Pennsylvania Family Law Blog

Icon

A discussion of family law issues, published by Mark E. Jakubik

April 20, 2009 • 10:01 pm 1

Recession and Divorce

With the recession hitting us hard and jobless rates up it has caused the divorce rate to increase. We all know that the economy is struggling and there are more pressures out there on each of us personally. How does this affect your marriage? I am sure you’re already feeling it, financially and emotionally. If your not then maybe you should prepare for it, finances are one of the number one reasons that couples get divorced or break up. With the added pressures of cut backs, foreclosures and other signs of recession it is bound to affect everyone somewhere in their lives and families. Let’s see if we can figure out some solutions that may help you and your relationship sail through this a little less tattered.

When the country is struggling to find a way to bail out businesses, cut costs and take care of it’s people, no matter how hard they try, they are going to loose some of them along the way. Jobs get cut, people get offended and they feel lost in a sea of millions. They start to feel like no one is hearing their woes and that they’re alone in this fight. They start to feel singled out, worthless and almost martyred sometimes. They start to take it personally. This is usually the first stone in the wall that gets built between them and a loved one who truly cares about what they’re going through. Overtime, without any help, they slowly add stones to this wall until eventually it’s so high they can’t see over it. Can’t see what is on the other side, their significant other has disappeared in their eyes. They stop talking and communicating because they no longer feel that anyone will understand their plight. One spouse is feeling alone and the other starts to feel left out and neglected. It isn’t that one spouse doesn’t want to help the other, it’s that they aren’t working together to fix it anymore.

How can you fix this or stop it from happening in your marriage? You would think that would be a simple, “don’t do it” answer but it’s not. Trying to help someone who is building a wall without you can be very difficult. It takes a lot of work and it is steady work, not just a quick fix. It takes sitting down to take on this fight together. You have to remove every stone as it is laid. It takes communication and reassurance. You have to realize that you are in this together; no matter if one of you feels like they are alone or not. Let your spouse know that this situation is happening to both of you, not just one of you. Let them know that you are feeling what they are, what happens to them effects you too. I know this is a time when you don’t have much money or adding anything else to the budget could add more stress, but if you are not communicating well, or not hearing each other, this may be a good time for communication counseling. If you can’t afford it, then still realize you need it and try to find a way to communicate. One good thing to try is writing love letters to each other. Tell each other on paper how you are feeling. That way you are not interrupting each other, you are getting it out and the other person has something to physically hold on to. Something read when they are down. You also need to realize that you are in this together. Marriages and relationship are built as a two person structure; there is a reason for that. You are not alone in this what ever happens, good or bad, it happens to both of you, together. Even if you are separating, you’re both at a loss at the same time. You’re still going through the same thing, having the same experience. You can use that to help support each other. We all like to be with people who understand and are going through the same things that we are.

Not having enough money to do simple things, like shop for groceries or pay bills can definitely slam a wedge between two people. Especially if only one person takes care of the finances. That causes added pressure on that person that could be relieved simply by doing it together. Don’t put one of you in a position where you are trying to hold up the lives that you built alone. Foundations are not built on one skinny stick; we are not made with one leg. We have two for balance. Foundations are spread across an area to that they can hold up the weight. How long can you stand on one foot? Don’t put all the pressure on one person. Stand together and weather the storm. Shore up any distance between you and hold on. Trust me, in the end, when the storm is over, you will be stronger for the next one. Together or not in the end, it will help to know you did everything you could and there will be no “should of, could of or would of’s.” You took every step and are entering into any kind of separation may be easier to handle. Stepping into one without taking every step you could of leaves unanswered questions and makes it harder to get through. Making the emotional strains and stages of divorce longer.

With the stress and strain of the economy, finances and other normal marriage strains, emotions can run high during a recession. People may turn to old bad habits to relieve that, such as alcohol, gambling or straying. The emotional instability and worry can cause relationships to feel like they are drifting worlds apart, when in reality there is no other problem than outside influences pulling you apart. Each person finding a reason to step farther away instead of finding the source and getting rid of it. I have repeated my friend Gordon’s comment over and over, “it takes more energy to get a divorce than it does the save the marriage.” Thank you again Gordon, it’s a wonderful statement and should be engraved into people’s minds. It does take more energy to pull apart two objects than it does to put them together. I’ve got two examples for you that you might understand.

1. Playing with magnets in school. I am sure that in some science class somewhere in school they had to play with magnets. This is a good life lesson that we don’t really think about. Some magnets repelled each other and you couldn’t get them together no matter what you did. Some pulled together and it was hard to keep them apart. This is like a marriage because at one point, you two pulled together. You were drawn to each other like magnets. Now with the added strain of the recession it is like trying to pull the magnets apart. They went together easily and were harder to pull apart. Think of outside influences as those two hands trying to pull those magnets apart.

2. The lid of a jar. When you first try to open that jar and let the contents out that lid is stuck tight. Sometimes they are hard to get off. You have to twist, pull, bang it on the counter, use other object to try and pry it open. This is like a marriage. The lid should be stuck on tight. The twisting and pulling being the outside influences that can open that lid and eat away at the contents.

Whatever your outside influences are during this recession and no matter if your marriage breaks apart in the storm or not, it is hard on all of us. Realize that right now there are a lot of outside influences affecting our lives. There is pressure on everyone. You are not alone; we are all here with you. We are not just one skinny stick holding up our whole worlds. We are a group of legs that need to shore up and stand together so that we can all make it through these high winds and rough waters.

Source: Examiner.com

Filed under: Divorce, Finances, Marriage

April 3, 2009 • 9:47 pm 1

5 Steps To Managing Your Money And Your Marriage

In our society, money represents power, success, and often even your value as a person. We say (misquoting the Bible,) “Money is the root of all evil,” or ”money is power;” or “he who has the gold, makes the rules.”  We consider it spiritual to take a vow of poverty, and we prosecute and convict people who get greedy.

Money is serious stuff. Some of us think people who make a lot of  money must lack character; others think poor people are morally deficient. These attitudes are not the way we want to think, they’re prejudices, acquired before we learned to think rationally. But these prejudices can cause huge troubles in marriage, including financial infidelity – where one or both parties spend money out of resentment,  jeopardizing the couple’s financial security.

Money issues couples fight about include: Who pays for what? Who keeps records, pays bills, controls budget, etc.? When, how and why do we spend money? One wants to save, the other wants to spend. How do we make big financial decisions? Or, perhaps, they can’t talk about money at all without arguing.

If you and your partner tend to think the business end of a relationship is not a romantic topic for courtship, you may not discuss it until you can’t avoid it, and then you fight. You may not think of your marriage as a business deal, but a huge part of it is just that. Just like a business, a marriage takes in income, pays expenses, and is supposed to have a little profit (savings) left over.

The business aspects of marriage are clear to me, because for 15 years before I went back to school and eventually became licensed as a therapist, I was an accountant in business. Just like a small business, your relationship has one or more sources of income, you have expenses, and, like a business, your marriage is supposed to make a profit — to create savings, investments and equity (which a business would call assets) and have money left over in the bank at the end of the month.

As partners in a marriage you have similar financial responsibilities to partners in a business. In fact, some businesses are called partnerships, and we often use the same word for relationships. Family members are somewhat like workers, when they do maintenance, chores and homework, and somewhat like clients, who receive services from the partners, Mom and Dad.

Mom and Dad are the Chief Operating and Financial Officers, who must figure out how to allocate the funds coming in, and how to provide the necessary guidance and services to their children and to each other. In business, there’s a lot of discussion about ‘corporate culture’ — the attitudes and practices within the business: how employees and executives deal with each other, the ethics of the company, and their focus, or lack thereof, on meeting goals and becoming successful.

Likewise, your marriage and family have a ‘family culture’ — how you interact as partners and family members; your mutual goals, hopes and dreams; and how successful or unsuccessful you are at meeting your goals. Obviously, a family culture that involves a lot of fighting about money will be less efficient and not as successful at meeting its goals.

No matter what your circumstances, creating financial security can make life easier. To do this, you must learn to manage your money wisely. The amount of money you bring in may not be large, but if you manage it well, it can be all you need. On the other hand, we have all heard stories of people who earned vast sums of money (lottery winners, celebrities or dot-com millionaires, for example) and who squandered it until they had nothing left.

The amount of your income will not determine the amount of your “family profit” unless you manage it well. When you work together to handle your finances intelligently, you can create the financial security you need to live life comfortably. When your partnership extends to making smooth financial decisions and meeting your money goals without struggling and arguing, you’ll find that everything else you do becomes less stressful.


USING BUSINESS SKILLS AT HOME

Viewing your family dispassionately as a business doesn’t sound romantic, but if you can step back from your feelings long enough to view your relationship from this perspective, your financial situation make more sense, money problems will be easier to solve, and you’ll be able to discuss financial decisions with less difficulty. Here are some guidelines for using business skills at home.

1. Don’t React — Respond.
As I said in the previous chapter, neither of you would argue with the boss, colleagues at work, or a child’s teacher the way you argue with each other. Even if your boss makes you angry, most likely you would use self-control at the office, and blow off steam in private to your co-workers or a friend. Then, when you had a chance to think about the situation, you’d develop a better way of handling it, and perhaps approach your boss with a considered solution. You can do the same thing with your spouse when you have a money problem.  Instead of saying the first thing that occurs to you, such as criticism or blaming, stop and think of a response more likely to lead to a discussion of the problem, rather than an argument.

2. Use positive manipulation.
We often think of manipulation as a bad thing, as dishonest. However, acting in a way that makes it more likely to get a good response is not always deceitful or insidious. When you present an idea or solution, think about what your spouse would like about it, and lead with that. ”Honey, you know that new car you’ve been wanting? I think I have a way for us to get it.. We could take out some equity on the house to renovate the kitchen, we could get your new car, and the interest would be so much cheaper than a car loan.” This is truthful, thoughtful, and clearly shows the husband how both of their wants can be taken care of, so it’s more likely to get a positive response.

3. Have a Formal Meeting.
Just as you would in business, sit down for a real meeting about important financial issues. Don’t expect to be able to discuss finances successfully while you’re on the run, when it’s late at night, or while watching TV. Instead, make a date for discussing finances, and take the time to sit down together, with all the proper information, and discuss your needs, wants and means. Follow a meeting method like Robert’s Rules of Order, to keep the discussion on track. If a difficult problem arises, use the problem solving skills at the end of this chapter.

4. Take Finances Seriously.
Healthy businesses keep a close eye on the bottom line. In marriage, this means being careful about your money, but also not using money as a weapon against each other, or being irresponsible about it. A successful, happy marriage requires that both partners act like grownups. It’s not surprising if you have disagreements about how much to save, when and what to spend and who makes financial decisions, because such differences are normal between people. If you take them seriously, and sit down to solve them together with mutual good will, your different points of view will become assets, not problems.

5. Check in Regularly.
As you do in business, have a brief check-in as frequently as possible. In the morning, or the night before, compare your daily schedules. Even if the things on your schedule don’t really involve your spouse, mention them, so that each of you will know if you’re facing anything important, or challenging in the day ahead. When you have an idea of what’s involved in each others’ daily lives while you’re apart, you will be much more able to respond in a helpful fashion to each other, especially when sudden changes or problems arise.  For example, you can say I have to pick up some clients at the airport today, and I don’t know what the traffic will be like, so I could be late tonight.”

When you follow these guidelines for handling money together, you’ll understand each other better, and you’ll both understand your goals and feel more motivated to follow the plans you make.

Source: Divorce360.com

Filed under: Finances, Marriage , , ,

February 17, 2009 • 9:27 pm 2

Does Divorce Make Women Look Older?

Divorce is one of several factors now found to add years to a woman’s face.

Lots of things make us old. Previous research has shown smoking causes premature aging in men and women, literally etching the aging in their faces. Other research has found that poor skin tone can add a decade to a woman’s perceived age.

In the new work, researchers photographed the faces of 186 pairs of identical twins, mostly women, and asked them each a series of questions about their life habits and medical backgrounds. Four other people then reviewed all the photos and guessed the ages of each person.

Women who were divorced were judged to look nearly two years older than their siblings who were married, single or widowed, according to an article at the The Los Angeles Times web site. The research was led by Bahman Guyuron, chairman of the department of plastic surgery at University Hospitals Case Medical Center, part of Case Western Reserve University. It was reported in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

Only the results for women were released. Other factors that made one twin look older than a sibling:

  • Sun exposure
  • Smoking and alcohol use
  • Antidepressant use

Antidepressants may cause facial sagging, Guyuron speculated.

Interestingly, being heavier made those under age 40 look older, but it made those over 40 look younger, Guyuron and colleagues report. Previous research has suggested that a little weight – particularly in the cheeks – looks good on people as they age. Predictably for a plastic surgeon, Guyuron said his findings support “fillers” used in plastic surgery.

For those who prefer to keep the looks they’re given, perhaps some comfort can be found in the old adage “you’re only as old as you feel.” A study in December found that older people tend to feel about 13 years younger than their chronological age.

Read more in LiveScience.com

Source: California Divorce and Family Law Blog

Filed under: Divorce

January 27, 2009 • 9:17 pm 3

Work On Your Credit Score Before Divorce

On a couple’s wedding day, divorce is the furthest thing from their minds. At such a wonderful, joyous time in one’s life, it is difficult to consider the possibility that the relationship will end. However it does occur on occasion. Many people get married every day and over half the population has been divorced. In the beginning the bad credit of your partner can be overlooked, but not for long. Sometimes, the stress of dealing with financial issues can ruin the relationship before the couple takes their first steps down the aisle. Still others may become vengeful, wanting to place their ex deep in debt.

When you get married, you are only responsible for debt you incurred as a couple. Keep in mind that, as a couple, one person’s bad credit rating will affect the both of you when trying to get a loan or a line of credit. Don’t be surprised when these joint applications are turned down. It is essential that you both discuss your finances before you walk down the aisle. Many marriages break up because of financial difficulties. Many couples avoid discussing financial arrangements in hopes that the subject will not rear its ugly head. Unfortunately, that usually indicates that it will.

Keeping on top of a situation has never had a negative effect on any relationship, and open communication will only make the relationship stronger. You should each obtain a copy of your credit report, then sit and have an open conversation about finances. After speaking openly, enlist the aid of a professional and consolidate all your debt. You can alleviate any future problems if you consult with an expert who will be completely honest with you. If you and your spouse can’t come to an agreement regarding an issue, you should have your debt manager’s contact information close at hand to avoid an argument. Of course, this won’t work for divorcing couples. If by chance your divorce is amicable, get ready to hate each other at least some of the time and to disagree often. Truthfully speaking, if you really did get along so well, you probably wouldn’t be divorcing.

After a divorce, you must protect yourself. You should alert the credit reporting agencies when you separate or divorce. All the important information will then be recorded for each of you separately and the agencies will help you make individual transactions. You should make sure that anyone you still owe money to has your updated contact information. Even though it may seem childish, divorced people have a habit of tossing away their former spouse’s mail. Following a divorce, close all joint accounts and pay all balances if possible. If there was a substantial amount of debt acquired during your marriage, you should consult with your attorney about including a plan to resolve the situation during your divorce proceedings. As far as divorce is concerned, get everything in writing or it won’t hold water.

Although your marriage may not be forever, credit problems can be. Regardless of how much love you feel for your spouse, you need to protect your own interests. It sound awfully formal, but in the long run you will be thankful you did.

Source for post: Charles Sellestor

Filed under: Divorce, Finances

December 7, 2008 • 8:01 pm 1

Crash Causes Settlement Changes

When John and his wife divorced, they agreed to sell their home. But every time they come close, his ex stalls “because she wants to buy it.” With the real estate market in a tailspin and the nation in a recession, “She feels prices will go down further,” which would enable her to buy it from him at a cheaper price.

To complicate matters, John, not his real name, recently lost his job in the financial industry. With the house issue looming, he’s already asked the court in his state to award him attorney’s fees since his wife filed for divorce. In addition, he’s considering a change to his property settlement: he may return to court to ask his ex for alimony, something he never would have done before the layoff.
According to legal experts from around the country, John’s tale isn’t unusual. The recession that’s affected every other aspect of America is now affecting family court as well. Clients are returning to court as a way to deal with financial hardships that are affecting their property settlement agreements.

“It’s happening because retirement accounts have dwindled to nothing for some people and a decree that gives you half of what was a robust account now gives you half of not much,” said retired attorney Brette Sember, author of a number of how-to books, including “The Divorce Organizer.”

Los Angeles, Calif., family law attorney Kelly Chang Rickert said her clients want to modify their judgments because their financial circumstances have changed dramatically. “Due to the economy and loss of jobs, I am seeing a lot more modifications to child support – reductions for the payor if they’re laid off and an increase for the recipient if they’re laid off…”

Another big recession issue: “Alimony needs to be increased for folks who have lost jobs,” Sember said. In some cases, according to Chang Rickert, she’s even seeing changes in child custody arrangements because “parents who have been laid off have more time to spend with children.”

A new mom herself, Chang Rickert has noticed “nannies and housekeepers are getting laid off because parents who have no jobs have more time” to spend at home.

California family law attorney David Pisarra said he’s seen so many clients dealing with this issue that he’s rolled out a new payment program – charging only a flat fee – “to address this new need”Sember said.

John’s not the only one in a quandary over the inability to sell his marital home. Many property settlements state that the divorcing couple will sell their home, but “Many people can’t sell and need to know what to do if they can’t,”said Pisarra .

Source for post: Divorce360.com

Filed under: Divorce, Finances

• 7:50 pm 0

Let’s Bail Out the Divorce Lawyers!

So saith the dean of the matrimonial bar, Raoul Felder, in a tongue in cheek piece published in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal. What line do I get in tget my bailout money?

Filed under: General Family Law, Humor

October 22, 2008 • 7:16 pm 2

Madonna and Ritchie May Pursue Collaborative Divorce

Interesting article in the London Times online edition edition today, reproduced in full below, regarding the Madonna – Guy Ritchie split up. As I have said before, I usually try to avoind writing about celebrity stories here. But this story I think warrants mention. It had looked like Madonna’s divorce was headed toward being the same sort of donnybrook that Paul McCartney had become embroiled in with Heather Mills. The gloves were off, the snarky comments to the media from “friends” and “confidantes” had started. But it looks like Madonna and Guy have stepped back from the abyss, and intend to pursue a process that is more civil, and will allow them a better chance of moving forward, with their children as a family. I’d like to think that the story would garner great press coverage and be a boon for collaborative practice – of which I am a HUGE advocate. But friendly and civil doesn’t make headlines, and that’s too bad. In any event, here’s the story:

Madonna and Guy Ritchie could be the first high-profile couple to divorce collaborative-style.

The new, fast-track and non-confrontational way of reaching arrangements over money and children on divorce has just won senior judicial backing – in the week that the couple’s split became public knowledge.

Collaborative law does not sound buzzy. But it is the in-method of reaching divorce agreements, with the benefits of speed, huge cost savings and, above all, minimum acrimony.

Last week a couple of hundred lawyers gathered to celebrate the fifth year since American-style collaborative law was introduced in the UK. In 2003, four London lawyers were among a handful who had qualified in the new method; now there are more than 1,250 and more than 300 in London. This year has also seen the appointment of London’s first “collaborative” silk: Tim Amos, QC.

What is it? It aims to help couples reach agreement out of court, avoiding the risk of the public mud-slinging and battles epitomised in the split between Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.

Settlements are reached in four-way, face-to-face talks between the parties and their lawyers. There is an incentive to agree: if the talks fail, then new lawyers have to be instructed for court proceedings – at extra cost.

The couple draws up a consent order which is then agreed by the court. This process used to take three to four months. But last week , Mr Justice Coleridge, a senior family judge, announced a fast-track procedure whereby such orders could now be approved within a couple of days.

He said that If every aspect of the case had been agreed, and the hearing before a judge for approving the order would not take longer than ten minutes, all that was needed was a day’s notice to the court and a chance for the judge to read the papers overnight.

The fast-track initiative, which has the backing of Sir Mark Potter, president of the Family Division, comes about after an un-named couple had asked for urgent approval of their settlement because one was about to move to the United States with the children.

At first, Mr Justice Coleridge said that he thought the application rather cheeky. But he added: “However, I am, as is well-known, a pussycat, and agreed to hear the application for approval as the first in the list on the following day.”

The key benefits of the new “good divorce” method are that it is non-adversarial; solutions can be tailormade and flexible; clients have control of the pace; experts (accountants, financial advisers, therapists or counsellors) can be brought in and work with the couples; and privacy is preserved.

He did sound one note of caution, however. Lawyers needed to be “acutely sensitive” to the process failing so that “costs are not run up first by one process and then, after the trial has hit the buffers, by the old-fashioned scheme”.

Isobel Robson, partner and head of family at Andrew Jackson, the Yorkshire law firm, said there was a big take-up in the new method.

“I believe that collaborative law is the most exciting development in family law in my 24 years of practice. Clients love it; they regard the process as direct, clear and amicable whilst avoiding the expenses and latent aggression of the court process.”

Cost savings were considerable too, she said. “I have dealt with collaborative cases with assets in the millions and costs of under £10,000 – perhaps only 10 per cent or less of the costs for contest cases with the same assets.”

The take-up among lawyers is still patchy, however, with some hugely successful pockets in the regions where lawyers have embraced the new method, but a slower take-up in other areas, including London.

“The clients embrace the concept that the whole focus of their case is on settling – rather than fighting,” she said.

Suzanne Kingston, head of family at Dawsons LLP, said that for Madonna and Guy Ritchie, the privacy would be a big incentive. The settlement could be reached “in one of the offices of the solicitors rather than in court”.

So it’s down to Fiona Shackleton (for Madonna) and (Lady) Helen Ward, for Ritchie. The couple are said to want a deal by Christmas. Using this route, they could well do it.

Filed under: Alternative Dispute Resolution, Collaborative divorce, Divorce, Families, Uncategorized , , ,

September 15, 2008 • 4:00 pm 1

Widow Denied Use of Deceased Husband’s Frozen Sperm

Iris and Joseph Kievernagel disagreed about having children during their 10-year marriage, and their argument moved into the courts – and the casebooks of legal precedent – after his death in a helicopter crash.

In a ruling made public Friday, a state appeals court said the Sacramento County woman has no right to use her husband’s frozen sperm to become pregnant because he had made it clear he did not want to father a child posthumously.

If only one spouse has contributed genetic material, “the intent of the donor” must control its disposition after death, said the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. The situation would be different, the court said, if the dispute involved frozen embryos – fertilized eggs – which would require that both spouses’ wishes be considered.

Lawyers in the case said only one previously recorded California ruling, in 1993, had discussed the rights of a surviving spouse or partner to custody of frozen sperm.

The new ruling “provides some much-needed guidance in an area where reproductive technology has clearly outstripped the legal system,” said Jay-Allen Eisen, lawyer for the husband’s parents, who opposed the widow’s request.

Suzanne Alves, a lawyer for Iris Kievernagel, said the court failed to address “the near-impossibility of determining someone’s intent when they pass away” and leave no will, as was the case with Joseph Kievernagel. She said her client would consider an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Joseph Kievernagel, 36, of Citrus Heights, was one of two Sacramento County sheriff’s deputies killed when their helicopter crashed into a hillside near Lake Natoma east of Sacramento in July 2005.

The court said he and his wife had a loving marriage, with one subject of disagreement: She wanted children and he did not. They nevertheless tried unsuccessfully to conceive a child and went to a clinic to begin in vitro fertilization in June 2005, but had not completed the procedure before his death.

His widow, administrator of his estate, sought custody of the vial of sperm he had deposited with the clinic. A Superior Court judge refused, citing the couple’s contract with the clinic in which a box was checked saying the sperm was to be discarded if he became incapacitated or died.

Iris Kievernagel appealed, saying her husband had signed the contract without reading it and had intended that she have his child. She also cited her constitutional right to procreate.

But the court said such rights must give way to her husband’s stated intent not to father a child after death. Quoting the 1993 California ruling, the court said the husband, as the donor, had “sole decision-making authority as to the use of his sperm for reproduction.”

Read the ruling

The appeals court’s ruling can be read at:

links.sfgate.com/ZEVH

Source for post: The San Francisco Chronicle

Filed under: Reproductive Technology

August 26, 2008 • 11:13 pm 2

Renewing Vows Can Help Save A Marriage

In an era when celebrity weddings have an almost unrivaled potential to catch the public eye, another kind of nuptial ceremony — the renewal of vows — seems just as noteworthy.

Most recently, the celebrity power couple of Madonna and Guy Ritchie reportedly opted to tie the double knot at a private Kabbalah ceremony in Los Angeles, using the occasion to announce their pledge to try and rebuild their shaky seven-year marriage.

It’s a strategy that just might work. Relationship experts say that pledging to recommit to a spouse is, for many couples, an essential part in healing a broken marriage.

Dawn O. Braithwaite, professor of communication studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has researched couples who opt to renew their vows. And she says that while there are a number of reasons why couples might renew their vows — from indulging in a fantasy wedding they could never afford, to satisfying a desire to have their families involved in their recommitment — some of those who seek a renewal do it to salvage a faltering marriage.

“They want to fix something,” Braithwaite said. “It’s what we call relationship repair; they want to repair infidelity, or having grown apart, or a relationship that was not very close.”

David Popenoe, professor of sociology at Rutgers University and co-director of the National Marriage Project, agrees. “It’s kind of a promising concept, though I suppose only a very small percentage of married couples are doing it,” he said. “But I think that it is something that I would personally encourage.”

But some experts say that while the idea of a ceremony to celebrate a matrimonial recommitment may be as commendable as it is romantic, both Madonna and Ritchie will likely need to change the way they act toward one another for it to do any good.

For some celebrity personalities, this may be easier said than done.

“Celebrities, in particular, are at risk for ’special person syndrome,’” said Susan Heitler, a Denver-based clinical psychologist and author of “The Power of Two.”

“If somebody grows up with special talents — if they are taller, smarter or more athletic than others — they can see themselves as being in a special category and that makes the rules not apply to them,” she said. “They have never really learned how to be a teammate. They have always been in the limelight alone. But marriage is a two-person game.”

And renewing vows alone may not be enough to heal all of the damage that has been done within a relationship. Former Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards renewed his vows in a ceremony on July 30 of last year, just months before an infidelity scandal rocked his personal and political life.

When It’s Time to Recommit

The task of rebuilding a marriage, for celebrities and non-celebs alike, is not a simple proposal.

“Often when people first pick someone to marry, their heart knows what they are doing,” Heitler said. “At the same time, perhaps at least one of the partners does not have the skill set to maintain a successful marriage. Over time, the irritation grows and the affection fades.”

Heitler, who says she specializes in “last-ditch couples” who are often referred to her by a divorce lawyer, says that recommitting to a marriage involves learning new ways of interacting with one another — and a commitment to compromise.

“When I see many of them interact in my office, I often say that I 100 percent agree that they need to divorce themselves from that old marriage,” she said. “But that’s a separate issue from whether they want to remain life partners.”

“They can stay married, but they need new ways of addressing the complications and situations that come up between two people trying to live life as a duo.”

But if these couples can truly achieve a fresh start, Braithwaite says, a renewal ceremony can be an important component in mending the relationship. She says that in the course of her research, she remembers one couple in particular who used a vow renewal ceremony to celebrate their recommitment to each other.

“She felt as if they had drifted apart,” Braithwaite said. “But when they were in church, they heard something in a sermon that made them realize they wanted to be together after all.”

“She said, ‘You know, I don’t think we would have made it if it were not for that ceremony.’”

Aside from the symbolism of the ceremony, Braithwaite says, a renewal of vows is also a public recommitment, and those in attendance may be able to offer further support for the newly mended couple.

Can You Retie the Knot?

But is it really possible to mend a broken marriage? Heitler says it is — and she adds that a renewal of vows can be a fresh start for those who are still very much in love, but who cannot seem to get the hang of married life.

“It’s a chance to rebuild,” she said. “Usually, the flame is renewed just by being together again.”

Heitler says that in terms of the success rate she has seen for mended marriages, “80 percent end up with a wonderful marriage.” But she notes that in order to succeed, those who recommit to each other need to develop three crucial skill sets: the ability to make shared decisions, the ability to consistently talk in tactful ways and listen to their partner’s response and stay in control of their emotions so they can avoid letting their anger take control in their relationship.

“If you just remarry on the basis of rekindled affection, people who do not have these important skills who go for a second round are more patient with their partners,” she said. “That can get them through, but they are still better off if they learn these skills.”

Braithwaite agrees that in many cases, it takes more than love to make a mended marriage work.

“I would not advise anyone to do this out of desperation and say, ‘I’m going to save my marriage,’” she said. “This is like the icing on the cake.”

And if the vow renewal between Madonna and Ritchey works, Popenoe says, we may be able to expect a trend.

“All it may take is for a few celebrities to renew their vows, and if it works over a long term it may become pretty prominent within the public,” he said. “We all know how much influence they have over the public.”

Source: ABC News

Filed under: Marriage

• 11:09 pm 0

Strahan Wins Appeal

Former New York Giants defensive end Michael Strahan on Tuesday won his appeal from an $18,000-a-month child support obligation imposed in his 2006 divorce, which a New Jersey appellate court found both exorbitant and unfairly apportioned against him.

The court, in Strahan v. Strahan, A-3747-06, said that the trial judge failed to make the specific findings of fact necessary to sustain his decision to add $200,000 a year to the $35,984 annual award that the couple’s twins girls are due under statutory guidelines.

While acknowledging there are unique problems with determining the reasonable needs of children of high-earning families, the court said trial judges should nevertheless avoid overindulgence — citing the doctrine of In re Patterson, 920 P.2d 450 (Kan. App. 1996), that “no child, no matter how wealthy the parents, needs to be provided [with] more than three ponies.”

The court also found error in the trial judge’s saddling of Strahan with 91 percent of the child support obligation, especially since the judge did not impute any income to Strahan’s former wife, Jean, even though she is college-educated and capable of working but has voluntarily chosen not to do so.

When the couple began dating in 1994, Michael Strahan was in his second season with the Giants and Jean Strahan was a model and manager for a cosmetics company, earning about $70,000 a year. In 1995, they moved in together and she quit her job. They married July 18, 1999, after signing a prenuptial agreement. Their twin girls were born on Oct. 28, 2004.

Divorce proceedings began in early 2005 and a judgment of divorce was entered on July 20, 2006. The couple agreed on joint custody of the girls, with Jean having primary residential custody. An amended judgment, entered in early 2007, ordered equitable distribution and child support. Strahan’s motion for reconsideration was turned down. The parties reached an out-of-court settlement on equitable distribution but not on support, which was left for the appeal.

The New Jersey appeals court agreed with Strahan that Essex County Superior Court Judge James Convery erred in setting the supplemental child support amount and in ordering him to pay 91 percent of it.

Although the parties’ experts agreed the Strahans’ marital standard of living was approximately $1 million a year, Convery found the “reasonable current standard of living” of Jean Strahan and the two children was $630,000 a year, or $52,500 per month. He imputed no income to her except $28,470 per month in net investment income, leaving her with a monthly $24,030 shortfall. He decided on a yearly support award of $235,984 and charged 91 percent of it to Strahan, who in 2006 earned about $5.87 million.

But the appeals court said Convery failed to make a detailed examination of Jean Strahan’s child support request and instead merely accepted her recitation of the children’s needs. Those “needs,” wrote Appellate Division Judge Lorraine Parker, included the children giving their nanny a 10-day vacation in Jamaica; diamond jewelry for their grandmother; $30,000 yearly for landscaping expenses; $36,000 a year for “equipment and furnishings”; and $3,000 yearly for audio visual equipment. Jean set their clothing needs at $27,000 a year, since the children needed new outfits every time they saw their father and one of them demanded a new purse every time she left the house.

“[T]he court made no distinction between what needs were reasonable, given the age of the children, and what simply amounted to a ‘fourth pony,’” wrote Parker, who was joined by Judges Rudy Coleman and Thomas Lyons.

Parker said it appeared that Jean Strahan was actually the beneficiary of some of the child support payments. While a custodial parent may reap some “incidental benefits” of a wealthy noncustodial parent’s child support payments the custodial parent cannot become the primary beneficiary, especially when there is no alimony.

The panel also agreed that income should be imputed to Jean Strahan, who decided not to work even though she held two college degrees, a previous career and “employment opportunities [that] were, in all likelihood, enhanced by her celebrity marriage.”

“There is no question that as a healthy, educated, forty-one year-old, defendant is capable of earning her own income,” added Parker, directing that on remand, the trial court should consider all possible sources of Jean Strahan’s income — earned and unearned — as well as her assets in determining her share of support.

The judges also reversed the trial court’s order that Michael Strahan take out a $7.5 million disability insurance policy as security for child support, premised on the possibility that injury or sickness could leave him unable to play football. They found the situation no different than that of any other injured or ill divorced parent who is thus left with reduced income, entitling him to seek a modification of child support.

They further found the rationale for the insurance moot since Strahan gave up football in June to become a commentator. “Plaintiff’s retirement further illustrates the unreasonable requirement of the disability policy,” Parker said.

Finally, the judges reversed a $13,777 fee award for Jean Strahan’s lawyers in connection with Michael Strahan’s post-judgment motion for reconsideration, calling it an abuse of discretion. The parties, in their prenuptial agreement, had assumed responsibility for their own counsel fees and Strahan’s motion was not made in bad faith, Parker said.

The panel rejected Strahan’s request that on remand, the case be assigned to another judge, finding a bias against Strahan could not be inferred from Convery’s rulings against him.

Michael Strahan’s lawyer, Angelo Genova, of Livingston, N.J.’s Angelo, Burns & Vernoia: “Mr. Strahan is gratified by the result and feels his legal position has been vindicated. He hopes the matter can be resolved amicably, going forward in the interests of the children.”

Jean Strahan’s lawyer is likewise optimistic. “This is a period at the end of a long sentence,” says Ellen Marshall, of Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis in Roseland, N.J. “We’re glad Judge Convery is remaining with these issues, and we’re confident we can resolve of the remaining issues amicably.”

Source: New Jersey Law Journal

Filed under: Appellate practice, Child Support, Divorce , , , ,