Spend More Time talking About The Relationship, and Less Money on the Ring, the Wedding (and the Divorce?)

An Emory University study suggests that there is an inverse correlation between the amount a couple spends on the engagement ring and the wedding, and the chance that the marriage will last.  I have my own theories about why this correlation may exist, but it does re-emphasize my "sermon" about pre-marital planning.  While sitting down and talking about what you intend in the marriage, financially, emotionally, and spiritually, isn't as romantic as picking a ring, or a wedding venue, it's a lot more critical to your long-term marital happiness.

"Conscious Coupling" What Is Marriage Supposed To Do? Does It Still Do It?

One of the recurring themes of this blog has been "Why do people get married?  What will help then accomplish whatever it is they want to accomplish by marrying?"

It appears that the number of Americans, over-all, who believe that marriage does what they want done, continues to shrink, even as the broader recognition of same-sex marriage would seem logically to have increased it.  There are theories,  both social and economic, as to why this may be;  my job, as a counselor at law, is to make sure, as much as possible, that when people enter into a legal relationship, they understand what it is, what it does, and are clear, as their partners are clear, that their expectations and understandings match, or at least, fit.

If You're Going To Get Married, Please Do It Correctly

This new case from New York stands for the (reasonably obvious?)  proposition that if you scrupulously avoid doing any of those things which would cause you to have a valid marriage, then you're not married, even if you have a big elaborate "wedding",  presided over by an internet-ordained "clergyperson", who also fails to do any of those things.

The take-away, for me, is the Court's observation that  "getting married is a serious decision that has wide ranging and often everlasting consequences."   Those who follow this blog have heard me preach, almost incessantly, that folks getting married should treat the decision just this way.  Certainly those who go out of their way to disregard and sidestep both the civil and religious requirements for the process shouldn't generally be allowed to change their minds about their seriousness, even after the big party is over.

The usual hat tip to Howard Friedman at Religion Clause.

"Coupling" and "Uncoupling", Conscious Or Not

“Conscious Uncoupling” is the most recent "flavor of the month”  to be launched into the popular terminology and fashion in divorce, following on the heels of “Integrative divorce”, “collaborative divorce”, and  the division of “mediation” among “transformative”, “evaluative”, “facilitative”, and “adjudicative” mediation.

Leaving aside for a moment some of the more eccentric and New-Age-y thoughts* of the authors from whom Ms. Paltrow drew the phrase, the term suggests, as the other bookend, “conscious coupling”.  That is a concept which I have been advocating and will advocate as long as I continue to have folks willing to listen to, or read, my thoughts on the subject. **

Those who’ve read this blog know that I believe and advocate that the closest someone about to marry can get to a policy of “marriage insurance” is making sure that both spouses-to-be have the same understanding and expectations of “the Deal”, the contract they sign on for when they say “I do”.     Competent financial planners, when interviewing married potential clients, routinely ask both spouses to separately answer questions about financial philosophy, risk aversion, etc., and this occasionally uncovers widely divergent views, often to their clients’ dismay.  Likewise, clergy whom I respect, regardless of denomination, often will want, before performing a wedding for their congregants,   to have a serious pastoral discussion with them about their mutual understanding of their “covenant” (which is just an old word for a contract.)

If there’s more “Conscious Coupling”, there’ll probably be less “uncoupling”, conscious or otherwise.


             * “The creation of insects was a failed attempt by nature to evolve a higher form of consciousness”, “Anthroposophic Medicine” and my favorite,  “The misunderstandings involved in divorce also have much to do with the lack of intercourse between our own internal masculine and feminine energies. Choosing to hide within an endoskeleton and remain in attack mode requires a great imbalance of masculine energy. ” This latter is obviously intended to assist those who have considered developing an exoskeleton to hide in when they get divorced; Paging Gregor Samsa....

**Just passed my 25th anniversary, so I claim some personal, as well as professional expertise.

Spousal Privilege in Same Sex Couples

Bobbie Jo Clary entered into a civil union in Vermont with her domestic partner Geneva Case in 2004. Bobbie Jo is now a defendant in a murder case in Kentucky. Judge Susan Schultz Gibson is not allowing Geneva Case to assert spousal privilege in order to refuse to testify against Bobbie Jo. Prosecutors claim that Clary admitted to Case that she killed a man and that Case saw Clary cleaning blood from his van a couple of years ago.

While same sex marriages are recognized in Vermont, they are not in Kentucky. Despite that, Judge Gibson indicates that the partners needed to take further action to convert their civil union into a marriage which they did not do. So, technically, they aren’t married under Vermont law either. Judge Gibson does not have to consider the constitutionality of the marital privilege for same sex couples because they are not technically married in any state.  Still, this raises an interesting issue of what Kentucky would have done if these parties had converted their union into a marriage. 

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/spousal_privilege_doesnt_apply_to_woman_testifying_in_same-sex_partners_mur/?utm_source=maestro&sc_cid=130925BF&utm_campaign=weekly_email&utm_medium=email

Can You Kiss Your Cousin?

A recent Slate advice column inquiry about the impending marriage of two people who are cousins, but don't know it, has led to a fascinating discussion over at Volokh Conspiracy about the circumstances under which such a marriage might, or might not be legal. 
A tip of the late August panama hat (supplied by Meyer the Hatter of New Orleans) to Doc Volokh.

French Civil Unions: "Marriage Lite"?

There's a reported substantial upswing, in France, of young opposite-sex couples electing to contract "civil unions" instead of marrying. The French 1999 "pacte civil de solidarité" ("civil union") statute was apparently originally enacted, (as with the "civil union" and "domestic partnership" laws of several American states), as a"sort-of-marriage" for same-sex couples, but, as the New York Times reports, as of last year, 95% of the civil unions contracted in France were between mixed-sex couples.

P.S.: My thought, two months after I originally posted this, is that I'd like to know what happened to the marriage rate for the mixed-sex couples of the same age group during this period. Is it possible that having this option available for mixed-sex couples who were reluctant to marry, as the anecdotes suggest, actually increased the number of mixed-sex couples who were willing to make some sort of formal commitment?

Separated, But Never Divorced?

The New York Times on some of the reasons that some folks (including, apparently, Warren Buffet) continue in marital limbo, for years, and in some cases, decades. The record, in my own practice, was a client who had cohabited with his new spouse just long enough to conceive, and for her to give birth to, a child; now that their son was finally reaching adulthood, they thought it would be a good time to finally dissolve the marriage...

Pre-Nups: "Not Romantic", but more romantic than divorce!

On the upswing, says USA Today.

Do Fries Go With That Divorce?

A New York City firm is advertising that, if you drag your spouse into their offices, they'll prepare all the documents for an uncontested (no kids/no property disputes/no support claims) divorce, for a bargain price, and give you a certificate so you can go have lunch at McDonald's while you wait the hour for the papers to be prepared.

I await the "Divorce three, the next one's free!" card. Maybe they could throw in a certificate for a discount marriage license?

A Cup of Coffee On The Way, Pt. II: Why Is Getting Married Easier Than Joining a Health Club?

When I was younger, and even more cynical, I once joked that the best way to reduce the divorce rate was to make it a lot more difficult to get married.

It's not as funny as I used to think it was.

When you buy a house, or even a car, you get a stack of many pages full of tiny type, which you are expected to read. Some really important paragraphs are in BOLD TYPE, with lines for you to sign or initial, confirming that the BOLD TYPE got your attention, and that you at least read those parts, and that you say that you understand them. Then, if you change your mind within a day or so, within some limits, you can back out. Heck, in California, if you just want to join a gym, you have to go through a similar ritual*.

If you want to get married, on the other hand, you pays your money, and you gets your license. There's a contract there, all right,** it's just that nobody really demands that you read it, let alone that you have any idea what it says before you sign on for it.

I've spent 29 years wrestling with what the terms of that contract really are, and I've got sort of a handle on it, says the State Bar*** . I used to keep the terms of that contract in a shelf-full of books, which had to be updated annually; now I keep it on my computer, where it occupies a swath of virtual space. Most of those young folks lining up at ring stores in the Jewelry District haven't a clue what's in there.

Next topic up: If you want the "off-the-rack" marriage contract, we've made it fast, cheap, and easy; if you want to think about, and change, what you're signing on for, even if you and your spouse-to-be agree, it's expensive, complicated and takes at least a week.

Why would we discourage people from looking before leaping?


* California law regarding this implies that it came to the attention of our Legislature that miscreants were going out and signing up, say, 90-year-old ladies to expensive "lifetime" installment contracts for gym or "dance studio" memberships, and swindling the heck out of them; thus there are now fairly comprehensive rules for what you have to read, before you can get those mambo lessons.
**Says so, right there in California Family Code 300: " Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman. . .". Don't send me a comment about the validity of those last five words; I'll be coming around to THAT debate presently.
*** "Family Law Certified Specialist, State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization"

The sort of story that makes me want to practice admiralty law...

She filed for divorce; a week later, the police say, he decapitated her.

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....

Have a cup of coffee on the way: marriage and conversation

When I was a young research clerk at L A Superior Court (1979 or so) the court where I worked, (the Supervising Judge's Department for all of Los Angeles County's family court departments) was on the second floor in the Hill Street courthouse. In those days the County Clerk's marriage license bureau was still on the first floor; there was even a duty "wedding commissioner" to perform weddings on the spot.

From time to time, someone would come in to our department to find out what had happened to the paperwork finalizing his divorce, and would grumble, pound on the clerk’s desk, and generally make himself a nuisance. Usually, after some searching around, the clerks were able to locate the errant judgment papers; sometimes they were able to find the problem that had held them up, and sometimes they even fixed that problem and sent complaining guy on his way with a newly signed judgment, the ink still drying on all the seals, stamps and stuff.

At which point, from time to time, the guy’d walk out into the hall, where there would be a woman anxiously waiting; they’d get on the escalator, ride down one flight, show the clerk that our guy was in fact now divorced and free to marry, and get themselves, as we say in the biz, hitched.

For two years, I diplomatically resisted shouting: "Hey, you know there's a snack bar at the other end of the floor? Why don't you two stop, have a nice cup of coffee, talk about what you're planning to do, and then get on the escalator?"

All of which is a long way of getting around to my project for this year: to get folks who are thinking getting married to think about what they're doing and why, and then to sit down with their fiances and talk about what they're doing and why.

You're going to hear a recurring theme in this project: that being clear about what you expect and intend when you get married, before you say "I do", increases the chances (if it doesn't guarantee) that the "death do you part" stuff really works out that way. Even if you don't believe in prenuptial agreements, or talking to lawyers, finding out what marriage really means legally, and what you and your fiance expect it to mean, is still more romantic than hiring a lawyer to divorce you.

Off and Running (at the mouth)

Herewith will begin all the news, thoughts, rumination and ranting about:

1. California family law,
2. family law, and why we have it;
   
3. law in general in this man's United States, and
4. pretty much anything else which crosses my radar

that you choose to read.

Some of the axes which will be ground, and idees about which I may be fixe * will likely include:

• Why do people get married? Why do they think they're getting married? Why should the state (both in the poli sci sense, and specifically the Golden State) be involved?
• Should it be harder to get married, and easier to get divorced?
• More people in California "go to court" about their family issues than for anything else besides traffic tickets. The California family court system, once the model for the rest of the country, is slowly being reduced to complete gridlock/system crash/meltdown. How do we make the family court system work better than it does? Why has no politician in recent memory won elective office on the campaign promise: "I'll make the family law courts work better, even if we have to spend money to do it!"?
• Why do we let folks who can't keep themselves out of jail, support themselves, or get and maintain a driver's license, raise kids, even their own? If we, as a society, think this is OK, how do we keep these folks from messing up their kids? Should we?
• Is raising a child to be a good citizen more important than raising him/her to be a good Christian/Muslim/Jew/Buddhist? Is it more important that children be happy, or successful? Is any of that the government's business?
  

So you know what you're getting. I haven't decided on a comments policy yet, but it'll be along soon, along with guest posters, links both useful and entertaining (to me, at least) and whatever else I cook up.


rfgs

*The version of the posting tool I'm using doesn't seem to feature multinational fonting, so I can make that look appropriately Francophone.