New “Weekend Divorce” Model Aims to Reduce Time and Cost of Divorce

Divorce reform has long been part of the debate to strengthen marriage.  A new type of model for divorce, however, aims not to make marriage stronger, but to make divorce even easier.

A New “Weekend Divorce” Model Aims to Reduce Time and Cost of Divorce

By Natalie Anne Knowlton on January 28th, 2014  
Posted in Honoring Families  on IAALS Online

A pair of Illinois attorneys are offering a unique model for couples looking to end their marriage. Sandra Young and Brian Garvey are pioneering “The Weekend Divorce,” which builds on the collaborative law model and offers divorcing couples settlement on all issues over the course of a weekend. With “The Weekend Divorce” model, couples spend Saturday and Sunday in a hotel conference room, discussing finances, property, and children, with the assistance and counsel of trained collaborative divorce attorneys and other professionals when appropriate. The aim is to reach full agreement and complete all necessary paperwork at the conclusion of the weekend. According to Garvey, “with [this model], we simply accelerate in a few days what typically takes months, if not years.” Both Young and Garvey recognize that this model is not for every couple, and would work best for couples who are amicably parting.
This new model comes in the wake of widespread experimentation with out-of-court alternatives for separating and divorcing families. One such effort is the Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families at the University of Denver, which provides therapeutic, legal, and financial planning services to qualifying couples with children. The Resource Center is based on a model program developed by the Honoring Families Initiative, and IAALS is engaged in a comprehensive three-year evaluation of the Center.

"One Day Divorce" Overlooks Possibility of Working at Marriage in Favor of Judicial Economy

This guest blog post is by Zach Hardister, current Regent University Family Law student:

A new marital dissolution procedure in California carries innovation, but misses the mark on marriage potential.  The following summary was taken from the San Diego Superior Court website regarding the “One Day Divorce” procedure being implemented in San Diego, California:

“The One Day Divorce Program assists parties with divorce cases before the San Diego Superior Court to finish their case and get a final judgment. Eligible parties will receive hands on assistance in finalizing all of the necessary forms to obtain the final Judgment of divorce or separation. Parties who successfully complete the process will go before a judge the same day and will leave court with a final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage or Legal Separation.”

Essentially, parties to a One Day Divorce must work out all aspects of dissolution or legal separation prior to appearing before the court. The current requirements for the One Day Divorce Program are:

1.  The parties must wait at least 6 months from the date of filing their Petition.
2. The parties must be self-represented.
3. The Summons and Petition must be served on the Respondent.
4. Proof of Service of Summons OR a Response must be filed with the Court.
5. The Parties must reach an agreement on all orders that will be included in the judgment, including: division of property and debts, spousal support, and if they have children, a parenting plan and child support. (This is not a requirement for the petitioner if the Respondent has not filed a response AND if the Respondent does not intend to participate in the program.)

According to California Court officials, nearly 72% of family law litigants are not represented by an attorney. Additionally, even simple divorce cases can take years to exit the system. These facts alone make California an ideal place to launch a pilot program of this nature.

After the filing and service requirements are met, both parties confer with a family law professional who examines their proposed divorce settlement agreement. Guided by the court professional, the parties fill out the forms needed to finalize the divorce right on the spot. If all of the necessary paperwork and disclosures are satisfactory, the litigants can appear in court the same day and leave with a final divorce decree in their possession.

It appears this new idea of the “One Day Divorce” is aimed at revising or extinguishing many of the requirements needed for summary dissolution in California. In the One Day Divorce Program, most (if not all) of the time, money, and resources needed to complete a simple divorce are eliminated. It’s been no secret that California is experiencing some of the worst budget problems in U.S. history. Fortunately, the One Day Divorce Program is completely funded by a grant from the San Diego Bar Foundation. Therefore, the SDBF has single-handedly relieved the San Diego court system from a majority of the financial burdens associated with these types of cases.

In a time when courts across the state are slashing public services because of budget cuts, the San Diego Superior Court is providing a new and innovative solution to simple divorces at no cost to the public. You can compare the differences between California Summary Dissolution and the One Day Divorce Program by looking up California Family Code §2400.

It is relatively easy to see the benefits provided to the court by the Program; however, the benefits which the parties receive are not as easily recognizable. Yes, the parties to a One Day Divorce are saving time and money in the present, but shouldn’t those involved in such a serious proceeding be more concerned about the long term effects? If the allure of avoiding attorneys and saving money isn’t enough to sway couples to the Program, avoiding all the time and trouble of the family court “grinder” surely will be.

Make no mistake; this program is truly innovative and beneficial. However, the glaring negative is that couples are not obligated to make an attempt at working things out before they rush into a dissolution of their marriage. A mere six months is all couples need before they can obtain their decree. Despite all the benefits, the One Day Divorce Program has the potential to make it too easy for a couple to obtain a dissolution. Of course, a great deal of couples are unable to peaceably form an agreement like the one needed for a One Day Divorce. Indeed, for this reason, good divorce attorneys will always have work in San Diego. In any case, this program gives couples a relatively “quick and easy” way out of what should be a lifelong commitment.

In sum, the Program is missing something more meaningful. The results of the One Day Divorce will be exciting to analyze as the program develops, especially if it becomes more widely accepted. Hopefully, there will be revised versions of the program if it catches on (“One Day Divorce [1.0]”?). Perhaps, a version that incorporates a more reconciliatory approach might work even better.  It is reasonable to believe that if either counseling or mediation were added to the requirements, more marriages might be rapidly preserved instead of terminated. California has a strong public policy for preserving marriage; however, it seems clear that the One Day Divorce Program overlooks this well established objective —at least for now.

How Should a Christian Lawyer Handle Divorce?

This excellent guest post is offered by current Family Law student, Kahryn Rombach:

“What is your position on divorce? What will you, a Christian, do when a potential client walks into your office and asks you to help him dissolve his marriage?” My family law professor regularly challenges her students to understand their personal convictions regarding divorce as well as the law of their jurisdictions, which inspired me to take a closer look at a nuance of the canons of my religion, Roman Catholicism. The Catholic practice of annulment is generally absent from conversations about divorce, but it should be a discussion point for Christians because it is a meaningful example of the reverence accorded to sacramental matrimony by the Church, a reverence that all denominations should embrace.

 

Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, which provide participants with the life of God in their soul and the graces necessary to fully enjoy the human experience. In matrimony, the spouses administer the sacrament to one another, and their union is a unique, holy expression of the love Christ bears for His Church, and a reflection of His unity with her. Catholic marriages enjoy a presumption of validity and bind the spouses for life. This union is natural, supernatural, and unbreakable. So, for Catholics, “marriage” and “divorce” are not two sides of the same coin. Catholic marriages do “end,” but not in divorce.

 

Divorce claims to terminate the marital contract, but, for Catholics, this is impossible. For us, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2382). However, Catholic marriages can, under certain circumstances, be annulled. A finding of nullity requires a determination that some essential factor was missing, such that the marriage was not validly contracted and therefore nonexistent. In other words, if there was not a full, free decision to marry, or if some factor in radical opposition to marriage is present in the relationship, the union is considered invalid from its inception. The most common reasons for a declaration of nullity are inadequacy of judgment, psychological incapacity, and the lack of the requisite intentions to have children, remain faithful, or stay married till death (www.americancatholic.org). The process of obtaining annulment forces the couple and the Church to carefully examine their relationship, and, if possible, to try to save it.

 

Unfortunately, most Protestant denominations do not consider marriage to be a sacrament, and their divorce conventions often resemble those of secular civil unions. The secular perspective that a marriage is like any other contractual relationship which can begin and end at will does incredible damage to the spiritual realities of the spouses’ union to each other in God. Nevertheless, Christians generally do not have annulment available to them, and obtain a quick civil divorce to change their legal relationship status and end their spiritual union. This robs them of opportunities for accountability, reconciliation, and community support. It excludes pastors and other mentors from the process, often leaving two emotionally wounded individuals isolated with the mistaken impression that a lawyer is their only way out. Too often, no one suggests productive alternatives, or challenges the spouses to change, forgive, or re-commit. Too often, there is no one to speak for God, the third party to the contract.

 

Annulment addresses these concerns. The process is rightfully long and arduous, because it places an appropriately strict level of scrutiny on the validity of the desire to negate a vow taken in the presence of God. It connects the couple to counselors, priests, and canon lawyers who can protect them in case of harm inflicted by a spouse, or correct them in cases of sin or selfishness. It gives God a voice in the process and preserves the dignity of all parties. Analogous practices that non-Catholic denominations might consider when a marriage ends are beyond the scope of this essay. But all Christians should prayerfully consider the respect due to the supernatural realities of binding themselves in marriages that image the union of Christ and His Church, and should advocate Christ-centered structures that support these unions and preserve them where possible.

Prenuptial Agreements: Divorce Insurance or Insurance from Divorce?

From guest-blogger Rebecca Lawrence, Regent 2L and current Family Law student: 

Between "Will you marry me" and the "I Do's," it is perceived that there is nothing less romantic than the prenuptial agreement. However, is the prenuptial agreement as bad as it is made out to be?

Prenuptial agreements are almost always, though misguidedly, synonymous with divorce. When contemplating a prenuptial agreement, escalating questions regarding belief in the union often commence. "You don't have faith in our relationship?" "You don't think our marriage will last?" "You're already thinking about divorce?" All of these questions boil down to a single and more simplistic one. "You don't trust me?" This supposed lack of trust is then believed to be what causes the need for "divorce insurance" (which has been discussed on this blog before). Such "insurance" creates an idea that when the union "inevitably breaks down" the unhappy party may simplistically dissolve it because the mess of divorce is absorbed by the prenuptial agreement. However, prenuptial agreements aren't necessarily a disgusting expediter for divorce, but instead can be a positive, practical, and even romantic gesture for those who choose to recognize it.

Rather than divorce insurance, the prenuptial agreement can be insurance from divorce. Much different from the separation agreement, the prenuptial agreement is made during a time of adoration and affection where each party truly has the other's best interests at heart. It is during this time that the motives behind the various clauses would be selfless (or at the very least neutral) instead of selfish due to angry and hurt feelings. It is during this time that the parties can truly contemplate what a fair separation of assets and liabilities will be. "We keep what we brought in," "we sell what we acquire jointly and divide it in half," "we share custody of any children," etc. It also creates recognition that no matter how you split it, if a divorce were to happen, each party leaves the table with less than what they had when they were together. Each party leaves with their life forever impacted and less bountiful than it was the day before. Neither party will be able to hug and kiss their child every day. At the end of the day, is it worth it?

When parties come to such a bitter place that divorce is considered, the bitterness is blinding. In those moments of blind anger, it is commonplace that one party, or both, believes they are in "the right" and would be able to leave the marriage with "everything" except their spouse. In those types of situations, a prenuptial agreement can shed light and bring either husband or wife back to ground level. There is no ability to create ideas of grandeur, only the cold reality that when all is said and done, they lose. What they lose is understandably different in each situation, but assuredly they lose. A prenuptial agreement puts focus on what will be lost. Thus, instead of a belief in being able to "cash in the cow," they realize exactly what they will walk away with if they walk away from the marriage and in that stark reality they can ask "is it worth it?" Now the existence of the prenuptial agreement asks "Do I want to give up my life? My property? My kids?" The knowledge of precisely what the future holds allows the parties to weigh and balance their interests. "Would it be more beneficial to my life (and my bank account) to dissolve or resolve our problems?"

With the prenuptial agreement shedding light on the truth of their future, neither party can blindly move forward even if they wanted to. And it is in that forced light that I firmly believe many will no longer think what they gain in a divorce is worth what they lose because of their prenuptial agreement. Demands cannot be made in anger and hurt because of the consideration given when love was abounding. The agreement has the ability to also serve as a reminder of that love and adoration that caused them to look out for each other in the first place. Regardless, no matter the reason, whether it be recognition of what the parties had, have, or will have, it is a fair assessment that the prenuptial agreement can keep the parties away from dissolution instead of facilitating it. Insurance from divorce? Clearly the prenuptial agreement will not have this effect on everyone but just as insurance is never perfect and it doesn't always take effect, it doesn't mean it isn't worth investing in.

Even in Divorce Children Need Family Restoration

A website called www.DivorceCamp.com, designed to help people through the process of divorce, has noted the importance of protecting children from the ravages of family breakdown. They recommend "Spare the Child" as a must have reference for their clients, a must see video for their clients and visitors, and have placed it on their homepage accordingly, noting it as an excellent, powerful resource for any family with children faced with breakdown. Here's what they say:

If you are involved in any stage of divorce with children, the video below is a MUST WATCH!

This 19 minute video is a project of the Virginia State Bar Family Law Section through a generous grant from the Virginia Law Foundation. Here is the text from their website:

"Giving parents a compass for navigating family dissolution, Spare the Child guides parents and families through the difficult and often overwhelming task of restructuring a family. The documentary-style, conversational video uses everyday language and gives examples from experienced interviewees. Judges, lawyers, guardians ad litem, counselors, teachers, and children of divorce relate their experiences and observations to guide families who are currently in the process of family restructuring."
© 2010 Virginia State Bar

Just click on the play button to start the video, or use this link: http://vimeo.com/16997474

Parental Tug-a-War Over a Child

Court room drama that places a child squarely in the middle of his or her parents cannot be good for that child. In "Tug-A-War: Protecting the Best Interest of the Child in Light of AB 1050" by Rachel Toberty, Regent Juris Doctor Candidate 2013, this problem is tackled in the context of California custody law.

The dilemma is clear, as Toberty writes, "A child age 14 sits on the witness stand, the subject of his parents’ custody dispute. His father questions him about whether he would prefer to live with his father or his mother. This seems like something no child should ever have to deal with. As a result of Senate Bill AB 1050, however, this very situation may not be an unfamiliar setting in California Family Courts. Child custody disputes are some of the uglier and more emotional cases that take place in California courtrooms; they can strain even an adult’s tolerance. So why would it ever be a good idea for a child to be invited into this often times hostile environment? The California Legislature, under AB1050, has decided that this a proper place for a child, if that child wishes that his desires in a custody dispute be heard. This article will examine whether changes in the California Family Code Section 3042 are really in the best interest of the child while presenting some useful tips for practitioners to uphold the best interest of the child in light of AB 1050."

Toberty researched changes to the California code on children testifying in their parents' custody battle. Her work considers the potential consequences to children as a result of these recently enacted changes to the Family Code Section 3042 because of AB 1050. Then her article discusses possible solutions for the Califorina Legislature to consider to protect children during a contested divorce proceeding, particularly if a child will be testifying, while also providing practical tips to practitioners to help them work with their clients to protect the best interest of the child. Read her entire article here.

Family restoration begins with parents who understand that placing their child in a court room to choose between mom or dad is never good for the child.

For more resources see the pages atop this blog entitled "UpToParents," "Proud to Parent," and "Spare the Child."

Follow me on Twitter to get up-to-the-minute facts on family restoration

How the Louisiana Code Protects the Best Interests of In Vitro Fertilized Human Ovum

Family Law students at Regent University School of Law research state codes on myriad topics, among which is current statutes on assisted reproductive technology. The Louisiana Code Section entitled "Human Embryos" codified in part at LSA-R.S. 9:131 requires that all outcomes for embryos be resolved in their "best interests."

The Tennessee case of Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588, 590 n.1 (Tenn. 1992) cites to this Louisiana code to determine the most appropriate outcome for the fate of seven frozen embryos of a divorcing couple. ("At the time of trial, only one state had enacted pertinent legislation. A Louisiana statute entitled 'Human Embryos,' among other things, forbids the intentional destruction of a cryopreserved IVF embryo and declares that disputes between parties should be resolved in the “best interest” of the embryo. 1986 La.Acts R.S. 9:121 et seq. Under the Louisiana statute, unwanted embryos must be made available for 'adoptive implantation.'")

Louisiana, through these statutory provisions, affords an incredible amount of legal power to, and protection over, the in vitro fertilized human ovum. Additional sections of that state's code protect embryos:

LSA-R.S. 9:123 ("An in vitro fertilized human ovum exists as a juridical person . . . .").

LSA-R.S. 9:124 ("As a juridical person, the in vitro fertilized human ovum shall be given an identification by the medical facility for use within the medical facility which entitles such ovum to sue or be sued. The confidentiality of the in vitro fertilization patient shall be maintained.").

LSA-R.S. 9:126 ("A court in the parish where the in vitro fertilized ovum is located may appoint a curator, upon motion of the in vitro fertilization patients, their heirs, or physicians who caused in vitro fertilization to be performed, to protect the in vitro fertilized human ovum's rights.").

LSA-R.S. 9:131 ("In disputes arising between any parties regarding the in vitro fertilized ovum, the judicial standard for resolving such disputes is to be in the best interest of the in vitro fertilized ovum.").

What Louisiana has done through these statutes is significant because it shows that states can enforce greater legal protection for the in vitro fertilized human ovum than can be afforded for the gestating unborn child under the landmark Supreme Court cases on abortion, Roe and Casey. This is cruelly ironic, because the ability to afford varying levels of legal protection for the unborn child (from in vitro fertilized human ovums to viable gestating unborn children) is grossly disproportionate to biological development. In effect, greater protection can be afforded for the in vitro fertilized human ovum than can be afforded to the gestating human child (at least prior to "viability").

Louisiana has further moved to foster "embryo adoption."

When states move to statutorily protect human embryos, they do so in the best interests of the child, the legal standard which protects all children, a major key to family restoration. Irony in that application, however, is only available in an abortion context. Louisiana sets the example for how states can legally protect children's best interests from fertilization.

Thanks to current Family Law student Paul Morin, Regent J.D. Candidate 2013 for this excellent post.

Sex, Dating and Family Restoration

Why is the divorce rate so high in America today?  Undoubtedly people love each other when they get married.  But why do so many marriages end in divorce?  One pastor is taking on sex, dating and marriage with a special series from a biblical standpoint.  As he confronts this important area of culture and law, he points out that poor dating practices are why marriages are failing today.  

Access to these messages can be found at

This four part series by Dr. Andy Stanley of North Point Church in Atlanta, Georgia is designed for every person who ever wants to be happily married.   In each part he deals with different misconceptions about sex, dating and marriage, and eventually leads his audience to the keys for a strong lifelong marriage that averts divorce.  Dr. Stanley disentangles the web of confusion culture has spun and offers keys for family restoration founded in a solid dating experience that leads to marital happiness.

[Thanks to Regent Law 2L John Batchelor for this information and post.]

http://www.northpoint.org//messages/the-new-rules-for-love-sex-and-dating/part-1.

Cohabitation Harms Children - and Future Family Strength

The University of Virginia's National Marriage Project and the Institute for American Values, directed by Professor Brad Wilcox, issued a report in August week titled "Why Marriage Matters." This report determines that children living in cohabiting households don't do as well socially, educationally or psychologically as children living in intact married households. The study says that based on empirical evidence, cohabitation harms children. See the full article by Rob Hagy at http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/WMM_summary.pdf.

The research specifically revealed that "the children of cohabiting parents are at risk for a broad range of problems, from trouble in school to psychological stress, physical abuse and poverty, reported NPR's Jennifer Ludden. "Wilcox says the children of the divorce revolution grew up to be understandably gun shy about marriage. Many are putting it off, even after they have kids. But research shows such couples are twice as likely to split. 'Ironically,' he says, 'they're likely to experience even more instability than they would [have] if they had taken the time and effort to move forward slowly and get married before starting a family'." Read or listen to the full National Public Radio report at: http://www.npr.org/2011/08/16/139651077/study-are-cohabiting-parents-bad-for-kids.

Cohabitation may also be making marriage an imperiled institution, according to a July 3 New York Times article, as "marriage today reflects several 20th century shifts of extraordinary implications," detailing how children are not necessarily part of the American family assumption - a "colossal shift." (You can read that entire piece by Mark Regnerus at http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/03/marriage-the-next-chapter/marriage-an-imperiled-institution.) These factors may also be contributing to plummeting US birthrates. According to a USA Today analysis of the 2010 Census, the "share of the population under age 18 dropped in 95% of U.S. counties since 2000... despite a 9.7% growth in the U.S. population." (You can read that article at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-06-03-fewer-children-census-suburbs_n.htm.)

Kids seem to pay the price for the cohabiting revolution. A good summary of these facts by Chuck Colson can be found at http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-cohabitation-revolution-kids-pay-the-price/. He makes some strong arguments for the reasons for family instability, and how they harm kids.

"...[A]bout 24 percent of children are born to cohabiting couples today. Meanwhile, another 20 percent are part of a cohabiting household at some point during their growing-up years. That means nearly half of all American children have lived in a home where the adults are merely living together rather than married.

Today's advocates of "modern family structure" will tell you that this is no big deal, that having a wedding ring is overrated. The kids, they say, will do fine either way. Well, the fact is, an intact marriage puts children way ahead of children in other types of households. National Review editor Rich Lowry, who labels the current trend a "cohabitation revolution," notes, "Children in cohabiting households tend to lag children in intact married families on key social indicators and are not much better off than children in single-parent families."

Those who are part of cohabiting households, according to the study, report "more conflict, more violence, and lower levels of satisfaction and commitment." Children in such situations face real emotional and physical risks.

Jennifer Roback Morse of the National Organization for Marriage reports that children living with their mother and a live-in boyfriend are 33 times more likely to be abused than those living with their biological married parents. Also, children in households with unrelated adults are 50 times more likely to die from inflicted injuries, compared with children living with both biological parents.

Despite all the well-reported problems of marriage these days, cohabiting relationships are frequently less stable, as well. Lowry says that cohabiting couples with a child are more than twice as likely to break up as married parents. That's a huge difference. Lowry says, "Children turn out to benefit from the structure, rituals, and identity that come with a lasting marriage between their parents. And the very act of committing to the norms of marriage makes adults better marital partners and parents."

So why is marriage held in such low regard today, to the point that some people are willing to sacrifice their children on the altar of convenience? Well, one reason might be is that they have not seen what a good marriage looks like. Defending marriage involves more than just talk. Are we Christians committed to showing our neighbors the love, fidelity, and joy that ought to accompany a marriage founded on God and His plan for human flourishing? ...when is the last time you heard your pastor give a sermon on the dangers of cohabitation? Is your church doing all it can to prepare young couples for marriage and to help struggling marriages?

If not, then all our advocacy for the importance of marriage is likely to fall on deaf ears. And our nation's children will be the losers for it."

In light of these facts, what should a pastor today do when a cohabitating couple asks him to perform their marriage ceremony?  See the answers and Professor Kohm's remarks to this at ChristianityToday.com.

Alarms are sounding on behalf of children over cohabitation and family instability. Family restoration is a great solution to provide kids with a safer and more stable childhood. Adults may want to think twice before sacrificing their children's best interests on the altar of convenient cohabitation.

[Special thanks to Regent alum Mr. Gilbert Berger, Esq., Berger Law Office, Culpeper, VA, for the research contributing to this post.]

Spare the Child Video Project Hailed by the ABA's Bar Leader to Educate Families in Dissolution

Family dissolution is all too common, and its effects on children can be devastating. In the Commonwealth
of Virginia alone, there are more than 30,000 divorces yearly, and that does not include nonmarried families in
transition. To fill the need in educational materials for the public, the Family Law Section of the Virginia State Bar created the video Spare the Child. It is an accessible, practical guide to the legal system aimed at the best possible results for children, and it introduces nonlitigious resolutions and positive parental roles and decisions that protect children.

The documentary-style video features judges, lawyers, guardians ad litem, counselors, teachers, and children
of divorce who relate their experiences. The video was first produced in 1997 in VHS format and has been used by churches and civic groups, family and juvenile courts, law firms, private homes, and law schools. A video redesign was initiated in 2007 and completed in 2010. During this time, the program underwent thorough review through surveys of family law professionals and the public before being rewritten and updated. Among these updates were greater diversity and representation of an increased variety of family structures, including unmarried unions and extended-family involvement in child rearing.

The video informs viewers of best practices and decisions while addressing the challenges that emotional actions have on children during and after family dissolution. It instructs viewers to focus on the needs of children and ends with a positive message to parents. Accounts from adult children of family dissolution - including two bar staff members-reveal firsthand expenences and reach viewers on an emotional level. Advice from family law professionals gives parents tangible tools to use in conunon situations, from preservation of schedules to custody disputes to interaction with extended families and family friends.

The project was funded by the Virginia Law Foundation and produced with Park Group of Richmond, Va.
The video is available in Spanish and closed captioning, both on DVD and on the Web. Former first lady of
Virginia and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Judge Anne B. Holton was involved in the making of the video
and helped to raise awareness of the program. It has been screened at continuing legal education programs
and family law seminars, with copies of the DVD distributed to participants.

DVDs were distributed to courts throughout Virginia for use in mandatory litigant-education and parent education programs required by Section 16.1-278.15 of the Code of Virginia, which requires parents and/ or all other parties involved in a contested custody, visitation, or child support petition to attend a parenting education class. DVDs are available to the public for a shipping fee, and the video is available online at www.vsb.org/site/publications/video.

The Virginia State Bar and its Family Law Section encourage other bars, practices, and groups to use it. DVDs may be ordered by contacting Shannon Quarles at quarles@vsb.org or (804) 775-0512.

-By Madonna Dersch, graphic designer and assistant webmaster at the Viginia State Bar.

Lawyers Learning How to Facilitate Marital Reconciliation

Juile Maxey, Regent 3L, who took Family Law in the Spring of 2011, has described her experience in working on an assignment to draft a document that would serve a struggling married couple in restoring their family.  She writes:

It's no secret that Americans live in a culture inundated with divorce.  Even within Christianity, the divorce statistics are staggering.  I fear that my generation has almost grown numb to the painful concept of divorce and we see it as just another event that will probably occur in most people's lives.  As future attorneys, we are faced with the enormous issue – Can we turn the tide of divorce in our nation?  And if so, how can it be done?

It is a reality to me that men and women will step into my office one day and want out of their marriages for one reason or another.  In Professor Kohm's Family Law course, we have been exposed to tools that will enable us, as Christian attorneys, to chisel away at the monster of divorce.  One such tool is the reconciliation agreement each student drafted for the course.  The reconciliation agreement is similar to a typical separation agreement with one glaring difference – the focus of the agreement is to see the married couple reconcile their issues rather than cut their losses and get out of the marriage.  I've never known a person to enter into a marriage hoping it ends in separation and divorce.  When two people get married, there is hope that the union will last until death parts them.  The reconciliation agreement is about restoring the hope that was a foundational element of the marriage in the first place.

To some, this may seem too idealistic.  I would wholeheartedly and happily disagree with that person for several reasons. 

First, the reconciliation agreement is a valuable learning tool in a Family Law course.  Being that the main difference between the reconciliation agreement and a separation agreement is the end goal; the rest of the document is largely the same.  It covers the same issues and the documents are drafted in the same way.  So, not only do the students understand how to draft the reconciliation agreement but also, a typical separation agreement...two birds with one stone.

Additionally, we cannot continue to use the same legal tools and public policy we have been using and expect to see different results in separations and divorces.  The reconciliation agreement offers a relatively new approach to remedy a crumbling marriage.  During my (short) life, I have witnessed the trend in America - for thousands of couples, the only remedy that made sense to a hurting marriage was to separate and divorce.  The reconciliation agreement lets hurting couples know that there is another alternative; a much less messy and destructive alternative.  Although the reconciliation agreement seems like the underdog in the fight against divorce, even just a handful of saved marriages would be a giant victory against the enormous beast divorce has become.

Finally, no matter a person's religious beliefs, divorce is never a sought experience.  But as a Christian, I believe marriage is a sacred institution given to man by God and it is something we should fight to protect.  The reconciliation agreement is a way to unapologetically promote staying together and working out issues in a marriage instead of throwing in the towel.  I believe Christian lawyers have something very unique to offer clients outside of legal expertise – Hope.  I'm not saying Christian lawyers should try to have a prayer meeting and baptize every client that walks in the door.  But I do believe that we should fashion relationships with clients that present a message of hope for their future rather than a message of revenge, anger, greed, or bitterness.  I don't pretend to think this is always easy to achieve but I do believe that using a tool such a the reconciliation agreement brings clients one step closer to grasping the hope that we have in Christ.

Drafting the reconciliation agreement in Family Law was a valuable experience.  Not only do I feel better equipped and prepared to meet the needs of future clients, but, I know that promoting a reconciliation agreement will be an important tool to chip away at the monster of divorce in our nation.

Marriage Strengthened by States and DOMA Counsel

Several states have had activity on the legal status of marriage in their legislatures and courts, and some have moved toward strengthening marriage with a state constitutional amendment.

Minnesota State senators Warren Limmer and Paul Gazelka introduced a marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If the Minnesota Marriage Amendment passes both the House and the Senate, it will go to the people of Minnesota in November 2012, where it must gain a majority of all votes cast in the election in order to become part of Minnesota's constitution. "This issue constantly comes up during legislative sessions and it's time for the people to decide," said Sen. Limmer. "Allowing a small number of politicians or activist judges in St. Paul to decide the definition of marriage would not be acceptable." Minnesota is moving toward protecting marriage.

Rhode Island has declined to consider legislation extending marriage rights to gay couples. House Speaker Gordon Fox, who is homosexual and a leading supporter of the same sex marriage bill, says that it's clear the bill won't overcome opposition in the Senate. Rhode Island is maintaining its stand for marriage.

The defense of DOMA has also been a major drama this past week, as former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who addressed the Regent Law Moot Court Banquet a couple of years ago, has agreed to accept the U.S. Congress' request that he defend DOMA on behalf of the nation. This has not been without great personal cost, as his D.C. law firm requested he drop the case when the Human Rights Campaign sent a letter to every major law firm warning them not to let any lawyer in their firm take on the House's defense of DOMA. Paul Clement, however, refused bow to the pressure and resigned from the firm. His resignation reads:

"Efforts to delegitimize any representation for one side of a legal controversy are a profound threat to the rule of law. ...When it comes to the lawyers, the surest way to be on the wrong side of history is to abandon a client in the face of hostile criticism," he wrote (pdf) in resigning from his law firm, Kirk & Spalding, when requested to drop his client.

National Organization for Marriage Director Brian Brown discussed the drama: "By responding with courage and grace, Paul Clement has set off a growing backlash against King and Spalding and the HRC campaign—a backlash which goes way beyond the usual party lines. Usually the gay-marriage advocates who threaten people's livelihoods do so behind the scenes. This time they did it in broad undeniable daylight and it looked really ugly. How big is this backlash? Well [] when a major gay-marriage advocate like Andrew Sullivan headlines his criticism, 'Bullies in the Gay Rights Movement' something new is afoot. Sullivan wrote, 'When civil rights groups bully, they lose the moral high-ground...'."

In marriage litigation news, Texas recently refused a divorce to a homosexual couple, ruling that the state does not recognize same sex marriage, and therefore cannot rule on a divorce of a non-marriage. The petitioner has appealed to the Texas Supreme Court [see the USA.net story at http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=705869&Itemid=29.

A Montana judge has also rejected a homosexual couple's claims in that state, which you can read about at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gzMQYaMaPVkYdcjhCnxM68-1mgog?docId=26ad9201d6d942a88e78c6108f704926. "The attorney general's office has argued ... that Montana can't extend spousal benefits to gay couples because those benefits are limited to married couples by definition since Montana voters in 2004 approved the marriage amendment." That full story can be found at Yahoo! News at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110421/ap_on_re_us/us_same_sex_lawsuit.

At issue this week has also been the bias and potential prejudice of Judge Vaughn Walker, the ruling judge in the California Proposition 8 case [see the story at http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20May11/Art_May11_15.html.] "A federal judge has set a June 13 hearing to consider arguments over whether last year's ruling striking down Proposition 8 should be set aside because of allegations that the trial judge may have been biased. In a brief order, Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware put the issue on a faster track after same-sex marriage foes triggered another legal showdown with documents filed earlier this week. Proposition 8 sponsors on Monday asked Ware to erase the ruling by former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, arguing that Walker should have stepped aside from the case because he was in a long-term same-sex relationship and stood to benefit from the legal right to marry." Read the full story at http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17941278?nclick_check=1.]

Another federal judge in the Fifth Circuit ruled that a state could not be forced into a public policy that its own laws did not allow in a battle over homosexual parent adoption. The full opinion can be read at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-30036-CV2.wpd.pdf. Judge Edith Jones wrote the opinion that ensured Louisiana could not be forced to change a birth certificate of an adopted child to reflect two New York male parents as although New York allowed the adoption, it does not recognize same sex marriage, and Louisiana requires married parents for adoption.

Finally, the battle for marriage continues, and some states still do not understand that civil unions are desireable to no one. As a step toward marriage expansion, civil unions displease same sex couples as falling short of marriage. Despite this fact, Delaware has approved such a bill. The full text of the civil union bill is one of the most detailed pieces of legislation regarding civil unions, running 11 pages. In includes recognition of out of state civil unions, status of children in families headed by same sex couples, as well as the rules of construction mandating it be constructed broadly and at the same time prohibiting any strict scrutiny of the statute that would be made based on the common law; the legislation is to be broadly interpreted to reach its stated objective. [You can read the entire text of the bill here.]

This past week has been filled with marriage news. The battle rages. From the legislative chamber, to the courtroom, marriage is critical to our law and culture. Expanding it weakens it. Strengthening marriage remains the focus of more than a super-majority of states, and of the federal government. Family restoration is only possible as marriage is legally stablized. The events of this week have served more to strengthen marriage, and tocontinue a cultural movement toward family restoration.

Divorce Is Changing the Face of Families

Divorce is changing the face of families, societies, and even nations. "Once Rare in Rural America, Divorce Is Changing the Face of Its Families," according to a recent New York Times.com piece at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/us/24divorce.html?pagewanted=2&hpw . "'Less educated Americans are far more likely to have babies while unmarried — and to divorce — than those with college degrees,' [family law expert,] Professor June Carbone said. That trend, once seen as a symptom of urban poverty, has now caught on in rural areas like this one. Leesa McNeil, a court administrator for a district that covers a wide area of northwest Iowa, said that custody cases involving unmarried people used to be so rare that the court did not even have a category for them."
Divorce is affecting other nations, as well, and often unexpectedly. For example, the Associated Press recently reported on this phenomenon in India in an article entitled "Divorces Rise as Taboos Fall in Urbanizing India." The April 12 artucke by Muneeza Naqvi out of New Delhi stated in part:
"In a crowded courtroom on the city's outskirts, the once unthinkable is reality: dozens of couples -- rich and poor, educated and barely literate -- seek divorce for reasons as varied as domestic violence to a simple inability to live together. Just a decade ago, divorce was a dirty word in socially conservative India. The fear of social isolation, a sense of duty to extended families -- who likely arranged the marriage in the first place -- and financial dependence put nearly unbearable pressure on couples to stay together. But as the economy has boomed, the rigid boundaries governing traditional Indian life are beginning to fall, especially among the growing urban middle class. Dating among twentysomethings is growing popular, love matches (as opposed to arranged marriages) don't provoke the family scandals they once did and divorce is no longer out of bounds."
The unintended consequences of divorce weaken marriage and family life in dramatic ways - most of which eventually reap social devastation on a national scale - all begging for solutions that lead to family restoration.

Marriage Savers: Preparing, Strengthening and Restoring Marriages

Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher point out in their important book, The Case For Marriage, married people are healthier, happier, wealthier, live longer and have better sex than those who divorce or remain single. Those threatened by divorce need to be encouraged that there are steps that can be taken to save a marriage, and that marriage is worth the effort.

Marriage Savers exists to assist couples who want to try to save their marriages, and restore their lives to experience the goodness of marriage. Offering several strategies that have been proven to save most marriages, Marriage Savers is effective at helping individuals and at training others to do the same.

The choices of options to strengthen or save marriages depend in part upon the stage of difficulty the marriage is in, from moderate problems that need better communication and problem-solving techniques, to severe problems where both marital partners are considering divorce. Marriage Savers offers a program called Retrouvaille that has been known to bring couples back from the brink of despair. To learn about this program go to www.retrouvaille.org, or to learn of a Marriage Encounter program near you call 1-800-795-LOVE (795-5683), or United Marriage Encounter - 1-866-483-8889. Marriage Savers also offers crisis marriage alternatives with a DVD series called "Choosing Wisely…Before You Divorce," which saves more than half of marriages in crisis, and offer “Marriage 911” option for separated couples. This program is so effective that reconciliation happens 50%-70%. All of these options are available at www.MarriageSavers.org. Marriage Savers also offers customized training for those who would like to be a part of saving and restoring marriages in their own communities as mentors and coaches. They offer marriage preparation training as well.

Family restoration must begin with marriage restoration. Strengthening existing marriages protects and restores marital partners, their children, and builds a stronger society, one marriage at a time.

(Flyer from http://www.marriagesavers.org/sitems/News/News100926CC.htm.) 

Join us for certification training in the new "customized version" of the PREPARE-ENRICH inventory on Saturday, April 30, 2011.

CLICK HERE FOR PDF OF THIS PAGE 

A few testimonials:
"I want to jump on your list of cheerleaders for devising a way to certify PREPARE/ENRICH mentor couples with the Webinar technology." - a pastor
" I am deeply appreciative of the efforts of both PREPARE/ENRICH and Marriage Savers to address the greatest issue (marriage) of our culture at this time."- a pastor
" Clear presentation. Glad we did not have to travel." - a mentor supervisor couple
(Liked) "new material on cohabitation and chastity." - a mentor supervisor couple

Date: Saturday, April 30
Register Now: $100 Deposit. Call 301-469-5873

Registration Deadline: Friday, April 15.
Balance due for training & materials fees
Time: 10-5 EST (unless West Coasters participate).
Training Fee: $195 per church (for up to 4 couples). $45 per additional couple.
Training materials cost: $115 for certification resources for each pastor/mentor supervisor couple; $35 per mentor couple (additional s&h fees for Alaska participants). $4.95 per couple for Workbook.
Summer training: Saturday, June 4.
Registration Deadline: May 20.

Mike McManus, President of Marriage Savers, has been a nationally syndicated columnist for 33 years and is author of five books on marriage, most recently: "Living Together: Myths, Risks & Answers" written with Harriet McManus and "How To Cut America's Divorce Rate in Half: A Strategy Every State Should Adopt," both of which were published in 2008. Mike and Harriet have personally mentored 61 premarital couples. One couple commented, "Going through the mentoring process with you gave both of us a confidence about the strength of our relationship and our ability to deal with various hurdles in marriage."

Court-Ordering Public School Will Not Restore a Child's Family

Last week New Hampshire’s judicial system ordered a child to attend public school though she was thriving under home schooling. Because her divorced parents disagreed on her form of education, a NH family court intervened, and determined that the child should go to public school instead. The Republic reported: “The New Hampshire Supreme Court says a lower court acted appropriately in ordering an 11-year-old girl to attend public school after her father claimed his ex-wife’s strict Christian teachings were socially isolating the child.” A court appointed guardian ad litem and a school guidance counselor agreed, and the court followed their recommendation for termination of homeschooling for the child.

In response to the NH Supreme Court ruling ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons stated that in addition to the obvious family concerns, there are serious religious liberty issues at stake in this case: “Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children. Courts can settle disputes, but they cannot legitimately order a child into a government-run school on the basis that her religious views need to be mixed with other views. That’s precisely what the lower court admitted it was doing. The lower court held the Christian faith of this mother and daughter against them. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ignored this issue and wrote this off as a ‘parent versus parent’ issue without recognizing the very real underlying threat to religious liberty.” See the full news release at http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/4500; and the court’s opinion is available at www.telladf.org/userdocs/KurowskiOpinion.pdf.

Because of the dispute between her parents which led first to their divorce, and now to a disruption of her education, a young girl has now become a pawn in the battle for parenting and religious liberty. When parents destroy their marriage, and the child’s family stability as a result, they invite legal intervention that can be even more damaging to a child. In this case, it has forced a student into a new educational situation. That type of court order does not restore the child, or the family.

A Professional Restorative Approach Improves Outcomes for Families in Crisis

Attorneys and Counselors alike who wish to center their work on family restoration often find a great void of resources. This blog has offered some including articles on reconciliation, and training attorneys in the art and skill of marital reconciliation, but this is only a beginning. Improving outcomes for families in crisis is a significant goal for many family advocates.

The Freedom 22 Foundation is an important organization that offers considerable resources for like-minded professionals. While they believe that preserving the opportunity for safe marriages to be restored is part of their agenda, they also recognize that many marriages will end and that many children will be born to unwed parents, and sense a parallel responsibility to show parents that they must in all circumstances build peace and cooperation. Consider some of their initiatives:

1. UpToParents.org and ProudToParent.org helps parents in divorce and paternity cases to build good co-parenting partnerships (see Sample for an example of parents’ finished work from UpToParents.org).
2. Consulting with courts, bar associations, and other professional groups to build comprehensively cooperative systems of family law that support safety, reduce conflict, build cooperation, and protect the children and healthy relationships in families.
3. WhileWeHeal.org and NoDivorceToday.org helps separated spouses focus on their mutual interests, respond constructively to their children’s needs, and preserve their opportunity to restore their marriage in the future should they choose to do so.

Their work introduces these resources and explains how they can be implemented by courts, attorneys, mediators, co-parenting educators, and other family professionals to the substantial benefit of families.

Professionals are encouraged to sign up at UpToParents.org as hypothetical parents in divorce. Just a few minutes sampling the workings of the website can convey the power to focus parents’ attention on their children and the future instead of grievances and the past. Furthermore, the “Professionals Corner” link of UpToParents.org includes short articles on the easy and effective use of these websites in a variety of settings. Here are some examples:

1. For early use in all divorce and paternity cases, click HERE.
2. As parents’ preparation for mediation, click HERE.
3. Collaborative attorneys’ use of the websites, click HERE.
4. Collaborative divorce coaches’ use of the websites, click HERE.
5. GALs’ and other evaluators’ use of the websites, click HERE.

Also offered are concepts toward comprehensively cooperative systems of family law to improve the current state systems of family law dispute resolution. Appreciable improvement in outcomes for families in crisis will require improvement in America’s family law systems. To that end, Freedom 22 has developed and consulted widely on a plan for this improvement. More information on this plan and the helpful impact it is having in several jurisdictions is available at the article A Brief Introduction to a Cooperative System of Family Law (with a linked video) available on the “Professionals Corner” link of UpToParents.org. Professionals are also encouraged to download, complete, and even share with us the Survey of Family Law Systems also available on that “Professionals Corner.” We are presently working on a new website where family professionals will be able to assess their family law systems and receive feedback on possible areas of progress.

Most importantly, these resources emphasize that there are alternatives to divorce. Several authorities, including Dr. Robert E. Emery in Renegotiating Family Relationships, have written about the considerable number of parents in divorce cases who say that they actually would prefer not to divorce. While spouses resisting an inevitable divorce present important legal, counseling, and mediation challenges, we also think it is also important to assist separated spouses (or spouses who are about to separate) interested in pursuing a safe reconciliation.

Building on the work of Lee Raffel in Should I Stay or Go?: How Controlled Separation Can Save Your Marriage, Freedom 22 has created WhileWeHeal.org and NoDivorceToday.org to help spouses, especially those with children, to focus on making their separations as constructive as possible and doing no damage to any future wish to reconcile.

These websites address a common problem in these cases, namely that most separations are not supported by the clear thinking and careful planning necessary to meet the needs of either children or parents. These websites give parents the chance to see and address the array of typically overlooked separation tasks. With this help, spouses can find it easier to collaboratively create what is called a “No-Divorce-Today Separation Agreement,” something that can serve as a foundation either to a successful reconciliation or to a more peaceful, cooperative, and child-focused divorce.

While several progressive judges, attorneys, and co-parenting educators have become interested in this protocol, it can be of special interest to mediators and counselors wishing to develop a subspecialty in constructive separations and assistance to couples wishing to rethink divorce. Interested professionals are encouraged to visit NoDivorceToday.org for a fuller understanding of these possibilities. Freedom 22 Foundation has undertaken other projects, including writing, presenting, and sharing with other professionals about good co-parenting classes, conducting and instructing on family mediation, and consulting widely on the specifics of good family law systems.

Judges, bench and bar associations, mediators, co-parenting educators, and others are invited to contact the Freedom 22 Foundation to share ideas on implementing the use of these resources. Family restoration is possible, and professionals can be a major part of that process.

Divorce Insurance - Personal Financial Restoration v. Family Restoration?

Car Insurance, Homeowner's Insurance, Health Insurance, now Divorce Insurance???

A recent local news story featured just that - divorce insurance - a fast growing industry serving personal interests in family breakdown. The story can be viewed here: http://www.wtkr.com/videobeta/?watchId=23a2357a-5864-4797-8455-15aee2939554. The company's founder stated, "... you see some sort of cracks in the foundation that would cause you concern that your marriage may not last, and the solution is WedLock Divorce Insurance." The solution, really? In an age of no-fault divorce, this seems like another incentive to get out of a marriage. What is most chilling is that when you purchase this insurance, your spouse does not even have to know you have a policy. Unlike a prenuptial agreement, in which spouses must agree, divorce insurance guarantees privacy - and a rift in trust for the insured. If your spouse finds out, you just might need that insurance!

Upon learning of such a unique insurance industry, I was very concerned that most people who would believe they need this type of insurance would not be able to afford a policy that would be of great benefit. The company's website (www.wedlockdivorceinsurance.com) states that upon divorce, it pays out one lump sum, up to $250,000, depending on the policy. But beware - at best the payout may cover attorney's fees and a few months worth of child support or alimony. A policyholder who is uneducated about the dramatic costs of divorce may not understand the financial devastation that often accompanies divorce since litigation alone can cost tens of thousands of dollars. No one is financially stable after a divorce is finalized. On the contrary, it takes years to recover from the financial impact of divorce, and some women may never recover, following in the pattern of the feminization of poverty.

Generally, insurance is purchased for protection against an event we hope does not occur, such as an automobile accident or medical emergency. Divorce insurance is most likely purchased with that same hope - that it will not happen. However, divorce insurance may actually end up ensuring divorce. Purchasing a policy may create a false sense of financial security. A policyholder, relying on that false sense of security, may hastily file for divorce without first attempting family restoration.

Finally, this insurance does nothing to protect those most vulnerable in divorce - children. One simply cannot insure against the emotional and mental impact divorce has on children. To learn more about the effects of divorce on children visit: http://www.regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/search?q=Spare+the+Child

At first glance, divorce insurance may seem like a good idea, especially when one considers the divorce rate. A second look reveals that it plainly fails to insure against the damaging effects of divorce - financial ruin, mental and emotional strife, and family destruction. Additionally, in some cases, it may encourage divorce. Clearly, the reward of purchasing a divorce insurance policy is significantly diminished by the risk it poses to the stability and restoration of families.

V. Keely Norman, Regent Juris Doctor Candidate 2012, guest blogger

A (Post)Modern Love Story

Wedding announcements in the Sunday New York Times provide a glimpse into the lives of the glamorous and cosmopolitan of high society. For many readers, it provides a form of escapism to read how a handsome Princeton educated bond trader swept a Columbia educated interior designer off her feet with a wedding proposal at The Four Seasons restaurant coupled with a lucida shaped three carat diamond engagement ring. Other notable details usually include the floral designer and the location of the exotic African safari honeymoon.

Last Sunday, the Times ran an announcement of a wedding along with the story of the relationship between former WNBC anchor Carol Anne Riddell and John Partilla, president of media sales at Time Warner. When they met, each was already married to someone else. Each had a child in the same pre-kindergarten class. They soon struck up a friendship and their families even vacationed together. One evening, Mr. Partilla informed Ms. Riddell over drinks that he had fallen in love with her. Ms. Riddell responded that the feeling was mutual. The two realized that, “all they had were their feelings,” and that, “their options were either to act on their feelings and break up their marriages or to deny their feelings and live dishonestly.”

Mr. Partilla and Ms. Riddell then decided to divorce their current spouses. “I did a terrible thing as honorably as I could,” said Mr. Padilla. Ms. Riddell said, “I will always feel terribly about the pain I caused my ex-husband. It was not what I ever would have wished on him.” What is interesting about this saga is there is no mention of any behavior by the former spouses which generally precipitate divorce, such as abuse, infidelity, or even weight gain. In fact, Ms. Riddell actually felt bad for her ex. Both former spouses happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mr. Partilla and Ms. Riddell just found an upgrade, kind of like going from a reliable Hyundai to a new Lincoln.

The story of Mr. Partilla and Ms. Riddell raise some interesting questions. The first pertains to the story’s physical location in the Times. Why was this story placed in the Weddings/Celebrations section? Are we as a society “celebrating” the fact that two individuals decided to inflict long term emotional damage on their, in the article’s words, “distraught children and devastated spouses?” Perhaps a more appropriate placement would have been the Obituaries, as Mr. Partilla and Ms. Riddell’s romance signaled the demise of two families and the death of their children’s innocence.

And forget any commentary on the state of marriage, where the divorce rate is now north of 50%. What does this story say about a society where one’s quest for happiness supersedes previously made promises and vows? If society condones, and even “celebrates,” Mr. Partilla and Ms. Riddell’s relationship, it is difficult to believe that the search for happiness will remain there. Once accepted, and there is some evidence that this is already happening, the natural outflow is that it will incrementally advance through the rest of culture to the point where each impulse will need to be satiated with the justification being happiness.

The Times story happily concludes with Ms. Riddell wearing “a Nicole Miller strapless gown for a small ceremony in the presidential suite of the Mandarin Oriental New York hotel.” Hopefully, neither will have to choose again between those pesky feelings and living dishonestly. However, should Mr. Partilla and Ms. Riddell decide to follow their wish for happiness with another, I am sure I will be able to read about it in the Weddings/Celebrations section of the New York Times.

Courtesy of Guest Blogger Joseph A. Kohm, Jr., J.D., M.B.A.

Spare the Child

Thanks to a generous grant from the Virginia Law Foundation, the Virginia State Bar’s Family Law Section Board of Governors has produced an important video project to help families spare their children from the trauma of divorce.  Virginia has approximately 30,000 divorces yearly.  Giving parents a compass for navigating family dissolution, Spare the Child guides parents and families through the difficult and often overwhelming task of restructuring a family. The documentary-style, conversational video uses everyday language and gives examples from experienced interviewees. The video is used by individuals, educators, churches, and community groups for use in education, parenting programs, and law school curricula.  Its running time is nineteen minutes, is closed captioned, and is available in both English and Spanish.    

The 2010 edition of Spare the Child was filmed and produced by the Park Group of Richmond, and is now available to watch on the following pages:

• Online on the Virginia State Bar Family Law Section’s website
• On the VSB channel of YouTube 
• On Vimeo
• VSB now has a video page for the project.
•  VSB Publications
•  VSB Sitemap

Individual DVDs are also available from the State Bar, and have been assembled and are ready for mailing upon request.  The DVD will be promoted nationally through the National Association of Bar Executives and the American Bar Association, and will be submitted for several national competitions.

Most importantly, the DVD has already been distributed to courts throughout Virginia for use in mandatory litigant-education and parent-education programs required by law under Section 16.1-278.15 of the Code of Virginia, which requires parents and/or all other parties involved in a contested custody, visitation, or child support petition to attend a parent education class. DVDs are available to the public for a shipping fee.

Spare the Child is a tool to help lawyers, counselors, judges, pastors, teachers and parents understand that the effects of divorce last a lifetime, not just for the marriage partners, but for their children most of all. View it today at http://www.vsb.org/site/sections/family/view/spare-the-child/ to get a better grasp of what part you can play toward family restoration.

Family Restoration for Children Requires Mom AND Dad – Particularly in Divorce

When good fathers seek custody they are met with gender bias, specifically a preference for mothers as the primary custodians of the parties’ children. Unfortunately, evidence shows that custody decisions are often influenced by this preference for mothers over fathers. Consequently, fathers have a much higher burden to prove if they wish to attain physical custody of their children. In addition to proving their fitness as a parent, fathers must overcome the gender obstacle. When there is a custody dispute, is there a preference for mothers over fathers? This question is tackled by Hope H. Causey (Regent Law 2010) in her article Where’s Daddy’s?: The Court’s Maternal Preference and Why Daddies are Indispensable.

Part I briefly gives a background on the types of custody parents are awarded, differentiating between legal, physical, sole and joint. Part II analyzes whether there is a maternal preference that exists when there is a custody dispute between the mother and father. The argument that there is only a perception of gender bias is also rebutted. Part III discusses the reason for the removal of the maternal preference in custody disputes, which is that it is imperative for children to have both parents actively involved in their lives. It presents the educational, societal, and developmental benefits to having fathers involved in their children’s lives. Finally, Part IV provides a solution to the maternal preference and the problem of absent fathers.

Children thrive when they live with a mother and a father married to each other, affording obvious evidence that divorce is harmful to kids in one way or another. Keeping them from their dads in divorce is devastating, and when courts refuse to recognize that fathers are sometimes the best primary custodians, kids are the greatest losers.

Read the entire article here.

Where’s Daddy