"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.

Enforceable PreNups for the UK? Maybe Only Kinda Sorta...

The UK Law Commission has issued a report recommending legislation  for the determination of  the validity of premarital agreements in the UK.  Reports seem to disagree as to the extent to which courts would be permitted to second guess the agreements if the agreements seek to allocate the obligations of spouses to support each other.

A rainy California hat tip to Jeremy Morley, international custody expert, who discusses the proposal in more detail.

Pre-Marital Planning and Agreements, Around the World

are discussed, briefly, by the BBC.   Thanks, and a tip of the Panama fedora  (it's 65 in Los Angeles) to Randy Kessler and Jeremy Morley, quoted in the article.

Looks Like A Romantic Summer!

Three years after my post noting that boomers and post-boomers seem to be much more comfortable with the idea of "tailoring" their marriage by way of a pre-marital agreement, the economy is slowly emerging from the doldrums, same-sex marriages are happening again in California, and, based on the number of calls I'm getting about relationship planning and pre-nups, Cupid is working overtime.

Pre-Nuptial Agreements In India

While "pre-nups" are apparently becoming more popular between Indian couples, their validity is still unclear.

Thanks and a tip of the Summertime seagrass fedora to Jeremy Morley's International Family Law.

"That Magic Moment", Revisited (A Belated Valentine's Day Post)

       While the legal wrangling over same-sex marriage continues apace (see my next post) as the economy looks like it may be improving, the divorce rate seems to be edging up again. 

  

            ....and why is this seemingly depressing thought in a Valentine's Day post?  

         Because I really want starry-eyed folks  (music swells, here, please)  to have successful marriages.  How to come as close as possible to guaranteeing it?  Talk to each other BEFORE the deal is struck.  If you and that special someone need to change the "marriage contract" to meet YOUR needs and expectations, then, whether you're eighteen or eighty*,  the time for that conversation is BEFORE you "sign on the dotted line"**. 

* Belated tip of the purple and gold,  Fat Tuesday fedora  (from Meyer The Hatter) to Randy Kessler for the pointers.

**those who've followed this space for a while know that my paternal grandfather remarried at 75, after being widowed, and was happily married on the day he died; my father remarried at 79 after my mom died, and was happily married until he passed last year.

Back to Hollywood

Kim K's marriage is broken, after seventy-two days; presumably she listened to her own advice on the subject of prenuptial agreements.

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?

Pre-Nups Valid in the U.K.

Maybe, says the U.K.'s Supreme Court. Thanks and a big 'ol Texas hat tip to Randy Kessler for the pointer.

Prenups On The Way Up For Boomers

...or so says the Wall Street Journal.

Possible explanations (none exclusive, and none clearly verifiable) include:

that boomers divorce more frequently, and live longer, than their parents, and thus have a higher rate of re-marriage;

or that our lives are simply overwhelmed by fear of litigation; or

that the financial crisis has simply taken some of the romance out of romance.

. . . and apparently the Australians, who've only had pre-marital agreements recognized for about the last decade, are way ahead of the U.S., with a recent report saying that ten percent of couples are using them.

Kim Kardashian Agrees With Me: Get a Pre-marital Agreement!

I just couldn't resist writing the headline. Here's the story.

We're saying the same thing; we're just saying it differently

My learned colleague Mark Chinn** from Jackson, MS, posted a deliberately provocative title to his blog this week: said Mark: "If you get a prenuptial agreement in the days before the marriage, don’t sign it!"

My thought was: "If your fiance hands you a prenuptial agreement at the church door, stop the music, and postpone the wedding! You've just learned something very valuable about your fiance, before you've married him!"

Mark's point, as we kicked it around on Facebook afterwards, was: "If you are going to sign a life time contract, you better have counsel and some time to think about it."

Mine was: "That INCLUDES that big contract you sign on when you say "I do!"




** Mark's a great guy, and a wonderful lawyer, but he's about as different from me as someone who would fit my superficial police description (6'2"+; 200 lb. + white male, brown hair, glasses, over 40, lawyer, married, parent) could be: he's perpetually cheerful when I'm saturnine; he's relaxed and Southern and small-towny where I'm a perpetual pent-up Northern cosmopole, etc.

Pre-Nups in Britain? Maybe so!

It appears that a sea-change in British family law may happening, and that British courts may begin recognizing some pre-marital agreements as valid.

A Cup of Coffee on the Way, Part 3: Pre-Marital Agreements: Romance-Killer or Marriage Insurance?

Back in February, I started down a path of discussing what we, as a society and as a state, intended when we set up our "family law" and rules, and how, and whether, that should change. I've been contemplating those issues since then and talking to lots of people, about 'em.

One of the issues which has nagged at me is the relative ease with which we as a society let (some) folks undertake the "off-the-shelf" marriage contract, but for various reasons, make them jump through complicated hoops if they want to fine-tune and customize that contract (which is what a pre-marital agreement really does) , and refuse to let some other couples (that'd be the same-sex couples) enter into that contract at all.

Pre-marital agreements have finally made their way into popular song*, but they're still regarded by much of the public as something that only the celebrity rich need or want, and as a "romance killer" no matter who's considering them.

My view** is that they're exactly the opposite; they're a form or marriage insurance. I believe that the discussions which fiances have with each other in regard to the terms of a pre-marital agreement are the conversations which they should be having already if they're getting married. I'll offer the anecdotal observation, based on 30 years of family law practice, that the biggest cause of divorce isn't specifically sex, or money, or power, or boredom, it's that moment when one spouse says "This isn't the deal I thought I'd made when I signed up."



. . . and in other news, in at least one state, you can still get a jury verdict for "alienation of affection" (someone stealing your spouse) by someone who's engaged in "criminal conversation" (adultery).


*"If you aint no punk, holla 'We Want Prenup! WE WANT PRENUP!" Kanye West: "Gold-Digger"
** about which I rant and rave all the darn time

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.