Happy Beginnings
This story is not news, but there is a reason you are reading it. So—here goes.
Literally hundreds of thousands of people get married every year - most are happy when they decide to wed, and they marry convinced they are going to be happier.
They buy expensive dresses, more expensive rings. They plan grand parties and splurge on lavish get-aways - and they vow their commitment to being "us." They stop being individuals and become "a couple." This is irrevocable.
And then...after a while...they are not always so happy. Misunderstandings set in. The person they wake up to is not the person the imagined themselves attaching their lives to. (Somehow this catches us by surprise. I know - I've been there.)
Unhappy Middles
Getting uncoupled is no fun. Plans change. Dreams die. Uncertainty looms. Identities must change. But these changes can be dealt with. (I know - I did it.)
But, many of these couples have had children in the years between "I do" and "I don't." They have become families. There are more actors in the play than there were at the "I do." And yet, there is no game plan, no budget, no insurance, no easy solution when this occurs. Chaos reigns. It's not seen as a crisis, because it is common, but if this were a disease, the NIH would be putting warning labels somewhere!
Why does the rate at which this happens seem to be hovering near the 50% mark? Maybe because (despite the statistics) most people still expect to have stability in their primary relationships, and kids are part of the ideal image they have. Maybe because most of them want to be part of a family — maybe the family they never had. Who knows?
What we do know is that an enormous number of these families, across the nation and across income groups and backgrounds, are families in which Mommy and Daddy are deciding to end their marriages. (I know — I grew up in one.)
And all across America, hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent on divorces. This is just the simple ones where the legal case technically ends when the judgment is entered. (What few realize is that the case actually continues until there are no more minor children. You are under a "life sentence" when you have kids, and you are divorced.)
But some people keep fighting, after the court hearing. This is how case law is made, and some of these end up on the news. In every one of these cases that end up making new law (say, on when grandparents can be denied visitation, when parents can or can't move away, when same sex couples are both parents and when one is not, when s child support is enough—the list goes on.) Many more hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent. Sometimes on one case. Major financial resources are devoted to (theoretically) untangling conflict the family is engaged in — money that could have been spent to educate children, or start new lives. All this is the result of disputes about what happens to the family. But what scare me is that is all based on a delusion—that any judge can possibly know what's best for YOUR child!
Wasted Resources
Angry, frustrated (and sometimes baffled) men - usually the high earners in the family unit, but the low "time share" parent after divorce), have formed some "Fathers Rights" groups. This is odd when you see the studies that show that women as a group are left much worse off financially after divorce. Sadly, the end result of the disparity in women's earnings means that men are paying money to women they no longer have intimate bonds with, and women are remain dependent on money from men they no longer respect. The bonds of the marriage are also then not quite ended, which has a psychic or spiritual cost.
But inevitably, even in cases where incomes are equal, families are torn apart - and the children are invariably the innocent bystanders. We know this, yet the system pretends it isn't so. The effects on children in adversarial conflict cases range from life long abandonment issues, to assuming that intimate relationships are temporary. Not to mention no models for resolving conflict with love. (I know...you get the idea.)
In "traditional" divorce it is virtually impossible for the family to stay a family. The parents have in most cases done things they would not want on them 6:00 news, on some level. Things they would not want done to them.
Many people accept as "received wisdom" that people going through divorce are - and must be - angry, hostile, and in a "divorce trance." They point to the visible ugliness seen in court cases (and lawyers' offices) as proof.
Bad Habits
But to assert that bad behavior (the divorced norm) represents acceptable behavior is like assuming that because, we all feel like hitting someone sometimes it's OK to do so. But it's not, and we all know that. Spousal abuse used to be accepted - now it is not. Divorce dysfunction can also be seen as unacceptable. I predict it will be.
Grown Up and Childish
Christ — and Buddha, Mohammed, Hillel and Baha'u'llah—have all said to treat others as we would be treated. Not one said "except when they upset you first." Divorce is a loss, and we all experience loss as an event outside our comfort zone and outside our more usual coping mechanisms. But it is not a "get out of jail free" card for acting out our worst impulses. And quietly, outside the view of the courts and their neighbors, many divorcing couples avoid divorce court — and behave well. (I know...but I repeat myself.)
This group has been "off the radar" of the legal profession to a large degree, but they exist. They have always existed. They get past their anger, and some even deliberately choose to learn, to accept the reality that any relationship problems take both partners to create, and both partners to maintain. Still more are determined not to harm their children, no matter how much they may be disillusioned about one another — but need legal assistance to do it.
It's time their options changed.
NEW FLASH! There are new options! No one has to be ground up in a court case.
The sad truth is that the outcome of a traditional case is shaped by the tradition
legal model - not the other way around. That is to say - the ugliness of most
dissolutions as caused by a system which 1) presupposes it 2) amplifies it,
and 3) does not have any focus on or mechanism for preserving the family -
or changed but still critical relationships between parents. Think about it.
Assuming unresolved emotional issues, "baggage" or wounds cause most
divorces. (Not a stretch from where I sit) then it follows rather logically
that these wounds/issues/baggage will come along into the process of dissolving
the marriage.
Traditional litigation assumes that truth (reconstruction some past evens which
cased hard) will emerge from the clash of opposing viewpoint. This may well
be true - but marriage, and its ending, are not about facts in the past. (True,
in large asset cases, these sorts of reconstructions may be a small part of
the overall process - but the transaction costs of hiring experts to fight
these things out is huge. I as told by one of his attorneys that oil Baron T.
Boone Pickens' divorce cost millions.) And what of the future of the entity
which is not ending in most divorces - the family?
Orphans of the Family Court
Children seldom have a choice in these cases - and far less seldom are they
pleased about them! Their parents are saying, "we don't love each other any
more…" (I have a different opinion about that, but that is the model
most people buy into.) Then they are told "But we wont stop loving you!"
We, as adults, know there is a qualitative difference between intimate relationships
and family relationships - but children do not. "I will stop loving Daddy but
won't stop loving you" makes no sense to a child. Nor does "I still love your
mother" when the family is in turmoil. And worse yet, many well meaning parents
end up seeking the comfort they gained from the lost spouse from the
children. And many-- perhaps most-- are implicitly asked to choose between
parents. This is so destructive for a child it cannot be overstated. (And yes,
I do speak from personal experience here!)
The Walking Wounded
So, the level of emotional maturity that it takes to rise above the wounds we have from ending our marriage to avoid the wounds litigation leaves in its wake is more than most people can manage. And because this accepted norm is bad feelings and bad behavior, this is treated as a fact of life. Well - the bad feeling may be, for a time, a fact of life in divorce - but bad behavior is bad behavior, and is not excused - or made normative - by history. Sadly this is accepted by may as the way things are. Some of us think it is toxic, at times sadistic — and needs to change.
Who's Sane Here?
I offer the following as a rare judicial comment on the madness of this!
DaSilva v. DaSilva, C.A. 4th No. G032410
JOSE DaSILVA, Appellant, v. SHARON DaSILVA, Respondent. In the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District "California's child support statutes are a legal world unto themselves." (In re Marriage of Hall (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 313, 316.) When making a child support order, trial courts are faced with a "rigid algebraic formula" found in Family Code section 4055. The actual text of section 4055 would probably not be called the Legislature's most lucid work by anyone. It is . . . a ' glorified math problem.' One doesn't so much read it as plug numbers into the basic equation. ("CS = K [HN-(H%)(TN)]" -- There, we trust that's perfectly clear.) The statute virtually beckons the eyes to glaze over." (Id. at p. 317.) (Emphasis mine.)Yet this is how we want our worst, most painful problems solved? By a stranger interpreting an insane formula? I think this is madness! We are used to it, but step far enough back and it's sheer lunacy seems starkly clear.
Bridal to Battle
How do two people go from having a "going concern" to having a never ending battle? I think the legal system is a large part of the problem. Yes, it's true - hurt and pain and age regression and trauma and misunderstandings are present in divorce. There is no way the decision by one spouse to dissolve a marriage can be painless for the other. But unmarried people manage to end relationships and grow apart without spending thousands of dollars and years of their lives doing it.
So, does a family have to be a casualty of divorce? No, not if we do two things. First, we have to remember that the family exists before and after a divorce, and then we need to give the public tools and choices which encourage, nourish, and enable this family focus.
Does the battle have to follow the confusion?
The best way to do this is using "ADR" - "Appropriate Dispute Resolution." This means staying outside the courtroom, at a minimum. For some couples, that might mean using the California Summary Dissolution process. (This is only available for couples with short marriages no kids and no real property.) for some, it could be mediation, which is suffice for couples who are in full agreement on how they wasn't their family to be after divorce, but need expert help with the "how." But for many, if not most couples, who need help with many aspects of the family reorganization - financial, emotional AND legal - this would only be possible in the "Collaborative Divorce" model.
Why Haven't I Heard?
Recently this model has begun to receive media courage, thanks to a few brave sols who were willing to "go pubic" with their stories. You will hear more and more about it in the coming year. Most family law Judges are enthusiastic about it, and some courts are sending letters recommending couples seek "ADR" and mentioning Collaborative Practice as one option.
The Bottom Line
What's the bottom line? Couples need to know that their divorce from each other should not, nor does it have to, mean they divorce their kids, and lose any semblance of family. This new model works for families, and it works for all the professionals who have watched in horror as the legal system of adversarial combat left no survivors. It has now been discussed on the Today Show (January 19th) and Talk of the City on KAPPA in Los Angeles February 9, 2005. But you may have to ask for "Collaborative Divorce." Don't take no for an answer.
As they used to say on "The X Files," the truth is out there! And the truth is - divorcing your spouse no way means you have to divorce your family.
