Divorce for Grownups

Telling Your Spouse You Want a Divorce

Sam Margulies — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:07:26 +0000

You have been unhappy with your marriage for years. And for the last two or three years you have been thinking about divorce, even fantasizing what life would be like if you were free. You have distanced from your spouse and have been in separate bedrooms for a year. Although there is civil dialogue between you there is no warmth and an occasional flare-up in which whatever the issue, it gets pushed down rather than resolved. For the past year the only thing that has held you in the marriage is your guilt about the children but you have been working on that with your counselor. And you have finally reached a decision. Even with all its disadvantages and all the dislocation and problems it will cause you have determined to get a divorce. So now all that is left is to tell your spouse. (From this point on to make the writing easier I am going to treat the divorcing spouse as the wife. As about three quarters of divorces are initiated by women it is not unrealistic to do so.)

The Beginning

How you tell your husband and what you tell your husband is of critical importance because it will shape how the divorce unfolds. There are several things to consider. First, how surprised will he be when he hears the news? In most cases he will, like you, be dissatisfied with the marriage. He has wished for a long time that things would get better but has not known how to make that happen. He is probably aware that you are unhappy but is also not probably aware that you are so unhappy as to want a divorce. In a few cases, he is so oblivious that he actually thinks everything is fine. So by analyzing what you know you can make an educated guess how surprised he will be. The more he is surprised or shocked by your revelation, the longer it will take him to accept the divorce. And the less he accepts the more he will try to talk you out of your decision.

You choose a time when the two of you will have some uninterrupted time. Turn of the phones and make sure the children are elsewhere and fully attended. Your statement could be some variation of the following:

"Don, I have some difficult news to share with you. I have decided that this marriage cannot continue and that I must seek a divorce. This is something I have been struggling with for a long time and I suspect that you are at least aware that we have been having a hard time together. But I have reached the limits of my pain threshold and just cannot go on any longer. I k now this will be a difficult and painful process for all of us. But I believe that we can do it with decency and reasonableness and hope you will come to believe that as well."

When you tell him you should be prepared for a lengthy discussion or a series of discussions. If he is not yet ready for the divorce, and chances are good that he is not, his first impulse will be to talk you out of it, tell you that you are wrong or even express anger that you would do this to him or to the children. His tone may even become quite angry and he may accuse you of all sorts of terrible things. All of these responses are normal and predictable. Now is when you start making choices about what kind of divorce you will have.

Do not Defend

If his commentary is accusatory or critical you will be sorely tempted to strike back. You want to tell him how his behavior and neglect, his insensitivity to your needs, his deficits as a husband, father, provider and a man all justify your decision and you should have done this years ago. If you say these things you will have a mess. Despite your intuitive and reflective impulses it is vital that you do not defend yourself and that you do not critique his failures and deficiencies. You must listen quietly and not interrupt. Hear him out. He is in acute pain. If you have ever learned anything about active listening now is the time to use it. Not only do you not try to shut him up, you encourage him to talk more. It will be useful if you summarize your understanding of his feelings so he feels understood.

In thirty years of mediating divorces for thousands of couples I have never succeeded in helping a couple agree on history. There is no chance that the two of you will do so. Instead of recounting who did what to whom, you must simply say that the marriage has not worked for a long time. You no longer believe it can be fixed and divorce is the only alternative you can see in the future. You must acknowledge that both of you have contributed to the erosion of the marriage and that it is pointless to try to figure out who is more to blame. In fact, it is a discussion that you will not have. You are willing to talk about how to build a future for the family so that you all come through the process able to rebuild and thrive. If he tries to draw you into a discussion of fault and recrimination you must refuse to have that discussion. You can repeat what you have already said emphasizing four points. Your decision is irrevocable and you will not change your mind. You are determined to have a civilized and decent divorce in which everybody's needs are addressed including his. You will not engage in a discussion about fault. You are only willing to talk about how to organize the divorce. You are also aware that he needs time to accept the situation and you will give him all the time he needs. You are aware that the two of you will have to negotiate many decisions and that you will work with him to get a fair and reasonable resolution. But this is not the time for those discussions. That will come when he has had the time he needs to reflect and feels ready to begin. You also say that you will not precipitate any kind of legal action and that you hope to minimize contact with lawyers and the courts.

Ending the First Discussion

This is all you have to say for the first discussion. There will be many more. There are some things you should not do in this first discussion. He may be very anxious about economic issues or he may be anxious about his contact with the children. So he may begin with provocative statements like, "Well don't expect me to move out. I'm not going to be one of those pathetic dads who lives in a flea bitten hole in the wall while you keep everything for yourself. And don't expect me to pay you alimony. If you want this you go support yourself." Here you reassure him that you will be fair and that you are confident that the two of you will work out a reasonable agreement. But tonight is not the time to do it. Don't take the bait and don't have any discussions for which you are not both ready and that can be resolved quickly. Reiterate what you have already said and end the discussion. Reassure him that you empathize with his feelings and that you will work with him as he becomes ready. Then end the discussion.

The Six Signals of Divorce

Sam Margulies — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:11:56 +0000

On many occasions I have written about the issue of mutuality in divorce. In few cases do both partners reach the decision to divorce at the same time. Invariably, one of the partners, perhaps the one with a lower pain threshold, decides that she just can't live with the marriage any longer, and notwithstanding all the loss and dislocation of divorce, decides that it would be better than continuing the marriage. Although the initiator can be and frequently is the husband, it is the wife in about seventy five percent of divorces who initiates the ending of the marriage. The non-initiating spouse may be close behind and may quickly agree that divorce is the best option. Or, he may be resistant, arguing that the marriage can be salvaged if only they try one more time and a little harder. In some cases the non-initiator is completely thunderstruck arguing that they have an acceptable marriage and is she out of her mind to want to put the family through a divorce?

The issue of mutuality is very important because the way it is managed generally determines whether the divorce will be amicable or bitter. As I have explored the reasons for this elsewhere I won't go into depth here.

All I want to do is to set the stage for a discussion of how one tells if a divorce is imminent. My goal is to educate the otherwise oblivious spouse who is surprised by the divorce even though the warning signs have been evident for a long time. It is not my mission here to explore why marriages fail. My goal is limited to helping people recognize the warning signals as early as possible.

Marriages don't break; they erode over time. Each time a sarcastic or hurtful remark goes without repair or apology some of the bond that holds a couple together washes away. Each time a spouse fails to identify an emotional need of the other and attend to it, a little more glue disappears. Each time a conflict is avoided because the couple despairs of constructive discussion and resolution there is more erosion. And each time sex is refused or avoided because one of the partners feels emotionally disconnected the process accelerates.

There are numerous other sources of erosion including the displacement of time and attention to the marriage by obsessive concerns with career or children. And even though there may be some explosive precipitating event such as an affair revealed, most of the time there is severe erosion by the time of the discovery. So how does one tell that the erosion has brought the marriage to the point of divorce?

The next time you are in a restaurant look for the sad couple eating dinner in silence. They make little or no eye contact and have little or no conversation. They are completely disengaged and are simply enduring the meal until they can finish and leave. That's a couple on the verge of divorce. It may not happen soon and may not happen at all because there are couples who are held together by nothing but inertia and fear. But at least one or both of these unfortunates are thinking about divorce.

There are six signals of impending divorce. There are probably many more but these are the big ones.

1. No Conflict Resolution

The noted researcher John Gotman has argues that it is not lack of communication that sinks a marriage but, rather, lack of effective conflict resolution. Couples who have not evolved a way to resolve differences without injury to the relationship end up avoiding disagreement and conflict. One or both has arrived at a point of despair that it is pointless to try to resolve a difference with his/her mate. It may be that one or both are simply conflict avoidant. Or one or both may regard every conflict as a fight to be won by bullying the other into submission. What matters is that someone has given up. Differences are submerged resulting in a loss of respect, increasing distance and gradual withdrawal.

2. Emotional Disengagement

Emotional engagement is a minimum requirement for the development and maintenance of intimacy. Willing discussion of feelings, one's own feelings and the other's feelings are a part. Interest in the emotional life of the other and empathic engagement of each other's emotional life all constitute the required elements for an intimate relationship.

3. Disaffection

Emotional engagement is generally accompanied by the withdrawal of affection. If your wife has disengaged emotionally from you she probably doesn't feel much love for you. Divorcing people commonly say that "they have fallen out of love." And depending on how sour the relationship has become one or both probably don't like each other very much.

4. Lack of Sex

Sex both expresses and reinforces emotional connectedness. When a couple has not had sex in a long time it is usually a reliable indicator that emotional disengagement is advancing steadily. It is yet another indicator that the partners take no pleasure in each other and that the bonds are rapidly eroding if not already in a terminal state.

5. Increased Focus outside the Marriage

Empty marriages are very boring. Some couples compensate by pouring themselves into their children so that child centered activity becomes the sole content of family life. Others pour themselves further into careers working late every night so the time with the other is minimized. And as emotional satisfaction is sought exclusively outside the marriage the probability of an affair soars. The majority of affairs I see in my practice have started with a coworker who takes an interest and is fun to be with.

6. Preparation for a Single Life

I recall a couple I worked with many years ago in which the husband, as part of his planning for the coming divorce, took a second mortgage on he house to pay for a hair transplant to improve his dating prospects. Although this was a bit extreme it is typical for the initiating spouse to begin preparing herself or himself by getting in shape, losing weight, attending to hair and wardrobe and other things to enhance appearance. And particularly with women who have stayed home we often see a new interest in refreshing or acquiring a career to be less dependent on the earnings of the husband. We also will often see the initiator taking up an activity such as tennis or golf without involving the other spouse and generally beginning to build a social network as a single rather than as a couple.

What to Do?

If you see yourself in this scenario it would be understatement to say that your marriage is in serious trouble. I would not try to prognosticate about the precise tipping point beyond which a marriage is absolutely doomed. But I can say that these signals, or at least most of them, are present in almost every divorcé I mediate. At a minimum it is time for a long and honest talk with your spouse. If you can't have that talk without it deteriorating into blaming and recrimination, suggest an urgent session with a marriage counselor or family therapist. Because if you are heading for divorce, the sooner the two of you face the issue and plan for an amicable separation, the better your chances of achieving a good and non destructive divorce.

Divorce and Affairs

Sam Margulies — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:00:48 +0000

From the perspective of a mediator, extra marital affairs often generate challenges that make it more difficult to help couples achieve fair and amicable settlements. I thought it would be interesting to discuss why that is and to look at some of the problems raised by affairs when negotiating marital settlements.

Of the many reasons that marriages end few create as much excitement as an affair. Popular media loves affairs of celebrities and politicians. The dramatic elements of illicit sex, secret liaisons and betrayal provide endless fascination for those without something more interesting to draw their attention. In truth, I think affairs get more attention then they justify. In thirty years of mediation with more than four thousand couples I have mediated in hundreds of cases in which the husband or wife has had an affair and in which the affair was the precipitating event of the divorce. But in all those cases I have seen only one case in which an affair broke up an otherwise healthy and viable marriage. In many others the affair ends a struggling marriage that might have been saved by appropriate therapeutic repair or might have simply continued supported by nothing but endurance. In almost all the rest, the affair occurred after the marriage had already reached a very weakened state. Typically, a spouse has an affair out of loneliness or a sense of isolation in a marriage in which intimacy is nearly nonexistent and at least one if not both partners have long given up on the marriage. Sometimes people have affairs to reassure themselves that they are still attractive and desirable. But one generally finds that people look outside the marriage for that which the relationship fails to provide. That doesn't mean that the wandering spouse is not occasionally a villain. But more often than not, the affair is not the justification for the condemnation that so often occurs. I recall a woman who had had an extramarital affair. A year prior she had undergone a double mastectomy for breast cancer. On the day of the surgery her husband did not go to the hospital because he was busy trying out for as TV quiz show. Projected against that blatant indifference and insensitivity could anyone really condemn this woman for trying to assure herself that a man could find her attractive?

But even when affairs occur in a terminal marriage they present formidable obstacles to amicable resolution of the divorce. The other spouse invariably feels betrayed by the secrecy and duplicity of the affair. The resulting distrust may be generalized from the issue of fidelity to all issues. "If I can't trust you about this, how can I trust you about anything?" This distrust combined with an impulse to seek retribution operates at variance with the essential premises of mediation.

Mediation emerged in the eighties, in large measure, as an adaptation to no- fault divorce. By the late seventies most states had adopted some form of no fault divorce because social standards had changed and many people wanted to be able to end a marriage simply because they were unhappy. This was in sharp contrast to traditional grounds for divorce that were based on an unpardonable violation of the marital covenants by one of the spouses. Traditional grounds included desertion, adultery and extreme cruelty, among others, but only allowed the victimized partner to seek the divorce. Because divorce was almost quasi-criminal in nature it was well matched to the adversary system of law that had evolved over the years to determine wrongdoing-guilt in criminal cases and liability in civil cases. But the adversary system was a poor fit for no-fault divorce in which the divorce could be sought by either partner and the tasks of divorce consisted in dividing up the children, money and property rather than on fixing blame and punishing the culprit. . Mediation is focused on the future and on problem solving rather than on finding of fault and retribution for events in the past. So it is a challenge to a mediator when a couple comes to mediation and one of the partners is hell bent on punishing the other for infidelity.

When couples are mired in the emotional complexities of fault and blame it is difficult to get them into a problem solving mode. Until they make that transition the mediation drags. Even when the affair occurs when the marriage is already near death, it frequently becomes the sole focus of the "aggrieved" spouse. In most divorces both partners have contributed to the decay of the relationship. It does not matter that the distribution of responsibility is not quite equal. In the end both partners own the divorce. If they both acknowledge responsibility for the divorce then both can be encouraged to share responsibility for the necessary dislocations and losses associated with divorce. That is the prerequisite condition for negotiating a fair divorce.

When the affair dominates the discussion and when the aggrieved spouse insists that the affair is the sole cause of the divorce, it seems logical for that spouse to insist that "since this is your entire fault, there is no reason for me to suffer and you should assume all the burdens of the divorce. You move out and pay me support. I should not have to reduce my standard of living or work harder to earn income. This divorce is your fault-you do the suffering." With this premise a couple is in danger of a difficult, expensive and drawn out divorce. So the challenge is to prevent the affair from becoming the "legend" of the marriage. The mediator needs to work with the aggrieved partner to acknowledge that he/she was in an unsuccessful and usually unsatisfying marriage well before the affair ever occurred. The purpose is not to offer a justification for the affair but rather, to put the affair into a realistic perspective that permits the couple to move into practical problem solving and away from strong feelings of condemnation and guilt.

The mediator must provide the aggrieved spouse with an opportunity to express his/her feelings of betrayal and hurt. And it is useful to encourage the spouse who had the affair to apologize to the other. The apology is not an admission the failure of the marriage was caused by the affair but rather, an acknowledgement that the affair has deeply wounded the feelings of the other. But in the end, the aggrieved spouse must be helped to choose between acting on his/her hurt feelings or acting on his/her bests interests. When the focus is on retribution, the couple is headed for a bad divorce. When the focus is on solving the practical problems of the divorce the couple has a good chance of achieving a good divorce. The skill of the mediator will often make the difference between the one or the other.

The "Best" Lawyers

Sam Margulies — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:10:23 +0000

In every town there are a couple of divorce lawyers who enjoy the enviable reputation of being among the best, toughest, smartest and most aggressive lawyers. These are the lawyers most likely to be hired by wealthy people or by people who define their divorce as a struggle to be won rather than as a settlement to be negotiated. And if one spouse hires one of these vaunted advocates, common wisdom has it that the other spouse must hire an equally prominent lawyer. This thinking, though very common, is deeply flawed and typical of the many myths that dominant popular conceptions about divorce and serve to make divorce the self fulfilling destructive prophesy it so often becomes. So before choosing one of the "hotshots" in town consider a few facts that might temper your search.

1. Almost all divorces, up to 99%, are resolved by negotiated settlement. Unless one of you is very crazy you don't need an accomplished trial lawyer because you are not going to trial; you need a good negotiator who understands what divorcing families need.

2. Winning and losing in divorce is the stuff of popular fiction. Most divorces are settled within well developed local settlement norms and no lawyer can significantly improve your result one way or the other. About any competent lawyer will get about the same result as another.

3. The good divorce is defined as one in which all family members can thrive and in which parents can cooperate around the raising of children. The more contact you have with lawyers and courts the worse will be your divorce. The more litigation you have the more money you will waste on legal fees, the angrier you and your spouse will be, the longer will take your divorce and the more damage you will wreak on your kids. The lawyer who settles cases fastest with the least contact with court, who restrains your own passion for one-sided results, is liked rather than feared by colleagues and who knows both the law and the local settlement norms-is the best lawyer.

4. When you hire the hotshot lawyer, you set yourself up for several rackets that impoverish you while enriching your lawyer. The first is unnecessary discovery. Because the lawyer supports your fantasy that you are going to win a battle in court, it is easy for him/her to obtain your agreement for exhaustive investigation of your spouse's finances. But there are relatively few divorces in which finances are particularly complex. Middle class divorce in which both spouses are employed requires little financial investigation because there is nothing to hide and hiding would be practically impossible to do. So the lawyer who insists on reviewing every check for the past five years, who serves lengthy interrogatories on your spouse and insists on taking your spouse's deposition because "We have to be well prepared for trial.", is just running the bill. It costs you two to five thousand dollars when your lawyer takes the deposition of your spouse. And because you deposed your spouse, your spouse's lawyer feels constrained to depose you. So every unnecessary bit of discovery costs you twice; once when your lawyer does it and a second time when your spouse's lawyer reciprocates. Once you get sucked into this game it has to cost you twenty thousand or more. And most of it is totally unnecessary.

The second racket is unnecessary motion practice. Here, your lawyer plays to your false belief that the divorce is all about court. Need temporary support? File a motion in court. Want more time with the kids? File a motion in court. Your lawyer is only doing what you think he/she is supposed to be doing. But every time you go to court on motion it costs you and your spouse up to ten thousand dollars. It also convinces both of you that the other is so unreasonable that every disagreement can only be worked out in court. Good lawyers can talk to each other and work things out without frequent visits to court.

5. When you and your spouse hire lawyers that don't like each other that fact can cost you a lot of money. You end up paying for court struggles not because you and your spouse can't agree but because your lawyers can't agree.

Divorce Piggy Bank

Sam Margulies — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:02:21 +0000

Having mediated thousands of divorces I have acquired some knowledge over the years of what acts and omissions reliably contribute to divorce.

I have also learned that marriages generally don't break over a specific event but rather erode over time as spouses fail to feed the marriage what it needs to thrive. I also know that most divorces are expensive and that is common for each lawyer to ask for a retainer of $3,000 to $5,000. So this post is designed to help you finance your divorce gradually as you engage in those behaviors that slowly damage and eventually destroy your marriage.

Here is what you should do. First, buy a good size piggy bank. Every time you commit one of the acts listed below, or anytime your spouse commits one, you deposit the required amount in your piggy bank. This way, by the time you need a retainer you will have saved it. You will want to count the money in your piggy bank once a year because it may serve as a guide to how close you are to divorce. Be sure to share this data with your spouse.

Go to bed angry with your spouse. $3.

Spend an entire day without expressing affection
or praising your spouse. $3.

Make a sarcastic comment to your spouse. $5.

Raise your voice in anger to your spouse. $3.

Do the above and fail to apologize. $5.

Dismiss as unimportant an issue raised by your
spouse. $7.

Install a TV in the kitchen. $20.

Watch TV while eating together. $10.

Spend a night in bed with your spouse and make no
gesture of affection such as a kiss or caress. $5.

Refuse a request from your spouse for sex for the
second time in a row unless you have a note
from your doctor. $7.

Refuse a request from your spouse for sex for
the fifth time in a row unless you have a note
from your mother. $30.

Roll your eyes at something said by your spouse. $5.

Refuse a request to go to counseling with your spouse. $100.
( almost 100% predictive of divorce.)

Spend a year and not take a vacation with your
spouse while leaving the children home. $25.

Schedule so many activities for your children that
you leave no time for your marriage. Each week pay: $5.

Be upset with your spouse and not raise it because you
believe it pointless to discuss it. $10.

When your spouse raises an issue stonewall
and refuse to discuss it. $50.

You fail to learn what actions by you bring
pleasure to your spouse. $50.

Although this list is by no means exhaustive it represents a good sample. Readers are invited and requested to add to the list.

Marriage Counseling and the Decision to Divorce

Sam Margulies — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:27:29 +0000

It is very common for people on their way to divorce to try a round or two of marriage counseling. Many people don't think that they have "tried" enough to save the marriage unless they have attempted marriage counseling without success ion saving the marriage. What this post discusses is the use of marriage counseling after one of the parties has made the decision that the marriage is over. Consider the following scenario:

"Marie and Don have been married fifteen years and unhappily married for five. Marie, like so many other divorcing women, has grown progressively disillusioned with the lack of intimate connection or communication between her and Don. On numerous occasions she has pleaded with Don to go to counseling with her but he has always refused, insisting that they co0uld work it out themselves. So Marie has been in individual therapy for two years and has finally decided that there is nothing left in the marriage. She has told Don and he was thunderstruck. He doesn't want the divorce and now pleads with her to try marriage counseling. But now she feels that it is too late."

This is a very common scenario and it can take several paths. First, Marie, the initiator of the divorce may agree to try counseling. She has no hope of fixing the marriage and in fact wants out as quickly as possible. But she agrees to this false attempt at what Don regards as a possible reconciliation to "prove" to Don that the marriage is fatally wounded and cannot survive. She hopes that if Don sees this for himself he will be more inclined to work with her toward a cooperative divorce. She also secretly hopes that if Deon falls apart she will be able to park him with the therapist who will help him get through the process. Sometimes things go as Marie planned and Don comes to agree with her that they would be better off divorced But sometimes the strategy backfires.

Don and Marie started marriage counseling but by the third session it becomes evident to Don that Marie has no intention of trying to save the marriage. In fact, he feels deceived and believes she agreed to marriage therapy just to prove to him that the marriage is over. This, he believes is proof that Marie isn't willing to "try" to save the marriage and he becomes angry at her for deceiving him. In fact, he becomes angrier than he was before and begins top blame the whole divorce on her. And now, he I ready to find the "tough" lawyer to protect him from Marie."

It is almost universal that couples make at least one attempt at "reconciliation." But unless both partners sincerely desire to attempt a repair of the relationship, couples often emerge from this attempt angrier than when they began. When one partner is irretrievably committed to divorce, I, when asked for my opinion, usually discourage marriage counseling to "save the marriage." But that does not mean that counseling is not useful here. Divorce counseling is often a useful means of ending the marriage peacefully and I often encourage it when one of the parties, typically the non-initiator of the divorce, requests marriage counseling. In divorce counseling the initiator is provided with a safe setting to tell the other spouse why her decision is irrevocable. And the souse gets a safe place to tell the initiator his feelings about the divorce and the relationship. A skillful counselor can help to keep the discussion off guilt and blaming and help the couple reach a conclusion that the marriage, however disappointing, is over. Done well this helps the non-initiating spouse come to terms with the finality of the divorce and guides the couple to framing the divorce in a way that both accept responsibility rather than trying to frame the divorce as the fault of the other. When this is successful the couple can usually manage a cooperative and non-destructive divorce.

Is There Such a Thing as a "Good Divorce"?

Sam Margulies — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:59:12 +0000

Because divorce is generally regarded as regrettable and socially undesirable, we tend to think of all divorce as bad and destructive. Certainly, most of us have known people who have had bad divorces. These are the ones in which couples do so much damage during the divorce that they are left unable to cooperate, still angry at each other and unable to adapt to post-divorce life because they are still destructively engaged with each other. For these unfortunate people the divorce has been a failure because neither is free of the other and they continue to interfere with each other's contentment.

So is there such a thing as "good" divorce? As in any human endeavor there is a range of performance and a range of possible outcomes. Just as there is bad divorce characterized by mutual self defeat, there is also successful divorce in which a couple has successfully negotiated a post-divorce arrangement that leaves both partners as well a s their children able to adapt to their new lives. The key to understanding good or successful divorce is an understanding that almost all divorces (99%) are resolved prior to trial by a negotiated settlement agreement. The negotiation of the agreement, also called the settlement agreement or the divorce agreement, can be regarded as the final task of the marriage. A settlement agreement resolves all economic issues between the parties and describes their mutual rights and responsibilities as parents. It describes how their property is to be divided .and resolves issues of child support and spousal support. Done well, the settlement agreement becomes the economic blueprint for the family's future. Done well, the document represents the genuine agreement of the partners so that both view it with a sense of justice and goodwill.

There are seven characteristics of a good divorce.

• Emotional closure for both partners. This means that there is no unfinished emotional business and they have both disengaged from the relationship and the conflict.

• A successful post-divorce social life. Each has achieved a place in the community, or has developed a network of friends. If they are interested in a new relationship, each has begun to date or has found a new mate.

• A sense of economic justice. Both have a sense that the settlement was fair. This does not mean that one or both does not feel strapped from time to time, but that the disparity between them is not glaring or dramatic and neither feels victimized by the other, or by the divorce process.

• Basic trust. This means that neither has demonized the other and gives the other the benefit of the doubt when disputes arise.

• Communication skills. They can communicate effectively, and their style is conducive to cooperative parenting.

• Mutual goodwill. Each can wish the other well and support the children in accepting, if not liking, the other's new mate or lifestyle.

• Conflict resolution skills and a mediation clause. Both came out of the divorce process with a reasonable capacity to settle differences themselves, or with the occasional assistance of a mediator.

Although some may think that this notion of a good divorce is unrealistic or naïve, I think it is within reach of the majority of divorcing couples. Bitterness is not a necessary part of the process of divorce. Sadness, anger, fear of loss and loneliness are, perhaps, inevitable. But the bitterness that poisons post divorce communication is more often the product not of the decision to divorce, but of the adversarial process still used by most people to get divorced. When divorcing couples feel humiliated and terrorized by each other's lawyers they invariably hold each other responsible for the things each other's lawyers have said and done. That anger so poisons the relationship between the parties, that it precludes cordial communication and mutual trust.

Good divorce is more likely for those couples that keep their contact with divorce lawyers and the court system to a minimum. Couples who insist on maintaining control rather that surrendering control to an adversary system are those who have the best prognosis for successful divorce. They are the ones who manage their strong feelings and don't allow their own acting out to sabotage their futures. They approach the tasks of the divorce with a firm resolve to treat each other respectfully and to solve problems as efficiently as possible. Some couples can do this themselves. Others will need the help of a mediator. But most couples, when informed about the alternatives, can negotiate fair and lasting settlements.

When Friends and Family Get Divorced

Sam Margulies — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:22:56 +0000

People often feel concerned when close friends or relatives announce that they are getting divorced. What do I say? How do I help? What can I do? We all want to offer support when loved ones are going through a crisis. But divorce seems to be one of those difficult issues in which well-intentioned people are not sure how to help. In this column I want to talk about what you can do and what you shouldn't do. It's easier to begin with what you shouldn't do. Unless you are a lawyer or other professional involved in divorce, do not give advice on legal strategy or tactics.

One of the most common and most destructive phenomena in divorce is what I have come to call the Greek Chorus Effect. It appears that divorcing people attract well-meaning friends, relatives and bystanders, many of whom think they should offer advice on how to manage the divorce. And for reasons I'll never understand, the message invariably encourages suspicion, fear and fighting. "Be careful that he doesn't hide the money", "Make sure you transfer the bank accounts before he can." "Make sure you get the toughest lawyer in town." and "Maybe you should hire a private detective." It seems that laypeople who know little or nothing about divorce but feel it's helpful to give advice, rely on the little they think they know from movies, TV shows and what they read in the other media. At best the average layperson may rely on the misadventures of his/her own divorce. But your own divorce is hardly the basis of comprehensive knowledge.

The result of the Greek Chorus refrain that "you're going to get hurt" is that the divorcing person is panicked and encouraged to act aggressively against the spouse. So the very people who most need reassurance and calming end up frightened and alarmed. So what do your friends really need from you? First, they need reassurance that you will be there for them and that they have your support. But support does not mean support against their spouses. It means that you will be there to listen, to offer encouragement and provide companionship when they need it. Divorcing people often feel isolated because some friends are so uncomfortable that they distance themselves. Divorcing people need reassurance you will not abandon them. They need you to stay close. Staying close isn't the same as taking sides. The divorcing person needs you to support peace rather than fighting.

We know it's possible for divorce to be resolved with dignity and without ugly battles. And we know that the people who make the best long-term adjustment and whose children do the best are precisely those who manage the divorce with grace and dignity. More than 99% of all divorces are resolved by negotiated settlement. Very few ever go to trial. But most people are put through the trauma of preparing for a trial that will never occur because they do not take control of their divorces at the beginning and surrender to the passions of an adversary system. Children need their parents to develop a cooperative post divorce relationship. And this is seldom worked out by lawyers.

Rather, it can only be worked out by divorcing people who make appropriate choices at the beginning. So what should you do? First, encourage optimism not pessimism. You do not have to share your friend's anger at his spouse in order to be supportive of her. Encourage your friend not to demonize her children's other parent. Encourage the long view. Support trust even when he feels betrayed. Encourage sharing the children even if she feels the impulse to punish him by cutting off contact with the kids. Encourage him to pursue mediation and to find a fair lawyer who knows how to cooperate in the search for amicable settlements, even though other friends counsel to hire a "barracuda."

If you are a parent of someone getting divorced, stay out of the fray. Don't encourage fighting. Encourage peace. Spend extra time with your grandchildren but don't say negative things about your soon-to-be-ex-son or daughter-in-law. The key to decent divorce is counter-intuitive behavior. People can act out their immediate feelings of fear, anger and betrayal. This may feel good in the short term but does great harm in the long term. Or, they can manage their feelings and pursue their interests. You can be the voice of reason and reassurance rather than a further source of anxiety.

If you do these things you will make an invaluable contribution to your friend and your friend's children.

Co-Parenting After Divorce

Sam Margulies — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:02:53 +0000

Co-parenting after divorce has become an increasingly attractive and sought after arrangement. In contrast to the conventional sole custody in which the mother typically has all the responsibility for the children, co-parenting emphasizes an equal (or nearly equal) role for fathers.

Co-parenting fathers have the children with them for more overnights and play a larger role in the many tasks associated with parenting, tasks such as clothes shopping, extra curricular activities and homework. Today, the majority of mothers are employed full time and the simple logistics of two career couples require co-parenting. It is too exhausting to have a full time job as well as all the responsibility for raising the children. So divorcing couples are moving to co-parenting out of simple necessity and the need to survive.

But recognizing that co-parenting is desirable is not the same thing as making it successful. For co-parenting to work couples have to proceed through the divorce without the destructive adversarial struggle that characterizes so much of conventional divorce. If you want to succeed at co parenting, the "co" has to mean cooperation from the beginning. A couple who conduct an adversarial divorce and then try to have equal parenting will find themselves doing parallel parenting rather than co parenting. For this reason I strongly recommend that couples who seek a shared and cooperative parenting arrangement seek mediation rather than conventional adversarial divorce.

There are six keys to making co-parenting work.

1. Residential Proximity
The most effective co parenting usually involves parents that live close to each other. Although it is possible to make it work living far apart it is not likely. The co parenting relationship suffers from the fact that the children's friends and activities usually center on one neighborhood and the need to drive them back and forth frequently soon taxes everyone's patience. I usually urge parents to reside within the children's social orbit and have found over the years that this works best.

2. Economic Parity
Great economic disparity between the two households almost always causes problems. Rich house/poor house is quickly communicated to the children with inevitable resentment as a consequence. Co-parenting is actually more expensive because it requires two complete homes for the kids. Unfortunately, child support guidelines penalize mothers who agree to such arrangements by reducing already inadequate support. For people who want to make co parenting work child support guidelines are a poor standard. I encourage couples to determine support levels pragmatically by careful review of budgets so that both households are adequately funded.

3. Intelligent scheduling
Parenting schedules should be designed to meet the needs of all family members. Parents need time to be with their children. They also need time away from their children to rest and build new social lives. Children need time with both parents but also need reasonable stability. So schedules must address all of those needs. For full shared parenting the best schedule for most families includes alternate weekends from Friday evening to Monday morning. This leaves the weeknights. I recommend that one parent take Monday and Tuesday nights and the other take Wednesday and Thursday nights. This schedule minimizes the number of back and forts for the children and provides for plenty of time with each parent. Of course, parents need to accommodate each other when scheduling conflicts require changing the schedule. But schedules should be adhered to as a general principle.

4. Acceptance of Different Styles
It would be unusual for two parents to have exactly the same parenting styles. People have legitimate differences around issues of bedtimes, food, TV, discipline and risk tolerance. Cooperative parenting requires that each parent resist the temptation to criticize the other parent's parenting unless there is a serious danger to the child. The cost of the criticism and the predictable defense and counter criticism usually exceeds by far whatever benefits are sought in the first place. Children need their parents to be at peace so biting one's tongue may be a vitally important behavior.

5. Acceptance of each other's new mates.
Most divorcing people remarry. How well the new mate is integrated into the family is frequently determined by the attitude of the children and the attitude of the former spouse. Each parent should encourage the children to like and respect the new stepparent. If children are not comfortable in each home, co-parenting fails. If children are encouraged to challenge the new stepparent co-parenting also fails. Although it may be understandable that the ex feels pangs of jealousy about the new mate of his/her former spouse, those feelings must be managed and not shared with the children.

6. Effective conflict resolution
Divorce involves continual change. New residences, new jobs, new mates, new schedules and the changes that come from children getting older must all be managed. The ability of the co parenting arrangement to adapt to change is influenced by the ability of the parents to resolve occasional conflicts effectively and without rancor. I encourage parents to have a mediation clause in their separation agreement so they can go quickly to a mediator when a dispute arises that they cannot resolve easily between themselves. This often provides the difference between long term success and a failed co-parenting arrangement.

How To Apologize to a Woman

Sam Margulies — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:08:33 +0000

How To Apologize to a Woman

Although this blog is essentially devoted to the subject of divorce, every now and then I will discuss some aspect of marriage that leads to divorce and suggest ways to reduce the damage. Having mediated domestic disputes for thirty years it occurs to me that men and women regard apologies from very different perspectives. And simple as it may seem, these different views of apology are the source of extensive damage to many marriages. In short, most men don't know how to apologize. In intimate relationships an effective apology can quickly heal an inadvertent injury. Similarly, an ineffective apology or the complete failure of an apology can cause an inadvertent injury to be experienced as a major wound to the relationship.

For women, apologizing is a way of reconnecting with someone whose feelings you have hurt, however inadvertently. When a woman gets feedback that something she has done or failed to do has left another feeling offended or injured, she is usually quick to apologize. A breach in the relationship is avoided and the relationship continues undisturbed. Neither the woman offering nor the woman receiving the apology regard it as unusual but rather see it as a routine aspect of relationships.

Apologies for men are very different. Men tend to view apologies as humiliating and a loss of face. Scholars of gender communication have observed that for men, verbal communication is tied up with their concern for the way their status is perceived by others. Men are more conscious of the impact of what they say on how others perceive their power position or lack of power. So for a man to acknowledge that he has done something wrong often means that he feels diminished in the eyes of those who hear the apology. Thus a woman apologizes to maintain healthy relationships and feels no sense of loss. But a man apologizes and feels a sense of loss if not humiliation. The result of this difference is that men are reluctant to apologize and in many cases, do not know how to craft a sincere apology.

It is this lack of knowledge I seek to address here. Most of the women in the couples I see for divorce mediation complain that their marriages suffer from a terminal lack of intimacy. They report that their husbands are unable or unwilling to respond to their wives' feelings and the husband's tendency to stonewall when presented with a complaint leaves his wife feeling disconnected and alienated. It appears that in most modern marriages it is the woman who is angry at her mate more often than the reverse. Women express anger at their husband's sins of commission as well as sins of omission. And the most common sin of omission is his failure to apologize when he has offended. So here is a brief tutorial for men on how to apologize.

DIRECTIONS FOR MEN:

NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF AN APOLOGY

There are six elements of a proper apology. If you do not want to waste your time you must include all six:

1. Acknowledge the Wrongful Act

You need to begin by saying " I was wrong and I am sorry." There are no substitutes for this admission. If you say something dumb like "I am sorry that you think I was wrong," you might as well spare yourself and not bother. There is no getting around it. You were wrong so plead guilty and get on with it.

2. Acknowledge that You Have Hurt her Feelings.

Understand that your wrongful act has hurt her feelings and made her feel disconnected from you. You cannot reconnect without attending to the feelings piece. So you say "I was wrong and I am sorry that I have hurt your feelings" Once again, you cannot wimp out by fudging and saying " I am sorry that your feelings are hurt" You have to connect your wrongful act to her hurt feelings.

3. Express Your Remorse

An expression of remorse and regret is the way you demonstrate your ability to feel an appropriate response to her hurt feelings. So you say, "I was wrong and I am sorry that I hurt your feelings and I feel terrible that I have done something that has hurt you." (It will help here if you actually look remorseful)

4. State Your Intention Not to Repeat

This may be difficult particularly if you are a repeat offender but it is an expression of your acknowledgement of your need to reform. "I know that I am sometimes insensitive to what you need but I am going to try my hardest not to do it again." If you smirk at this juncture you're going to have to go back and start all over.

5. Offer to Make Amends

If you don't know what would help ask her. "What can I do to make it up to you?" The particular act of contrition may be negotiated but the important thing is to express your willingness to do something by way of compensation. Of course, once you commit to do something you need to do it lest you render the entire effort useless.

6. Seek Forgiveness

Forgiving is an act that liberates the forgiver from anger so seeking forgiveness is not as self-serving as you may think. A simple "will you forgive me?" will usually suffice but if you want to avoid appearing presumptuous, or if your offense was particularly odious, you might want to first ask "can you forgive me?"

As you get better at it you will feel more comfortable creating your own sequence of the elements and adding those embellishments that mark your apologies with your own stamp of individuality. Master this simple skill and you will find your domestic life ever more peaceful.