Is Divorce an All or Nothing Proposal?

In Divorce, an all or nothing mentality may actually harm your chance of a normal life after. Why should it be so? Laws in Florida imply, if not outright require, a roughly 50/50 equitable distribution and recent changes to longstanding presumptions make a 50/50 timesharing proposal the seeming norm.
While an All or Nothing mentality may be bad for divorce, it seems an the All or Nothing thought on  Marriage is actually necessary. Sunday's New York Times, www.nytimes.com included an article: The All or Nothing Marriage.  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/opinion/sunday/the-all-or-nothing-marriage.html?_r=0  "the answer to whether today’s marriages are better or worse is “both”
The author, Eli J. Finkel, explains how women's rights have actually strengthened marriages, as well as weakening them. He explores reasons why some marriages succeed despite great obstacles while others fail with little or no friction.

Anecdotally, I have seen both as well. In my dual practice of Elder Law and Family Law. I have worked on the estate planning of "happily married 60 years" octogenarians and I have worked on divorces for people married less than 8 months. The Times article deftly addresses radical differences that impact both.

While a marriage may be All or Nothing, does the feared divorce have to be? I would say No. Many people are traumatized by divorce; however, many more are happier after leaving a bad marriage. In court just yesterday, a father shook his head in disagreement as Judge Roger McDonald said some people are happier after divorce. I know his ex-wife is happier. I also know he longs for the opportunity to correct the many mistakes of 12 years ago that resulted in a divorce. The children are caught in the middle and as the same judge says in his self-published book, "It's Not the Divorce that Hurts, It's the Fighting."

We no longer live in the world of The Waltons, as the death of my favorite father figure actor Ralph Waite testifies. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/arts/television/ralph-waite-patriarch-in-tv-series-the-waltons-dies-at-85.html

Social mores are no longer attuned to a clearly religious concept of right and wrong. Today, children must be heard rather than silenced. Women can and do "have it all" as shown by the possible next Governor of Texas, Wendy Davis.  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/magazine/wendy-davis.html

But, what if you don't want to just divide down the middle? What if you worked harder, contributed more, sacrificed more, brought in more, than your partner? How do we count the division of marital labor in a divorce? As time goes by, many rights that were clear a few years ago have changed. Even with regard to a swimming pool and shared use. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/nyregion/complex-with-a-rare-indoor-amenity-is-divided-over-who-gets-to-swim-in-it.html

As the courts try to wrangle with rights of the parties, many choose to go their own way. Rather than have the court address all manner of evidence from social media, Facebook, Twitter and the like,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/sunday-review/social-media-a-trove-of-clues-and-confessions.html
some people choose a "Nothing" Divorce. As in, Nothing for the Court to Decide. Nothing worth destroying the family over. Nothing is better than destroying the relations between children and parents.

Collaborative Divorce allows the parties to work through the same questions of divorce, but with the help of a communications specialist, two attorneys and an independent financial guru to ensure that each party's needs and goals are met so far as is possible. The Parties Make All Decisions. Nothing is left to the Judge to decide. Routinely Collaborative Law Attorneys are surprised at how warring factions can come together across a table to agree on goals that protect their children, as well as maximize their future. Just ask one.

When you need help, call me, 407-645-3297 or visit my website, www.aubreylaw.com
And just for reading this, enjoy this little nugget: 

A Divorce Lawyer's Advice on Marriage

How long have you been married? 25 years. I used to answer that question, "13 years, but it feels like forever." I was not meaning an insult, simply stating that I felt like I had always been with my wife. Strange then that I ended up ending marriages for profit. I don't actually end the marriage, I just do the paperwork, and get the court's approval.

The New York Times (www.nytimes.com) had two articles leading up to Valentines' Month that really hit on the issues of marriage, especially Long Term Marriage.

The first, Does Equal Marriage Mean Less Sex, compares the division of chores and the division of income to find a prosperous balance of work while maintaining sexual stereotypes of work division. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html
Both funny and illustrative, the article comes up with the following proper division for pure marital bliss:   The risk of divorce is lowest when the husband does 40 percent of the housework and the wife earns 40 percent of the income.
Wish I had known that before I got engaged! My wife was an attorney when we met, and I was a Sailor. Not the romantic type on a yacht or sailing ship, the enlisted type, E-3. The difference in our incomes was quite staggering. Thankfully, after putting me through college and law school, my wife continues to practice, and our incomes greatly changed. I don't know how to divide housework, but I like doing most of the cooking. I prefer to do the 'man jobs' as well, but she routinely takes out the trash or takes the rolling carts to the street.

Daniel Jones, editor of Modern Love writes another article, Good Enough? That's Great! listing several types of people and problems with long term marriages, some of which might lead to awards of alimony, unequal equitable distribution and many other problems during a litigated divorce. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/fashion/good-enough-thats-great.html
"Those Who Sneak," as Jones calls them, are the primary pool of potential clients of most attorneys. We all know someone who is just one phone call, text or picture away from a nasty divorce fight. Of course they are the 'quiet victim' in their own mind. The philanderers, cheaters, letches and creeps follow stereotypes that prove the rule. When I hear women say, "all men are dogs" or "he just can't keep it in his pants" I am seldom sympathetic.
Then there are the people Jones refers to as the Quashers.
Quashers suppress their feelings of slights in order to keep their little world safe. Don't upset him. Don't make her angry. Just get over the feelings of anger, hurt, humiliation and fear. It won't happen again, until it does, and once again, they will quash their own feelings, desires, emotions to keep the family safe.

Finally there are the Restorers. Jones writes, "When a restorer couple’s marriage starts to feel subpar, they sit down and have a sensible discussion about where their marriage is and where they would like it to be. Then they set goals and seek the means to achieve those goals. Typically affluent, educated and highly motivated, restorer couples almost single-handedly support the vast and profitable marriage-improvement industry." These are the people who choose Collaborative Marriage and Collaborative Divorce when necessary.

In a Collaborative Divorce, the husband and wife communicate their goals to a team of professionals who assist in keeping the mutual goals as paramount as the marriage comes to an end. The Wife and Husband make all decisions, Not the Judge. Not the Attorneys. The Parties to the Marriage maintain control of their marriage and control of their divorce. Adults know sometimes bad things happen to good people. Adults know bad incidence do not define life. Adults know that hard choices require full disclosure of risks and benefits. Collaborative Attorneys know Moms and Dads make decisions in their children and families' best interests when given the opportunity and assistance.

Call me at 407-645-3297 or visit my website at www.aubreylaw.com
I look forward to helping your family in its time of crisis.

Why Did the Court Do That?

Sometimes you hear of a court case and immediately say "WHAT???"

Just think of the McDonalds Coffee Case, where the little old lady spilled coffee in the drive thru and sued McDonalds for Millions of Dollars and was eventually awarded 8 Million Dollars. WHAT???

Then there is this case out of New York. 

Read opinion (NY Unified Courts @ www.nycourts.gov)

Brett M.D. v. Elizabeth A.D.
972 N.Y.S.2d 36
(New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, October 1, 2013)

             Regardless of the mother's allegations against the father regarding domestic violence and sexual abuse of the child, the Appellate Court found the proper venue was New York, not Florida where the Mother and Child were currently living. WHAT??? These incidents allegedly occurred in New York, the father had agreed to pay the child's travel expenses to New York for the proceedings and any related evaluations, and, whenever feasible, the court would permit mother to appear at proceedings telephonically from Florida, at little expense to her. WHAT??? Ok, the mother had moved to Florida with the child just one month before the father filed a custody case in New York, where the child was born and had lived most of his life. When you have all the facts the court reviewed, and not just the headlines from the paper, the answer may become more reasonable. Or not.

As attorneys, we are sometimes prevented from showing the court ALL THE FACTS. Sometimes "fact" is actually Opinion, and may even be biased. One side's view of facts is always distorted toward their view of the entire case. The other side doesn't want the "fact" interpreted a certain way, and expresses its Opinion of the reason for the "Fact" being presented . . . at Trial, anything can happen.

Oh, back to the McDonalds case. There were many facts that failed to make the news. You can read the Wikipedia account here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

When you have questions, call me 407-645-3297 or visit my website www.aubreylaw.com
I look forward to speaking with you!
 

Why Collaborative Divorce?

There are MANY reasons to choose a Collaborative Divorce, Costs, Timeliness, Process, Control, CHILDREN.

The Costs associated with asking a Judge to decide major issues in a divorce case can range from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars. Most attorneys know what the judge is likely to decide given the limited facts the judge will ultimately hear. So why should you give aways your children's college fund in order to risk the judge seeing things your former spouse's way? You should not.

Timliness is how long it will take to have the Judge make a decision. Just getting on the calendar for a hearing may take several weeks to several months. At hearing, if your attorney runs short of time, either because he did not prepare or because the other side managed to distract and stall the presentation of evidence for your case, you may have to wait several more weeks or months to finally have the Judge hear all the evidence allowing a ruling. That ruling may be subject to appeal, or the Judge may take some time to reduce an oral ruling to writing, delaying a few more weeks, or in the case of appeal, several more months.

In a Collaborative Case, time is determined by your attorney's scheduling with the other team members who are all working to Resolve the situation, not to delay decisions! This Collaborative Process puts YOU in Control of the Decisions. Having a Communications Coach, and your legal advisor, helping You Make the Decisions saves time, and ultimately results in a Much less Stressful process for your family. Ultimately, Collaborative Divorce results in Less Drama for children as Parents can learn to work together even though they are no longer married and living together. The reduction in stress in the household, along with new communications styles and mediums may have a lasting effect on your family, and especially your Children. Call me 407-645-3297 or visit my website at www.aubreylaw.com

Still not convinced, according to Lauren Hansen, there are at least 9 more to consider when Children are involved:

9 negative effects divorce reportedly has on children

The Week – Thu, Mar 28, 2013

http://news.yahoo.com/9-negative-effects-divorce-reportedly-children-220900169.html

Just in case you missed it - Divorce brings on a world of issues for children.

We like to think children are resilient and can adapt easily, but in reality, childhood trauma manifests itself for YEARS to come in their lives.
Make the Decisions Now so in the future, your children will Thank you.

Judges and Counselors

One judge in my district put it this way, “I have more than 1,500 different cases. Each one expects me to remember all the details in the court file, know who is telling the truth, act fairly between them, protect their children, divide their property, make the other person follow court rulings on a daily basis, and know what is in the best interests of all involved. I have maybe 30 minutes or an hour of testimony from each of them and they expect me to know what is best. I have never even seen their home, or children. How can any Judge know what is 'Best' for this family?”
Many times an attorney is simply trying to counsel the client to accept the possibilities of Divorce. Realize there are no “winners and losers” just people trying to get on with their lives. Inevitably, clients make mention of church, God, their upbringing or spouses religious life. This is the time when I truly am able to counsel as a Christian, not simply an attorney. From my own life, I cite numerous examples of God working in and through difficult times to a more Holy result. The Bible is filled with examples of broken lives being useful to God, even when the person in question did not acknowledge the broken nature of their relations. Divorce begins as a broken relationship. Whether the break results from outside forces or interior struggles, broken relations are the status. The Court acknowledges and affirms the broken relationship and divides the property, setting a course for future relations either as parents or merely former spouses.