In Sweden only 2% of divorce cases end up in court. How can that be, when in the United States so many people end up in long, drawn out legal battles with an ex-partner who becomes the enemy? Instead, mediation is the norm in Sweden, where 98% of divorce cases are handled by mediators who negotiate fair settlements for everyone involved. And yet in America, authors pen books which laud a "take-no-prisoners guide to divorce."
Last weekend, people from all parts of the country from all different walks of life came together in Alexandria, Virginia to talk about Family Law Reform. The conference was organized by a man named Joseph Sorge, who has written a book and produced a film, both entitled Divorce Corp. It is both frustrating and reassuring to learn that the family law system in the United States was not originally intended to be adversarial. And yet, here we are, stuck in a process that drags on and encourages separating spouses to go at each other for money, property, and custody.
I am encouraged because so many people bothered to travel distances small and large to attend. It is healing to hear people say--it doesn't have to be this way! It is even more energizing to then rally around plans to move forward and create real change.
Groups in other states have been successful in changing laws, and many more have bills on the table. A large part of the work that is being done is about educating the public about just how antiquated the laws have become. Unless you have been through it yourself, it is hard to imagine that you might be ordered to pay more than half of your income to your ex-spouse, even though he or she has a good job and a college education. It is hard to imagine that you can be married to someone for as few as 7 or 8 years and be expected to pay him or her alimony for the rest of your life. It is hard to believe that while your ex's income increases and yours decreases, you cannot get your alimony payments lowered. It is hard to understand why the law says you have no legal or financial obligation to your children after they turn eighteen, but that you are financially responsible for a fully-grown ex-spouse until you or he or she dies. And it is impossible to understand how our state makes retirement impossible for those who pay alimony, because alimony does not end when your income is drastically reduced in retirement. And this is just the alimony side of family law reform!
Most people would agree that everyone should have the right to retire. Most people would agree that having a permanent financial responsibility to an ex-spouse to whom you were married less than a decade is treating that spouse like a child. The purpose of family law reform is to create laws which serve the vast majority well. For example, most people agree that alimony is just but permanent alimony is not. But the process to change the process doesn't have to be adversarial either. That's what I took away from the Family Law Reform Conference. The way to change an adversarial process is through educating the public.
