Why Do People Divorce, and Should We Make it Harder To Do?

A family law blogger colleague argues against Maryland’s pending reduction of the minimum waiting period for entry of a divorce judgment.

In support of his argument that this is a bad thing, he republishes a study which notes a statistical correlation between a state’s minimum time for completion of divorce proceedings and the divorce rate in the state (and also cites a similar correlation as to foreign countries).

Leaving aside a myriad of science/statistics problems with the underlying study, I’ll ask, provocatively, “So what?”

A state could reduce its divorce rate to zero, quite simply, by either making divorce a sufficiently long or expensive process, or by simply eliminating it completely, by repealing its divorce statute. That would not mean, obviously, that the families in such state would be “less dysfunctional”, or that the children in those families were better-adjusted, or anything like that.

The more significant argument is buried within the discussion: there is some reason to think that divorce has a better outcome for kids if we allow married parents to finalize their divorce more quickly if they reach a complete agreement regarding the custodial arrangements for their children (or stated more realistically, that we don’t allow couples to dissolve the marriage quite as expeditiously if they DON’T reach an agreed resolution of their issues).

There also is some evidence that suggests that some sort of dispute resolution counseling may both reduce the rate of divorces completed, and result in a substantially better outcome for the kids involved.

Which is lovely, except that the budget for any such intervention (custody mediation, dispute resolution education and counseling) has never been adequate, and at least in California, is now evaporating.

A while ago (in the last century, actually) I’d argued that the best way to lower the divorce rate was to remove some the impediments to divorce (cost, minimum waiting periods, congested court calendars, etc.) , but to add similar impediments to marriage. Originally my feeble attempt at Swiftian satire, I’ve now come around to the view that this is an idea worthy of serious consideration; if you put the counseling and waiting period in at the front end, the outcomes are likely to be far better at the back.

. . . or should we just say “. . . those that are married already. . . . . . shall keep as they are”?

Now They're Chopping Down The Totem Pole We're the Low Guy On...

In the wake of the vote-down of the Governor's various last-ditch "budget-rescue" bills, the Los Angeles Superior Court has announced that they will be closing all courtrooms one Wednesday per month, commencing in July, and continuing for the next fiscal year.

This is, in a word, not likely to improve the functioning of the family court system, and not likely to make it more responsive to the needs of the public.

As I've noted in these pages earlier, the system is already working short-handed and short-budgeted.

This change will mean that family law court calendars will be, on average, five percent longer, or one or two extra cases, per day, per judge. That may not seem like much, until you consider that family law judges are often already hearing fifteen to twenty cases per day. Assuming a judge is on the bench hearing testimony, or calling calendar, six hours per day (the rest of the time is to READ the reams of stuff) that's a total of 24 minutes per hearing per case. . . . whether or not anyone involved in the matter speaks English, or has brought along a real interpreter. . . . . .and whether or not anyone can coherently explain why they're in court, or what they want the court to do about it...

It means that the time before someone can get into court to address what they, at least, regard as important issues (where their kids stay, with whom; who pays to feed the kids; who stays in the house, when there's been domestic violence etc.) will be on average, five percent longer (custody hearings are already being set two months plus from the date of filing, with support hearings often following along with that delay).

It means, unfortunately, that the job of being a family law judicial officer, already generally recognized as a high-burnout judicial assignment, will be regarded as even less of a "plum", and even more of a "lemon".

Sorry, Folks, You'll Just Have To Stay Married... Pt. I.

As the State Legislature finishes up a three-day weekend of not-entirely-successful budget negotiation, I'll be interested to see if just possibly, those who are taking a "no new taxes, ever!" stand really want to bring some of the operations of civil government to a grinding halt, or at least are willing to try and play an increasingly ugly game of "chicken".

The civil justice system in California is teetering, and they may give it a push (Anyone notice that last year, one California county stopped civil trials completely for months, because of the criminal case backlog, until they got a task-force of judges from elsewhere to come in and clean up?) If we essentially close down the system of civil justice for most folks, (and family law is the part that the most folks use) we've pretty much abandoned one of the two roles of state government which have previously distinguished this country and state from others far less fortunate. (The other big hole in the fabric of civil government has been, and will probably continues to be, the final evisceration of what was, once long ago the best system of public education in the country.)

California law still requires any pair of parents with a child custody dispute to go and talk to a court-employed mediator to try and resolve the issue, before presenting the issue to a judge to decide.

In the heyday of this system, pairs of parents could expect to set their hearing, walk into the mediation office, and be seen that morning. My best recollection of the statistics is that Los Angeles County's mediation staff had about a 70/80% success rate in getting these folks to resolve at least some of their issues. If a pair of parents had a case pending, they could even get a mediation appointment without setting a hearing, and sometimes avoid the expense of setting it.

Unfortunately, the budget for this hasn't come close to keeping up with the population increase. Couples can no longer get a mediation appointment unless they've actually set a hearing, and are required to set a mediation appointment whenever setting a hearing on custody issues, so that mediation can happen before the hearing. The backlog of mediations is now so deep that, depending where in the County someone is looking, the earliest available appointment may be six to ten weeks out.

That means that if a family's falling apart, and they need to get issues resolved, they're looking at two months' wait. Unless they've got enough resources and knowledge so that they can set another hearing on financial issues separately from the hearing on custody issues, they'll be deferring the hearing on financial issues as well. That'd be the hearing originally intended to "preserve the status quo".

Times are tight, people are stressed, and their patience may be a little frayed. What, exactly are parents in inolerable family situations supposed to do? "Suck it up"? Take matters into their own hands? If someone needs to be told to provide financial support for their children, are those children supposed to survive for two months on IOU's? (Some people really don't get it, until they're told. By someone in a black robe with a bailiff nearby. Some don't get it even then...)

We're still running on the tail-end of last year's budget. The coming one will, I expect, only be grimmer. Stay tuned....