Bournay-Bower , the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that Judges in the Probate and Family Court cannot grant a Parent Coordinator  binding authority over the objection of one of the parties.  However, the SJC went much further then necessary in order to open the door for what might be the "appropriate circumstances" to order a Parent Coordinator. In Bower , the SJC summarized the trial judge's order as requiring a parent coordinator to: "hear the parties' current and future disputes regarding custody and visitation in the first instance, before the parties could file any action regarding these disputes in court. The order also granted the parent coordinator the authority to make binding decisions on matters of custody and visitation and provided that these decisions must be complied with by the parties as if they were court orders unless one of the parties were to go to the court before the decision was to take effect