Here's how most of us who are thinking about leaving our marriage imagine divorce will be like: We've had it with our partner (or perhaps he's decided the same about us and casts us aside, but let's just say we're the ones who want out and let's say we're the woman because women ask for divorce two-thirds of the time). We think -- finally, freedom.
Now we no longer have to feel the brunt of his anger and criticism; we can stop nagging about how he doesn't pull his weight around the house; we won't have to fake being in the mood when we're not, and we get to do and eat and watch whatever we want whenever we want to.
And, we have the kids, so we don't have to bicker anymore over whose turn it is to bathe them or whether they can have ice cream for dessert if they didn't finish everything on their dinner plate.
Not so fast.
Maybe that was what divorce was like back in the day when moms were almost always awarded full custody and dads could "visit" their kids. But those days are rapidly disappearing, according to University of Sydney law professor Patrick Parkinson, whose new book, "Family Law and the Indissolubility of Parenthood" (Cambridge University Press, 2011), details the major shift in family law and the incredible challenges ahead.
"Many of the conflicts about family law in the Western world today derive from the breakdown of the model on which divorce reform was predicated in the late 1960s and early 1970s," he writes. The model he discusses assumed that divorce was a clean break; husband went his way, wife went hers and all was good. "The assumption was that once the property and the children had been allocated to one household or the other, each parent was autonomous. The divorce freed him or her from being entangled with the life of the other parent, except to a limited extent," Parkinson writes.
But rarely has that been true. Most divorcees learn relatively quickly that although we're no longer married and living together, we still have to deal with our former spouse in their continuing role as our kids' mom or dad. He or she still has a say, and can nix our plans to move away for a new job or a new love. Divorce is no longer the end of a relationship; it's a "restructuring of a continuing relationship."
Which has made some of us as miserable divorced as we were in our marriage.
"People in unhappy marriages do not look to divorce as a way to restructure the relationship with their partners. They look to divorce to end that relationships, to set them free to start a new life, perhaps to move to a new location and to form new relationships," Parkinson says.
But, not if you have kids. As Parkinson notes, "The experience of the last forty years has shown that whereas marriage may be freely dissoluble, parenthood is not."
And a huge reason for the battles in family courts has been the "problem" of fatherhood, he says. It used to be that dads were mostly absent; now, he notes, we can't get rid of dads: "Separation motivates some fathers to rethink their priorities and to try to maintain their connections to children even if this means struggle and conflict. Because fathers demand a greater involvement in their children's lives after separation, there has been increasing conflict both at a policy level and at the individual level of litigated cases." And it's happening globally.
This is, of course, something to celebrate -- dads wanting to be with their kids. Who wouldn't want dads to be hands-on in a shared-parenting arrangement instead of mom having sole custody? Well, a lot of people, according to Parkinson. Although national statistics are hard to come by, a 2008 study of seven states he cites in his book indicates a dramatic increase in custody filings -- 44 percent between 1997 and 2006 -- at the same time that divorces had decreased in the U.S. by 3 percent.
Throw into the mix all sorts of new ways of partnering -- from cohabitation to same-sex civil unions -- and already convoluted and outdated family laws are being stretched in ways they can no longer handle, he says.
Unfortunately, whatever legal changes have occurred so far haven't been driven by a "philosophical shift in the meaning of divorce," but piecemeal and too often driven by "destructive gender conflict."
For Parkinson, it's clear we must get our act together. "Family law cannot continue to muddle through, caught between two irreconcilable conceptualizations of what divorce is all about," he says.
We can't keep ignoring the fact that divorce doesn't end a relationship but just transforms it if kids are involved. Parenthood creates "enduring connections, ties that outlast the severance of the adult relationship," Parkinson writes, and those ties have all sorts of ramifications for couples, kids and governments.
"The promise of personal autonomy and a new beginning that the divorce revolution offered has proven largely to be an illusion. Yes, people can make fresh starts and form new partnerships, but most cannot shred the connections with former relationships when there are children involved," he says.
"Facing up to the indissolubility of parenthood is one of the great challenges of our time."
What has your family law experience been?
A version of this appeared on Vicki Larson's blog, the OMG Chronicles.
Follow Vicki Larson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/OMGchronicles
What value does a divorce lawyer bring (in return for the cost)?
Divorce lawyers actually engage in tactics that increase the acrimony and conflict ("anger and hate" to use your words) in a divorce.
Acrimony and conflict in a divorce are profitable for the divorce lawyers.
And then -- as you show -- at the end the divorce lawyers take the money and blame the clients.
Divorce lawyers have a "franchise" and they work the franchise to their own benefit/profit rather than the benefit of the divorcing household.
Divorce reform is needed.
A divorce lawyer with 10, 15, 20, 30+ years of experience is conditioned to facilitating the ruthless separation of children from fathers in a divorce and desensitized to the harm suffered by the children (if ever sensitive in the first place).
In my case, the divorce lawyers (including the GAL) collectively had over 100 years (the least having 28 years) of experience in the practice of divorce law.
To a man (all men), they believed that children (and money) should go to the mother.
My divorce lawyer (40 years of experience), after a year-plus and about $40,000 in billings in the case told me that he thought "children do better with their mothers".
I asked him why he didn't tell me that at the start of the case (before cashing my retainer check); he assured me that he "could still represent" me "effectively" despite his personal views. But he was ineffective (and expensive) -- a very poor advocate.
Seasoned divorce lawyers seem to believe that the purpose of a divorce is to generate legal fees and that all clients are bad clients.
The best thing I did in my case was to be my own attorney. I stuck to the facts and tried to be efficient (while the other divorce lawyers complained and wished that I still had a divorce lawyer).
My children and I were ultimately successful with an equal placement outcome.
Divorce lawyers won't tell you the reality of divorce with kids -- potential clients would flee without fee.
Divorce is an opportunity for divorce lawyers to convert a divorcing household's assets into legal fees paid, the college savings and orthodontia fund for the children of the divorcing household into the college/orthodontia fund for the children of the divorce lawyers.
That is all it is.
According to this article (which is a little dated), there is no such thing as a "good" divorce, no matter how selfless the parents may be.
If two-thirds of divorces are from low-conflict marriages, there is something seriously wrong going on, and we're passing along this disease of ennui onto our children, and the cycle will continue unabated.
Like it or not, men are wired different than women and have been trained by cultural expectation NOT TO FEEL. This is the number one impulsive defense mechanism that men must arduously guard against because its effect on our youth has been PROVEN to be devastating. While many women celebrate "shared custody" because it allows more time to satiate self gratification impulses, most family oriented men are "all or nothing" character types and it can be emotionally challenging for them to only be in their children's lives half of the time. But it CAN be learned and it MUST be adapted to for the children's sake. Women do have it easier post divorce, as another man will always pull over to help them change their flat tire while we are left to bang our knuckles bloody but guess what, women also reap less of the reward, simply because we as fathers, did not give up on ourselves or our children...
Should it change how we enter a marriage and parenting?
Should moms not marry in order to keep their independence?
How should family law handle this? How should society help the couple with kids who are considering divorce or getting divorced?
If our goal is to reduce divorce, then we must look at why marriage isn't working for about half of the population. And, instead of looking at divorce as "failure" (because sometimes divorce is necessary), we as a society must support people instead of condemn and help families of all kinds. How that's going to shape up is, as Parkinson says, "is one of the great challenges of our time." Living together and having kids is not the answer nor is choice parenting.
How about this -- call a divorce proceeding a "separation" until the children reach adulthood. Divide up assets; keep child custody/placement equal with each parent during the separation.
When the children reach adulthood the separation converts into a divorce.
Then people would realize what they are getting into in a divorce proceeding. If you file for a divorce with a one year-old child, then you have a 18-year divorce proceeding.
She had no skills and 4 near grown kids to parent through this nightmare solo. So she decided to stick it out and soldier through for her kids. They came through it but they have some skars they don't talk about.
After my wife left him he ditched the he/she and wanted her back. No go. The door was shut and ties cut. She worked and went to school and is now a professional on her own elbow grease. All this after she put him through college.
This Ahole has never discussed this period of turmoil with his now 20+ year old children who are trapped into trying to find a way to respect the man they know as their father and its difficult for them. Particularly while he's bad mouthing their mother nonstop.
We are careful not to ever say anything disparaging about the man but he is loathsome. He is known to whine now because the kids don't want to be around him.
That's already largely true in both cases. Thanks for laying out clearly why marriage is a raw deal for men. Explains why there's not much interest in it by young guys, despite the "man up" shaming language from feminists and conservatives both.
It might be a Girl friend or wife.
One might think to have ended it under Law.
The relationship exists in the mind.
You might get a divorce legally.
The memories, good or bad still linger.
No man or woman is wholly good or wholly bad.
Even after legal separation, these memories linger.
Again, we normally are not aware and are reluctant to admit our short comings in a relationship.
It is only when we enter into a new relationship do we find that we get the doubt that we have our own shortcomings.
So the maladjustment leaves a scar in our psyche.
To remain in a relationship trying to bear with a partner who is incompatible and cruel is also a pain.
Is this why people say ‘Marriages are made in Heaven?” ,for better or worse-substitute relationship for marriage.
If the relationship is parents/siblings, children?
You can not divorce these.
In Sanskrit there are two words to describe these relationships.
One is Sondham, the other is Bandham.
Sondham is a relationship which is not your choosing-parents,siblings and children. You are stuck with it.
Bandham is what we choose( this might be wrong as well)-wife, acquaintances-you may be able to discard them.