2013-05-23T05:40:32-04:00 Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=beverly-willett Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Beverly Willett Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3112085 2013-04-29T14:30:04-04:00 2013-04-29T16:50:17-04:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/ we launched the Coalition for Divorce Reform (CDR), a non-partisan coalition of divorce reform leaders, marriage educators, domestic violence experts, scholars and concerned citizens. Our goal? To increase awareness of the negative impacts of divorce, encourage debate about solutions, and most important, to support passage of divorce reform legislation.

Less than two years after formation of the CDR, legislators in North Carolina and Georgia, states with divorce rates among the highest in the nation, have taken bold and courageous steps toward reducing unnecessary divorce and promoting healthy marriages. Representatives in both states have introduced groundbreaking divorce reform legislation.

The bills build on facets of the Parental Divorce Reduction Act (the CDR's model legislation), and the Second Chances Act (legislation crafted by Democrats Prof. William Doherty and Justice Leah Ward Sears, and to which CDR members Beverly Willett and John Crouch both contributed). Both bills extend the current waiting periods for divorce and provide help for ailing marriages. (The PDRA was first introduced into legislation by Sen. Mark Boitano in New Mexico in 2011. Lawmakers in Texas and several other states are currently contemplating it as well.)

The Healthy Marriage Act was introduced by three North Carolina state senators on March 28, 2013. Current North Carolina law unintentionally promotes divorce by mandating that couples live separate and apart before divorcing. Senate Bill 518 is unprecedented, permitting couples to decide whether to remain under the same roof before divorcing and thereby encourage reconciliation and alleviate some of the financial burdens some couples face by being required to live apart.

The Act also extends the current one-year waiting period to two. During that time, all couples would take be required to complete courses on improving their communication skills and conflict resolution. Those with minor children would also be expected to take a four-hour class on the impact of divorce on children. The spouse seeking to divorce must give a formal notice of intent to divorce in order to trigger commencement of the waiting period. Statutory protection for victims of domestic violence would remain untouched.

The bill was prompted by the efforts of CDR Advisory Board member, Michael McManus, who worked in conjunction with the North Carolina Family Policy Council to get the measure introduced.
"I predict that if the Healthy Marriage Act is passed as written, it would slash North Carolina's divorce rate in half in five years," McManus says. McManus is founder of Marriage Savers.

On the same day legislation was introduced in North Carolina, a bill to amend Georgia's divorce statute was also sponsored by Representative Jason Spencer. CDR supporter Reverend Greg Griffin single-handedly created the legislative support necessary to get the bill crafted and introduced, volunteering over six months of his time walking up and down the halls of the state capitol buttonholing one state legislator after another until he garnered support to get House Bill 684 introduced. His template? The Parental Divorce Reduction Act and Second Chances.

The Georgia bill would apply only to parents with children six months shy of their 18th birthday and under, and to expectant couples. Divorcing parents would be required to participate in eight hours of educational skills-building classes that focus on the effect of divorce on families, especially children, and the benefits of marriage, as well as teach communication skills and conflict resolution. Parents can attend classes together or separately. Upon completion of classes, spouses would be given additional help in the form of lists of resources for marriage-friendly counseling, relationship education and mental health counseling.

Exemptions exist for couples who have been living apart for more than five years or where one of the parties is serving a sentence in the Department of Corrections. And the Act provides protection for marriages where there is domestic violence.

Under Georgia's current domestic relations statute, no-fault divorces can be granted after the expiration of a mere 30 days after service of a complaint. The new law would permit the granting of a divorce only after approximately 11 months after the date of service of a petition for divorce. The bill also contains financial relief for indigents.

"I'm passionate about House Bill 684 because it has the potential to reduce the divorce rate among parents of minors by as much as a third, every year," Griffin says. "Perhaps the greatest positive impact though will be on the future families of those children because an intact home gives them a better chance of a successful marriage as adults. To me, this bill is about compassion and courage."]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2593677 2013-02-15T02:57:34-05:00 2013-04-16T05:12:01-04:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/ Suzanne Venker's new book How to Choose a Husband And Make Peace With Marriage. As John Gottman has pointed out, Americans have a divorce epidemic on our hands. Grey divorce is on the rise and divorce rates for second and third marriages are high as well. We're obviously doing something wrong when it comes to our relationships.

In my opinion, unless there's abuse, turning in your current spouse is not the answer. I'm a firm believer in trying to work things out the first time around, especially if you have children. But if you're already divorced like me (not by choice, in my case), what should you know in order to enhance your odds of success before you remarry?

Venker has been studying women and families for over a decade. She's been around the block herself, too. Her first marriage -- with no children -- failed, but she's been happily remarried now for about 15 years with two children.

In a recent post that went viral, Venker writes about why women aren't having success in marriage. According to Venker, men feel that their female counterparts just "aren't women" anymore. I talked to Suzanne over phone and e-mail to find out more about what that means and what Suzanne thinks women -- in particular divorced women of a certain age -- should do about it.

Q. What's key to choosing wisely the next time around?

A. The majority of second marriages that end in divorce do so because of issues regarding stepchildren. Getting divorced and marrying someone else isn't the easy answer it appears to be.

I also think what keeps many women from making the right choice the second time is the inability to look in the mirror to see what they did wrong or could have done better. I've read the divorce literature, almost always written by women, and noticed a common theme: blame. The same thing happens in the press whenever there's a Hollywood divorce, too, with the heroine wife hailed as finally free of the loser husband. Blaming one's ex may feel good, at least temporarily, but it's ultimately counterproductive if the goal is to be successful the second time around.

Q. That's a sweeping statement. What about victims of infidelity or domestic violence, or women whose husbands were addicts or walked out for no good reason?

A. While most of the divorce literature is blame-oriented, that's not to say there aren't women who get divorced with good reason. But we have to look, unflinchingly, at what's going on with modern women. To suggest all or even most of the women who initiate divorce (about two-thirds) were married to "bad guys" and had no choice but to get out is to bury our head in the sand.

Women have been taught to view men and marriage in a negative light and often end up creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you enter a marriage thinking it's going to ruin your identity or whatever, that's a very negative attitude you're taking with you. Chances are, you'll get what you expect to get: not much.

Q. Why do you think baby boomer women initiate so many divorces?

A. Largely because they can. Since women are living longer than ever and their children are no longer at home, women view this phase of life as a new beginning. Of course, if two people have been miserable for decades and stayed together all those years for the sake of the kids, that's one thing. But if they're just bored or want to see what else is "out there," that's something else.

I have an entire chapter in my new book called "The Green Grass Syndrome." I think it's human nature to wonder if there's something better "out there" than what we have. But the truth is, you'll never get everything you want all wrapped up in one man.

There's no reason married people can't be free to live as they wish once their children are gone with one exception: sex. So if sex is the reason baby boomer wives are leaving their marriages, they're going to be disappointed. They'll most certainly find sex with a new person exciting, but in time that will fade and they may very well be left with less of a relationship than they had to begin with.

Q. What do you mean by "free to live as they wish?"

A. I'm just saying it's children, not husbands, that curtail a woman's freedom because of their enormous needs. Parents can't come and go as they please, but married people whose children are gone can live according to their own needs and desires. That's liberation!

Q. Let's go back to sex. How do grey divorcees, or any divorcees for that matter, handle sex and dating the second time around?

A. In my book, I drive home the point that young women have been sold a bill of goods. Being so aggressive and available to men -- as though the sexes are "equal" or "friends" -- is not going to get women the love they want. Men like to chase, or "catch," women. If women raise their standards en masse by demanding traditional dating and postponing sexual intercourse until the relationship is established, men would have no choice but to rise to the occasion. I do think the "rules" should be somewhat different for, shall we say, more seasoned men and women. But the same general idea still applies.

I was talking with a group of women a few weeks ago, and I asked them to imagine eating chicken every night for seven days and then being offered a filet mignon. Yum! When men come across a filet mignon -- a woman they'd like to spend time with and get to know, as opposed to just have sex with -- they know it instantly. The problem today is that there are too many chickens and not enough filet mignons!

Q. Your book advises women to leave their office persona at the office once they come home. Is being strong and outspoken a problem for women and are we supposed to just put our core beliefs to the side?

A. I would never suggest anyone, male or female, put his or her core beliefs to the side. I'm referring to attitude, tone and style. If you're used to being in charge at work, that doesn't mean your husband wants to be bossed around at home. You have to switch from work mode to married mode.

I don't believe men are put off by strong, outspoken women. I wouldn't have found two men willing to marry me if that were the case! But most men are turned off by women who use their power and strength to undermine their guy's masculinity. As clinical psychiatrist Paul Dobransky, M.D., wrote in Psychology Today (in response to my war on men piece at FoxNews.com), "Men know women are powerful, and we don't mind that one bit. It empowers us that you are empowered. Unless, that is, when you disempower us in order to feel empowered."

Q. So what would I look for in my next husband?

A. Someone who values marriage as much as you do, for one. And whose interests are very similar to yours since you're entering a phase of life where marriage is not going to revolve around children. Without the stress of children, a marriage becomes more about the partnership itself, as opposed to being a partnership with parenting thrown into the mix. That's an huge stressor.

Q. I have two daughters, approximately college-aged. Would your advice to them be different than your advice to me?

A. My book definitely speaks to your daughters' generation more than yours. They are facing issues you and I didn't, particularly with respect to dating. Dating is defunct. That wasn't the case for you and me.

In a broader sense, however, the issues are similar. It was the "grey divorce" generation that taught their daughters to "never depend on a man" and "find yourself first" before getting married. These are modern concepts that became extremely chic. But that doesn't mean they're true. Baby boomers, as a whole, did not provide good role modeling for marriage. Many members of Generations X and Y were also raised in broken homes and thus have no idea what a good marriage looks like.

I happen to think divorced people make great mentors for what works and doesn't work in a marriage if they were self-reflective about their own divorce.

Q. Any last words?

A. I think women need to understand that, more often than not, the power is in their hands. All women, but especially the modern generation, have been groomed for power and independence, not for how to be a wife or how to be married. Thus, woman lack the tools they need to get the marriage they want. I believe my book can help them.

But a word of caution: How to Choose a Husband is not your personal overnight guide to getting a ring, nor will it help you find the perfect husband or marriage. I have neither. No one does. It merely offers a whole new way to approach men, marriage and frankly, life.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2117961 2012-11-13T20:35:55-05:00 2013-01-13T05:12:01-05:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/
While the countdown to the fiscal cliff has begun, this past year our country also reached what could be an equally cataclysmic juncture: the marriage rate barely crossing the 50 percent mark. Meanwhile, the percentage of cohabitating couples increased, and divorce rates remained high.

Yet, it is undisputed that marriage builds economic wealth and promotes physical and emotional well-being. And that marriage helps safeguard children from the ravages of poverty, drug abuse, physical abuse, teen pregnancy, smoking, reduced educational attainments, depression and early death.

Our nation was built on the premise of unity while fully embracing our differences. Our finest moments in American history reflect our collaboration; our worst reveal our separation. So, too, it is with our relationships. Divorce reform is truly a no-brainer; it's also possible.

A year and a half ago, I partnered with Chris Gersten to form the Coalition for Divorce Reform (CDR), a "non-partisan coalition of divorce reform leaders, marriage educators, domestic violence experts, scholars and concerned citizens dedicated to efforts to reduce unnecessary divorce and promote healthy marriages." I'm a Democrat; Chris was the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families during the Bush administration. Nevertheless, Chris and I are firm in our foundation.

And our supporters, including our Board of Advisors, span the spectrum from left to right. We do not let what separates us in other arenas divide us in our common mission.

We care deeply about the future well-being of our nation's families. We know for certain that divorce does not serve that end, and that the price paid for millions of divorces over the last 40 years has proven devastating, especially for our children. We believe that a majority of the marriages that end in divorce can be saved. And we are committed to building public awareness about the negative impact of divorce and advocating for legislative reform. It's that simple.

One of our nation's most respected leaders had this to say about America's divorce crisis:

"Divorce has become too easy because of our permissive laws and attitudes."

"Recent studies demonstrate convincingly that while many adults claim to have benefitted from divorce and single parenthood, most children have not."

"Children without fathers, or whose parents float in and out of their lives after divorce, are the most precarious little boats in the most turbulent seas."

"With divorce as easy as it is, and its consequences so hard, people with children need to ask themselves whether they have given marriage their best shot and what more they can do to make it work before they call it quits."

The source of these powerful statements? If you guessed a conservative, Republican and possibly Evangelical man, you'd be wrong on all counts. The leader is Hillary Clinton. She also said: "I think getting a divorce should be much harder when children are involved."

It is a widely held misperception that such views are only the bailiwick of Republicans and conservatives.

Indeed, when no-fault divorce came before the New York legislature for a vote several years ago, the Catholic Church had an unlikely bedfellow: the New York chapter of National Organization for Women (NOW). According to NOW New York, the New York Senate had thrown "women and children under the bus." The CDR believes that no-fault has thrown our nation's fathers under the bus, too, and is therefore sponsoring modest divorce reform legislation: the Parental Divorce Reduction Act.

For over a decade, I've been attending an Episcopal church near my home. It's unlike any house of worship I've ever attended -- black, white, Hispanic, gay and straight, wealthy and poor. We come only to worship. And during the peace, we shake hands. Then we break bread. We can do the same with divorce reform.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1904350 2012-10-04T01:30:12-04:00 2012-12-03T05:12:02-05:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/ We Are Seven" is one of his best. It recounts a conversation between a gentleman and a delightfully "innocent" eight-year-old "little girl."

Ten years, ago, when my husband left, my daughter Ella was seven; a few months later she turned eight. She's the baby of the family and, to her occasional dismay, I suppose some part of me will always think of her that way. Sometimes I forget how she looked at say 9 or 10, without getting out the family photo albums. Seven I remember.

The other day I did a Google image search of "seven-year-old." Have a look at their faces.

At seven, most children are transitioning to second grade. In general, they're curious, ask lots of questions and choose to take on more responsibility and become more self-sufficient. They even understand sarcasm! In school, they're learning how to measure, beginning to memorize their times tables and developing a broader understanding of the world beyond their own. Their vocabularies consist of several thousand words; fluency with reading, writing and storytelling is really taking off. And they're forging friendships.

But these little ones are also prone to worry and self-criticism. They care how others look at them and their self-esteem can be fragile.

With all these developmental changes, it's no wonder pediatrician guidelines recommend 10-11 hours of sleep per night.

I have dozens of boxes loaded with school work and other mementoes for both my daughters, labeled year by year. Ella's second grade box is filled with stories. Poems about sharks and sea monkeys and rock stars. Haikus, shape poems and comic strips. Family tales involving mom, dad and sister about baking bread without yeast and lobster ice cream.

And then our family was blown apart by divorce. And Ella joined the ranks of the one million other children who are victims of divorce in the U.S. every year, thereby required to divert their time and energy "adjusting" to the break-up of a family they never asked for. Time and attention they would otherwise spend playing, sleeping, doing homework and just being a kid, instead gets taken up with traveling back and forth between two homes, packing and unpacking, laying their heads down at night on a new pillow and learning -- and keeping track of -- the new rules in another home. Many children must also "welcome" others into their lives -- stepmoms, stepdads, step-siblings, and boyfriends and girlfriends who now sleep in mommy's and daddy's beds.

A few years ago, researchers of The Longevity Project from the University of California concluded that divorce was harder on children than death. Imagine that -- experts believe it's generally easier for a seven-year-old, or any kid, to "adjust" to the death of a parent than to the death of their family by divorce. (Not "easy," of course, but "easier.")

My own father died more than 20 years ago, and at times, the heartbreak still feels like yesterday. Sure, my father could have stopped smoking and taken better care of himself. Still, I don't consider that choosing to walk out on me. I'm a grown woman and adjusting to a divorce I didn't ask for took its toll even on me.

If you have a seven-year-old of your own -- or a child of any age -- I imagine you've often watched them sleep. Try also imagining this. Envision yourself in your child's place if you decide to walk out the front door. And then carry that memory around with you for awhile. Because seven only comes once, you know. Or 8 or 9 or 10.

If your spouse is abusive or threatening, or you're living with some other high-conflict situation that makes staying dangerous for you or your children, perhaps it's better if you walk. But otherwise, is it really too much to ask of yourself that you think long and hard about getting over your own frustration or anger or marital boredom and do whatever it takes to get help for you and your spouse to make your relationship work?

If I'm happy, my children will be happy, too. That mythical logic has been floating around since at least Wordsworth's time. Indeed, the gentleman in "We Are Seven" thought he knew best, too, exasperated to the very last stanza by the "little Maid's" refusal to see things his way. Her final words, however, leave no doubt who possessed the greater wisdom.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1366573 2012-03-20T08:48:45-04:00 2012-05-20T05:12:01-04:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/ 1960 high of 72 percent to just barely half. Leading family scholars are troubled. Studies show that children from cohabitating and single-parent households face increased risks for a wide range of social, emotional, and economic ills compared with their peers from intact, married households, whose numbers are rapidly dwindling. Black families fare far worse.

"The black community has the distinction of the lowest marriage rate in America," says Nisa Muhammad, founder of the Wedded Bliss Foundation, the sponsor of Black Marriage Day. "When White America has a cold, Black America has pneumonia. And we don't have the resources or history to rebound as quickly."

In 1960, 61 percent of blacks were married; today the rate hovers at a dismal 31 percent. Seventy percent of black children are born out-of-wedlock. Their mothers are more often than not poor. Black children continue to have the highest rate of poverty. While the considerable gap in divorce rates between blacks and whites has narrowed (blacks still out-divorce whites), far fewer blacks are also marrying. Forty-four percent of them consider marriage obsolete.

Over ten years ago, Muhammad, a journalist raising her own five children, went searching for answers to the problems plaguing the African-American community. She found her way to a Smart Marriages conference, and left "mesmerized" by all the information available about the benefits of marriage.

"Black married people make more money, their kids do better in school, marriage rescues blacks from poverty, their kids are less likely to go to jail, become teen parents and get divorced," Muhammad says. "I started thinking, does anyone in the black community know this stuff?"

She asked around and nobody did. Even among the well-educated. She couldn't find anyone promoting marriage within the black community either.

Mainstream cultural cues mostly excluded blacks. No black Bachelors or Bachelorettes. Muhammad thought "27 Dresses" was a cute movie, but notes that the average black woman doesn't have 27 married friends, much less has attended 27 weddings. When Muhammad spoke at Morehouse College, a distinguished all-male black college in Atlanta, Georgia, she asked the young men in the audience to name a song where a black man says "I love you" to a woman in the lyrics.

"They look baffled," she says. "They couldn't name one song. College students being nursed on music that offers sex without responsibility."

Relationship stories in the black community typically center on "somebody did me wrong" or "woe is me," she points out.

When Muhammad couldn't find anyone offering portraits of healthy marriages, she took on the task herself. "Our silence co-signs a lot of negative behavior. We say it's not me, but then it becomes you. That bothered me."

So she founded Black Marriage Day in order to shine a national spotlight on all the positives. Stories of black couples married 50, 60, 70 years. Relationship workshops, celebratory dinners, vow renewal ceremonies, inductions into a Black Marriage Day Hall of Fame. She praises President Obama's example of regular date nights with the First Lady.

Her philosophy focuses on building communities that embrace the concept of "wedded bliss." A few years ago, one Dallas community organization asked black couples their secret to marriage and curated an exhibit that traveled throughout the city, from City Hall to museums to the airport.

"When marriages succeed, communities thrive," Muhammad explains. "It is to the community's benefit that marriages are successful." In those communities, she says, marriage goes hand in hand with lower crime, increased property values and better schools.

Still, though, the task of fostering marriage as the norm within the black community remains an uphill - and delicate - challenge.

"We are the poster child for single moms, and in the black community, single mothers are glorified. We don't want to criticize or disrespect the awesome work single moms do." Yet, at the same time, marriage remains critical to the economic and social vitality of the black community. Some experts suggest the correlation between poverty and the African-American community and its progeny -- and the crucial broken link i.e. family structure i.e. marriage -- has been known for decades and widely dismissed by law and policymakers.

The first time I met with Nisa I asked her how the first Black Marriage Day got started. She laughed, and then proceeded to tell me. When I spoke with her by telephone again a few weeks ago, I asked her to relate the story again. I knew what it was; I just wanted to hear it one more time.

She'd spoken at a conference, and made an off-hand comment that someone ought to start a black marriage celebration. Someone from Essence magazine just happened to be in the audience, and called her later to follow-up.

"Tell you more about what?" Nisa asked the reporter, confused.

"What's the date for Black Marriage Day?" the reporter asked. Nisa told the woman she'd call her right back, hung up, then looked at the calendar. January, February and April-June were out -- New Year's, Black History Month, Easter, Mother's Day, Father's Day. March was empty.

"So I called her back and I said 'Black Marriage Day is celebrated on the fourth Sunday of March," Nisa told me.

In 2003, Black Marriage Day launched in 30 cities. Today that number has risen to over 300. This year the celebration will take place on March 25.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1130806 2011-12-13T11:42:45-05:00 2012-02-12T05:12:01-05:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/ Marriage Gems, still says lasting bliss is possible.

The unusual suspects she interviewed for her new book, "First Kiss to Lasting Bliss: Hope & Inspiration for Your Marriage", not only achieved lasting bliss, but faced some of life's worst hardships and ended up with stronger marriages. Their difficulties included everything from cocaine addiction, traumatic brain injury, and infidelity, to loss of a child, financial disaster, and biracial backlash. One couple had to remove their own child from life support. Another rebuilt their lives when, only newlyweds, the young Florida wife was the victim of stranger rape.

These aren't tales of mere endurance, though. Lori calls them "great love stories." I spoke with her about how they can inspire all marriages.

BW: Why did you write "Lasting Bliss"?

LL: I'm a child of Gen X and, as you know, we had a doubling of the divorce rate. When I spoke to other people in my generation, they agreed they didn't grow up with a lot of role models in terms of marriage. Also I have a neighbor, a really inspirational couple, and thought if more people had a neighbor or positive role model that example might provide an inspiration for them. Because I was a child of divorce, too, I wanted to be a positive voice for marriage.

BW: Each couple you interviewed tackled unique problems. Is there a common thread that runs throughout all the success stories?

LL: First of all, a very strong commitment to the marriage. A daily effort not to drift apart. A commitment to choose love every day, and live in gratitude. These couples were not willing to give up either, and because of their difficulties they understand how to be unified. They told me they wouldn't change the past even when it was difficult because it brought them to a stronger, better place.

BW: Some of the stories blew me away. Did any of the couples surprise you?

LL: The couple from the beginning of my book. The husband was a drug addict. And I think most people would say that's a really good reason for a divorce. What I didn't realize is how well a couple could rebound from that. There were also financial problems that went along with the drug use. I think the reason he got clean is because his wife made their initial separation happen. She made her expectations firm and clear, and I think that was the motivation he needed to receive treatment. She also had a lot of forgiveness and patience in her heart. Before writing the book I would have said this was too big an obstacle to overcome. It really shocked me a cocaine addict would eventually become such an awesome husband.

BW: Are some marital obstacles more challenging than others?

LL: I would say infidelity is one of the top. The research I've read says 65% of couples divorce after infidelity. It's a tough one because it's difficult for spouses to regain trust. It can be done though. Many people who overcome it say their marriages are stronger than before. I don't want to judge anyone, but I don't think people should say to themselves if my spouse cheated that would be it. I think there are more things people can get through than they think is possible.

BW: Does anything top infidelity?

LL: An even bigger problem is couples that "drift apart" like it was something they couldn't control. It's natural for people to drift apart unless they are making a conscious effort to grow together and improve their relationship. Think about it as being in separate boats or not rowing together in the same boat. The winds and waves of life pull and blow us in different directions. People think this happens without their control. They blame the job, the kids, finances, whatever. It's really all the same reason - allowing yourselves to be pulled apart. It takes daily effort and a commitment not to drift apart.

Another big problem is couples who lose hope that they could be happier. They convince themselves they're with the wrong person. We get encouragement from other people who say "you deserve better." They are striving toward this elusive happiness and convinced their partner is not part of the equation. But the research shows that couples who stay together are often happier five years down the road. So if you're searching for happiness the odds are better to stay together rather than separate. If we take responsibility for our own happiness we can ultimately be happy together.

BW: Don't give me a spoiler, but do you have an example from your book?

LL: The biracial couple. She finally put her foot down and said you have to back me up. But she also had to stop blaming him. When he figured out how to have her back, they were able to build a great marriage.

BW: Your book is not a traditional self-help book, but rather a collection of stories. How can couples use it in a practical way?

LL: I want the reader to feel like they're sitting down for coffee with each of the couples. To have a heart to heart talk and really get to know them. I used the couples' actual words as much as I could so that maybe that story would come back to the reader when they had a problem of their own. And because the story had an emotional connection, it might give them a different perspective.

BW: Some of the scenarios are rare, like stranger rape and brain injury. How are these lessons relevant?

LL: Even if the scenario is not similar, the heart of the issue is something couples can relate to. For example, one wife was convinced her husband was going to leave her because she was so depressed over the loss of their child. You may not have lost a child, but you may have assumed your partner was thinking the opposite of what they were.

Then there are readers who will have had the same literal experience. They have lost a child, had infertility problems, were separated because of the military. People have lots of health crises though maybe not the exact ones in the book.

The theme that goes throughout my book is hope. Whether couples have experienced the literal problem or can relate to some of the feelings, the goal is to give them hope things can still work out when you have tough times.

BW: What would your one piece of advice be for newlyweds?

LL: Love is a daily decision.

BW: And for couples going through difficulties?

LL: Don't give up hope that your marriage can be great.

BW: And you really believe lasting bliss is possible?

LL: Yes, I think so. Life is bumpy at times. Often outside forces impact our happiness. And sometimes we don't feel very loving. But if we choose to act lovingly, often the loving feelings follow. By saying "I have to trust my feelings," we may be selling ourselves short. Feelings change day to day, minute to minute. We choose to love every day.






]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.907792 2011-07-26T10:30:47-04:00 2011-09-25T05:12:01-04:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/ five million stay-at-home moms in the United States. (The number decreased slightly from 2008, statistically insignificant according to the Census Bureau because of the recession.) In 2007, the Pew Research Center reported a significant uptick in the number of moms who preferred staying home to raise children.

Ohio State University sociology professor Liana Sayer says that society still generally feels it's unacceptable for men to be stay-at-home dads. Nevertheless, their numbers are on the rise, too. The Census Bureau estimates the number of stay-at-home fathers at 159,000, which tripled over a decade. Some say that's a gross underestimation, however, because it fails to account for nearly 2 million more fathers now primary caregivers due to the recession as well as fathers who work part-time to care for their children.

Whatever the exact numbers, stay-at-home parents are vulnerable to substantial financial risk during divorce. Time Magazine recently reported that unemployed men faced a greater danger of being left by their wives, particularly working wives. And though a wife's employment status had no bearing on risk, neither does the law provide stay-at-home moms sufficient protections either, especially under our unilateral divorce laws.

In practical terms, if the breadwinner leaves, the first risk faced is lack of immediate access to funds. Even if you have a joint bank account, your spouse might decide to open a new one in which to deposit paychecks. Joint stock or savings accounts may require joint approval for withdrawals. This could leave stay-at-home parents hostage for money until they are able to secure a temporary order of support as well as funds with which to defend themselves. For that, they'll undoubtedly need to hire an attorney and pay a retainer, unless the lawyer is willing to wait.

New York recently recognized the inherent unfairness of this financial disparity when it came to the ability to defend oneself in a lawsuit for divorce. It amended its domestic relations laws to establish a rebuttable presumption that the monied spouse be required to pay for the non-monied spouse's attorney and experts during the pendency of litigation. Regrettably I had no such statutory protection during my own divorce. In other states, stay-at-home spouses without independent means are generally subject to the proper exercise of discretion by the judicial system to award them sufficient funds both to defend themselves and for support.

The financial risk stay-at-home parents face when it comes to alimony is even more troubling. When no-fault was instituted, permanent alimony awarded to spouses who had given up their careers to become stay-at-home parents began to fall out of favor, permanent alimony being deemed incompatible with the clean break idea behind no-fault. Today, many states cap alimony awards. Unless you're the victim of spousal abuse or have been married ten years or longer, or have physical or mental disabilities, in Texas you're out of luck. Even then alimony is limited in amount and cannot exceed three years. The Massachusetts House of Representatives just approved a bill that will end lifetime alimony altogether. These are just a few of the many examples of the trend toward rehabilitative alimony designed to give stay-at-home spouses just enough time to find jobs and get back on their financial feet.

But what if alimony ends, or you receive none at all, and you've been out-of-work for years, home, taking care of your children? Today's economic climate makes employment hard to come by, let alone a job allowing parents to maintain their pre-divorce standard of living. What, too, if because of custody arrangements, you're forbidden to relocate where the cost-of-living would be considerably less and potential jobs more plentiful? What if you've past the mid-point of mid-life and competing for jobs with freshly graduated college, graduate and law school students who can't find employment themselves?

When his son became unable to attend day care because of health issues, Charlie (a pseudonym he asked me to use because custody issues are still pending) and his wife agreed that he would give up his full-time job to become a stay-at-home parent. Several years later, Charlie's wife left without explanation, filed for divorce, and took her high-paying job with her. Though he has been a stay-at-home dad for six years, Charlie told me he never received a penny of alimony and only one year of limited child support. He recently had a job opportunity in another state, but turned it down. It's more important to him to watch his son grow up.

Divorce financial strategist Jeff Landers says alimony reform has gone too far. "[I]t seems that stay-at-home moms . . . with little or no income of their own have lost their voice in state legislatures largely controlled by men." I believe the lack of sufficient protections applies equally to stay-at-home fathers.

Unlike millions of other Americans who find themselves suddenly out-of-work and without funds, unemployment benefits don't provide a safety net for stay-at-home divorced parents either.

Ditto for health insurance. For 19 years I was covered under my ex-husband's health and dental plans. During that period, I had four operations, not counting the birth of my two children. Divorce booted me off, just like millions of other spouses who are no longer considered "family" once the divorce gavel sounds. My current $971-a-month COBRA plan, funded out of dwindling savings, runs out in a little over six months.

When Charlie's divorce became final, he was excited to learn about that part of President Obama's stimulus package that provided for a reduction in COBRA insurance premiums of 65% for those who had lost their jobs. Like me, though, Charlie's excitement was short-lived. The plan excluded divorced stay-at-home parents who lost their "jobs" and their marriages.

The list goes on. The lack of pensions for stay-at-home parents. The social security benefits breadwinners build up, but stay-at-home parents don't. The absence of disability insurance to protect divorced stay-at-home parents.

Like Landers, I believe the push for alimony reform has gone too far. That our divorce laws also fail to take into account current economic and unemployment realities as well as the need to protect stay-at-home parents. And shouldn't unemployment benefits kick in, too, when alimony ends for stay-at-home parents who are unable to secure employment?
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.863024 2011-05-18T15:05:42-04:00 2013-04-18T13:51:44-04:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/
Each year tens of billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on the divorce-associated fallout, not including the millions spent by individuals hiring lawyers and obtaining a divorce. Social science research confirms the devastation -- the heavy emotional toll on children, women and men, the reduced longevity, the diminished physical health. Recidivist rates are alarming -- children of divorce are 89% more likely to divorce than their peers from intact families, and divorce rates for second and third marriages have soared to about 67% and 74%, respectively. And one million children a year continue to be split between their own mothers and fathers. While divorce may be necessary in certain circumstances, such as domestic abuse, research indicates the vast majority of divorces involve low-conflict marriages, many of which can be repaired. (The "Evolution of Divorce" by W. Bradfox Wilcox, provides a good summary of these alarming findings and the research behind them.)

Behind all the pie charts, there are countless anguishing personal stories of betrayal, abandonment, and financial hardship.

As Andrew Cherlin so eloquently put it in his recent book, we are on a marriage and divorce merry-go-round. And it is high time to get off.

Introducing the Coalition for Divorce Reform ("CDR").

After my controversial article opposing no-fault divorce last August, Chris Gersten, a former high ranking official in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services responsible for launching the Federal government's Healthy Marriage Initiative, contacted me about creating a national organization to reform our divorce laws and educate the public about the impact of divorce. The result is the launch of the Coalition for Divorce Reform, and website, formed in order to increase awareness of the negative impact of divorce, encourage discussion and debate about the effect of divorce on our culture, and support passage of divorce reform legislation.

Below Chris talks with me from Washington, D.C. about the Coalition.

How did the CDR get started?

Chris: The breakdown of the traditional family is the social equivalent of the national debt as a crisis in America and the West. I have spent the past decade leading the effort to find government funding for marriage and relationship strengthening programs, and have realized for some time now that simply increasing the availability of marriage education isn't sufficient to address our divorce problems. We also need to overcome cultural influences that encourage and destigmatize divorce by making it so easy. I believe the marriage education infrastructure is sufficiently developed to now create a new field called "divorce reduction education."

According to the website, the CDR is a "non-partisan coalition of divorce reform leaders, marriage educators, domestic violence experts, scholars and concerned citizens dedicated to efforts to reduce unnecessary divorce and promote healthy marriages." Tell me more about the members and how it was formed.

Chris: I knew we needed draft sample legislation people could look at before becoming involved so we worked with divorce attorneys, domestic violence experts and victims of divorce to craft the Parental Divorce Reduction Act ("PDRA"). After the Act was drafted, I used the Internet and my database of contacts from a decade in the marriage education field to reach out to people from all walks of life. Our 17-member advisory board includes the nation's leading marriage educators, scholars, attorneys, political leaders and other concerned citizens. It's bi-partisan and includes people from left to right; some are victims of divorce themselves. I have also spoken with hundreds of community activists and state leaders.

You've been married to the same woman for 44 years so why the passion for divorce reform?

Chris: Everyone I know in the marriage education and divorce reform movements has a personal story motivating them to work on strengthening marriage and making sure more children grow up in strong two-parent families. My own experience took place when my sister's husband, a college professor, walked out one day and never saw his four children again. I saw the emotional devastation that divorce wreaked on those kids and my sister. I felt helpless to do anything about it, other than try to be as good an uncle as I could from 400 miles away. Ever since, I moved my career in the direction of family and marriage strengthening efforts. I still see the devastation of that divorce in the lives of my nieces and nephews more than 20 years later. The lives of over a million children a year are turned upside down because their parents can't or won't work to save their marriages. From my work in the field, I know that many marriages in crisis can be saved if even one partner is committed to working hard to save the relationship.

You've said to me that there's been nothing like this reform effort in over 40 years. But there have been other reform efforts. Why is the CDR different?

Chris: There have been serious efforts like The Americans for Divorce Reform, which basically compiled data on the Internet in one place, and the Covenant Marriage movement. Yet the divorce rate was not reduced. Covenant Marriage passed in only three states and has been a disappointment. The CDR has crafted a new kind of legislative proposal and created a network of marriage educators that never existed before. We now have a huge amount of compelling social science research on the impact of divorce, too. Now, we have social media as a vehicle to communicate quickly with hundreds of thousands of people who can work together in this effort. We have a grass roots effort of political leaders committed to passing the PDRA. You and I have been volunteering nearly full-time on this effort and dozens of others give significantly of their time. This coalescence of events and circumstances has never happened before.

Tell me about the Parental Divorce Reduction Act.

Chris: It's still a work in progress, but provides a new framework for divorce reform. It focuses on reducing unnecessary divorce among couples with minor children. Before filing for divorce, couples must complete divorce reduction classes of four-eight hours (two hours online). This program is a first cousin of marriage education and will be modeled from the top programs in the country and taught by certified marriage educators. The classes will educate couples about the harmful effects of divorce, help them develop skills to improve their relationships, and work with couples who want to reconcile. Couples will then wait eight months before filing for divorce. This is a reflection and reconciliation period during which many couples will continue to work on their relationship. These requirements must be fulfilled before the divorce filing because afterwards attorneys take over and couples struggle over children and finances. There is also an opt-out for victims of domestic violence.

Why do you think passage of this legislation will reduce divorce?

Chris: I know passage will reduce divorce. For 25 years, marriage education classes have demonstrated they reduce divorce by 50%. The U.S. military invests heavily in classes for the armed forces, and it's proven to be a good investment by helping keep couples together.

But what chance does the PDRA have of passing the state legislatures?

Chris: A good chance, even though it won't be easy. But I know we can pass this in several states in 2012 where we have good leadership and state legislators already committed to passage. We'll need real results in a few states before the rest of the nation will follow. But once people see divorce reduction, and the cost savings to taxpayers, I think a dozen states will pass the PDRA over the next five years, with the trend continuing.

Tell me about the CDR's new blog.

Chris: Social media is critical for a movement strong enough to change our culture and current divorce law, and our website will be filled with useful information for those working to change divorce laws or even contemplating divorce. Our bloggers include accomplished writers and bloggers with experience in the field of marriage education, divorce reform, divorce itself, law and social policy. And this is just the beginning.

There's bound to be opposition. And plenty of people will claim you're trying to take away their right to divorce under no-fault that exists now in all 50 states, in some for as many as 40 years. What are your thoughts on this?

Chris: Children must have rights, too. It should not be easier to get a divorce than a driver's license. We know the devastating consequences of divorce on children so we owe it to the children to slow down the divorce process and give kids a fighting chance to grow up in intact two-parent families. If a couple if set on divorce, our legislation won't stop them; it will just slow down the process and hopefully save marriages.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.836052 2011-03-16T02:46:34-04:00 2011-05-25T18:40:24-04:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/ I was heartbroken when I heard about the bill; to me, standing up for marriage and family in America now was truly an impossible dream.

Under the new statute, parties no longer need prove fault or that they've lived apart under a separation agreement for one year in order to obtain a divorce. Now, they can opt for no-fault by alleging under oath that the marriage has "broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months." According to Elliott Scheinberg, an appellate attorney whose practice is limited to matrimonial law, the statute allows for unilateral exit from marriage based solely on the subjective view of the party suing for divorce, no defense to no-fault permissible. In other words, presumably, merely swearing under oath makes it so. Pleading specifics, he says, can also open up a "can of worms."

Well, the can of worms has now been opened. On Friday, Veronica O'Dell, counsel for the defense in Strack v. Strack, received a copy of a notice of appeal to the New York Appellate Division, Third Department, challenging the decision of Justice Robert Muller of the Supreme Court in Essex County. The pending appeal indicates that the celebrants who pushed through New York's no-fault may have uncorked the champagne a bit too early. (This is despite rumors that judges in Manhattan are placing their stamp of approval on no-fault divorce purely on the basis of the moving party's sworn statement.)

In Strack, Justice Muller held that the defendant was entitled to a trial to determine if the parties' 47-year marriage had "broken down irretrievably." While the plaintiff did not technically assess blame, her complaint alleged that the parties had no emotion in their marriage, kept separate vacation and social schedules and lived separately during most of the winter. In ordering an immediate trial on the issue of whether the couple's relationship had in fact broken down irretrievably, Justice Muller wrote that the new statute "is not a panacea for those hoping to avoid a trial. Rather, it is simply a new cause of action subject to the same rules of practice governing the subdivisions which have preceded it." This is particularly true, he said, because the legislature failed to define irretrievably broken, thereby leaving determination to the finder of fact. In other words, Mr. Strack had the right to be heard and contest his wife's claim that the marriage was irretrievably broken, even though divorce might ultimately be granted over his objection.

Curiously, the defendant was sued by his wife twice before, in 1986 and 1990; each time, however, the couple, now in their 70s, reconciled.

Justice Muller also held that the defendant was entitled to trial by jury if he so elected since the legislature failed to exempt no-fault divorce from § 173 of the Domestic Relations Law which grants the right to trial by jury in divorce actions. O'Dell told me that trial is currently scheduled for June, that discovery is underway, and that her client intends on seeking a jury trial. To date, she has received no motion to stay the trial pending appeal.

Last month, another appeal had been pending before New York Appellate Division, Second Department, in the matter of Stroffolino v. Stroffolino, a matrimonial case in which Brooklyn Justice Eric Prus had similarly ordered the parties to proceed to trial on no-fault grounds. Attorney for the defendant, Lloyd Thompson, told me, however, that the matter of grounds has now been resolved, rendering the appeal moot.

It's unclear whether even more cases of discontent by spouses who have no say in the ending of their marriages are brewing in the New York courts. At a recent bar association presentation, I asked one of New York's matrimonial judges whether spouses were contesting lawsuits filed against them under New York's no-fault statute and, if so, how judges were responding. He declined to comment, stating that the judicial canon of ethics precluded him from doing so.

"He was just ducking the issue," one of New York's most high-powered matrimonial attorneys, who asked that his name not be mentioned, told me yesterday.

The upshot is anyone's guess at this point. Those familiar with the no-fault battle may recall that one of the reasons floated for the new statute was the elimination of institutionalized perjury - for years spouses who wanted to get around the statute had been cooking up fault, with one party agreeing to lie under oath and assume the blame. Yet isn't the sham that was drummed up to replace it, where cause is purportedly unnecessary and one party is able to chuck a marriage and family, far worse? Isn't an "irretrievably broken" standard meaningless if its only purpose is to give the law a veneer of respectability, when in fact divorce can be granted on one party's subjective say so alone? Indeed, if one spouse can obtain a divorce merely for the asking, lying is simply irrelevant, as are the reasons for wanting out, including that the marriage is "irretrievably broken." How is no-fault divorce then any different from saying "I divorce you three times?" Perhaps that's just what nagged at Justice Muller.

And so, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra: "It ain't over till it's over."

Would that the ongoing debate would forge understanding, compassion and a true meeting of the minds about an effective way to restore marriages and preserve families. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.825208 2011-02-22T11:22:16-05:00 2011-05-25T18:35:25-04:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/ Phyllis Schlafly and her co-author Suzanne Venker make in their new book, The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know - And Men Can't Say, to be released this March. Schlafly--political activist, bestselling author, syndicated columnist, radio personality--is often called the grande dame of the conservative movement (she is perhaps best known for her successful campaign to stop passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and founding of the national volunteer organization known as the Eagle Forum). Venker, a.k.a. "No Bull Mom," is author of 7 Myths of Working Mothers and a regular contributor to NewsReal.

In a series of e-mails and telephone conversations over the last few weeks from their offices in St. Louis, Missouri, they weighed in on marriage, divorce and feminism in our society:

Why do you claim feminists love divorce?

Phyllis: Their own writings reveal that feminists sought liberation from home, husband, family, childbirth, children, and the role of fulltime homemaker. They wanted to be independent of men and liberated from the duties of marriage and motherhood. So, their first legislative goal was the adoption of easy-to-get divorce. They were behind California's adoption of unilateral divorce, which then spread across the country.

So why do so many marriages fail, not just those of feminists?

Suzanne: Living in a culture in which people break vows easily makes it difficult to keep one's own vows. The modern generation was groomed for an independent life. Marriage and motherhood are not something to which young women have been taught to aspire. Instead the women in their lives tell them to focus solely on their career. The result is women don't think of marriage and motherhood as fulfilling in and of itself. It's silly to think there's something wrong with being in the kitchen--everybody has to eat! Sandra Bullock's claim marriage is the end of who you are is indicative of the modern generation's defeatist attitude toward marriage.

What do you believe is the single biggest obstacle to lasting marriages?

Suzanne: Americans' attitude. We have this notion that "Hey, we can always get divorced if it doesn't work out." This is in stark contrast to the attitude in previous generations, where marriage was assumed to be a lifelong, irrevocable commitment. In my twenties, I had what we now call a "starter marriage": one that lasts less than five years and does not produce children. My ex-husband and I both had considerable doubts, and I distinctly recall our conversation, before we got married, about the fact that we could always get divorced. How pitiful is that?

You claim feminism failed women. Why?

Phyllis: None of the feminists' goals, including the Equal Rights Amendment, offered women a single benefit they didn't have before, zip. But it would have taken away a lot of the rights and benefits women then possessed such as the right to be exempt from the military and the right of a wife to be supported by her husband. Feminists demeaned marriage and motherhood even though most women want marriage and motherhood. Feminism has run its course, and surveys show that women are not as happy now as they were in the 1950s.

Suzanne: Let me add that feminism also taught women that men are idiots, so now there's a lack of respect for men who are considered an inconvenience. It's a wonder any marriage survives.

If, as you say, divorce is not "the answer to what ails us," what's the solution?

Suzanne: The Flipside of Feminism! We honestly believe Flipside has the potential to change women's and men's lives -- and that includes their marriages. Flipside is a call for Americans to change their perspective completely, to challenge themselves to think in a way that goes counter to what they've been exposed to their entire lives.

Flipside takes a positive view of women and their role in society as wives, mothers, career women and volunteers in the community. It's the antithesis of the average feminist book in which the author kvetches about how bad American women have it. How is that helpful?

You claim American women have never had it better. What do you mean by that?

Phyllis: American women can structure their lives to accomplish anything they want.

How so?

Phyllis: It is self evident that American women are the most fortunate women who ever lived and enjoy more freedoms and opportunities than are available in any other country. Armed with the right attitude, they have every opportunity for happiness and achievement. Women should stop feeling they are victims of the patriarchy, reject feminist myths, and follow the roadmap to success and happiness spelled out in Flipside.

Do we need divorce reform?

Phyllis: Yes. We need to restore fault-based reasons to justify divorce. When a man and woman stand up before witnesses and solemnly swear to love and cherish, forsaking all others, 'till death do us part, do they mean it, or are they lying?

The best way to reduce divorce is to legislate 50-50 joint custody of children, unless evidence proves one parent unfit. It would eliminate the current incentive to one parent, usually the woman, who now believes she can walk out on all marital obligations, taking the kids and the income of the other parent.

One comment I get writing about divorce reform is: "You can't legislate morality." What do you think?

Phyllis: That's ridiculous. We have adopted thousands of federal and state laws to legislate morality. What do you think the criminal code is?

Flipside states that our courts no longer protect the sanctity of marriage, but rather owe their allegiance to the institution of divorce. Can you explain?

Phyllis: Marriage is a contract, and one party should not be able to renounce it without the consent of the other party.

The family courts are the lowest in the judicial hierarchy, but the most powerful. Family court judges exercise unaccountable discretion according to their own personal biases and preferences. They have control over the private living arrangements and income of 48 million Americans and $40 billion in transfer payments made between households. Family court judges are an arm of government that exercises virtually unlimited power to dictate the private lives and income of millions of Americans who have committed no actionable offense. Divorce has become a tremendous money-making industry with judges, psychologists, psychiatrists, custody evaluators, and counselors getting well paid to run other people's lives.

Despite the commercial success of Eat, Pray, Love and Committed, you're fairly critical of both. Why?

Suzanne: Elizabeth Gilbert makes several great observations, for example, that marriage cannot be solely about romantic love, a point we make in Flipside. Gilbert is also a gifted writer. In Committed, however, her analysis of marriage is wrong-headed and immature. No woman who reads Committed will be encouraged to embrace marriage and family life. Ms. Gilbert does not have children either. Thus her experience is extremely lacking. Like any modern feminist, Gilbert's attitude toward marriage is hopelessly doomed: she believes it threatens women's independence and well-being. She questions the purpose of marriage at every turn and blames conservatives for keeping women down.

And yet Gilbert remarried?

Suzanne: Gilbert was "sentenced to wed" due to her boyfriend's status as an illegal alien. If the couple wanted to continue living in the United States, or ever visit the United States, they had to get married--and Ms. Gilbert was resentful, for she had sworn off marriage altogether.

But don't conservatives avail themselves of unilateral divorce just as much as liberals?

Phyllis: Many conservatives are seduced by feminist and anti-marriage propaganda and peer pressure. Flipside is designed to arm them against negative social trends and decisions.

So how did things get so out of hand?

Phyllis: The decline of marriage is the result of the work of highly motivated special-interest groups, and they enjoy the support of Big Media. Feminists have also had the support of academia and Hollywood, and they did a pretty good job of intimidating politicians.

Where were conservatives when the divorce rate got out of hand?

Phyllis: They were quietly raising their own families.

Is feminism really to blame for all our marriage and divorce woes?

Suzanne: No, there are other factors that helped it along. Technology, for example, has played a role in the disintegration of the American family. In previous generations, people's worlds were rather small. Close-knit communities and family ties, along with the universal moral order, meant Americans were mostly exposed to people who lived like they did--conservatively.
Today, this world is gone. Families are spread out; people rarely mill about in their neighborhoods but are instead glued to their television sets and computers; and religious life is at an all-time low. Because of this, young people's preferences are largely influenced by technology and mainstream media, all of which are very liberal. In other words, the culture at large--via college life and the media--has played a larger role in shaping the values and attitudes of young people.

I consider myself a liberal Democrat though I put my career on hold, became a stay-at-home mom, opposed my ex-husband's wrongful divorce suit and now speak out about divorce reform. Yet you state there is a "chasm" between feminists and conservative women. Is there any common ground or way to bridge the gap?

Suzanne: This is a great question. There are many women I know who vote Democrat and/or consider themselves liberal, yet their lifestyles and attitudes do not jibe with their voting patterns. Many of these folks do not identify with feminism at all, yet at the same time they don't think of themselves as conservative.

This confusion is primarily a matter of semantics. Liberal-minded women are often more conservative than they care to admit. Unfortunately, modern liberals have butchered the term conservative by teaching people that it means being backward and close-minded--and who wants to think of themselves this way? Consequently, people refer to themselves as liberal-- even if they're not -- because that is the socially acceptable worldview.

But being conservative isn't just about politics -- there are many conservative Democrats in America. Conservatism is a lifestyle in which independence and self-reliance come naturally. Conversely, feminists - who dominate the Democratic party -- are negative by nature and believe women are oppressed. Thus, the question women who vote Democrat need to ask themselves is, Why do I stand with a party whose goals and values are in direct opposition to my own? Most women in America have nothing in common with the feminist elite, which means that any time a woman in America pulls the Democratic lever, she sabotages her own future.

Any final piece of advice for parents contemplating divorce today?

Phyllis: Unless they are dealing with abuse, addiction or extreme conflict, we recommend parents stay together at least until the children have left home. Not only must adult happiness come second to children's needs, research shows that most marriages that end in divorce today are not a result of these extreme circumstances. Judith Wallerstein's work demonstrates that children fare much better if their parents stay together. Research also shows that couples who once reported being unhappy in their marriage were much happier together five years down the road.



]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.818823 2011-02-08T11:50:57-05:00 2011-05-25T18:30:24-04:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/
Long about this time every year I get the urge to head south, or west, for good. I'm aware that last month every state except Florida had snow on the ground, though it's not usually that way. Still, fantasizing about moving is about as far as I'll get-- divorce pretty much prevents it.

My daydreams about running away began after my ex-husband left. Not that I really wanted to pull up stakes from where I'd set them down 20 years before or uproot my children's lives even further. (Just like I never wanted a divorce.) But getting smacked in the face by a wrongful lawsuit at mid-life made Jon-Kabat Zinn look like the enemy. At least in the beginning.

"I've seen judges prohibit custodial parents from moving more than a few blocks," my attorney Saul Edelstein said when I inquired about my options.

"But I have no family here to help me," I said. "And it's expensive."

"Too bad," Saul said. In other words, as the well-known Brooklyn sign says when you're about to exit the borough: Fuhgeddaboudit.

Though I was still trying to save my marriage, resentment set my imagination spinning. Conjuring up places to move I never even had an inclination to visit, especially after finding out the law provided no countervailing compensation for the restrictions on my constitutional right to travel.

"Years ago, I left Manhattan and a great group of friends to move upstate with my husband, only to have him leave me for another woman," Erica Manfred told me. "Now I'm stuck in the boonies, much older and alone, because we co-parent my daughter."

Of course, in certain circumstances courts do permit custodial parents to relocate. But getting the green light can be complicated. Laws vary from state to state, from balancing tests to the "best interests of the child" standards; some states require proof of good faith. Suffice it to say unless your ex and non-custodial spouse blesses your relocation plan, even if it's only to the adjoining school district, you'll likely find yourself in a complex, costly legal mess by petitioning to head out of Dodge.

Proof will be required on a whole host of matters such as your relocation plan, reasons for it and proposal for how your child will maintain contact with the non-custodial parent; your child's relationship with parents, siblings and grandparents, special needs, and the impact of relocation, including quality of life and effect on education and social relationships; the financial impacts, etc. Before it's all over there may be psych evaluations of the entire family as well as appointment of a law guardian to interview your child. Older children might have a say, and that can engender an entirely different sort of stress on the home front. (And who can blame them - as a rule, children don't want their parents divorcing in the first place!) The move may be expensive, too, along with the physical and emotional strain of readjusting.

"The bottom line is if you choose divorce, or have it chosen for you, you ultimately put the courts in charge of everything related to your kids until they are grown - including where you live and by extension, where you'll work and where your new spouse may work," says matrimonial attorney John Crouch.

Indeed, the courts--or even your ex--may force your hand.

"Courts can order that child custody change to the other parent if the custodial parent moves," says Crouch.

"When I was in the middle of divorce, my lawyer asked the court if my four kids and I could move to Houston where I have lots of family and the cost of living was much lower," Debby from Chicago told me. "My ex said of course I could move and come back whenever I wanted to visit my children. Needless to say, I remained in Chicago, where we had no family other than each other. Ten months later my ex left the state to avoid paying child support."

Awhile ago my own doctor said divorce had caused such stress that I should consider a long sabbatical.

"But my daughter's a teen, and she'd miss her dad," I pleaded. No matter that he and I had been through the litigation mill; he was her father. I understood her needs, even though I had my own oxygen mask to think about.

Only my doctor had something else in mind. "You're misunderstanding me," he said. "You should go alone." Talk about a sucker-punch. He's a brilliant, caring physician, but I ignored his advice for the time being and stayed put.

Unless the parties agree otherwise, however, the law generally imposes no impediments on the constitutional right to travel of non-custodial parents, even if they're the ones who do the leaving. They don't need a good reason to move, just like under no-fault divorce they don't really need a good reason to leave the marriage or family either. (Of course, custodial parents don't really need a good reason either.) If a better employment opportunity comes knocking, or an out-of-town romance presents itself, or pure whimsy strikes, they answer to no one but themselves.

Of course, not all non-custodial parents want to flee, even the left ones.

Charlie, a once full-time stay-at-home dad, who asked me not to use his real name because he's fearful of repercussions, told me that he, too, was the victim of a unilateral divorce. As a result, his parenting time dwindled to half. And, now after years of not working outside the home, he's forced to re-enter the job market during one of the worst unemployment periods in recent history. He hasn't been able to find work nearby, and doesn't want to move because his parenting time would be slashed even further. But he may have no choice.

Sadly, it's the kids who invariably get caught in the middle. There are few studies of the effects of relocation on children of divorce, but the data that exists along with research about the effects of relocation on children generally suggests that the picture is not pretty. Moreover, the social science research shows that in the majority of cases the best interests of children are better served if parents remain together in the first place. Indeed, why not have a "best interests of the children" standard where it counts most? Unfortunately, our divorce laws and practices do nothing to educate parents about the harmful effects of divorce on children or to promote reconciliation. (Of course, divorce may be better for children in certain cases such as those riddled with abuse.)

February 7-14 is National Marriage Week. So why not celebrate this year by tossing that divorce complaint where it belongs? In the garbage.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.805535 2011-01-11T10:34:47-05:00 2011-05-25T18:25:24-04:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/
If you fall into the group of middle-aged "left" ones like me, it can be a particularly daunting undertaking. It's a natural salve to reflect on a time when the pickings weren't so slim--to the heartthrob who got away or college days when the traits that make the top of my wish list now --kind, loyal, handy with a screwdriver--weren't the ones that made it then. Contemplating the roads passed up can be a bittersweet task, too, especially when you realize that the ones who seemed too easy to catch back then, who'd be quite the catch now, are undoubtedly already caught.

Like one long-lost college love of mine named John who sealed my mother's approval when he leaned over her shoulder, oohing and ahhing while she stood at the stove stirring her spaghetti sauce. And kind, loyal Lenny who showed up at my dorm door with flowers in his hand and a song--literally--on his lips.

But I have no regrets. My college beaus did not have the genes to make either of my two daughters, and our courtships were brief. Still, the painful aftermath of a failed marriage tends to dredge up "what ifs," particularly at this time of year.

Little regrets are easy to deal with. But what about the big ones?

They say that spouses who go through divorce often have second thoughts, especially those who do the leaving. Sometimes those second thoughts bring couples back together before it's too late, what's old becoming new again. This can be particularly true when couples part, become friends and work out their problems before getting back together. In her survey of international couples, Nancy Kalish, author of Lost & Found Lovers, found that 6% of married couples in her study who divorced, eventually rekindled their love and re-wed.

What happens though when the one who got away, the spouse you left, is no longer available? When you come to your senses only to discover that your spouse has already united with someone new? What do you do with your regret then?

Bestselling author and psychotherapist M. Gary Neuman was recently asked for his advice in just such a situation. The "left" spouse contacted him because his cheating wife suddenly had a change of heart and wanted him back. She had ditched the guy for whom she'd left her husband originally and, after talking, the ex-husband realized he was still in love with his ex-wife, too. Only there was a problem: The ex-husband's "wonderful" new wife.

Not so fast, Neuman told him, concerned that the pair might be headed for an even bigger fall. After all, the ex-wife had dismantled one marriage and with her ex's help was now trying to dismantle another one. "Whether or not you've been physically intimate with your ex, you're still cheating on your present wife," Neuman advised. And while he thought it was possible that the cheating wife had genuine regret for her actions, Neuman said the ex-husband should get counseling before making any hasty decisions. Indeed, what if the couple reunited only to separate again? And how would that affect their children?

In the final analysis, Neuman said: "Keep a safe distance from your ex and stay in the present: be a good spouse to the woman you're married to."

Michael, a father of four from California, has a different approach for dealing with his regrets, one that does not include trying to break up his ex-wife's new relationship. It's called taking responsibility for what he did.

"I'm like your husband and broke up my family after 17 years," Michael told me. "It was the worst decision. My ex-wife and I had normal marriage issues and it was nothing that couldn't be overcome. I took the easy way out. I was unfaithful. It led to the break-up of our marriage."

Michael said his ex-wife and children were devastated. He and his lover ultimately broke up, but his ex-wife moved on to a stable new relationship. "I lost my self-respect," Michael quite candidly admitted with deep remorse in his voice. "I now wonder when things go wrong for my children how much of that is a consequence of the divorce."

But Michael isn't sitting idly by stewing with guilt either. "I'm changing," Michael said. He has a support group of spouses who have gone through what he has. He's trying to be the best father he can: "I talk with my kids. I work with them." And when he encounters others who are about to make similar mistakes, he shares his own story. "I want them to think about what they're doing and why they're doing it."

Finally, he wants to work for divorce reform in the United States. "No-fault divorce is ridiculous. It's too easy. I want to make a difference," he says, hoping that something productive can come out of what he calls the "mess" he made.

While making lemonade out of lemons is admirable, it makes better sense for couples to take commitment more seriously to begin with, before they reach the point of being faced with such a big fat regrets, and all the trouble that ensues in their wake. Indeed, if parents paused before jumping ship, might more marriages remain intact and actually turnaround in the "happiness" department? A major study headed up by University of Chicago professor Linda Waite suggests just such a result.

Forty years of skyrocketing divorce rates has demonstrated that spouses haven't been too successful in the patience department. So maybe it's time for the legal system to help them out once again. Time for state imposed waiting periods to wend their way back into law in every state, especially for couples with children. Waiting periods that will give couples plenty of time to carefully consider the decision to end their marriage before embarking on litigation. And while they're at it, how about also reinstating waiting periods for remarrying anyone else before the divorce decree is cold? That might help reduce divorce rates for second marriages, too, and give couples an added chance to reunite. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.797704 2010-12-22T17:36:53-05:00 2011-05-25T18:20:30-04:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/
Here's a look back at some of the lessons we've taught them along the way.

1. Parents come first. We all know it's not supposed to work that way, but with no-fault divorce the lessons we'd normally teach our children get turned upside down. Under no-fault, parents get to place their wants and needs first. The children's "best interests" get taken into account when it's time for the court to determine custody along with dividing up the rest of the chattel.

2. When the going gets tough - go AWOL. It's hard to see how the message to jump ship will provide children with the tools needed to overcome obstacles, problem solve, communicate, manage their anger or muster their courage. Character-building is usually acquired one way -- when we learn how to bale. But that's not what divorce teaches.

3. Pinky swears are worthless. Even the youngest school-age kid knows what a pinky swear means. It's been a long time since my daughters were little, but I still remember sealing important promises with them with a pinky swear. To us, this wasn't a joke. We made our solemn pledges, hooked our pinkies and committed to keeping our word. Unilateral no-fault divorce, however, teaches children that the most important pinky swears of all is meaningless. A promise that can be broken by merely crossing your fingers behind your back.

4. You're the center of the universe. Of course we don't really say that to our children and, hopefully, don't believe it either. But that's still the message our example sets when, in the absence of cause, we opt for no-fault and revolve the universe around ourselves. Unfortunately, this may teach kids that when they grow up they should believe likewise. After all, children of divorce do have higher divorce rates than their peers from intact families.

5. Lying is good and will get you what you want. Right or wrong? True or false? Haven't we taught our kids it often doesn't matter? Before no-fault divorce got enacted, you had to have a good reason to leave a marriage. And you had to prove it. (And, yes, I appreciate there were difficulties with domestic violence.) In some states, like New York, you could also have the court snip the knot provided both spouses agreed and waited awhile. But too many adults were impatient and wanted to get around the law. In some cases neither had done anything "legally" wrong, but still wanted out. In other situations, judges pressured one of the parties to admit fault in order to speed the case along. Indeed, the first time I appeared in divorce court the judge peered down at me with a scowl on her face and indicated she thought my wanting to save my marriage was merely an excuse for being stubborn.

And so, before no-fault, many parents simply lied under court pressure or by cooking up their own deal (divorcing parents all of a sudden communicating). Either mom or dad took the "blame" under oath, while lawyers and judges winked and let them get away with it.

But an outcry erupted. Lawmakers and lawyers said something had to be done to end the system of "institutionalized perjury" that made moms and dads testify falsely. (And forced attorneys and judges to go along.) So divorce laws were changed, thereby allowing parents to tell the truth.

6. It's important to share. One of the most important lessons parents teach their children is how to share. In a few days, millions of children will have the opportunity to put that lesson into practice when the law requires them to share their time between mom and dad. Some will open presents on Christmas morning with mom; others will open presents with dad. Some might spend a little time with both parents, in two houses, with two trees, and twice as many gifts. Some kids will be traveling and won't see mom/dad at all on Christmas because it's not her/his turn. Because parents, too, must learn to share their children.

Long before Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young wrote their famous hit words, Albert Einstein penned his: "Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach." Ask any child expert and they'll agree. Even in the best of circumstances, at times we parents all fail. Unchecked divorce compounds the problem many times over.

In some cases, the road may be paved with good intentions -- and I believe it is. However, while we may not have known exactly where the road would lead in 1970, in most cases, 40 years later we undoubtedly do.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.790637 2010-12-03T11:03:16-05:00 2011-05-25T18:15:22-04:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/
Whatever comes into our heads seems to move straight through our fingers and out into cyberspace. All keys worn to the nub except one: the pause button.

Technology is one thing, but what happens when our failure to pause is played out in the real world where lives, families and marriages are at stake? Well, easy-in marriage becomes easy-out divorce.

I was surprised when I first learned that nearly 75% of states have no waiting period whatsoever before parties can file for divorce in spite of evidence suggesting that short or non-existent waiting periods may correspond to higher divorce rates. Marry one day, divorce the next. For the minority of states that have waiting periods, these interludes are intended to give couples time to make sure they've carefully considered the decision to end their marriage before starting litigation. Makes sense to me.

Once upon a time many states also imposed waiting periods on remarriage following a divorce decree. For example, Vermont law once prohibited the guilty party in a divorce action from remarrying for a period of two years. But those laws went by the wayside, too, and today only a handful of states retain the last vestiges of such restrictions. Instead, most states give parties free reign to retie the knot before the divorce gavel is cold. And yet two-thirds of second marriages are on a crash course toward marriage failure number two -- one form of suffering merely traded for another.

We've lived with unilateral divorce long enough that we're no longer in the dark about the effects on children and parents. While incidences of domestic violence have decreased, other social problems have worsened. Divorce brings higher rates of mortality, heart disease and cancer, and may place divorced men at greater risk of suicide. Research indicates that children of divorce have higher rates of teen pregnancy, depression, aggression, juvenile delinquency, divorce, learning difficulties, and substance and sexual abuse compared with children whose parents remain married. (And that's just for starters.) Then, of course, there's all that financial hardship.

So what might happen if we asked couples -- parents especially -- to wait before pulling the divorce plug? In musicology, this pause is known as a rest. And while an interval of silence can serve many purposes, one of the more basic is allowing vocalists and musicians the necessary time to breathe. What if parents had a similar time out, only this time we filled the pause with added purpose, arming parents with information about the effects of divorce, along with counseling? Some people believe the decision to split is the end of the story, but what if it could initiate a new beginning? Might the odds of reconciliation improve? Might pausing permit couples to gain perspective in order to remember the good times when they're all too caught up in the bad? After all, two-thirds of all family divorces involve low-conflict marriages, and there's real research out there that with time and marriage education some marriages are salvageable.

One million children a year suffer the consequences of a broken home, too. Aren't any of them worth pausing for?

When Alan Colmes interviewed me on FOX radio a few months ago, Carmen from Michigan called in. Like me, she had also been left for another woman. But she didn't give up on her marriage either. "If you're going to fight for anything in your life, it's your family," Carmen said. With time, she and her husband have now begun to repair what once seemed irreparable.

I, too, tried to save my family from divorce. My ex-husband, though, was in a hurry just like Carmen's. With sheer grit, I tried to slow the process down. Unlike spouses in every other state, I even had the so-called protection of a now defunct fault-based system of divorce that prohibited my ex from shedding me without cause. So I got my day in court. But the system was just too well-oiled and primed to effectuate family disintegration. And so I ultimately failed.

We know what happens in life without the necessary pauses. A baby not quite ready to walk, tumbles. The teen-child who still needs her mother's guidance becomes a mother herself. We step out from the curb before spying the bus. On a global level, we can find ourselves in the midst of war or an environmental or financial crisis. And in the case of our families? We know all too well where so many of them end up.

Years ago, when my youngest daughter was in elementary school I'd often find myself egging her on to keep up with me as we walked to school each morning. "You're just walking too fast," she told me one day. "That's why I seem so slow."

"Don't worry," she added, smiling. "We'll get there."

The beauty of the pause is that it has the power to bring us back to who we are and what we hold dear before we step pell-mell from the curb, propelled into action that can irrevocably change everything and often accomplish nothing.


]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.784369 2010-11-18T09:27:04-05:00 2011-05-25T18:15:22-04:00

Beverly Willett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/ a helpful piece about the emotional stages of divorce, from denial to acceptance.)

"Mom, how is it you have a bigger social life than I do?" my very popular teenager asked me a few weeks ago. It's true. I've made lots of friends and acquaintances I probably never would have since my ex and I split, though it didn't start out that way. Before the split, weekends were mostly family time; overnight I became "single" again, adrift. Don't tell a mother who has her children wrongfully yanked away from her every other weekend, Thanksgiving and countless other days in-between that she ought to be grateful for the time off. Gains that come from loss are bittersweet. After eight years I'll tell it to you straight -- nothing replaces family even though I've moved on.

As you know, no-fault divorce now exists in all 50 states. Some feel that's a fait accompli. However, at one time our laws denied women the right to vote, too. And the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which outlawed hundreds of years of anti-miscegenation laws, is still so fresh millions of us remember it. These longstanding injustices didn't get rectified by eyes turned blind to the carnage. And today history casts a different light on the iron jawed angels. If they'd passively practiced Kubler-Ross's final stage - acceptance - our country might look a whole lot different than it does today. By passively accepting for so long that there's nothing we can do about our country's divorce mess our society looks a whole lot different than it might, too.

Finally speaking out about the fact that our families are in trouble because of our on-demand divorce system run amuck isn't denial. It's about time.

I vividly remember the first curriculum night at my daughter E's middle school. Her social studies teacher went over the course outline and nightly assignments from the textbooks, then opened the floor for questions. "How do divorced families get two sets of textbooks so the children don't have to carry them back and forth and maybe forget?" one parent asked.

The teacher was apoplectic. "You don't! I don't understand why you parents can't just learn how to sort out your problems and get along!" Some exes in the audience rolled their eyes in unison; my girlfriend and I closed ours in a moment of silence.

Since enactment of no-fault divorce millions of children pack suitcases and shuttle between two homes. Women and children of divorce suffer financially. We've set the divorce rate record for all Western nations. And children from broken homes have higher rates of teen pregnancy, depression, learning difficulties, divorce, juvenile delinquency, etc., than their peers from unbroken ones.

Those are facts. And not ones to be proud of. Refusing to acknowledge them is denial. Pushing them under the rug? That's denial, too. And those who believe that the Founding Fathers handed down to them an unfettered right to divorce on demand -- which looks a lot like the old-style Nevada quickie to me - they're in denial. George Bernard Shaw once said that "the moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it."

In certain cases divorce is a necessary evil. Homes riddled with alcoholism and domestic violence may need severing. I met a woman this past weekend who told me she was divorced because she'd discovered her husband was gay. Give her an out -- she's not just running away from commitment.

But divorce should be the exception, not the rule that it's become. Unfortunately, it's accepted as a foregone conclusion at the courthouse steps, the damage done, no turning back. Nor is it anyone's fault because, well, things just happen, people grow apart and spouses need the freedom to find happiness elsewhere.

Milquetoast and happy talk.

Here's a little known fact. One of the initial reasons floated for the no-fault divorce bandwagon was the desire to help lower the divorce rate. Reformers also purportedly wanted to help lessen the animosity between spouses to give them space to reconcile. In the final analysis, however, something went amiss.

But it's not too late to start turning back the clock. In a major study chaired by a University of Chicago sociologist, two-thirds of spouses who reported being unhappily married, but stayed together, turned their marriages around and reported being happily married five years later. Might more marriages be saved if our policies and legal system recognized that the health of our families goes hand-in-hand with the health of our society as a whole? And implemented policies to help shore them up? Are we in so much of a hurry to extricate ourselves in order to run from one marriage to the next that every bit of pause and patience is anathema?

In most cases, the grass is not greener. The divorce rate for second marriages is between 60-67%; for third marriages the death toll climbs to 73-74%.

In June 1987, my dear father died well before his time. I survived the heartache of his death, went on with my life, and finally accepted his passing. His loss I can't do anything about.

But we can do something about our unrestrained divorce culture. We need not accept the fact that one half of our parents and millions of our children become fatalities, and the first thing we need to do is acknowledge it. If we don't, we've failed at protecting the bedrock of our society.

Nobody said the task was going to be an easy one. So far, though, we've by and large accepted the unacceptable and given ourselves so little credit that we can do better.
]]>