Here's 'quickie divorce' in the news...
Many couples collaborating on kinder divorces
NEW YORK - Collaborative divorce. The term sounds like an oxymoron in a culture steeped in high-cost, high-conflict breakups.
Yet many couples are embracing the approach, recently endorsed by the American Bar Association, as part of a broader quest to find more civilized, efficient ways to end a marriage. Do-it-yourself divorces and mediation also are popular options.
Lawyers by the thousands want to be part of the trend.
By David Crary, Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-18-kinder-divorce_N.htm
Amicable Divorce
Jean talks with Sue Hansen, president of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, about a new, rapidly growing practice called collaborative divorce. Unlike a traditional divorce, both parties commit to staying out of court from the outset, taking the threat of litigation off the table. The couple works with trained professionals to resolve disputes respectfully.
http://www.oprah.com/article/oprahandfriends/jchatzky/jchatzky_20061006
No-Fault Divorce
Child psychologist Judith Wallerstein has been studying divorced families for the past 30 years. The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, which she published in 2000, explored the long-lasting impact of broken marriages, and is now a classic in the field. Her new book, What About the Kids? Raising Your Children Before, During, and After Divorce (Hyperion), is a guide for parents on how to make the breakup easier for all members of the family. TIME recently spoke with Wallerstein:
In what way is divorce different for women than for men?
In every way. First of all, 2 out of 3 divorces are sought by women. Second, most children are in the custody of their moms. Third, women, when they get divorced, know they really want to get away from Harry. What they don't realize is all that awaits them after the breakup--how much their role as a person will be different, how much their role as a parent is going to be different, and especially that they are going to be dealing with Harry for the rest of their life.
What are the financial consequences?
There are enormous financial ramifications, unless you divorce a big-time corporate president and you have a great lawyer. [Laughs.] Obviously, that happens, but in [most people's] real life, the woman is largely responsible for the economic support of her children, and child support doesn't really cover it. The middle-class woman doesn't get back to her former level until remarriage.
You write about the guilt that some mothers feel in divorce.
Women have an infinite capacity for guilt as moms. They're worried about their children at the time of the breakup. They're worried about what's going to be the short-term effect, the long-term effect. They have a sense that they're being less of a mother than they wanted to be. I really feel women have to overcome this, because nobody's perfect.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004667,00.html
Collaborative law seeks to make break up easier
Many a divorced couple would say they wish there had been a better way. The hostility that builds through the process of financially and emotionally severing a marriage can be devastating, both to the parties involved and the children they have together
Joining thousands of progressive lawyers across the country, Wichita Falls attorneys Milissa Barrick and Jeff McKnight believe theyve found that better way. Recently certified in the practice of collaborative family law, both describe it as a completely new approach to divorce that guides couples toward cooperation rather than into adversarial corners.
This is a process that allows people to be able to go to their childrens graduations, weddings or holiday functions without tension or hostility. They come out of the divorce with a good working relationship, Barrick said.
Collaborative law dismantles a marriage; it doesnt tear it apart, said McKnight.
The two attorneys, who practice separately, admit they are breaking new ground in North Texas family law but are enthusiastic about the prospects. Both have witnessed the damage done in the adversarial environment of divorce, where couples who may have intended to part amicably end up fighting for control of everything down to the pots and pans.
By Judith McGinnis, Thursday, November 6, 2008
IN DEFENSE OF SPLITTING UP
NO ONE SEEMS MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT CHILDREN when the subject is welfare or Medicaid cuts, but mention divorce, and tears flow for their tender psyches. Legislators in half a dozen states are planning to restrict divorce on the grounds that it may cause teen suicide, an inability to "form lasting attachments" and possibly also the piercing of nipples and noses.
But if divorce itself hasn't reduced America's youth to emotional cripples, then the efforts to restrict it undoubtedly will. First, there's the effect all this antidivorce rhetoric is bound to have on the children of people already divorced--and we're not talking about some offbeat minority. At least 37% of American children live with divorced parents, and these children already face enough tricky interpersonal situations without having to cope with the public perception that they're damaged goods.
Fortunately for the future of the republic, the alleged psyche-scarring effects of divorce have been grossly exaggerated. The most frequently cited study, by California therapist Judith Wallerstein, found that 41% of the children of divorced couples are "doing poorly, worried, underachieving, deprecating and often angry" years after their parents' divorce. But this study has been faulted for including only 60 couples, two-thirds of whom were deemed to lack "adequate psychological functioning" even before they split, and all of whom were self-selected seekers of family therapy. Furthermore, there was no control group of, say, miserable couples who stayed together.
As for some of the wilder claims, such as "teen suicide has tripled as divorces have tripled": well, roller-blading has probably tripled in the same time period too, and that's hardly a reason to ban in-line skates.
In fact, the current antidivorce rhetoric slanders millions of perfectly wonderful, high-functioning young people, my own children and most of their friends included. Studies that attempt to distinguish between the effects of divorce and those of the income decline so often experienced by divorced mothers have found no lasting psychological damage attributable to divorce per se. Check out a typical college dorm, and you'll find people enthusiastically achieving and forming attachments until late into the night. Ask about family, and you'll hear about Mom and Dad...and Stepmom and Stepdad.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984373,00.html
By Barbara Ehrenreich
Reconcilable Differences
There was a time when divorce was an ugly thing that created unremitting enmity between former spouses and severed ties between fathers and children. Times have changed. Now a spate of unusually cozy celebrity splits is drawing attention to a far different set of templates for divorce.
Five years after their marriage ended amid tabloid tales of toe sucking, Britain's Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, live with their daughters, now 12 and 11, in the same 20-room manor the Queen gave the couple as a wedding present. This winter the Yorks vacationed together in Switzerland. "The welfare and lives of the children are of paramount importance," explains David Pogson, a spokesman for the Duke of York. Two years after their marriage was annulled, Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall are once again sharing meals--though not bedrooms--in Hall's home outside London. Jagger was a lousy husband, Hall says, but he remains a great father to their four children, ages 3 to 17. After singer Melissa Etheridge and filmmaker Julie Cypher separated last year, they bought back-to-back houses in Los Angeles. The children they co-parent, ages 4 and 2, move between homes every four days--and at any time in between. "They truck through the back fence. It's very fluid," says Cypher. "We don't want a child to have to get on an airplane to see the other parent."
It's not just celebrities and folks who live in mansions. Ordinary mortals too are finding novel ways to keep their families largely intact following separation or divorce. They're sharing homes, living next door to each other, vacationing together. But why on earth would ex-spouses want to remain in each other's lives in light of the troubles that estranged them? The answer is usually a combination of pressures: financial necessity, a tight real estate market, a child-care shortage and--pre-eminently--an increased awareness of children's need for both parents. As those pressures increase, some people who work with families of divorce say they are seeing a rise in the number of ex-spouses who share many aspects of married life.
Having practiced family law for 40 years, San Francisco attorney Lowell Sucherman had heard of "birdnesting," in which children continue to reside in the family home while their parents take turns moving in and out to care for them, and "doublenesting," in which ex-spouses live in separate areas of the family home. But he had never handled such a case until four years ago. Since then, he and his law partner have helped six couples set up such households. Says Sucherman: "I don't see an end here anytime soon. The more housing prices rise, the more this will happen."
Journalists: Catherine Elsworth and Jacqui Thornton
Collaborative Divorce Could Save You Money
Divorces are tough, not just emotionally, but financially as well, especially during this rough economy. There are ways to get divorce with out having it break the bank. Since traditional litigation isn't for everyone, there are alternatives that could make the process easier. You don't have to go to court and it could save you a few dollars.
Divorces in the entertainment world can be expensive and downright dirty.
During the tough economy, more people are deciding to stay together because they can't afford not to. With selling a house and wondering what to do with the kids, there's a lot to take into consideration. But some local lawyers believe they have the answer: a team approach.
There's a network of collaborative lawyers across the state, including attorneys Charlie Goldstein and Rebecca Guyette.
They represent different law firms but work together to make their clients happy.
They say collaborative divorce offers a more cost-effective way to divorce or address any family matter.
They have the two parties meet with their lawyers and sign a contract stating they will be honest, open and not go to court.
The four of them dive into issues, work out the assets and then sign the martial termination agreement. On average, it takes about five to seven sessions.
If both sides are willing to work together, they can save a lot of money And if everyone can't come to a happy medium on a certain issue, the lawyers may call on a child or financial specialist.
As for drawbacks, there’s no judge involved to rule on any of the issues. You, your future-ex and both lawyers have to agree.
Journalists: Catherine Elsworth and Jacqui Thornton
Wanting to Divorce, But Unable to Afford It
The economic crisis may be doing what pastors, family therapists and matrimonial counselors have long struggled to accomplish: keeping troubled marriages together.
Marriage counselors and divorce lawyers nationwide say more distressed couples are putting off divorce because the cost of splitting up is prohibitive in a time of stagnant salaries, plummeting home values and rising unemployment.
While the stress of economic uncertainty often worsens already shaky unions, it also can make couples more financially dependent on each other, said Pamela Smock, a researcher at the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
“Anything of this magnitude that’s going to affect millions of people does not bode well for all sorts of families,” she said. “It could keep unhappy couples together.”
That’s what happened to a client of Robi S. Ludwig, a psychotherapist in New York.
“I had a woman say to me: ‘My God, I can’t stand my husband. Every day I just want to leave him, but I can’t afford it,’” said Ludwig, co-author of “Till Death Do Us Part,” an examination of severely dysfunctional marriages. “So they are deciding to stay together.”
Jeff Grumley, a marriage counselor in Loves Park, Ill., north of Rockford, said he had seen a 25 percent jump in business in recent months as couples tried to save their marriages, and their money. Ten sessions cost about $1,000, Grumley said — not exactly pocket change, but far better than the tens of thousands of dollars a divorce costs.
“I think people feel desperate,” Grumley said.
2 households? ‘They can barely pay for one’
Divorces have always been expensive. For a contested proceeding that goes to court, a couple with at least one child can expect a divorce to cost anywhere from $53,000 to $188,000, according to calculations based on census data by the Web site Divorce360, which factored in attorneys’ fees, financial advice, counseling and real-estate costs for buying or renting separate homes.
Often many of those expenses are recovered when a couple sells their home and divides the proceeds. But the disastrous real-estate market is leaving many homeowners owing more on their mortgages than their properties are worth — turning what would normally be their biggest marital asset into a liability.
“They also can’t go out and get a credit card or personal loan to pay attorney fees or to even try and find a piece of real estate because the lending market is tightening down on them,” said Kevin Hughes, a criminal and family lawyer in Cincinnati.
The evidence for a decline in divorces is primarily anecdotal, because national marriage and divorce statistics for 2008 aren’t available. But in some jurisdictions that report semi-annual figures, the trend is being borne out.
In Chicago, the Cook County Circuit Court system reported that divorce and separation filings fell by 600 — or roughly 5 percent — during the first nine months of the year, compared to the same period last year. Comparable drops have been reported in Fresno County, Calif., and Comanche County, Okla.
In South Florida, where the condominium-heavy Miami area has been described as ground zero of the mortgage crisis, Miami-Dade County reported an 18 percent drop in divorce filings from January to May, compared to the same period last year. Perhaps not coincidentally, average real-estate prices in the area fell about 20 percent over the same period.
“What the judicial officers are telling us is that people who do come in are saying they can’t afford the cost of splitting up and going into two households — they can barely pay for the one,” said Scott L. Rubin, a marital and family lawyer in Miami who is chairman of the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar.
“The housing market is down, it’s hard to sell, and when you can sell, you’re selling it at a depressed price, so a lot of people are deciding ... 'It’s not worth it to do it (at) this time. Let’s stay together. Let’s try to work through our problems and hope that the economy will spring back,'" Rubin said.
2008 downturn a reversal of history
Historically, divorce rates tend to rise during tough economic times, counselors and lawyers said, citing a 17 percent spike in divorces during the 1997 recession. But what makes this downturn different is its severity, they speculate.
That view draws support from the fact that a decline in divorces also was observed from 1930 to 1935, during the depths of the Great Depression, according to Census figures.
Divorce rates “weren’t high, but they went down,” said Jay D. Teachman, a professor of sociology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash., who has studied the period. “People couldn’t afford to divorce.”
By Alex Johnson
Extreme divorce settlements are appalling
USA TODAY's story on "financial fidelity" was revealing. A marriage certificate should not be a license to hide money from one's spouse, as it appears many American couples do ("Money, fidelity go hand in hand," Cover story, Life, Tuesday).
But it also shouldn't be a financial death sentence for either spouse if a couple ultimately chooses to divorce. This may be the case for former Beatle Paul McCartney, whose divorce settlement with Heather Mills could total more than $48 million ("Mills wants total verdict kept secret," Life, Tuesday).
Until legislators and courts start cracking down on outrageous divorce settlements, the extreme wealth transfers exemplified in the Mills vs. McCartney case will continue.
The problem is not whether McCartney can afford this settlement, but whether Mills is entitled to become a multimillionaire. It was McCartney's brilliance as a singer and songwriter that brought his wealth — not Mills' love, devotion and support. Both sides can be guilty of financial scheming, but it is the financially responsible spouse who has to pay, regardless of need or fairness. The cry over personal injury awards is laughable when compared to the immense wealth transfers occurring daily in divorce courts.
Gregory A. Anderson - Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla.
'Friendly' divorce movement gains ground
Looking to reduce the cost and emotional toll, more couples try 'collaborative' law to keep breakups out of court.
The couple wanted the split to be as amicable and quick as possible, but their intertwined lives - which include two young children - had made it difficult.
They soon settled on joint custody of the kids, but their financial discussions were more contentious. That's when the couple decided to try a new form of divorce, using "collaborative law."
It essentially says that both parties, with the help of lawyers, psychiatrists, and accountants, agree to work toward the best solution for all involved. And because they never step foot in court, proponents of the concept say it reduces the emotional costs on everyone.
"Divorce is not a pleasant situation to begin with," says Joe, a Houston lawyer who preferred to use his first name only. "But collaborative law made the process as smooth as it could have been."
Now a new study in Texas shows that the process is saving time and money as well. Instead of a typical 18-month, $14,000 process through litigation, a collaborative divorce takes an average of 18 weeks and $9,000 to complete, according to recently released data by the Collaborative Law Institute of Texas.
Collaborative divorce is part of a growing legal movement, known as holistic or transformative law. It moves from an adversarial approach to a more healing or counseling approach to the practice of law - and practitioners and clients alike say they are much more satisfied at the end of the day.
The concept is especially important when it comes to divorce, which affects about one million children a year. In most cases, divorcing parents need to continue their relationship beyond the bounds of marriage. "If a couple has children, the legal end of a marriage is really just the beginning of a new relationship," says Peggy Thompson, codirector of Collaborative Divorce in Orinda, Calif., and a family psychologist.
To many family lawyers and therapists, traditional adversarial models of law do not fit divorce cases, which originally wound up in the courts because women were considered property. In collaborative divorces, a team of lawyers, accountants, and psychiatrists work with both clients' best interests at heart, sharing information freely. Instead of dueling experts, the couple pays for a single, neutral expert to help with financial or mental-health issues.
Joe, for instance, says he and his wife hired an accountant to look at their assets and recommend a fair solution. Both were satisfied with the result, and they signed the final divorce papers this week after just four months.
"Collaborative law provides a safe structure where people can negotiate without threat of court, without fear of being cross-examined or have anything they say used against them," says Norma Trusch, president of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals. She has been practicing family law in Houston for 27 years and says she nearly ended her career in frustration until she heard about collaborative law three years ago. "All I ever heard from children was, 'Please make my parents stop fighting,' " she says.
Though she can make substantially more money litigating, Ms. Trusch is changing her entire practice to collaborative law. She says she knew it was right when, "for the first time ever, I was hugged by the client on the other side."
The main disadvantage, however, is that if the parties can't reach a negotiated solution, they must fire their collaborative lawyers and hire litigators.
That will have meant wasted time and money, says Thomas Oldham, a professor at the University of Houston, who focuses on family law and marital property rights.
He touches on collaborative law in several of his classes and says the advantages seem to outweigh the disadvantages. "A number of very good lawyers are quite excited about it," he says.
Origins of a divorce movement
Collaborative law was developed in 1990 by a Minneapolis family lawyer, Stuart Webb, who was burned out from handling divorces in court. Since that time, 4,500 lawyers across the country have been trained in the process, a number that has been roughly doubling each year as demand for the service rises.
In 2001, Texas became the first state to adapt its divorce law to accommodate the practice through legislation. In Louisiana, a family-court judge is using a $200,000 grant to promote the concept to both lawyers and clients.
W. Ross Foote led the campaign in Rapides Parish, La. After trying for 12 years to bring "dignity" back to family court, the district judge finally stumbled across collaborative divorce two years ago and has been trumpeting the idea ever since.
One recent example of its success: An Alexandria, La., couple called their collaborative lawyer to cancel an appointment, saying that they had stayed up all night talking (communication is a large part of the collaborative process) and decided to give their marriage another chance.
Fewer divorces
In fact, the number of couples who stay together after going through the collaborative process is about 10 percent nationwide - a much larger number than those who use the courts, studies show.
"If 10 percent of the people are reconciling though collaborative law, then the legal system is costing us 10 percent of divorces unnecessarily," says Judge Foote. "The problem with the court route is, there is no exit ramp. Once you start, you can't stop. People get more and more bitter and say worse and worse things."
Taking divorce out of the courts, he says, is key to creating healthy relationships after the split. "The difference is, collaborative law is client-centered instead of court-centered," he says. "We call it divorce with dignity."
