This past week marked the opening of Colorado's current legislative session and Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, announced that he has decided not to introduce a bill that would have required parents considering divorce with minor children to attend mandatory training on the impacts of divorce on children. The bill would also have introduced a waiting period before filing for divorce.
I applaud Lundberg's decision; legislation of this nature is problematic on many levels.
At the highest level is the clear implication that children are always better raised within a marriage than by divorced parents -- a presumption that is not surprising given that Lundberg says he got the idea for the bill from a presentation by a member of the Coalition for Divorce Reform at a legislative conference for socially conservative lawmakers. But it's not a notion I support. Marriages, just as divorces are not all equal.
I do believe that generally children do best when their parents are actively involved, but marriage is not predictor of the level of involvement and I've seen many examples of where the level of engagement has actually increased following divorce.
While Lundberg's proposed legislation would have granted exceptions for physical abuse, drug and alcohol addictions, and long term incarceration of a spouse, there are many other situations which are just as qualified: a gay spouse, multiple infidelities, pornography or gambling addictions, sexual problems for which the spouse refuses to seek treatment, financial abuse, and even several rounds of couples counseling. The list goes on.
To cover all the possibilities would be virtually impossible. The alternative then is to make provision for applying for an exemption, except that this creates the undesirable situation of someone in authority making a subjective decision.
I realize that legislation like this is intended to create a speed bump in the divorce process by getting couples to give additional consideration to their decision, but by mandating this training at the attendees' expense, it will be adding a cost to a process that many couples already find prohibitive. Additionally, a spouse -- most typically the woman -- may find herself with no access to marital assets through the actions of a financially controlling spouse. Would this legislation force a woman in these circumstances back to a troubled marriage?
On a practical level, such training courses have to be created and approved. Who determines the content and who monitors the quality, objectivity and results? Surely not a state government whose funding of education is close to the lowest in the nation?
Colorado already has mandatory parenting classes for divorcing couples and that's where there's potential for a creating real and positive impact for the betterment of children, but based on my own experience, I'm skeptical. I attended that class on my own. I'm assuming my ex attended a class but I don't know since it's not something we've ever discussed. My class started with the therapist saying, "You're all here because you absolutely have to be here so I'll try to make this as short as possible," which is hardly inspiring, motivating or enlightening.
Lundberg told the Denver Post he thought it was too easy to get out of a marriage. I think it's too easy to get into a marriage but I don't want government legislating that either.
Follow Mandy Walker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@sincemydivorce
is translate into less child support payments. Lawyers are dead in the water. So divorces drag
on for months and the charges pile up. who lobbied for this? lawyers of course.
Let me translate this post. Fathers are actually being awarded joint custody of THEIR children, and the gold diggers are upset that they aren't getting the child support payday they expected.
A class would be a good idea, too. The research does show that generally, living with your two biological parents is better for you.
Although, overall, I don't think this law would do much for the real problem. Divorce is strongly affected by economic class.
Couples ought to sign an agreement stating they have been informed of, and understand, current legislation relating to marriage and divorce.
SAMPLE PRE-MARRIAGE AGREMENT
I understand current legislation states the following...
1. You agree that your spouse has the right to divorce you through no fault of your own.
2. You agree that your spouse has the right after divorcing you through no fault of your own, to also take your posterity.
3. You agree that your spouse has the right after divorcing you through no fault of your own, to take your income as alimony and to support your posterity that they have taken from you.
4. You agree that your spouse has the right after divorcing you through no fault of your own, to take your posterity, your income and limit the time you may visit your posterity.
Your Name Here: __________________________________________
Your Signature: ___________________________________________
Until we remove the incentives for divorce attorneys to make a small fortune of their clients (and of course, there are many "good" attorneys), we will not resolve these issues.
I'm oversimplifying, but maybe we could do with a bit of that.
This doesn't mean we make it easier to divorce - or more difficult. But let's remove the profit incentive - all round.
Let me know your thoughts regarding the following as this gives Federal standing to this issue.
Amendment 5
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
1. Parents retain parental ownership, they are considered blood property. Children are more than property, they are blood property. Therefor their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.
Webster defines such parental property as follows...
9. Nearness or right.
Here I disclaim all my paternal care,
Propinquity and property of blood.
2. For the government to take someones property there must be due process. Divorce is that due process. Unless both parents agree to a custody arrangement, or one parent is guilty of a crime, the government can not take your property without compensating you. This is amendment 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
3. By default, the parent who departed the marriage forfeited their parental rights. That is natural law. When you depart, you leave what was departed else you would be stealing anothers property unless they consented.
4. What constitutes a departure from the marriage relationship
a) criminal abuse
b) violation of natural law (adultery)
c) initiating a no fault bill of divorce
I would like to see the Federal government legislate Constitution divorce and enforce it.
You obviously haven't thought this through from the children's perspective, although you'll probably claim you have. Here in Michigan, parental visitation and child support are viewed as CHILDREN'S rights.
E.g., I wanted to waive child support after my ex left. (He'd moved in with the woman he later married. Between four kids from HIS first marriage [prior to me], and three children from HER first marriage, there were 7 young kids that he solely supported.) It wasn't fair to those kids to take ANY money out of that household, and I earned more than my ex anyway, so I asked to waive child support.
The judge initially denied my request, informing me that in Michigan, it's not the right of the custodial parent to receive support, it's the child's right to be supported by both parents. I was therefore attempting to waive my SON'S right to support. After a series of hearings, during which my son had a guardian ad litem to represent HIS interests (since my request was legally in conflict with them) the judge finally granted my request.
Interaction with both parents is likewise considered the CHILD'S right, not just the custodial (or non-custodial) parent's. Even if a parent departs a marriage, it doesn't abrogate the CHILDREN'S inalienable right of association to have a relationship with that parent. Stop a minute and think about that before espousing your "punish the leaver" policies.
1. Quarreling with their spouse
2. Lying to their spouse
3. Cheating on their spouse
Suddenly a bunch of control freaks arrive with their opinions that having a divorcing couple attend a few classes is going to erase years (in many cases decades) of dysfunctional interaction.
Of course the "state certified" instructors for these "classes" would be drawn from the local fundamentalist Christian community. Naturally.
As I posted earlier, if Colorado wants to lower its divorce rate AND improve its marriage rate, the way to do it is to reform the ridiculous alimony laws that dangle a very sweet carrot in front of every mom in Colorado who has been married over 10 years. If you can dump your husband, be awarded the family home, get lifetime alimony, and then be able to shack with any hot guy you want with no repercussions to your alimony, it is just too lucrative a proposition for many people to pass up.
Colorado is full of stories just like this. But instead of changing the alimony laws, some boneheads think that forcing someone to attend a few hours of classes, when they are already receiving AUTOMATIC alimony, will change some people's minds. Guess what? In Colorado, the women attending these classes will be receiving AUTOMATIC temporary alimony even if they are already shacking with their new honey! All the law would do is give them more time to realize they have a deal so sweet it is like hitting the lottery.
Our Creator sees no liberty in forcing an individual to stay married to someone who does not want to be married to them. How disheartening to know that in many cases the innocent are vilified because they do not want to stay married to an unbelieving spouse who wants to depart or has departed (criminal abuse, adultery, no fault divorce). That is not biblical, it is not God, it is not natural, it is not Constitutional.
Additionally, while our Creator instituted the union between a man and a women, He also gave us divorce. His counsel to all those who would depart their union in absence of an unnatural law having been broken is you now assume the guilt therefor go and sin no more.
Further, we must allow the natural consequences of departing to take hold. If you depart natural law (criminal abuse, adultery, no fault divorce), your ex-spouse has then inherited the sole rights and the sole responsibility over any children the two of you brought into this world. That is natural law.
As for visitation, that is up to the lawful parent who retains parental rights. As for alimony or other income from the ex who departed. There is none, that is unnatural and impedes their liberty as well as yours. If you take someones money that keeps that someone bound to you.
Cost of Divorce to Taxpayers
One reason so many struggle to care for their families and need tax payer support is because many businesses which succeed in earning profits fail to pay a liveable wage. Business does not earn wealth alone, they employee others to help them earn wealth. So we have a right to legislate those who work earn a living wage. That is in the best interest of us all.
Of course, the key selling point to many of the unjust laws is people do not want to pay for those not their own, who are able to work. I agree, lets work to put a living wage act in effect. This is liberty, and neither parent would be monetarily bound to the other, allowing the bond of marriage and remarriage to be love and not money.
Also, having considered WWII, with all those house wives who worked, goodness, women are more then capable. Then the massive employment efforts during the depression. Sure, it was tax payer money, but it was earned. So there should be no reason a divorced person is unable to care for their family.
Our children will grow up, they will be forced to live with and repair the unjust legislation we left to them.
How is it in the best interest of our children to sell their individual liberties for a temporary lifestyle?
The sad case is that not everyone can be saved and there are always victims on both side of an issue. The goal is to help as many on both sides rather than give one set of victims a monopoly.
Men, woman and children are often safer within marriage than divorced and they deserve safety just as much as those men, women and children who are safer after a divorce.
Not allowing divorces would sacrifice one victim for another: the abused spouses and children.
But allowing rampant divorce without some sort of attempt to save marriages would sacrifice the other victims who benefit more within the marriage.
It's tough because as marriage advocate we are often accused of not caring for victims of domestic violence and that hurts us when people think we are so callous or unsympathetic. We do care, but we care for all victims.
Think about it. If someone wants the divorce over with without an 8 month waiting period and a bunch of silly classes, they are one phone call away from bypassing all the BS and getting the divorce done. Since filing a false TRO is virtually never prosecuted, there is no risk. One phone call is all it will take.
Every 2 weeks my 12 year old has a panic attack before leaving to visit her father. He has violated the restraining order, and the custody order by taking them out of the county during visitation. She refuses to use his last name in school and has an unrestricted bathroom pass because she typically vomits on and off all day before pick up.
BTW, I found out that my ex was a closeted bi-sexual transvestite, that's why I left. My learning his secret, and the fear of me outing him (I have not) is what set him off. What in the world would we have discussed in mediation? I did not & would NEVER agree to marry a bisexual (many partners outside the marriage), nor did I agree, or would I agree, to marry a transvestite. In my situation an iPhone left behind changed everything in my life. Knowing who I had married was devastating. . Had I not been able to escape, I'm not sure what I would have done.
www.kidsagainstdivorce.org
In addition, the author complains about the "cost" of the proposed legislation. Her complaint about cost indicates, however that she hasn't even read the legislation she's dishing about! Have a go now -- find it on the Coalition's website, along with a complete summary: www.divorcereform.info. The legislation is budget neutral and wouldn't cost couples more than about $200; those who can't pay, get assistance. The average divorce costs $15,000. http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/financialissues/f/costofdivorce.htm Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on divorce and its fallout every year. That's a lot of jobs in today's economy!
Finally, even though children's lives hang in the balance, the author obviously believes a couple hundred dollars is asking too much. Sad, truly sad. As Mr. Crouch points out below, this legislation is but a small speedbump. A speedbump that the overwhelming social science research and thousands of reconcilation stories you can look up right now on the Internet prove can restore families. Sadly, the author appears to be but one more example of our hyper-individualistic , "me" driven society, with its anathema to patience in our society.
The author also attempts to mislead the public into believing that the proposed legislation is just another part of the socially conservative agenda. I helped draft this legislation, and this liberal, Democrat is like many of those who helped with the legislation and are part of the Coalition's efforts.
The author's opinions about the effects of divorce on children, too, masquerade as facts. Suicide, death, teen pregnancy, depression, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, school dropouts. Those are facts. And not pretty ones. The facts are that 2/3 of divorces involve low-conflict marriages that can be prevented, too. Note to the author: Please read "Between Two Worlds," "The Evolution of Divorce," "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce," "The Longevity Project." Read Professor Doherty's research which proves that many couples are interested in help reconciling, help that the Parental Divorce Reduction Act, would provide. (to be continued in my next post below):
What is the cost of the training? Will most insurance plans cover it—can they be required to cover it? Can there be assistance for those without coverage? How can the cost of the classes be reduced? I paid a $1500 retainer for my lawyer and my husband paid $500 for his. Since we stopped the divorce it did not cost us more than that $2000, but would have the mandated training cost less? I imagine so.
I understand the importance of reducing costs. But divorce costs beyond the legal fees. It leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy, high school dropout and crime. But
Why focus on the woman? Would it focus a spouse (male or female) back to a troubled marriage?
Define troubled. As you said, The Parental Divorce Reduction Act grants exceptions. Some will say a marriage is troubled because one person says “I love you but I’m not in-love with you,” or they are in-love with someone else, or they are not happy, or they are bored, or there is no passion, or they grew apart, or he or she got fat, or their difference are irreconcilable, or because she bought bagged salad. Apparently mine was troubled because I had frizzy hair and did not dislike steak enough—it didn’t matter that we still didn’t eat it, oh yeah and because of the pressure being put on him by that other woman.
Please don’t dismiss my comments because you think I’m some exception; I’m not. Yes, some men and women take their decision very seriously, but some is not all.
"On a practical level, such training courses have to be created and approved. Who determines the content and who monitors the quality, objectivity and results? Surely not a state government whose funding of education is close to the lowest in the nation?"
I understand you concern. I would hope that it could be overseen by an independent body; and perhaps created using peer-reviewed research and audited regularly.
Agreed, not inspiring and that is one reason I hope such classes would be audited regularly. The Parental Divorce Reduction Act is not directly about co-parenting. That is a benefit of the classes, but the hope is that with classes and counseling beyond co-parenting a couple can rethink their decision to divorce. Many will not change their decision, perhaps most won’t change it, but it will save a few marriages and thereby children from the destruction of divorce.
Some of your “exceptions” may require proof and that in itself could outlast the waiting period—and yes, the granted exceptions also will need some sort of proof. But come on, someone wanting out badly might try and say they are gay or addicted to porn or have sexual problems. Think a straight man won’t say he’s gay? Some have tried. Most absurd: several rounds of couples counseling… I’ve found that many if not most marriage counselors are divorce counselors in disguise. They don’t know how to help, especially when the couple is mixed agenda where one wants out and the other doesn’t and they often push a couple toward divorce.
Where’s my pony, fertility and children, dreamhouse and winning lottery ticket? I’ve been wanting them for a long time. My pony is likely dead by now, the fertility is gone and the adoption agency says it might be a few years of waiting to placement, I have to wait for the economy to get better to sell my present house and I understand probability enough not to wait my money on lottery tickets. Waiting is part of life, whining about it doesn’t have to be.
OMG, really!!! I am shocked. Are you saying that when a person is rejected and possibly even betrayed and left for someone else, engagement increases? Amazing…
that you seem to not understand the DUH factor of that statement.
Divorce frequently causes a degeneration to open conflict where previously conflict may have been low and it maintains open conflict where it was already high.
Source: Ahrons, Constance. “The Good Divorce: Keeping Your Family Together When Your Marriage Comes Apart.” New York: Harper Collins Publications, 1994, 52-59.
Also, after the divorce, when my son would visit his dad, they actually DID things together--no more sitting around smoking weed and watching television like he did every night before our separation. Because he missed him when they were apart (after the separation), he spent MUCH more time actually engaged with him when they WERE finally in the same house than he did when we were all together.
So yes, I think it's possible for parents to become MORE engaged and better parents after divorce. I've seen it happen. My son's grades went UP, and he seems better adjusted now than before--why shouldn't he be? He's got two happy, well-adjusted, involved and engaged parents. And he didn't have those things with the two of us locked in a miserable death spiral.
Sometimes divorce is GOOD for the kids.
Your situation is exactly the reason I support divorce in high-conflict situations: children fare better after divorce. No one is disagreeing that SOMETIMES divorce is good for the kids. We are saying it is not always good and in the majority of situations evidence shows they are better off in their intact family.