California Divorce and Family Law

Survey: 70 Percent of Americans Find Divorce 'Morally Acceptable'

An alarming 70 percent of Americans now believe that divorce is “morally acceptable,” according to a recent poll by Gallup’s 2008 Values and Beliefs survey.

The new figure – the highest on record – represents an 11 percent increase from just 7 years ago and a 3 percent increase from 2 years ago. Only 22 percent of Americans said they believed divorce was “morally wrong,” according to the results.

The acceptability of divorce among Americans was ranked higher than all of the other 16 ethical issues surveyed – including the death penalty, gambling, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, abortion and medical research on animals. Additionally, divorce has risen faster in moral acceptability among Americans than any of the other ethical issues.

Although the recent results revealed that the acceptability of divorce has risen steadily to the point where it is now “morally acceptable by a majority of nearly every major demographic category of Americans,” respondents who identified themselves as “conservative,” “religious,” or over 65 years in age were more likely to say that divorce was “morally wrong.”

Respondents who identified themselves as “liberals,” “independents,” and “non-religious,” on the other hand, registered the highest number of responses that said divorce was “morally acceptable.” Nearly 91 percent of those who said religion was “not very important” in their lives said divorce was “morally acceptable,” according to the results.

While the recent poll reveals a steady and alarming rise in the acceptability of divorce, more than 70 percent of Americans continued to rate suicide, cloning humans, polygamy, and “married men and women having an affair” as “morally unacceptable.”

The Gallup poll results were based on telephone surveys of over 1,000 adults.

From the Christian Post.

California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."

In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

The last time California voters were asked to express their views on gay marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.

Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.

The Supreme Court struck down both statutes with its sweeping opinion Thursday.

Lawyers for the gay couples had asked the court to overturn the laws as an unconstitutional civil rights violation that domestic partnerships cannot repair. A trial court judge in San Francisco agreed with gay rights advocates and voided the state's marriage laws in April 2005. A midlevel appeals court overturned his decision in October 2006.

From Yahoo News.

Here is the Court's opinion.

After Divorce, Stable Families Help Minimize Long-term Harm To Children

For children of divorce, what happens after their parents split up may be just as important to their long-term well-being as the divorce itself.

A new study found that children who lived in unstable family situations after their parents divorced fared much worse as adults on a variety of measures compared to children who had stable post-divorce family situations.

“For many children with divorced parents, particularly young ones, the divorce does not mark the end of family structure changes – it marks the beginning,” said Yongmin Sun, co-author of the study and associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus.

“A stable family situation after divorce does not erase the negative effects of a divorce, but children in this situation fare much better than do those who experience chronic instability”

The study appears in a recent issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family.  Sun conducted the study with Yuanzhang Li of the Allied Technology Group.

Data for this study came from the National Education Longitudinal Study, which surveyed thousands of students across the country beginning in 8th grade in 1988, when they were about 14 years old. They were surveyed again in 1990, 1992 and then again in 2000 when they were about 26 years old.

The study  compared children who grew up in three different situations:

• Children who grew up in always-married households (5,303 children).
• Children whose parents divorced before the study began, but who lived in a stable family structure between ages 14 and 18(954 children).
• Children whose parents divorced prior to the beginning of the study, and whose family situation changed once or twice between ages 14 and 18(697 children).

In the two divorced family groups, children may have lived in single-parent families or ones with a stepparent.  The key for this research was whether that arrangement – whichever it was -- changed between ages 14 and 18).

The researchers compared how children in these groups fared on measures of education, income and poverty in 2000 when they were 26.

More about this topic at Science Daily.

Why is a prenup so important?

Q: "I'm getting married and I have some assets of my own from my family. I'd like a prenup but my fiancé is insulted. How can I convince him this is a good idea?"

A: Emphasize to your fiancé that it is important for couples to have healthy discussions and agreements about finances before they get married as well as after they get married.

A prenuptial agreement can be a positive communication tool to clarify how assets will be treated in the future, especially family owned assets like farms or businesses.

Your Money Team would like to highlight two major points about prenups:

1) Whether or not you draw up a formal document, all couples should have full disclosure and conversation about finances before they get married, especially where children from prior marriages or family owned assets are involved; and

2) Prenups are not just for divorce, but also issues pertaining to death.

Full disclosure prior to marriage. Kim Stamatelos, a mediator and family attorney in Des Moines admits that the word prenup “conjures up intense emotions, insecurities, and confusion for many couples.” Yet by facing this tough issue, she says, couples can clear up misunderstandings and set the stage for open communication in their marriage.

Stamatelos encourages couples to think of prenups as a positive and healthy precedent for being candid and honest with financial issues and sharing attitudes towards money.

Jim Niblock, a tax and estate planning attorney with Brown Winick Law Firm in Des Moines, says that while prenups are more common in second marriages where there are children from prior marriages, they can be “positive for all couples.”

He notes that when assets like family farms or business interests are involved, it is important to “be clear in advance” if those will remain family assets in the event of divorce or death.

Nibock says you don’t necessarily always need a “full-blown prenup,” but might simply address the family owned assets.

Prenups deal with estate issues. Both Stamatelos and Niblock stress that Iowa currently does not recognize “post-nups,” agreements entered into after marriage (unlike California, which does recognize post-nups). Stamatelos says that if you don’t use a prenup, you could have difficulty directing the distribution of your money and assets with your will.

”Without a prenup waiving the right, your spouse has the right in Iowa to ‘elect against the will’ if you don’t give them a minimum amount of assets in your will,” says Stamatelos.

This can be an issue especially where there are children from a prior marriage. Niblock added that this issue is also important with regard to the use of trusts for assets, such as real estate, in which a spouse may have significant rights under Iowa law.

Involve a professional. If you are hesitant to bring up the subject on your own, consider including an experienced lawyer or mediator. These experienced professionals can help lead the conversation in a neutral, objective, non-intimidating manner and help both parties address critical financial issues prior to marriage.

From the Des Moines Register.

Marriages pay a price in faltering economy

Our newest advice expert on relationships answers questions about dissolving marriages and troubled families.

When the economy turns sour, so too can marriages.

Financial woes are the second-most common cause for divorce, according to a survey on the Web site divorce360.com, behind only abuse.

So until the home mortgage crisis is over and our 401Ks have bounced back, we expect some of you couples could use some advice.

Mary O'Connor, the founder of Family Assessment, Counseling and Education Services, is the Register's newest advice expert. She'll answer questions from you about marriages that are dissolving, about families that are trying to stay together, and about issues that face parents and children after divorce.

O'Connor led thousands of mediation cases with the Orange County Superior Court before starting the nonprofit FACES 20 years ago. The organization offers parenting classes, monitors visits between estranged parents and children, and provides counseling and mental heath services. O'Connor also runs a private practice.

Q:  Cultural acceptance of divorce obviously changed a great deal in the 1960s and 1970s. What has changed in the past two decades?

A:  Where religion used to be a deterrent for divorce, it's no longer. Where certain cultures didn't get divorced, those cultures are now getting divorced. Where people used to get married, they no longer get married. So there are more children of non-married relationships than ever.

Also, when I started in the '80s, there were as many men leaving women as women leaving men; then, it was mostly women doing the separating. Now, I think it's come full circle, half-and-half.

Q:  Are divorces less combative now?

A:  When there are no children involved, it doesn't seem to be as hard of a breakup. But when there are children involved, there is such passion and time spent. The shift is that fathers are taking more part in the parenting than they ever did before. So when they separate, they're seen as much as a custodial parent as the other parent.

And, financially, if mother is making as much as father, she's able to afford as much legal representation as father. Many years ago, mother didn't even have the resources to be represented by an attorney.

Q:  Is the cultural momentum away from marriage going to continue? Will my grandkids even get married?

A: I do think people like commitment, stability, and that traditional feeling of having a partner. But I think serial monogamy might be more common.

Your grandkids will get married, but for different reasons than we do now. Years ago, the going theory was a woman needs to be taken care of and a man needs to protect. Obviously, we've changed all that. Both of them are out hunting and fishing; both are nurturing the children.

So why are people getting married now? Companionship. Laughter. And to guarantee a single lovemaker on a regular basis. That's got to be one of the reasons, right?

Q:  Is your counseling approach different for non-married parents?

A: The only difference we have is it's two last names. Getting the relationship better is still the issue. We've got to keep reminding them the kid needs both of them. They're not the same, but the child needs to learn who they are as a human being from the mother and the father.

That's what we're trying to stress. Yes, the other person does things wrong that you didn't like, and that's why you want to get rid of them, but the child likes that parent no matter what. The child has unconditional love.

Q:  In cases without abuse, do you think parents staying together is nearly always healthy for the child?

A: Academically, yes. Yes, yes, yes. The phenomenon of their parents splitting up causes abandonment issues, depression, anger, causes resentments, causes the child to be feeling like a ping pong ball. It causes new families to be created, and for that child to feel like they don't belong to any family.

The repercussions of divorce, compared to being married, it's like 90/10 to me.

Q:  Aren't there similar repercussions to having parents in a loveless marriage?

A: Yes. When kids see dysfunction in their relationship, they act it out. But there are still more folks around to love them. These kids with an absent parent have a yearning. In other words: Mom and Dad may not have that great a relationship, but they could both have a great relationship with the kid. So think about that!

Q:  What should parents do if they have a seed of dissatisfaction in the relationship?

A: Go right away to counseling. Nip it in the bud. Start making a gratitude list for what you already have. Get your repair work going. Fix that dike before it grows.

Q:  Are adults really capable of making major changes so late in life?

A: We've really seen people in the parenting classes dazed and amazed. Like, "I don't have to scream and yell at my child across the room! I can walk over to the child and get down on my knees and ask them questions. I can do something different than my parents did." That's where social change starts coming. These small ways of relating are just different.

Of course some people fall back on their old habits. Not everybody is going to pick it up and keep it forever. But once you learn something new, it's there.

From the OC Register.

Study: Impact of divorce on kids less damaging

For years, social scientists have believed that children of divorce have had more behavior problems than kids growing up in two-parent homes.

But the impact may not be as damaging as previously believed, according to new research to be released Friday.

Instead of comparing these youngsters to those with intact families - the usual methodology - a more accurate assessment would be to evaluate them before and after the marital dissolution, argues Alan Li of the RAND Corp.

Many of the problems could be a result of pre-existing personal characteristics that would be a factor in emotional and behavioral issues even if their parents had managed to remain married, said Li, who will present his findings this weekend at the annual conference of the Council on Contemporary Families, or CCF, at the University of Illinois Chicago.

"Many studies end up comparing apples and oranges," Li explained. "Personality, parenting strategies and detailed aspects of a person's biography all affect children, but researchers haven't been able to measure many of these constructs."

In addition, the report said, many earlier studies failed to take into account differences between families, such as parents' socioeconomic status and education, which can affect a youngster's well-being, whether a couple stays together or not.

When these variables are added to the mix, the psychological fallout is negligible, said Li, associate director of the Population Research Center for the Santa Monica, Calif.-based nonprofit.

He drew upon a national sample of about 6,330 children between the ages of 4 and 15, whose mothers were surveyed repeatedly between 1979 and 2002.

Mothers filled out a 28-item checklist on whether their children engaged in conduct such as cheating, crying, arguing and breaking things. On average, less than half showed a one-item increase after divorce, which is not statistically significant.

Stephanie Coontz, a historian who has written extensively on marriage, called the findings provocative, adding that they could reframe the national debate on divorce.

To increase the odds of long and happy unions, states such as Oklahoma are funding marriage education programs, while others want to make divorce tougher. In Louisiana, for example, the waiting period for couples with children doubled from six months to one year.

However, these findings suggest that staying together at all costs may not be the best way to intervene, said Coontz, CCF's director of research.

Robert E. Emery, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, takes issue with the conclusion. While Li may not have found increased negative behavior, less quantifiable is the hurt that can reverberate across a lifespan, he explained.

"For example, graduation and weddings can be turned into anxiety-ridden events for children whose parents are divorced . . ." Emery wrote in a response to Li's findings.

Closer to home, most experts agreed that it isn't the split but the discord attached to it that is so harmful.

In eight years as a mediator in the domestic relations division of Cook County, Ill., Circuit Court, Jeff Ginsburg has seen it all. "It never ceases to amaze me when divorcing parents cannot get past their anger with each other to decide what is in the best interest of their children."

Two periods of conflict surround dissolution, said Ginsburg, who is both a social worker and an attorney.

More about this in the Bradenton Herald.

The McGreeveys are talking settlement

James E. McGreevey and his estranged wife spent this morning in settlement talks, making a last minute attempt to resolve their bitter breakup on the day the divorce trial was to scheduled to begin, court officials said.

The settlement talks began at 9:30 a.m., broke for lunch at 1 p.m. and focused on the contentious issues fueling the very public feud between Dina Matos McGreevey and the former governor, said Sandra Thaler-Gerber, spokeswoman for the state Superior Court in Union County. The talks were scheduled to resume at 2 p.m.

"We are trying to see if there will be a settlement," Thaler-Gerber said.

The former governor was scheduled to testify today as part of the trial's custody phase, which is not open to the public.

But the settlement talks have superseded the start of the trial, Thaler-Gerber said.

"Everybody is hopeful. You want there to be a settlement," Thaler-Gerber said.

McGreevey is seeking to have 50-50 custody of Jacqueline, asking the judge to have the girl alternate weeks living with him in Plainfield and her mother in Springfield. Matos McGreevey has asked to continue the couple's current arrangement: She gets custody while he gets liberal visitation rights, including alternating weekends and some holidays.

In addition to the custody issue, Matos McGreevey wants alimony and support. McGreevey is paying $2,500 a month in support, but Matos McGreevey wants any permanent amount to be higher. McGreevey claims he has very little money, makes $50,000 a year, and is unlikely to make more because he is a seminary student aiming to be a priest.

Matos McGreevey is a fundraiser for Columbus Hospital Foundation and earns $82,000 a year.

Matos McGreevey also sued McGreevey for fraud for not revealing to her that he was gay before they married. Matos McGreevey wants $600,000 in damages for the year she did not live in the governor's mansion.

The McGreeveys married in October 2000. They publicly separated in November 2004 -- three months after McGreevey resigned as governor and announced to the world that he is gay and that he had an affair with a male aide.

McGreevey, 50, filed for divorce in February 2007 after a settlement agreement fell apart. Matos McGreevey, 41, lives in Springfield. McGreevey lives in Plainfield with his partner, Mark O'Donnell.

From the Newark Star Ledger.

Married Browsers Beware: Top Divorce Lawyers Note Soaring Use of Internet and Spyware Evidence

An overwhelming 79% of the nation's top divorce attorneys reported an increase in the frequency of Internet browser histories being used as evidence in divorce cases during the past five years, according to a recent survey of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) members.  In addition, 44% of the respondents also cited a noticeable increase in evidence taken from Spyware programs.

"Many spouses will use the Internet in order to act anonymously, but in many ways it's the most public thing someone can do," said James Hennenhoefer, president of the AAML.  "Internet activity can provide valuable glimpses into the kinds of hidden activities that a husband or wife might be trying to conceal and Spyware programs can help to make this kind of monitoring extremely easy to conduct."

While 79% of AAML members who responded said Internet browser histories were a main source of information in divorce cases throughout the past five years, none of the respondents reported a decline in this information being used.  Additionally, 21% saw no change in how often a spouse used these records for evidence during this time period.

Internet tracking through software was also noted as an increasingly popular means of gathering evidence.  In all, 44% of AAML attorneys said that Spyware was used more often than not in divorces over the last five years. Only 2% of AAML members noticed it had been used less frequently than in previous years.

More at The Earth Times.

Divorce, pet style - ‘We Can’t Stay Together for the Dogs’

With Florida having one of the nation’s highest divorce rates, it’s not surprising that pets are part of custody battles all over the place.

Who gets the dog? How do you decide, and what issues should you take into consideration?

A lot of us have known friends going through this situation and sometimes the result has been that the pet loses its home. And that’s not good.

Luckily, if you’re going through that problem now (my heart goes out to you - it’s rotten for everyone), there’s some good advice by someone who’s been there, author Jennifer Keene, writing in “We Can’t Stay Together for the Dogs.”

Just out by TFH books ($22.95), which only publishes books about animals, it’s a well-researched and written book with info on custody issues/arrangements and how to live single again with a dog.

Keene is a Certified Pet Dog Trainer and owns Pup-A-Razzi, a training business in Beaverton, OR. She lives with two dogs and has visitation rights for a third.

“As you decide who your dog will live with, level of commitment to the dog (and his special needs) must factor in significantly,” says Keene in her book.

Think about safe handling, commitment to training (would one of you do that, the other one isn’t interested?) and patience, among other things.

Keene talks about the reaction from family and friends and how to handle it. I don’t think she’s left much out in this book.

It would be a great gift for someone in this touchy situation. And there is good advice for those who think they need to stay together for the dogs. Don’t do that — nobody wins that way — but read this book as you go down that path.

From the Palm Beach Post.

DEAR ABBY: Cheated-on wife’s divorce ring deserved, even if meaning fuzzy

LITTLE ROCK — DEAR ABBY: I am a 45-year old woman with two daughters, ages 20 and 23. I married my high school sweetheart, “Cooper.” I had heard rumors that Cooper had strayed from time to time, but had no evidence to back it up, and, of course, he denied it.

I went by my husband’s office one day to surprise him, and his new secretary informed me that Cooper had just taken his wife to lunch at a local bistro! I went right over there and found them whispering, kissing and feeding each other. I did not make a scene. When Cooper arrived home that evening, I confronted him. He tried to deny it. I called him a liar and he slapped me! (A first.) He moved out that night, and I filed for divorce.

I pawned my wedding band and engagement ring. The clerk asked if I was going to buy a divorce ring. I had never heard of one. I searched online, found a nice one, ordered it and wear it proudly.

Cooper and his parents are livid! They say I am poking fun at him and accuse me of “promoting divorce.” My friends and oldest daughter think it’s cool. Some of my divorced friends have ordered rings, too. The ring is different in design, beautiful, makes me feel good and shows my independence. Should I feel guilty for wearing an identity ring like this?

- Divorcing and Loving it North Carolina

DEAR DIVORCING AND LOVING IT: No, you should not. The next time Cooper and his parents accuse you of “promoting divorce,” remind them that it was Cooper who promoted divorce by openly cheating on you. If the ring brings you pleasure - and comfort - then enjoy it.

However, please be aware that many people will not understand its significance - and if you wear it on the third finger of your left hand, they may think you are still married and unavailable.

Read it all at Arkansas Online.