Mediation and collaborative divorce are designed to be less adversarial than litigation — but they are not less technical. The same child support tables, SSAG formulas, and tax rules apply regardless of whether you resolve your case in a courtroom or across a mediator's table. Arriving at mediation without your own numbers means relying entirely on the other side's calculations or the mediator's estimate. Running the calculation independently gives you a factual baseline that transforms the conversation from emotional negotiation into evidence-based discussion.

Your SSAG Range: The Numbers That Matter in Negotiation

When you run a calculation, you get three reference points: the lowest amount a court would likely order (Low), the mathematical midpoint (Mid), and the highest amount within the normal range (High). Any proposal within this corridor is defensible. A proposal significantly outside it needs a specific factual justification.

In negotiation theory, this range is called your BATNA — Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. It represents the outcome a court would likely order if negotiation fails and the matter goes to a judge. Knowing your BATNA before you walk into mediation means you can evaluate any proposal against a factual baseline, not just a gut feeling.

What to Prepare Before Mediation

Before your first mediation session, you should run the calculation with accurate inputs and bring the results:

In the Room: Evaluating Proposals

During mediation, proposals may be floated that differ from the guideline calculation. Having your own numbers lets you evaluate each proposal against the SSAG range in real time. If the other party proposes $800/month in spousal support and your calculation shows the Mid is $1,200, you can point to the specific inputs and methodology rather than arguing about what "feels fair."

Scenario comparison is particularly valuable: "What if we change the custody arrangement from sole to shared?" or "What if we include the bonus income?" can be modelled instantly. This turns abstract negotiations into concrete comparisons and helps both parties understand the trade-offs.

Collaborative Divorce and Information Symmetry

In collaborative divorce, both parties and their lawyers commit to resolving the case without going to court. The process works best when both sides have access to the same factual baseline. Traditionally, one lawyer runs DivorceMate and presents the results — but this creates a dynamic where one party is relying on the other party's lawyer's output.

When both parties can independently verify the calculation — using the same inputs and methodology — it reduces the suspicion that the numbers are being manipulated. This is especially important in cases where there are allegations of income hiding or underreporting: each party can model the support at different income levels and see exactly how the numbers change.