00:00 — Nadav answers recurring questions
In this solo episode, Nadav Nishri turns from interviewing guests to explaining his own practice. He responds to questions received by phone and on social media from people considering divorce, protecting their children or seeking cooperation with the other parent. This detailed edited guide follows the correct original Hebrew recording; it is not dubbed audio.
Original episode audio in Hebrew
Original episode video in Hebrew
02:02 — What New Partnership aims to do
Nadav describes a method developed through extensive mediation practice: help people define where they want to arrive, then build a process and agreements toward it together. He hopes for an easier transition and friendly relations. These are aims, not guaranteed speed, happiness or friendship. Participants may instead choose a workable, bounded parenting relationship.
02:48 — The mediator does not choose your life
He contrasts his approach with mediation in which the practitioner identifies interests and steers toward solutions they consider suitable. This is his comparison, not a description of every other mediator. He doubts that a mediator can fully diagnose a couple in the available time. The role is to help participants understand what fits them, rather than impose the mediator’s preferred answer.
04:06 — Start with the future you want
At a painful moment, people may see only the worst parts of the past. Nadav asks what matters in the future instead of letting that moment alone define the coming years. His contrast with a legal focus on past events expresses his approach; relevant facts, rights, disclosure and safety still matter. Shared future goals provide the foundation before working through individual needs.
06:18 — Make the picture concrete
He asks people to imagine feeling well: what work are you doing, how is the connection with your children, what example are you setting, and what relationship exists with the other parent? He likens this to a little guided imagery. The questions need not demand justification for every hope. They open possibilities; they do not compel optimism, reconciliation or contact that is unsafe.
07:29 — Work backwards from the destination
Define longer-term goals and the agreements that could support them, then work from that future back to the present. Nadav prefers stabilising life before examining the past from a stronger position, without defending one fixed narrative. That does not prohibit discussing past pain or seeking therapy now. When choosing a mediator, ask how they work and how much they rely on possible court outcomes versus participants’ own goals.
09:19 — A crisis can be a rebuilding point
Nadav shares his good parenting partnership with Aya and sees divorce as a possible opportunity within a painful crisis. He uses the Hebrew word for crisis through a childbirth-stool image as a metaphor for a new beginning, not proof that suffering always produces growth. Practical cooperation may make illness, swapping days or collecting a forgotten item easier. Circumstances and safety vary; this personal model is not mandatory.
11:37 — Separate the couple relationship from parenting
For him, the agreement is a result; the central work is the transition to parenting after the romantic relationship ends. New romantic relationships may follow. The emotional separation can be painful and take time; his reference to sometimes a year is not a recovery deadline. The aim is a usable parenting framework with room for feelings, not a demand that all parents become friends.
12:24 — Emotions belong in the process
Nadav says this is not a purely technical exercise. He recalls his law degree and subsequent conflict-resolution studies, saying his own law studies did not include classes on child welfare or drafting agreements. This is his educational experience, not a claim about every lawyer or curriculum. Relevant legal expertise remains valuable; mediator and participants should clarify when other professional advice is needed.
13:34 — The initial phone conversation
He describes an initial call with him, booked through the office or scheduling system, to explain approach, practical details and costs and answer what he can. He cannot decide by phone what is right for a particular couple; understanding that needs both participants and a fuller process. His description reflects the service at recording, not a guarantee of current staff availability or identical arrangements.
14:32 — Time to think and learn
After the call, people can reflect, read and ask further questions. He describes sending a freely available booklet, with access then through the main website and other channels, plus podcast and book resources. Information is offered before commitment. The choice to continue remains theirs; an informational guide does not replace individual legal, financial or clinical advice. Current materials and access can be checked with the office.
15:08 — An introductory meeting before committing
He describes a no-cost, no-obligation meeting, seeking to earn trust and give value before payment. It explains process, advice, emotional questions and when and how to talk to children. At recording, an introduction might take half an hour to an hour, with roughly two hours reserved so continuing could be possible. People can leave or choose to proceed. These are historical arrangements, not current booking or fee guarantees.
17:04 — Consent, confidentiality and the fee framework
If they continue, a one-page opening agreement sets out the relationship, confidentiality and voluntary participation. Clarify the actual scope and exceptions rather than assume unlimited secrecy. Nadav describes hourly fees, lower hourly rates for larger packages and refunding unused hours according to the single-hour calculation he explains. Check current written terms, including refunds and additional hours. Signing and payment must follow informed choice, not pressure to model a perfect divorce.
18:00 — First speak, then choose what to address
Each person has space to tell what brought them, without being squeezed into a fixed emotional template. The mediator then helps focus toward the future. Participants may prioritise time with children, finances, property or the hurt of infidelity. Past pain is not erased; even when discussing betrayal, they ask what needs to happen next. Ideas from experience may help, while decisions remain with the participants.
19:31 — The recording-era time and cost example
Nadav describes an average of three or four meetings and ten working hours, including approximately seven hours of mediation and three for drafting. Drafting is counted as work time rather than a separately priced document. More hours may be needed; unused time can be credited under the agreed terms. This is his historical practice example, not an independently audited average, a current quote or a promise that every case finishes on that schedule.
20:46 — A detailed guide for life after separation
After discussing the issues, the team drafts and internally reviews the agreement, with Nadav describing his own final review. He mentions roughly a week or two for preparation rather than two days, and agreements averaging thirteen or fourteen pages in clear Hebrew. Beyond payments and children’s days, they aim to cover future situations and mechanisms for disagreement. No document can guarantee that nothing is missed or every future event anticipated; length alone does not establish quality.
22:14 — Read, question and obtain independent advice
Participants can take the draft away, check that it reflects their choices and consult advisers. Nadav describes discussing how to evaluate advice, not excluding it. His hopeful image is clarity and pride after weeks, a month or a month and a half, not a deadline or assurance of a perfect agreement. A document kept in a drawer can still provide agreed guidance when difficulties arise; do not treat the drawer image as a waiver of rights or a reason to ignore the agreement.
23:42 — Approval is more than a signature
Nadav contrasts approving an agreed arrangement with having a judge determine a contested dispute. In the Israeli context, an agreement may be submitted to a competent family court or religious court for approval and judgment status, subject to the applicable rules. The forums are not interchangeable in every case; judicial scrutiny, including relevant child interests, is not a mere automatic signature. Approval does not guarantee enforcement of every term or that no future proceeding will ever be needed. Other countries have their own requirements.
24:52 — Approval and the divorce itself are different steps
He distinguishes a reconciliation-or-divorce agreement from proceeding with divorce. In the Israeli Jewish context, family-court approval of an agreement does not itself perform the religious divorce; the applicable separate procedure still matters. A reconciliation framework does not force reconciliation or automatically complete a later divorce. Obtain advice on the required forum, approval and next steps rather than apply the episode’s description to every marriage or country.
25:31 — The closing invitation
Nadav describes being a fourth generation affected by divorce and seeing this work as a mission. He asks listeners to share the episode, useful videos and website links and give genuine feedback so more people find help. People interested in his team can check current contact and introductory-meeting arrangements. He ends with thanks at 27:24, consistent with a 27:27 recording. The invitation to choose constructive dialogue is not a promise of saved lives or guaranteed outcomes.