STRENGTHENING
MARRIAGE
September 15, 2012
Legislators and friends,
The
best way to reduce divorce rates and to encourage commitment back into marriage
is to bring back "fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or
husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held
liable and forced to pay damages.
No-fault divorce also gutted marriage of its legal power to bind husband
and wife, allowing one spouse to dissolve a marriage for any reason — or for no
reason at all. Neither court nor judge can mitigate the pain and suffering of
divorce for a family. Contrary to popular opinion, few people enter into a
divorce lightheartedly.
The
promise of sexual exclusivity (fidelity) is a very important part of marriage.
This needs to be clearly written into all civil marriage contracts and enforced
by the divorce courts. Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each
other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If
people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer
divorces.
The
liberalization of divorce that is no-fault reflects cultural changes. The law
caught up with society in the 1960s. The rise of no-fault divorce can be traced
to the recognition that requiring people to state the traditional grounds for
divorce often led to fraud or lying; that rehearsed perjury diminished respect
for the law; that society had no compelling interest making a couple stay
together if the marriage has broken down and the two of them don’t want to stay
together.
From
1960 to 1980, the divorce rate more than doubled — from 9.2 divorces per 1,000
married women to 22.6 divorces per 1,000 married women. This meant that while
less than 20% of couples who married in 1950 ended up divorced, about 50% of
couples who married in 1970 did. And approximately half of the children born to
married parents in the 1970s saw their parent’s part, compared to only about
11% of those born in the 1950s.
In
the years since 1980, however, these trends have not continued on straight upward
paths, and the story of divorce has grown increasingly complicated. In the case
of divorce, as in so many others, the worst consequences of the social
revolution of the 1960s and '70s are now felt disproportionately by the poor
and less educated, while the wealthy elites who set off these transformations
in the first place have managed to reclaim somewhat healthier and more stable
habits of married life. This imbalance leaves our cultural and political elites
less well attuned to the magnitude of social dysfunction in much of American
society, and leaves the most vulnerable Americans — especially children living
in poor and working-class communities — even worse off than they would
otherwise be.
But
what about the children? In the older, institutional model of marriage, parents
were supposed to stick together for their sake. The view was that divorce could
leave an indelible emotional scar on children, and would also harm their social
and economic future. Yet under the new soul-mate model of marriage, divorce
could be an opportunity for growth not only for adults but also for their
offspring. The view was that divorce could protect the emotional welfare of
children by allowing their parents to leave marriages in which they felt
unhappy. In 1962, as Whitehead points out in her book The Divorce Culture,
about half of American women agreed with the idea that "when there are
children in the family parents should stay together even if they don't get
along." By 1977, only 20% of American women held this view.
When
a couple marry with the hope of life together and the marriage fails, easy
divorce is an oxymoron. Contrary to popular opinion, few people enter into a
divorce lightheartedly. A divorce is wrenching, and for most people going
through one is, under the best conditions, an experience in mental and
emotional anguish and sadness. Even when divorce is the only answer, it is
painful and dislocating, and when it becomes a war, the idea of victory and
winning is an illusion. The belief that "divorce breeds divorce,"
meaning that the easy availability of divorce makes other couples more likely
to divorce, has grown in its foundation. Divorce has become contagious.
What is no-fault divorce?
The
claims were that, the no-fault divorce helped courts get rid of “cooked-up
stories in the court of law”; a spouse now no longer needs to prove that their
partner had faulted in the marriage. Issues concerning “irreconcilable
differences” and “incompatibility” are now reasons strong enough to get a
divorce under no-fault divorce laws. No-fault divorce helps one spouse get rid
of a burdensome relationship even if there has been no infidelity, desertion,
brutality, abandonment or any related crime. No-fault divorce strips out a
legal recognition of blame. The injured or rejected partner, perhaps the one
who does not want the marriage to end, has little financial and emotion
recourse. Moralists argue that no-fault divorce makes it too easy to get a
divorce, which get you in to the court system faster and easier..
Similar claims were made that no-fault
divorce laws would offer or ensure a speedy divorce and this would ultimately
be less expensive compared to fault divorce, of course they didn’t see the
lawyers and Judges using this process to exaggerate or lengthen the process
with Parent Coordinators or Case Management evolving. Everybody has heard of a
“Pandora's Box”? This is an artifact in Greek mythology; the "box"
was actually a large jar which contained all the evils of the world. Today, to
open a Pandora's box means to create evil that cannot be undone – Parent
Coordinators and Case Managers.
This
was to displace some of the volatility of what makes negotiations so explosive;
that a couple would negotiate the end of the marriage without assigning blame
or fault, wow did they miss that one! It is always advantageous to avoid a
divorce trial, having agreed to end their marriage without a finding of fault
and have successfully negotiated the terms and conditions of support and
custody and the division and distribution of the marital estate.
The reality is the Domestic Courts
have had an explosion in increased numbers and states are paying a toll larger
than they ever dreamed in state agencies (child support, court trustee’s, etc.)
and then the untold story of the negative impact on the children as the courts
and the state attempt to lay claim to working in the “child’s best interest”
knowing there is nothing they can do to make the situation more positive. We
need the state out of this process and we need to take the money out of
divorce.
Many scholars, therapists, lawyers,
Judges and journalists served as enablers of this kind of thinking. These
elites argued that children were resilient in the face of divorce; that
children could easily find male role models to replace absent fathers; and that
children would be happier if their parents were able to leave unhappy
marriages. In 1979, one prominent scholar wrote in the Journal of Divorce that
divorce even held "growth potential" for mothers, as they could enjoy
"increased personal autonomy, a new sense of competence and control, [and
the] development of better relationships with [their] children." And in
1974's The Courage to Divorce, social workers Susan Gettleman and Janet
Markowitz argued that boys need not be harmed by the absence of their fathers:
"When fathers are not available, friends, relatives, teachers and
counselors can provide ample opportunity for youngsters to model themselves
after a like-sexed adult."
Thirty
years later, the myth of the good divorce has not stood up well in the face of
sustained social scientific inquiry — especially when one considers the welfare
of children exposed to their parents' divorces. Since 1974, about 1 million
children per year have seen their parents’ divorce — and children who are
exposed to divorce are two to three times more likely than their peers in
intact marriages to suffer from serious social or psychological pathologies. In
their book Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps,
sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur found that 31% of adolescents
with divorced parents dropped out of high school, compared to 13% of children
from intact families. They also concluded that 33% of adolescent girls whose
parents divorced became teen mothers, compared to 11% of girls from
continuously married families. And McLanahan and her colleagues have found that
11% of boys who come from divorced families end up spending time in prison
before the age of 32, compared to 5% of boys who come from intact homes.
Research
also indicates that remarriage is no salve for children wounded by divorce.
Indeed, as sociologist Andrew Cherlin notes in his important new book, The
Marriage-Go-Round, "children whose parents have remarried do not have
higher levels of well-being than children in lone-parent families." The
reason? Often, the establishment of a step-family results in yet another move
for a child, requiring adjustment to a new caretaker and new step-siblings —
all of which can be difficult for children, who tend to thrive on stability.
Skeptics
confronted with this kind of research often argue that it is unfair to compare
children of divorce to children from intact, married households. They contend
that it is the “conflict” or “high conflict” that precedes the divorce, rather
than the divorce itself, that is likely to be particularly traumatic for
children. The problem here is there is no threshold or clear definition for
these terms.
More
than two-thirds of all parental divorces do not involve such “highly
conflicted” marriages. And unfortunately, these are the very divorces that are
most likely to be stressful for children. When children see their parents’
divorce because they have simply drifted apart — or because one or both parents
have become unhappy or left to pursue another ¬partner — the kids' faith in
love, commitment, and marriage is often shattered. In the wake of their
parents' divorce, children are also likely to experience a family move, marked
declines in their family income, a stressed-out single parent, and substantial
periods of paternal absence — all factors that put them at risk. In other
words, the clear majority of divorces involving children in America are not in
the best interests of the children.
Even under no-fault divorce, things
can turn acrimonious when children are involved. The primary consideration in
child custody is the best interests of the child; this may force the couple to
take adversarial roles to demonstrate that the other is not as fit to be a
parent. Thus even a supposedly non-adversarial approach can quickly pit one
spouse against the other.
Disadvantages?
It
has been observed that as a result of no-fault divorce laws, there has been a
jump in the number of divorces in USA. In a study carried out in 1989 by Justec
research in Virginia on the impact of no-fault divorce laws in 38 states of
USA, have shown that there has been a 20-25% rise in the number of divorce
cases. One of the reasons for the increase is found to be due to the ease with
which people can divorce each other as provided by the laws of no-fault
divorce. People are increasingly becoming less tolerant to each other and
wishing to break up the marriage as the law also permits them to do so! Thus,
to say marriage has become a matter of joke and the beauty of the relationship
is getting lost!
Sometimes a spouse contests a
divorce for all kinds of reasons, some of which are not in his or her long-term
best interest. Divorce is so wrenching an experience that people sometimes do
not think clearly. One spouse may want to reconcile, so he or she hopes for a
change of heart in the other. Or one spouse, hurt and angry by the other’s
rejection, may want to make it difficult. Sometimes, one spouse wants
additional time to hide assets that would be distributed. A party may have
religious or philosophical objections to ending a marriage.
When a couple marry with the hope of
life together and the marriage fails, easy divorce is an oxymoron. A divorce is
wrenching, and for most people going through one is, under the best conditions,
an experience in mental and emotional anguish and sadness. Even when divorce is
the only answer, it is painful and dislocating, and when it becomes a war, the
idea of victory and winning is an illusion. The belief that "divorce
breeds divorce," meaning that the easy availability of divorce makes other
couples more likely to divorce, seems to have a foundation. Growing up in a
two-parent home has its advantages, and thus there may also be advantages to a
system which puts up some barriers to divorce, at least among parents.
New measures and Laws
There
are no magic cures for the growing divorce divide in America. But a few modest
policy measures could offer some much-needed help to the problem.
First, the states should reform
their divorce laws. A return to fault-based divorce is certainly going to raise
the bar back up but this will become a political matter, but some plausible
common-sense reforms could nonetheless inject a measure of sanity into our state
and nation's divorce laws. Require married adults to prove any of the
traditional grounds for divorce: adultery, physical or mental cruelty,
abandonment or desertion, imprisonment, insanity, and drug or alcohol
addiction. The benefit of a fault divorce is that, if one spouse is clearly to
blame, the other may be entitled to greater benefits in the form of spousal
maintenance. Also, a fault divorce allows a couple to avoid any state-mandated
waiting period for a no-fault divorce. Spouses who are being divorced against
their will, and who have not engaged in egregious misbehavior such as abuse,
adultery, or abandonment, should be given preferential treatment by family
courts. Such consideration would add a measure of justice to the current
divorce process; it would also discourage some divorces, as spouses who would
otherwise seek an easy exit might avoid a divorce that would harm them
financially or limit their access to their children.
Second,
Congress could extend the federal Healthy Marriage Initiative. In 2006, as part
of President George W. Bush's marriage initiative, Congress passed legislation
allocating $100 million a year for five years to more than 100 programs
designed to strengthen marriage and ¬family -relationships in America —
especially among low-income couples. As Kathryn Edin of Harvard has noted, many
of these programs are equipping poor and working-class couples with the
relational skills that their better-educated peers rely upon to sustain their
marriages. Many of these programs will be evaluated; the most successful
programs serving poor and working-class communities should receive additional
funding, and should be used as models for new programs to serve these
communities. New ideas — like additional social-marketing campaigns on behalf
of marriage, on the model of those undertaken to discourage smoking — should
also be explored through the initiative.
Third,
the State and the Federal government should expand the child tax credit;
incentivize it by the fact that one marriage gets more benefits. Raising
children is expensive, and has become increasingly so, given rising college and
health-care costs. Yet the real value of tax deductions for children has fallen
considerably since the 1960s. To remedy this state of affairs, have proposed
expanding the current child tax credit and making it fully refundable against
both income and payroll taxes. A reform along those lines would provide a
significant measure of financial relief to working-class and middle-class
families, and would likely strengthen their increasingly fragile marriages. I
would promote the Fair Tax model as it protects the Family Budget and
gets government OUT of the Social Engineering business.
Of
course, none of these reforms of law and policy alone is likely to exercise a
transformative influence on the quality and stability of marriage in America.
Such fixes must be accompanied by changes in the wider culture. Parents,
churches, schools, public officials, and the entertainment industry will have
to do a better job of stressing the merits of a more institutional model of
marriage. This will be particularly important for poor and working-class young
adults, who are drifting away from marriage the fastest.
This
is a tall order, to say the least. But if our society is genuinely interested
in protecting and improving the welfare of children — especially children in
our nation's most vulnerable communities — we must strengthen marriage and
reduce the incidence of divorce in America. The unthinkable alternative is a
nation divided more and more by class and marital ¬status, and children doubly
disadvantaged by poverty and single parenthood. Surely no one believes that
such a state of affairs is in the national interest. Nothing in a fault or
no-fault, uncontested divorce, however, speaks to the sadness and sorrow of a
family torn apart and NO ONE should profit from such a tragic event.
Besides
the efforts in Michigan to eliminate some forms of no-fault divorce, three
states have established a second form of marriage, called a covenant marriage,
which makes divorce more difficult to obtain. In 1997 Louisiana became the
first state to establish covenant marriage, followed by Arizona and Arkansas. Under
covenant marriage, the couple agrees to pre-marital counseling and accepts
fewer grounds for divorce. (Domestic violence and adultery, for example, are
still valid grounds.) Even with these barriers in place though, the couple
could still obtain a divorce in another state which does not recognize covenant
marriages.
Although
the no-fault divorce caught on rapidly in the U.S. in the last 40 years, the
efforts by state lawmakers in Michigan, Louisiana, Arizona, and Arkansas to
make divorce more difficult to obtain may reflect a growing concern over high
divorce rates, and point to a growing trend. No-fault divorce may face
increased scrutiny both in Massachusetts and throughout the country.
No
more than the comment that when government trumps religion as the provider of
organization of the culture the result is the indulgence of self-interest and
the art of the deal when it comes to marriage. A model of a business contract
that impersonally must be dissolved.
Next
week I will put together the Corruption of the Judicial Branch issues! If for
some reason you need to find out more on certain subjects please don’t hesitate
to call or email me or visit our blog at http://kansasjudicialsystem-casemanagers.blogspot.com/
Chris
Brown
browncontract@hotmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment