|
|
Friends, On this page you will find the following interesting articles: 1. "Geting a Divorce Without Involving Lawyers" 2. "Ordinary Decencies" 3. "What You Found Out at Your 25th High School Reunion" 4. "Spliting Up Without Going Broke" 5. "Divorce Without Bitterness" 6. "Divorce Without The Courts
I'm interested in your responses to the information on my website. Let me know what you would like to see posted. Send your opinions, questions and suggestion to me at brielaw@snet.net Thanks, Harold Printed below are excerpts from an article by Attorney Karin Quirk, a family lawyer trained in divorce mediation and collaborative law. Attorney Quirk practices collaborative divorce and mediation in Bellevue, Washington. For more information see www.karinquirk.com
The full article appeared in “Eastside Business,” a Bellevue, Washington publication.
GETTING A DIVORCE WITHOUT INVOLVING LAWYERS Thursday, 19 June 2008 By Karin Quirk, Esq.
So you are contemplating getting a divorce and you want to do it without lawyer involvement. I am amused that people will rely on internet sites about divorce getting information from people without legal training, often in another state, rather than get competent professional advice.
The paperwork is complex, could be overwhelming and you are taking an important step that has legal consequences that could affect you years later. You probably have more productive ways to spend your time than getting your legal education at a time they are experiencing emotional distress. There is no need to be “penny wise and pound foolish” when there are so many choices depending on your situation.
Full disclosure here – I am a lawyer and I do earn my living helping people dissolve their marriages. My objective is to empower couples to dissolve their marriage in a respectful cooperative way while still preserving their privacy. I do not charge according to how big the assets are. My fees are based upon the complexity of the issues and the parties’ ability to be involved in the resolution of those issues. ... A fairly new concept, collaborative law, is gaining momentum across the country and has been featured on television and in such publications as Money Magazine. In this model, both parties engage a lawyer but everyone agrees they will not go to court. This way both parties have an advocate to represent their interests but do so in a collaborative rather than adversarial manner. Other experts are can be brought in such as financial advisors, business valuation experts, and mental health professionals. Everyone works as a team to get the best outcome possible.
Couples engaging in a collaborative law divorce spend probably one-third as much on legal fees as conventional divorce. Another benefit is that once they reach resolution, they probably will not have ongoing battles over child custody and support as flexibility and problem solving is built into the process.
When seeking a divorce through collaborative law, it is important that both parties find lawyers who are trained in this process. An attorney trained in collaborative law can provide a list of other trained attorneys who can represent the other party.
Domestic violence, substance abuse or the other spouse is an emotional bully. Many attorneys who practice mediation or collaborative law can provide vigorous advocacy but will be less likely to fan the flames and make the situation even more heated. Collaborative law attorneys are trained to recognize such issues and deal with them appropriately. "ORDINARY DECENCIES" MEDIATION & COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POND Here's an article from the Dublin Independent that caught my interest. I'd like to share it with you. Legal head-to-heads 'only hurt the clients' By Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor Thursday February 21 2008
IRELAND'S adversarial legal system may be "making things worse" for litigants and creating injustice, the head of the Bar Council has warned.
In a major lecture delivered last night, barrister Turlough O'Donnell said that in disputes where future relationships are at stake, such as family law cases, mediation must be considered as an alternative to resolving bitter court conflicts.
Mr O'Donnell, a senior counsel who represents almost 2,500 practising barristers as head of the council, said that the adversarial system -- which pits sides against each other in win-or-lose litigation -- easily encourages "appalling military language", skirmishes and attacks that not only fail to resolve disputes, but create aggression.
"Ordinary decencies like giving an explanation to another person, expressing regret or making an apology are all discouraged either as signs of weakness or as admissions of liability," Mr O'Donnell said during the sixth annual Brian Walsh Memorial lecture.
The lecture in Dublin was attended by Chief Justice John Murray, son-in-law of the late Supreme Court judge Brian Walsh. "All the time we lawyers are projecting our idea of what the problem is onto the problem itself," said Mr O'Donnell.
"Many people just want an apology or and explanation -- much litigation is driven by people who 'just want to know what happened' and are not allowed find out any other way.
People can be helped to look to the future -- not remain stuck in the past. This is particularly important in family law."
Earlier this month, the Irish Independent revealed that many litigants, including the middle classes, were shunning legal advice because they cannot afford solicitors or barristers, and are instead representing themselves, especially in contested family law proceedings.
Mr O'Donnell's remarks were echoed yesterday by former Supreme Court judge Catherine McGuinness, as she launched collaborativelaw.ie, a website to help separating or divorcing couples resolve their disputes without going to court.
"Collaborative Family Law is faster and less acrimonious than court proceedings . . . and it is likely to be far less stressful," said Mrs McGuinness, who is President of the Law Reform Commission.
- Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor
WHAT WOULD YOU DISCOVER ON YOUR 25th HIGH SCHOOL REUNION ABOUT THE LIVES YOUR OLD CLASSMATES HAVE BEEN LEADING? READ WHAT DAVID J. JEFFERSON FOUND OUT IN THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE HE WROTE FOR NEWSDAY. Sponsored ByThe Divorce Generation Grows Up Grant High School's class of '82 were raised on 'The Brady Bunch'—while their own families were falling apart. These are their stories—in their words.
David J. Jefferson NEWSWEEK Updated: 3:33 PM ET Apr 12, 2008
I grew up in Los Angeles's San Fernando Valley—the quintessential American suburb, built on the postwar fantasies of men like my father, a GI who'd trained in the California desert to fight Rommel and never forgot the first time he saw orange trees and swimming pools. For $500 down, you could buy a ranch house in one of the Valley's new tract developments and start a family—maybe even live out your dreams of Hollywood stardom. Such was the life that Joseph Jefferson hoped to create when he moved to California to study acting and married a fellow student. But Dad found acting to be a cruel mistress: he wound up spending more time tending bar than in front of the cameras. It was no way to support his wife and two kids, and his marriage was a shambles. So he found another mistress: my mom.
They met at an actors' hangout called the Masquers club, and fell in love while Dad was starring as Jesus in a Passion play. Mom had helped him land the role, having been featured a season earlier as the Woman at the Well, whom Jesus saves from a life of serial divorce and adultery (cue the ironic guffaw). Behind the scenes, the man who spent his nights carrying a cross on his back was angling for a divorce himself. And those weren't easy to get in 1960, even in Hollywood. To begin with, his wife didn't want to give him one, and even if she had she would have needed to prove "fault"—adultery, abandonment, neglect, commission of a felony. So my dad and mom moved to Las Vegas for a few months, where they lived in an apartment house populated by card sharks and showgirls while awaiting the end of dad's marriage under Nevada's lax divorce laws. On Sept. 5, 1960, they drove to a small town in the middle of the Nevada desert called Tonopah and got married by the justice of the peace.
After moving back to Los Angeles, my actor parents set off on their new life together as if nothing had ever happened. But, of course, it had. At age 4 I discovered I wasn't an only child when my dad's kids, who'd been living in Florida, came to stay with us for a year. My mom says I refused to hug her the entire time—but I remember sobbing just the same when they left. My sister and brother had it worse: they grew up without a father, and never got to develop much of a relationship with him.
Ignorant of the picket fences around our tract homes, divorce was a constant intruder in the San Fernando Valley of my youth. Although I grew up a few blocks from the "Brady Bunch" house, the similarity between that TV family's tract-rancher and the ones where my friends and I lived pretty much ended at the front door. In the real Valley of the 1970s, families weren't coming together. They were coming apart. We were the "Divorce Generation," latchkey kids raised with after-school specials about broken families and "Kramer vs. Kramer," the 1979 best-picture winner that left kids worrying that their parents would be the next to divorce. Our parents couldn't seem to make marriage stick, and neither could our pop icons: Sonny and Cher, Farrah Fawcett and Lee Majors, the saccharine Swedes from Abba, all splitsville.
The change had begun in the '60s as the myth of the nuclear family exploded, and my generation was caught in the fallout. The women's rights movement had opened workplace doors to our mothers—more than half of all American women were employed in the late '70s, compared with just 38 percent in 1960—and that, in turn, made divorce a viable option for many wives who would have stayed in lousy marriages for economic reasons. Then in 1969, the year I entered kindergarten, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed California's "no fault" divorce law, allowing couples to unilaterally end a marriage by simply declaring "irreconcilable differences."
Not since Henry VIII's breakup with the pope has divorce received such a boost: by the time my friends and I entered our senior year at Ulysses S. Grant High School, divorce rates had soared to their highest level ever, with 5.3 per 1,000 people getting divorced each year, more than double the rate in the 1950s. Just as we were old enough to wed, experts were predicting that nearly one in two marriages would end in divorce.
It's been more than a quarter century since the Grant High class of '82 donned tuxes and taffeta and danced to Styx's "Come Sail Away" at the senior prom, and nearly four decades have passed since no-fault divorce laws began spreading across the country. In our parents' generation, marriage was still the most powerful social force. In ours, it was divorce. My 44-year-old classmates and I have watched divorce morph from something shocking, even shameful, into a routine fact of American life.
But while it may be a common occurrence, divorce remains a profound experience for those who've lived through it. Researchers have churned out all sorts of depressing statistics about the impact of divorce. Each year, about 1 million children watch their parents split, triple the number in the '50s. These children are twice as likely as their peers to get divorced themselves and more likely to have mental-health problems, studies show. While divorce rates have been dropping—off from their 1981 peak to just 3.6 per 1,000 people in 2006—marriage has also declined sharply, falling to 7.3 per 1,000 people in 2006 from 10.6 in 1970. Sociologists decry a growing "marriage gap" in which the well educated and better paid are staying married, while the poor are still getting divorced (people with college degrees are half as likely to be divorced or separated as their less-educated peers). And the younger you marry, the more likely you are to get divorced.
Yet all these statistics fail to show the very personal impact of divorce on the individual, or how those effects can change over a lifetime as children of divorce start families of their own. When we were growing up, divorce loomed as the ultimate threat to innocence, but what were my peers' feelings about it now that they were adults? What I wanted to know was how divorce had affected our class president and Miss Congeniality, the stoners and the valedictorian. Did it leave them with emotional scars that never healed, or did they go on to lead "normal" lives? Did they wind up in divorce court, or did they achieve the domestic bliss their parents had sought in suburbia? I decided to open my yearbook, pick up the phone and find out. These are their stories—or at least their side of their stories, since each breakup is perceived so differently by every family member.
Grant High School was built in 1959 to educate the first wave of the Valley's baby boomers; by the time I arrived in 1978 the school had more than 3,000 students. With its low-slung buildings and long hallways of orange-painted lockers, it's the kind of campus you've seen in a hundred movies—think "Fast Times at Ridgemont High." My best friend at Grant was Chris Kohnhorst, who, like me, was editor of the student paper, the Odyssey. I'd met Chris in fifth grade, when we bonded over our identical "Fat Albert" lunchboxes. He was the first kid I can remember encountering whose parents were divorced. His mother was a teacher and his father was an actor (to this day I rib him about his dad's guest appearance on "The Bionic Woman"). They'd separated in 1970, when Chris was in first grade. "The rift that split them eventually split up three children as well, as my older brother went to live with my father during high school and my younger sister and I stayed with our mom," Chris says. (Along with new divorce laws, custody rulings changed in the '70s—no longer was it de facto that kids would stay with their mothers—and that led to a whole new round of conflict in broken families.)
In seventh grade, Chris and I entered junior high and took an ancient-history class taught by his mother. We called her Mrs. Kohnhorst, though we wouldn't call her that for long: during the semester she married another divorced teacher and became Mrs. Hannum. Chris kept his father's last name and tried to avoid discussing the new family arrangement. Simple things, like filling out enrollment cards, "became opportunities to feel stigmatized," he says. "Every new form was another chance for me to suffer a minor psychological trauma. Scandalized, I wondered who was reading the cards and pondering why I had parents with two different last names," Chris says. "There were the questions in my mind of whom I would list as my father—my dad or my mother's new husband? Would it be an insult to my dad if I wrote down my stepfather's name?"
Shame and isolation. Those were familiar feelings to many of our friends. When Josh Gruenberg's parents separated for a time in 1977 and his mother left the house, he didn't tell anyone—not even his best friend, whose parents were divorced themselves. "I tried to keep it a secret from him because I was so embarrassed," says Josh, whose father was an English teacher at Grant and divorced his mother several years later. "It had to do with this idea that we were the perfect family, and I didn't want that to fall apart."
David Selig was also watching his parents' marriage blow up that year, but he didn't talk about it with his friends, either. On the surface, the Seligs seemed like a typical middle-class family. His dad worked in the sandblasting business, coached the T-ball team and took David to Indian Guides, a father-and-son group where members were called "chiefs" and "braves." But under the surface, there was friction at home. "I don't think I ever recall it being a harmonious family unit," says David, who has two sisters. "My father was very strict, very stubborn and extremely set in his ways. He lost his patience quickly. My mother was just the opposite, very lenient, easy-going and always supportive." The couple separated in the months before David's 13th birthday, but managed to stand together on the temple altar at his bar mitzvah. In that sense, David was better off than Robbie Hyatt, who wound up having not one, but two bar mitzvah parties, one for each camp of the family. "I was very close with my mom's dad, because we lived with him after my mom got divorced. He had never been bar mitzvahed, so I had him get bar mitzvahed with me. And my dad went ballistic," Robbie tells me. "It was a huge deal. This family-balance thing is nasty."
As their parents remarried, my classmates were left to negotiate the thicket of resentments that crop up between spouses and their exes, children and their stepparents. Laurie Gelardi's folks split when she was 3, and within a few years they'd married other people. From the outset, her relationship with her father's new wife was fraught. The way she saw it, her stepmother "didn't really care for him having a child from a previous marriage," says Laurie, who spent summers with them in San Francisco, where her dad was a Teamster. The rift worsened after her father and stepmother had a child, and Laurie felt she could never get any alone-time with him. "When I was about 13, I had a pretty big conflict with his wife one day when he was at work," she says. "I basically told him, 'I don't want to be with her, I don't come here to see her, and I don't want to come here anymore if you're going to make me stay with her while you're working.' And he said 'Fine.' That was probably the one and only time we had a serious conversation about the situation." Things weren't much better with Laurie's stepfather (it was her mom's third husband; her second had died when Laurie was 5). "I wasn't very accepting of having another man in my life as my father," Laurie says. "I don't think I recognized it at the time, but I was really fearful of my mom being hurt again."
As they witnessed their parents' pain, many of my friends took on emotional burdens well beyond their years. "When my father's second marriage collapsed, I was a 15-year-old high-school freshman who was forced to become a crisis counselor, sitting in the front seat of his car for endless hours listening to him and trying to keep him from completely breaking down," my buddy Chris Kohnhorst recalls. He may have been helping his dad, but Chris was doing damage to himself, encasing his own emotions in a dispassionate shell. "That outward calm expression has led me to be labeled as 'cold' and 'uninspiring,' and has at times hampered my ability to succeed both in my professional and personal life," says Chris, who decided to study psychology in college largely because of these impromptu therapy sessions with his dad.
Such are the scars of growing up too fast—something many of my classmates were doing in the '70s. As newly single mothers went to work to support their families, children were being left to fend for themselves. "We were latchkey kids," says Elyse Oliver, whose mom took a job at Hanna-Barbera studios, painting animated characters for shows like "The Flintstones" to provide for Elyse and her sister. "We had the little necklace with the key on it and we'd walk home from school, let ourselves in and take care of ourselves until she came home about 6 or 7. We'd do chores and cook dinner. I remember making drinks for her," Elyse says. The rest of the girls who lived on her block—the "Martha Street Gang," they called themselves—didn't come from broken homes. "It was, like, 'Eww, your parents are divorced'," recalls Elyse, whose parents split when she was 5, and whose last name at the time was Croen. By the time she was 13, her mother had been through three marriages: the first two ended in divorce, and her third husband died of a heart attack within a year, the day before Father's Day.
Like so many kids of divorce, Elyse dealt with the instability at home by acting out. At the age of 9, she was smoking. At 13, she was having sex. "My boyfriend at the time went up to my mom and said, 'Hey, we want to have sex, can you put her on the pill?' " Her mother agreed. At least Elyse was getting birth control: a good friend at the time, another child of divorce, had a baby at 15 and gave it up for adoption. The sexual revolution was in full swing in 1977, but Elyse believes her behavior had more to do with her parents' divorce and her father's death when she was 11. "I think I had a problem because I didn't have my dad around. So I was looking for love that wasn't there," Elyse says. She settled for whatever love she could get, putting up with her boyfriend's cheating for five years, then moving from one relationship to the next. "The same night I broke up with my first boyfriend, I met my next. I was never alone; I mean, there's something wrong with that."
But my generation was trained in the art of having to move from relationship to relationship. It begins when the judge determines custody and the children start shuttling between parents. Deborah Cronin was one of those kids you started seeing on airplanes in the '70s, flying by themselves. "I remember the stewardess took really good care of us and made sure we got to the right gates," says Deborah, whose mother sent the 5-year-old and her 4-year-old sister, Kimberly, to stay with their father in New Hampshire for the summer. That was the beginning of Deborah's bicoastal childhood. When she was in sixth grade, her mother moved to California and sent Deborah and her sister to live with their father and his new wife for a year while she looked for work. "I loved being with my father. But it was hard for my sister, as she was very close to my mom and missed her very much," Deborah says. By high school, she was bouncing between her mother's and father's for a year at a time. "It was difficult to go back and forth, saying goodbye to one parent and hello to another. At the airport there was always lots of crying." She may have had equal time with both parents, but there was a price: "At times I felt like a loner," she says.
Of course, not everyone in the Divorce Generation was a loner. Like some strange antimatter, divorce drew some students together, allowing them to bond over their common wounds. One of the best-loved cliques at Grant was the trio of Lisa Cohen, Tonju Francois and Ruth Kreusch, the water girls for the football team. Smart, sexy and sassy, they were our "Charlie's Angels" with a multicultural twist, thanks to the busing program that was taking urban students to Grant and shaking up the school's reputation as a preserve for bubble-headed "Valley girls." "Lisa was the Jewish-American princess from the Valley, I was the black American princess from South Central and Ruth was the Mexican-American princess from the barrio," says Tonju, who was voted Miss Congeniality. Both Tonju's and Lisa's parents had recently divorced, and Ruth was looking to escape the verbal battlefield at home. "I really thank God that I had some good friends that I could kind of escape with and just not be surrounded by what was going on at home," Ruth says.
"Most of my friends had divorced parents, and the ones that weren't should have been divorced," says Lisa, whose father's new apartment became a refuge for the girls. An engineer, he worked long hours, and that gave Lisa a lot of freedom. "Probably too much freedom," she says now. "I was dealing with some emotional fallout from the divorce without really realizing it, and I acted out in some ways. My grades took a big dive. Fortunately, I was able to ride on test scores and things like that to get myself into college, so I didn't completely sabotage my future."
The future. How full of promise it seemed to us that senior year in 1982. Stepping to the podium at graduation to give a valedictory address, I plagiarized FDR and delivered a treacly speech about our "rendezvous with destiny." It was time to forge our own path, to break away from our parents' failed attempts at idyllic domesticity and set things right. Some of us would succeed. Some would not. But none would achieve the impossible: we couldn't escape our pasts.
That was apparent as we gathered at Grant last month to pose for photographs for this story. Most of us hadn't set foot on campus since graduation, and we marveled at how much the place looked like we remembered it. We said the same about one another—though inside, I'm sure everyone was thinking what I was: "Do I look as middle-aged as they do?" "This is our 'Big Chill' moment," my friend Michael Rothman joked.
Some people thought if they made it through high school without their parents' divorcing, they might somehow be immune to it once they went out into the world. But as Michael—who now goes by "Mic"—discovered, that was not true. "It just didn't seem like it would happen in my family," Mic says. But it did. One day when he was visiting home from college, his mother confided in him that she wanted to leave his father. "Their marriage was what people call 'good enough'—but in fact it wasn't good enough," he says.
Mic found himself in one of those good-enough marriages himself, when his wife of several years announced a year-and-a-half ago that she wanted a divorce. The revelation was as shocking to Mic as his mother's had been. "They say marriages break up over money and sex," Mic says. "The ironic part is that we made a lot of money and had a lot of sex. And we still broke up."
Mic signed the divorce papers several months ago, and his 6-year-old daughter splits her time between her parents. "Obviously when we told her that Mom was moving out, she was not happy with that. But young children adapt more easily," he says. "One day I was taking her and her little friend to school and they were having a discussion in the back seat about divorce and what it meant. It was unbelievable in my mind." Mic didn't bounce back as quickly as his daughter seems to have. Over mojitos one night, he tells me how he's been talking a lot with our friend David Selig's mom, divorcé to divorcée. He says it's tough being back on the market at 44. Mic took up long-distance running to clear his head during the darkest days of the divorce, dropped 20 pounds, and is now more fit than when he and David won citywide honors for doubles tennis at Grant. But it's not hard to see he'd trade the six-pack abs and single life to have a good relationship.
Becoming suddenly single in middle age wasn't part of the plan for my fellow valedictorian Bonnie Pollack. Her childhood was unscarred by divorce—her parents just celebrated their 50th anniversary—and she approached marriage with the same levelheadedness that had made her a star pupil. She met her husband when they were both doctoral students in psychology, but waited to get married until she was 33. "We knew we were very compatible. We shared the same values, we knew each other well, and we communicated very well compared to many couples I have known," she says.
It turns out that students of psychology are as fragile as the rest of us. For more than two years the couple had been trying to adopt a child from Kazakhstan, and finally the moment was about to arrive. That's when Bonnie says her husband told her he couldn't go through with it, and wasn't sure he was in love with her anymore.
The legal part of the breakup was civil: the couple opted for what's called a "collaborative divorce" (a method in which lawyers for each party, often in conjunction with other consultants like financial advisers and psychologists, work as a team with the couple to craft a settlement). The psychological fallout for Bonnie wasn't so manageable. "My best friend, my lover, my companion was gone. The baby was gone. My career was gone, because I had willingly taken myself off the high-powered career track of an organizational psychologist," Bonnie says. "I was 40 and I had no role, I had no place, I had no identity. And it ripped me to the core." Her mother helped pick up the pieces, moving to Oakland, Calif., for a short time to live with Bonnie, while her dad held down the fort in Reno. She nagged Bonnie to take hip-hop dance classes to restore her social life, and her friend Barbara, who had been her maid of honor, nudged her to date again and re-establish her career. It's taken three-and-a-half years, but Bonnie has managed to start over. "I'm a stronger person and I'm certainly a wiser person because of this," she says. "But I'm also a more jaded person, and that's the really ugly side effect."
Another ugly side effect, according to the research, is that divorce can be passed from generation to generation, like some kind of genetic defect, with children of divorce becoming divorcés themselves. Some of my classmates fell into this category. Tonju Francois married when she was 28 and got divorced six years later, in part, she says, because her husband didn't want to have kids (he already had children from a prior marriage). "I loved being married, and it devastated me when it ended," she says. Elyse Oliver got married when she was 25 and divorced four years later. "I guess I just didn't know what to do in a relationship," she says. Now remarried, Elyse says she's determined not to let her 15-year-old daughter act out in the same ways she did: no sex before marriage, and don't even think of living with a boyfriend if you want me to pay for a wedding, she warns.
Other classmates chose to avoid marriage altogether. When she was 26, Deborah Cronin had a daughter, Sharayah, but didn't think marriage with the girl's father was the right thing for her. "I didn't want to get divorced like my parents did," she says. So she left him in Lake Tahoe when her daughter was a year old and moved back to the Valley to be closer to her family. She got a job as a secretary and as a single mom was living a life similar to her mother's. "I began to understand my mom in a way I hadn't before," she says. Smiling at her daughter, who's now 17, Deborah adds, "My mother did a very good job in raising me."
Despite the dire predictions, a surprising number of Grant alums wound up in solid marriages. My buddy Chris made good on his high-school promise to let me be best man at his wedding—I gave him my "Fat Albert" lunchbox as a wedding present—and 15 years later he's still happily married, and living with his wife and two daughters near Houston, where he works for a company that conducts pharmaceutical clinical trials. "My life since my parents' divorce has been shaped to a tremendous degree by the goal of avoiding divorce as an adult at all costs," says Chris, whose parents both died of cancer within months of one another in 2001.
In many ways, the urge to stay married is stronger in my classmates' generation than the urge to get divorced was in my parents'. Perhaps this was a backlash to divorce; maybe it was the result of reaching marrying age just as President Reagan's New Conservatism was shaping the social order. Whatever the cause, my married classmates seem more clear-eyed than their '50s forebears. "Every honest couple will tell you that it's hard sometimes," says Josh Gruenberg, who became a lawyer and now lives in San Diego with his wife and three kids (his parents divorced in 1992). "You have to compromise, and it takes work," says Ruth Kreusch, an intellectual-property paralegal who's been married for nearly 17 years and has three kids (her parents finally separated five years ago, "but they're friends," she says). David Selig, who became a wealth-management adviser, says divorce isn't as prominent in his social circle now as it was when he was growing up—though his circle is admittedly smaller, since he's become much less social than he was in high school. "My wife and I would rather spend time with each other and our five rescue dogs than just about anybody else," says David, who's been with his wife for 18 years. The couple decided early on not to have children, but he says that decision had nothing to do with his having grown up in a divorced family.
Others in our class wound up marrying much later in life than their parents did (that's in line with the research, which shows that children of divorce tend to marry either later than their peers, or much earlier, in their teens). Robbie Hyatt, who's now a lawyer and also runs a martial-arts school in the Valley, didn't wed until he was 37, a year after his son was born. Lisa Cohen, who became a medical psychologist, waited until she was 35. "This generation grew up with such a massive culture of divorce that I think there was an effort to make better choices about who we married," says Lisa, whose parents wed in their 20s. "I was pretty clear on the fact that I didn't just want to marry someone for how good he looked on paper or how crazy in love we were," says Lisa, who has two children, age 7 and 4. "And I found someone who has great character. He's true-blue. He is committed to our family."
Both Laurie Gelardi and I would marry our respective partners if lesbians and gays were allowed to in the state of California; instead we have domestic partnerships. Laurie, now a neonatal intensive-care nurse, has been with her partner for 15 years and they have two children (when Laurie told her mother she was gay, her mom blamed herself, saying it was because Laurie had grown up without a father; Laurie assured her that wasn't the case). I've been with my partner, Jeff, for the past seven years. Though my own parents have been married 47 years, it took me until my late 30s to find a healthy relationship that stuck, probably because I never really believed a union could last without turning ugly.
Is that the cynicism of the Divorce Generation speaking? Maybe. But it's surprising how the right partner can break through the cynicism. In my case, it happened when Jeff reassured me, "Don't worry. The other shoe isn't going to drop." Jeff knows a thing or two about shoes dropping, being a child of divorce himself.
Despite the complications and the collateral damage, my friends from Grant class of '82 seem to agree that the divorces in their lives—both their parents' and their own—were probably for the best. Most don't think ill of their folks for having split up. "As a child I felt like I was a victim of my circumstances, a victim of the divorce," says Deborah Cronin. "But as an adult I learned that my parents were just two people who met each other, fell in love, had children, and it didn't work out. They were 18 and 19 years old when they met. They were young kids having kids." It seems that along with the crow's feet and expanding waistlines of middle age, my classmates and I have acquired an acceptance of our parents and their life choices. Some of us have even found healing. "My parents were good people," Tonju Francois told me the other day. "And good people get divorced, too." If I've learned anything from my walk down memory lane, it's that Divorce Generation has grown up.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/131838© 2008
The following was adapted from an article by Rosanne Michie in the February 25, 2008 issue of Australia’s Courier Mail
SPLITTING UP WITHOUT GOING BROKE
CELEBRITY divorcee Heather Mills might be laughing all the way to the bank but for those of us who aren't clutching a $120 million divorce settlement a family split can be a financial car wreck.
Anyone who has survived it will tell you that divorce registers highest on life's misery meter - way ahead of public speaking, loss of a job, moving house, even possibly more than a death of someone close.
The breakdown of a marriage and a family is for many people the most emotionally and financially devastating period of their life.
The really tricky thing is that it is so often a double whack - there are all these vital financial decisions to be made while you are dodging the emotional blows.
What happens through this period of the division of assets (or if you're really unlucky) the apportioning of debt, affects you and your family for the rest of your life.
And if there are children involved it can become even more of a financial basket case. No one usually wins in divorce but experts agree that a positive and realistic mindset can greatly minimize the loss.
The first step is to find a good family lawyer, who is trained in the collaborative method, and who you are comfortable talking to. "The idea that `I am going to make them pay' is a really bad one to take into a legal situation. Try not to use the settlement to exact revenge. In a collaborative divorce, both you and your spouse will be thinking about what you need to move forward in your life. Then both of you can let go of those things you’d like to have but don’t really need.
"But even while one spouse might have the attitude that they are going to be reasonable and work toward a workable outcome they can still get dragged into costly legal proceedings by the other spouse.''
If there are children from the union, parenting arrangements have to be agreed first as to how much time children spend with each parent affects both parents' ability to work and the size and cost of the home they will need to provide. This consequently affects the percentage of the split of the joint asset pool.
It's also prudent to get support from other practitioners for balance. Lawyers are legal experts, but not usually financial experts. Fortunately, there are also collaboratively-trained divorce financial specialists who can help you. These are neutral specialists who will help both of you by analyzing your financial circumstances and offering projections about your futures.
For example, some people fight to keep their dream home, only to find they don't have the income necessary to pay the bills, so it quickly turns into a nightmare.
Sharon Hague from Aussie Money Coach, which specializes in "post-marriage'' rebuilding, cautions us to avoid these common money mistakes.
1. Emotional Spending Whenever we are hurting it is tempting to turn to physical things to heal emotional pain. While it feels damn good for a short time, the high doesn't last and inevitably makes make finances worse.
Limit luxuries but if you can afford it, allow for a massage or something for the soul occasionally.
2. Financial Surrender Be involved in all financial decisions. Don't be a doormat. If you hear yourself saying `I don't care about the money, I just want out', stop!
Women in particular, Ms Hague says, will often channel their energy into one goal, like keeping custody of the children, and lose sight of the financial considerations.
3. Guerilla Warfare Don't allow your life to become a scene from The War Of The Roses. Revenge might be sweet but moving on with your life in a healthy and solvent way is much sweeter.
And if the thought of poor manners or emotional trauma doesn't scare you, remember that war is extremely expensive.
4. Choosing Advisors While you can use one neutral financial expert, each of you need your own collaboratively-trained lawyer.
5. Major Change This is a hard one when you are feeling so unsettled but resist temptation and postpone major decisions for at least 12 months after separation.
The first birthday, anniversary, Christmas and so on can be really rough roller coasters of emotion.
Work to create a wealthy future for yourself by investing some money in your dreams.
But try to allow your balance to build up or keep your debt stable and your brain to bounce back before you actually take the plunge on major changes.
TOP TIPS FOR TAKING FINANCIAL CONTROL In most marriages one spouse manages the finances, which, both during the division of assets and after a spilt, can leave the other unprepared.
Create a budget A budget serves two purposes. It gives you a realistic assessment of how much money you need to survive on a day-to-day basis. Make it as detailed as possible.
A budget is also a powerful tool to give to your lawyer if you are in the midst of a split, or to use as you enter the moving-on stage.
Learn what you've got You'd be surprised how many spouses don't know the full extent of their joint assets.
The list of what you own often extends way beyond your car, house, and furniture. It could also include family business, retirement plans, and certain employer benefits and bank accounts for both yourself and your spouse.
Protect your credit rating People's credit ratings are regularly destroyed during divorce. It's vital to take ownership of your credit situation early on.
Remember, if you and your soon-to-be ex have joint debt, such as credit card bills or a mortgage, your credit ratings are inextricably linked.
So it's essential to identify all joint debt, either close the accounts or freeze them, and keep payments current to the best of your ability.
If your credit score slips, your borrowing costs will go up and this will be money out of your pocket for years to come.
IF THIS STORY HAS RAISED ANY QUESTIONS IN YOUR MIND, PLEASE CONTACT ME AT brielaw@snet.net
I'd like to share with you an article by Lauren La Rose a Canadian reporter. It appeared in TheRecord.com, a Toroto-based internet site. It's called DIVORCE WITHOUT BITTERNESS, and I strongly recommend it to you. Ir begins this way: More and more married couples are parting ways without coming near a courtroom. Collaborative family law promotes communication, agreement and helps set an example for children. Amicable divorce: to some, the term may seem to be the ultimate oxymoron. How could the emotional toll of splitting from your spouse, dividing your assets and hammering out a child custody agreement proceed without some degree of acrimony?
It's a sadly familiar tale in Hollywood where details of splits gone sour, like that of actress Anne Heche and estranged husband, Coleman Laffoon, are often splashed across the headlines. In recent months, the pair have been embroiled in a nasty legal battle reportedly over everything from their son to furniture.
But a burgeoning trend in family law offers soon-to-be-ex's the chance to part ways without having to set foot inside a courtroom and free from the bitterness and conflict that can often colour their disputes.
The collaborative family law approach first started as an experiment in Minnesota in 1990, before developing and spreading to California, British Columbia and across Canada.
Both clients and lawyers sign a participation agreement at the beginning of negotiations, a contract that shows they are committed to working toward a settlement without having to go to court.
The meetings involve both parties and their lawyers who work toward fostering a dialogue between the two sides. The divorcing couple is encouraged to communicate in the roundtable discussions, and controls the pacing and outcome of the process.
"I think everybody's heard of all the horror stories of the divorce from hell, and we're able to offer something that's an alternative,'' said Sharyn Langdon, a lawyer member of Collaborative Practice Toronto. TO READ THE REST OF THIS REMARKABLE STORY, JUST PASTE THIS LINK INTO YOUR INTERNET BROWSER: (Let me know if you have problem accessing the article.) http://news.therecord.com/Life/article/228060
COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE AND MEDIATION ARE KEY TO A TRULY HUMANE PARTING OF THE WAYS. FOR MY FAIRFIELD COUNTY CLIENTS AND THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE VISITING FOR THE FIRST TIME, HERE IS A THOUGHT PROVOKING ARTICLE BY JANE GROSS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES. IT FIRST APPEARED ON MAY 20, 2004, BUT IT IS AS TIMELY NOW AS EVER. WHILE MS. GROSS EXTOLLS THE BENEFITS OF COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE OVER BOTH LITIGATION AND MEDIATION, SHE ALSO POINTS OUT THE POTENTIAL PITFALLS WHEN THE COLLABORATIVE METHOD MAY NOT WORK. DIVORCE, WITHOUT THE COURTS By JANE GROSS.
A monthly meeting of the New York Collaborative Law Club in White Plains. Collaborative divorce, which allows husband and wife, and their lawyers, to work things out between them, is now available in 35 states and much of Canada.
Published New York Times: May 20, 2004
WHITE PLAINS, NY
MICHELLE GESKY'S first divorce took three years, tens of thousands of dollars and incalculable heartache. A settlement was reached before trial, but not without appearances before the judge and the assignment of a social worker to defuse a thorny custody issue.
Now Ms. Gesky, 41, is divorcing again, determined "to get past the emotion and not make what is already terrible worse." She also wants all three of her children, two from her first marriage and one from her second, to be spared the acrimony.
Her husband, Tom, 36, does not bear the same scars. But he, too, hopes for a divorce where the couple "can care for each other afterward, like the friends we once were" and congenially raise their infant daughter.
With those goals in mind, the Geskys decided to try a process called collaborative divorce. Invented more than a decade ago by Stuart G. Webb, a burned-out Minneapolis matrimonial lawyer, it is gaining in popularity around the nation and has recently made its way to New York State.
On a recent evening, at a four-way negotiating session in White Plains with their lawyers, the couple sat shoulder to shoulder on adjoining chairs. It was a peaceful tableau. They didn't recoil from each other's touch. Nor did they bicker or fall silent at moments of disagreement.
Already they had made progress toward decisions about selling their house, dividing their pensions and designing a joint child custody arrangement.
They were considering their daughter's changing needs: nursery school soon, later ballet or bassoon lessons, boyfriends, college. The lawyers chimed in with what-ifs. A stranger in the room could not have told which lawyer represented which client.
"I've lived through the process of a contentious, adversarial, drawn-out, money-hungry divorce, and it's devastating," Ms. Gesky said. "This time I don't want that pain. I want clarity and release."
Collaborative divorce is now available in 35 states and much of Canada. According to Mr. Webb, who simultaneously gave up litigation and became a Buddhist, 4,500 lawyersnationwide have been trained in the protocol, which halves the legal costs of divorce. New York, where state laws make dissolving a marriage costlier and arguably nastier than anywhere in the nation, is a relative newcomer, with collaborative lawyers first taking cases about two years ago.
In some ways, the method resembles mediation in its problem-solving approach. But rather than a neutral mediator, each party brings a lawyer to the sessions, as advocate and adviser. But the very format changes how lawyers behave.
"We are by nature competitive," said Barry Berkman, who organized the first group of collaborative divorce lawyers in New York City and Westchester County after learning about the process at a California symposium. "Otherwise we'd be botanists."
Most matrimonial lawyers measure success by who won, and for how much. "This is different," he said. "Success is a resolution that works for both parties."
The cornerstone of the process and its most controversial element is that the two lawyers sign a pledge to withdraw from the case if either of their clients decides to go to court. This gives the lawyers an economic incentive to leave adversarial habits behind. It also encourages clients to stay at the bargaining table, since bolting means starting over with new counsel.
Collaborative divorce also requires a full disclosure of assets and respectful behavior at all negotiating sessions. Yelling, table-pounding, threatening and stalling are against the rules.
The settlement is shaped by figuring out what works for the couple. One husband split an inheritance with his wife to break a logjam, although he was not required to by law. One wife gave ground on weightier items because her husband agreed to continue changing the screens and storm windows every year.
Because this is not how most lawyers think, Mr. Berkman said, those practicing collaborative divorce generally meet in the equivalent of support groups. The 40 lawyers in New York City and its northern suburbs gather monthly to discuss their shared cases.
At one recent meeting in White Plains, Amy Carron Day and Marc Fleisher figured out how to lower the decibel level by beginning sessions with safe topics and coaching the husband to show more support for his quick-to-anger wife. At another meeting, Robin Carton explained to Neil Kozek that her client felt he was "saber rattling" when he made reference to what might happen if they went to court, a tactic collaborative lawyers are supposed to leave behind.
There is no nationwide tally of how many cases have been settled this way, and leaders of the movement are only now talking of the need to collect systematic data. But they point to the dramatic experience when collaborative divorce was introduced in Medicine Hat, in the Canadian province of Alberta.
All 29 of the lawyers who regularly practice matrimonial law in Medicine Hat, population 51,000, have now been trained in the collaborative process, according to Janis Pritchard, the first president of the collaborative lawyers' association there, who describes herself as a former "barracuda litigator."
Within six months of the training of half the lawyers in 2000, the filing of motions fell by 50 percent. By 2001, after the next group was trained, filings had fallen an additional 25 percent. Collaborative techniques are now being tried in Medicine Hat by corporate, real estate and trust lawyers. Most in the New York group continue to do litigation, mediation and collaborative divorce. But many do less and less litigation, and some have abandoned it entirely.
"I can't bring myself to go that route anymore," said Katherine Eisold Miller, Mr. Gesky's collaborative lawyer, who was a big-firm litigator for 15 years. Ms. Miller's career change has been eased by her background; both her parents are therapists. "This feels very natural to me," she said.
As a dispute resolution process, collaborative divorce shares the so-called interest-based bargaining techniques of mediation. But many lawyers who practice mediation say that it is not suitable for marriages with a "power imbalance," since the parties are generally in the room without advocates and hire lawyers only when it is time to draft and submit an agreement.
Mr. Berkman offered several examples of power imbalance: A wife of 25 years who had always said "yes, dear" about money matters. A guilt-ridden adulterer willing to "give away the store." A jilted spouse "so depressed she can't think straight." Ms. Miller cited her own divorce, where mediation failed, she said, because her ex-husband couldn't stand that she "knew the lingo" and he didn't.
Even the matrimonial lawyers who have reservations about collaborative divorce prefer it to mediation. The cynical explanation might be that mediation, which is also done by mental health professionals, takes business from lawyers. But Ann Diamond, a litigator at Sheresky Aronson & Mayefsky in Manhattan, said that she was "dead set against" mediation because anguished husbands or wives need "someone to stand behind, someone to be the heavy." (Mediators permit each party to have a lawyer with them, but most couples forgo the extra expense.)
Ms. Diamond, and others, worry that the collaborative lawyers' pledge not to take a case to court could in some cases actually run up a client's bill. Let's say the husband decides to go to court. The wife, Ms. Diamond said, is then also forced to start from scratch.
While more than 90 percent of divorce cases are uncontested, those that wind up in litigation generally cost two to three times as much as a comparable case handled collaboratively, according to lawyers familiar with fees for both methods.
Richard A. Abrams, a New York City litigator who has also joined the local collaborative law group, cited this example: A collaborative divorce that required half a dozen two-hour negotiating sessions, no outside forensic experts and a draft agreement would cost a couple about $15,000 in Manhattan. In litigation, with a routine number of status conferences in court but no complicated motions, discovery or trial, the same divorce would cost at least $30,000.
Lisa Headley, with a 20-year marriage and a 10-year-old daughter, was "so mad and hurt" when her husband, Brian McCormick, asked for a divorce that her first instinct was revenge. One visit to a lawyer whom Ms. Headley, 45, described as "a barracuda" slowed her rush to court.
Then she consulted a mediator but decided "you have to be very strong and know exactly what you want, and I was a basket case and didn't think I could do that." Instead, she hired Mr. Fleisher for a collaborative divorce. "I needed someone on my side," she said, but not someone who was going to say, `You're going to pay, buddy.' In the end, I had to live with myself."
Custody was never an issue, and the couple had no significant property to fight over. After a half-dozen sessions there was an agreement ready to be signed. Ms. Headley wanted her daughter to attend the same church each Sunday, but was persuaded that it was regular worship that mattered, not where. She kept the living room rug, but parted with the bedroom set.
"It seems so silly now," Ms. Headley said. "But they told us it happens to everyone, so I didn't feel like such a fool. And they kept pointing out the progress we were making."
"I'm not saying it wasn't awful," she said, "but I'd recommend it to anyone." |
|