We can't all have a marriage like Jay Z and Beyoncé. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/arts/music/beyonce-and-jay-zs-sultry-dance-makes-a-case-for-marriage.html But can we all have the benefits? Married partners who truly express their love, can be affirming for others. Couples who share their "dirty laundry" can make the rest of us uncomfortable. Are you happy in your marriage? There are certainly benefits, but some may be overstated.
Recently an article in the New York Times caught my eye: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/can-marriage-cure-poverty.html?hpw&rref=magazine
Titled, Can Marriage Cure Poverty, the article explores the idea that married couples are somehow boosted from the poorhouse through collective gain. While it is an easy assumption that two parties can live more efficiently than one, I think this article places too much emphasis on raw statistical analysis and too little on evidence of life realities in the 21st century.
Actually the opinion piece is critical of Florida Senator Marco Rubio for his statements on the subject. At a speech by Rubio last month he stated: In 1964, “93 percent of children born in the United States were born to married parents. By 2010 that number had plummeted to 60 percent.”
Rubio was really criticizing President Johnson and the War on Poverty, Johnson’s governmental campaign to boost the opportunity and incomes of the poor, begun in 1964. So on the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, Rubio calls marriage “the greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty.” How nice. If only the other 7% of children had had married parents, there would have been no poverty to declare war upon.
Very Naïve Senator.
Another article details the other end of the spectrum: Divorce among the 1%. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/business/breakup-at-740-park-avenue.html?_r=0
As Julie Creswell writes, "This is a story of marriage and money in the 16-room, five-and-a-half-bath duplex world of luxury Manhattan real estate." What might be referred to as a High Asset Divorce.
The story goes on to detail the catastrophe of the Great Recession as it inspires the rich to seek divorce. Unfortunately, as unhappy marriages sometimes go, there was an allegation of a drunken assault, resulting police intervention. From there the story is all too familiar. Any equitable distribution must consider allegations of a post-nuptial agreement, claims of ownership of jewelry, insurance proceeds taken by fraud, ashtrays valuations, and all manner of argument. Collaborative Law might have helped out this situation. I wonder if Senator Rubio warned them of the poverty headed their way? Perhaps he should have because bankruptcy filings are mentioned throughout the story.
Parents must make real choices for their children. Preservation of assets may seem as though one party simply wants all the pie while leaving the cleanup to others. Actually, children of divorce have higher incidence of teen pregnancy, school disciplinary problems, and criminal activity when compared to their friends of happily married parents.
In a collaborative practice, we seek to allow parents to make the decisions normally left to the judge. We allow parents to find the best result for their family even if it is not exactly like the law may imply. What is best for your family? If divorce is being discussed, Collaborative Law should be considered.
If you have questions, call me 407-645-3297 or visit my website at www.aubreylaw.com
I look forward to hearing from you!
No comments:
Post a Comment