I was recently asked to comment for CNN (click here to see the video clip of my appearance on “Newsroom” with Don Lemon) about a new fad: Divorce Insurance. My first reaction, as I told Anchor Don Lemon, is that the best insurance against divorce is not getting married. Of course that was said “tongue in cheek”, but really, if you plan to get married and want to pay, monthly, for divorce insurance, it seems very strange if not counterproductive to the goal of a long-lasting marriage. Let’s explain it this way. If a couple, or even just one spouse is considering a divorce, AND they know the expenses of a divorce are already paid for by insurance, isn’t that just one more thing that facilitates them moving forward with divorce? It is almost like saying “hey, we paid the insurance, let’s collect on it”.
Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements can predetermine division of assets and alimony. Once those things are decided, only issues related to children remain. And how can you predict the cost of issues relating to children. There are so many variations on parenting time, decision making, travel expenses, etc. How can we insure against all such costs?
Yes, divorce insurance sounds like a nice, safe bet. Why not limit your exposure? But when you start to think about the concept, it unravels. For instance, if I want to be sure I have the best divorce lawyer, is there any guarantee that the best lawyer will accept my insurance company (since insurance companies typically pay reduced rates to lawyers)? And what about a wealthy spouse who can afford a good lawyer and then, when the other spouse says “well, I need a good lawyer too”, the court’s reply may be “You have insurance so use that”?
I am all about prevention, but smart, effective prevention. To me, that is a prenuptial agreement. A prenuptial, or post nuptial agreement forces a party to think about all of the possibilities specifically. It is unclear to me how divorce insurance can address evrything, but if it makes someone more comfortable getting married, then perhaps it is not that bad. But for the best protection, I would suggest a consultation regarding a prenuptial agreement (which of course must be prepared and reviewed by an attorney in the proper jurisdiction, and I am certainly offering advice since prebuptial agreement laws vary from state to state). And besides, isn’t it nice flying without a safety net sometimes? Yes, I am a divorce lawyer saying that. Perhaps the thrill of a good marriage is that each spouse is voluntarily continuing to commit without fear of consequence. But if that thrill has been spoiled once by a bad divorce, then perhaps a prenup is right for round two.
The saying “When God closes a door, he opens a window” can sometimes be very appropriate in family law settings. Sandra Bullock’s situation is a prime example. While a door was closed for her (divorce with ugly allegations that her husband Jesse James cheated), perhaps a more important window was opened, the adoption of a baby boy (Washington Post story can be viewed by clicking here). Her love for her child is so apparent that it is clear that perhaps she was freed of a bad marriage to make time for a person who she could love even more and who could return the love equally and unequivocally.
In our experience as divorce lawyers, we are often fortunate enough to see clients after the divorce has passed. While some struggle for years, many, if not most, move on and find happiness that they may not otherwise have found. That is one of the most gratifying parts of our job. Since the future is never certain, and is almost always frightening for anyone going through a divorce, the ability to watch people go through it and survive and succeed is an awe inspiring experience. Almost everyone who goes through a divorce, never ever dreamed of the possibilty of a separation or divorce. Then, to accept the failure of their marriage, a project they worked on, planned and tried their very best to make work, is always difficult. And much more so when children are involved. Yet inevitably life moves forward. New relationships are formed, different connections are made, and life goes on.
The bottom line is that change is inevitable and when it is as significant as a divorce, everything changes. But as human beings we strive to improve our circumstances, no matter what is thrown at us. And guess what, many people succeed in that. No, not everyone moves on and is better off for divorce. Money is tighter, logistical difficulties preventing non-custodial parents from seeing their kids arise, but we learn to cope with these issues. Of course there are times when the path of divorce was too quickly chosen. But in the majority of cases we see, the die has been cast, as in Sandra Bullock’s case. When the couple has passed the proverbial “point of no return” (one party cheating with porn stars?), then the real question is how to move on respectfully and with dignity. And I suggest that Sandra Bullock, at least from what we can glean through the press, has done exactly that. It is refreshing to see and likely inspirational to many.
A Georgia Public Broadcasting article suggests birth rates and divorce rates are down in this poor economy. But is this a good thing? We must remember that divorce, is a legal proceeding, not a determinative identification of which marriages are stable and which are not. Perhaps the economy is preventing some folks from filing legal papers or hiring lawyers, but does that really mean more people are staying together (and if so, happily?). I think not. From my perspective, many people who have struggled for years trying to maintain a marriage have had it. On top of years of marital or relationship troubles, the stress of a poor economy puts many couples over the top. The economy may be the proverbial “last straw”.
Couples who are in distress, especially those living in separate residences, often need the court’s assistance to decide how funds are shared between the parties and how time with the children is allotted. But in a poor economy, many cannot afford an attorney so they often ignore the legal process and engage in self help. This may work on an ad hoc basis, but troubles are inevitable. And if we do see a decrease in divorce, unfortunately, in my opinion, we will see a rise in other legal areas, such as child kidnapping, criminal claims of abandonment and even domestic violence as people take out their frustrations on each other (frustrations which a “good divorce” or “good divorce agreement” might have avoided).
So, the real issue is not whether divorce rates are down, but are marriages healthier? Are people now staying together and resolving their issues. Or are they simply not able to afford the safeties and resolution mechanisms divorce courts provide?