Spinoff: Should Divorce Be Easy To Obtain?

[patteeu]

This is one of the question's in Rain Man's "Pick A Fight" thread. It started to generate some discussion and rather than hijacking that thread I thought I'd move it here:

Originally Posted by el borracho

Why wouldn't people want divorces to be easy to obtain? What is the advantage in having unhappy unions?

Originally Posted by tk13

I think the thought process being that if it's hard to obtain a divorce, people won't be so quick to jump into marriage before they're ready...

Originally Posted by morphius

My understanding is that it is good that it is difficult so that people may work harder to keep a marriage going instead of giving up just because things get a little rough.

Originally Posted by morphius

And thats probably a better point.

ugh.

Originally Posted by tk13

I was about to say the same thing about your post....

Originally Posted by patteeu

Every union is unhappy at times. If there isn't an easy way out when the chips are down, many of those marriages would be salvageable.

Originally Posted by J Diddy

That, in my humble opinion, is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. What say you about domestic abuse or other odd situations. Buck up, you can't be done with this asshole, however take comfort in knowing that you have a better chance of being with him/her until the end because no other option presents itself.

It's a myth that fault-based divorce prevents abused spouses from getting out of marriage. As far as I know, abuse has always been a ground for divorce so your concern on this point is largely unwarranted. Even in cases where the abuser is so crafty that he/she can perpetrate the abuse without leaving any evidence, the abused spouse has always had the option to leave the situation with or without a legal divorce. The abuse argument for easy divorce is a canard IMO.

Back in the day, the economics of single income families was more likely to keep an abused spouse in a marriage than the administrative/judicial hurdles to divorce. Nowadays, we don't have nearly as many single income (two parent) families. Women are liberated and are welcome in the workplace.

Making divorce harder to get (i.e. going back to a fault-based system) would keep individuals who have grown bored with their marriage or who have gotten frustrated with the way their spouse loads the toilet paper upside down from walking away in search of a more perfect union.

Do we really not have enough broken homes today that we need to keep whimsical divorces cheap (not counting the support payments, loss of custody, and division of property of course), legal, and relatively common?

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by Cochise

I certainly have, just amongst the people I know and associate with on a regular basis.

Just a generalization, but of the people I know that come from "broken" homes, they seem to have had marriage problems of their own.

I had (emphasis on had) a friend whose father was married 5 different times. Its no wonder to me that every girlfriend my friend had, he treated like shit.

I also have a friend whose parents got divorced, but he seems normal. At least he does now, after being in the Navy for 5 years.

Basically all of my friends come from "broken" homes except one of them. The only difference between us and them is, our parents got married at an older age (30's).

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by patteeu

As a teacher, do you notice any difference in the kids who live in broken homes versus the kids who have intact families (generally speaking of course)?

Of course. Big time. So, would it be desirable social policy, IF it led to couples tryin' to "work it out" in situations where there truly is hope? Absolutely.

That said, American obsession with truly radical notions of "freedom," "choice," and "egalitarianism" would trump any consideration of what many would call "marginal" benefits. We are too selfish, too arrogant, and too blind to see past our own personal gratification and "happiness."

The irony is that numerous studies I've read over the years state that, generally (of course), divorced people more often than not make the same choices and often marry someone else later who is remarkably similar to their former spouse. Of course, there are exceptions, and some people who "learn" from their experiences--make no mistake about that. Many though, end up no happier in their new relationships than they were in their old--and yet the divorce has also negatively impacted their children.

So, would making divorce more difficult be a net gain for society? Probably. Is it going to happen? Not a chance. We are too narcisistic (I am as well) for it to ever happen.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I believe you.

If you were the one who wanted the divorce, would you have been able to get it in a jurisdiction that required fault or mutual agreement?

If you didn't want your divorce, would your spouse have been able to get the divorce in a jurisdiction that required fault?

It started out as a mutually agreeable divorce in Texas, which is a community property state. However, as things progressed, she got increasingly more greedy and bitter (at the prodding of her parents, primarily), changed legal representation 3 times and dragged the process out over a year, even though there were no children.

On the day scheduled for the actual hearing (or whatever it's called), her legal counsel managed to postpone the thing after Bob Dole sat at the courthouse for 3 hours, then finagled a last-minute change of venue (or whatever its called) later in the day. After getting dressed and driving the 25 miles to the new location, the judge was already in a pissy mood because they had been waiting for 45 minutes, completely ignoring that the was no advance notice of the time and location change. On top of that, she managed to manufacture claims of infidelity out of thin air while offering no evidence of such behavior and sobbing uncontrollably.

The end result was an irritable, Bible-thumping judge who decided that Bob Dole was such a POS that the whole concept of community property wasn't worth observing, and he gave her pretty much everything. Bob Dole got a lot of debt that wasn't even his (50% of her student loans, for example), the automobile with a bank note attached, his La-Z-Boy recliner, and not much else.

Bob Dole was left so financially crippled that appealing the decision (which Bob Dole was told that in Texas, would have gone right back to the same damned judge that made the decision for the first level appeal) wasn't really a viable option.

[stevieray]

Seven out of every ten men in prison come from a broken home.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

It's not society's job to force people to remain legally tied to each other against their wishes. Divorce should be relatively easy to obtain.

I will note that I wouldn't be worried about a 30, 60 or maybe even a 180 day "wait" between when you file for divorce and when it is granted, to give the parties a chance to cool down or reconcile or whatever, but to make it onerous to get a divorce is just silly in my mind.

There is no job description for society so I'll assume that your first statement is a statement of opinion rather than an assertion of fact.

[Skip Towne]

Originally Posted by SDChiefsfan

Of course. Big time. So, would it be desirable social policy, IF it led to couples tryin' to "work it out" in situations where there truly is hope? Absolutely.

That said, American obsession with truly radical notions of "freedom," "choice," and "egalitarianism" would trump any consideration of what many would call "marginal" benefits. We are too selfish, too arrogant, and too blind to see past our own personal gratification and "happiness."

The irony is that numerous studies I've read over the years state that, generally (of course), divorced people more often than not make the same choices and often marry someone else later who is remarkably similar to their former spouse. Of course, there are exceptions, and some people who "learn" from their experiences--make no mistake about that. Many though, end up no happier in their new relationships than they were in their old--and yet the divorce has also negatively impacted their children.

So, would making divorce more difficult be a net gain for society? Probably. Is it going to happen? Not a chance. We are too narcisistic (I am as well) for it to ever happen.

Considering the vast amount of time you spend posting on the Planet and reading studies, how do you ever find time to work?

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by stevieray

Seven out of every ten men in prison come from a broken home.

I wonder if that could be broken down in to 2 categories: Children whose parents are divorced, or children whose parents were never married.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

Considering the vast amount of time you spend posting on the Planet and reading studies, how do you ever find time to work?

Of course I do. Add up all my time "posting" and it would be a total of less than one-two hours, depending on the day....of the ten that I typically spend at school each day.

I've become a very talented multi-tasker. And I type about 80-90 words per minute.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by SDChiefsfan

Of course. Big time. So, would it be desirable social policy, IF it led to couples tryin' to "work it out" in situations where there truly is hope? Absolutely.

That said, American obsession with truly radical notions of "freedom," "choice," and "egalitarianism" would trump any consideration of what many would call "marginal" benefits. We are too selfish, too arrogant, and too blind to see past our own personal gratification and "happiness."

The irony is that numerous studies I've read over the years state that, generally (of course), divorced people more often than not make the same choices and often marry someone else later who is remarkably similar to their former spouse. Of course, there are exceptions, and some people who "learn" from their experiences--make no mistake about that. Many though, end up no happier in their new relationships than they were in their old--and yet the divorce has also negatively impacted their children.

So, would making divorce more difficult be a net gain for society? Probably. Is it going to happen? Not a chance. We are too narcisistic (I am as well) for it to ever happen.

The types of hurdles I have in mind are things like denying custody and support to a spouse who leaves against the wishes of the other spouse and without any grounds for doing so (e.g. abuse, infidelity, addiction, etc.). On the other hand, if it were mutual or if the spouse who wants to leave has grounds for the divorce then custody and support would be available. If a person wants to leave a marriage that hasn't been marred by the types of things mentioned above, then they should be able to do so. They just shouldn't be able to take the kids and a portion of the spouse's future earnings with them. And they probably ought to be at a disadvantage when it comes to separating the marital property.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

I wonder if that could be broken down in to 2 categories: Children whose parents are divorced, or children whose parents were never married.

Does that really matter?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by bobr17

It started out as a mutually agreeable divorce in Texas, which is a community property state. However, as things progressed, she got increasingly more greedy and bitter (at the prodding of her parents, primarily), changed legal representation 3 times and dragged the process out over a year, even though there were no children.

On the day scheduled for the actual hearing (or whatever it's called), her legal counsel managed to postpone the thing after Bob Dole sat at the courthouse for 3 hours, then finagled a last-minute change of venue (or whatever its called) later in the day. After getting dressed and driving the 25 miles to the new location, the judge was already in a pissy mood because they had been waiting for 45 minutes, completely ignoring that the was no advance notice of the time and location change. On top of that, she managed to manufacture claims of infidelity out of thin air while offering no evidence of such behavior and sobbing uncontrollably.

The end result was an irritable, Bible-thumping judge who decided that Bob Dole was such a POS that the whole concept of community property wasn't worth observing, and he gave her pretty much everything. Bob Dole got a lot of debt that wasn't even his (50% of her student loans, for example), the automobile with a bank note attached, his La-Z-Boy recliner, and not much else.

Bob Dole was left so financially crippled that appealing the decision (which Bob Dole was told that in Texas, would have gone right back to the same damned judge that made the decision for the first level appeal) wasn't really a viable option.

I'm sorry to hear your story. It's all too common IMO. This is the kind of thing that leads me to my position. If she had no evidence of misbehavior on your part, she shouldn't have been able to take you to the cleaners like she did. It's not right. Thank goodness there weren't children involved.

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by stevieray

Does that really matter?

I think there could be, and most likely is a difference between children whose parents divorced at a young age, and a child who never knew their father.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm sorry to hear your story. It's all too common IMO. This is the kind of thing that leads me to my position. If she had no evidence of misbehavior on your part, she shouldn't have been able to take you to the cleaners like she did. It's not right. Thank goodness there weren't children involved.

It is doubtful that we would have divorced had there been children involved.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

I think there could be, and most likely is a difference between children whose parents divorced at a young age, and a child who never knew their father.

Bottom line, kids are put at risk. There are no excuses for that.

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by stevieray

Bottom line, kids are put at risk. There are no excuses for that.

But the root of the problem lies elsewhere, not divorce. Making it harder to divorce would not change that statistic, IMO. People will still rush in to marriage, and have children too quick.