One issue that comes up in every marriage and every divorce is money. How to make it? How much to make? How to spend it? How much to spend? What to sacrifice in order to get money and what is not worth sacrificing for more money?
The different ways that spouses answer these questions in their own heads often reveal themselves in arguments, marriage counseling or, in a worst-case scenario, a divorce negotiation. Unfortunately, we are not very good at seeing, understanding, or talking about our own individual views of money. So, we don’t talk about it with our spouse, or, we only talk about it in the form of a fight.
Rather than wait until a fight or a divorce, you can get an insight into your views about money now, and start a conversation with your spouse about it while you’re both calm and nobody is worked up.
The best quick tool that I know of to help you understand your (and your spouse’s) views about money are the Klontz Money Script Inventory and the Klontz Money Behavior Inventory.
These were developed by two psychologists that are also Certified Financial Planners. The inventory is designed to help you gain insight into how you think about money. If you and your spouse both take it then you can see some areas where you think and behave differently regarding money. You can read more about it and what your results may mean as well.
There is no panacea for having different views of money. But, knowing how you differ as spouses is a huge first step to managing your differing views and not letting those differences negatively impact your marriage.
In a worst case scenario, taking these inventories in the early stages of your divorce process will help you and your attorney understand how you approach money issues. That, in turn, allows you to find a divorce solution that better fits your money values in terms of property division, alimony and child support.
There is no downside (that I can think of) to understanding more about how you as an individual and your spouse think about money. And, the upside is that it can head off unnecessary arguments, maybe save your marriage, and, at the very least, help you have a better divorce outcome.
In my experience, probably the single most important predictor of how happy a client will be after divorce is how well they get along with their ex. If they can’t communicate well, then every conversation makes both of them miserable. If they communicate well, then these conversations are at worst neutral, and at best strengthen the co-parenting relationship.
So, I advise clients to do whatever they can to communicate effectively after their divorce.
Fortunately, there are many great professionals that can help after the divorce. Dr. Katrina Kuzyszyn-Jones is one of them, and she holds workshops throughout the year. You still have time to catch the November and December sessions! Find out more at http://kkjpsych.com/.
Technology is great. Information sharing and syncing across your devices is great. But, more than one problem has arisen when kids, spouses or ex-spouses see texts, emails or photos that were not intended for them due to technology.
Sometimes, this happens when kids have physical access to a parent’s device. That is easy enough to prevent. What is trickier is when the kids have their own device (iPad, iPhone, iTouch) that is synced to the parents iCloud or Apple ID. In that case, texts, messages, photos and other things that are intended for the parent can show up on the kid’s device.
In order to avoid that problem in your life, here’s an article that helps explain how to avoid your private messages ending up in front of other people: http://www.iphonejd.com/iphone_jd/2015/02/ipad-tip-turn-off-messages.html.
When it comes to this problem, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I’ve got young kids and there are no books I enjoy reading to them more than Dr. Seuss. The lessons, philosophy and morality packed into each of his stories is truly genius.
I recently read the read The Zax again and was reminded how apropos it was for a divorce lawyer and my clients.
Here’s a refresher for you:
Just as the north going Zax and the south going Zax find themselves at odds and refuse to move, many divorce attorneys and their clients do the same in trying to resolve family disputes and divorces. And, just as the Zax waste their lives in intractable conflict while the world goes on around them, many clients are lead to waste time and money in intractable court battles or negotiations.
(A telling part of the story is when the South Going Zax boasts that he was taught to handle conflict this way in South Going (read, law) school!)
It is easy to see that the Zax are silly to act on their principles because their principles seem so inane to us. But, to the Zax, those principles are everything. Those principles mean as much to the Zax as our children, financial security and peace of mind mean to us.
So, the real lesson is that often in the world, even deeply held principle must give way to creative problem solving. Otherwise, we would all still be standing in front of the first Zax that we came across. And we would miss the opportunity to resolve the conflict so that we could again focus on our children, financial security and peace of mind.
If you are facing a divorce, or are in the middle of the divorce, think about whether you (or your attorney) are a Zax and what you are missing (or spending) while you stand there defending your principle. Perhaps refusing to budge is your best strategy, but perhaps altering course slightly will get you to your goal quicker.
Blame is a big dynamic in both marriage and divorce. And yet, it almost never moves clients towards their goals. Brené Brown (yes, I am a special fan of hers simply for the use of the accent in her name) does a great job of breaking blame down into what it is at it’s heart: an expression of pain or frustration:
What does it mean to be tough? In divorce, most people (including many lawyers) believe that it means “sticking to your guns”, never compromising, issuing the bigger threats, puffing more, “big talk”, using intimidation. In the name of toughness, people are frequently encouraged to be uncaring, to deny any empathy for their spouse, and to turn off all humane or positive feelings about their marriage and their spouse.
That’s one way to do it.
At least in North Carolina, alimony (including post-separation support (PSS)) is one of the least predictable outcomes in family law. There are 15 factors listed in the alimony statute that must be considered, plus a catch all factor. Once those factors have been considered, a family court judge must make an award (or not) that she finds to be “equitable”. “Equitable” is legalese for “fair”.
Custody disputes have been highly problematic for clients, attorneys and the courts for a long time. They are emotionally charged trials with often little evidence that points clearly towards one parent or the other as being a better option. So, judges are left to decide a child’s fate based on a noble, but nebulous standard of “the best interests of the child”. And, due to the repetitive nature of these cases, a court frequently has to decide these cases multiple times for just one child.
The most common issue in these trials is the schedule of overnights. That is, how many nights will a child spend with each parent, and how will those nights be structured? While this answer has financial implications due to the child support guidelines, it is largely an emotional issue for clients. Parents often see the distribution of overnight visits as a proxy for their relative parenting value, a symbolic judgment by the court that one of them is “better” for the kids than the other. If there has been conflict over parenting during the relationship, then the court’s divvying up of overnights frequently takes on an emotional meaning for parents that goes far beyond the practical impacts.
For these emotional reasons, parents litigate custody actions far more than the legal and practical realities would otherwise dictate. The irony of course being that the court fight itself runs contrary to the best interest of the child. And these often needless lawsuits serve as a severe drain on the court system, preventing the courts from addressing cases where children are in actual need of court protection and intervention.
To try to address this dynamic two North Carolina Senators have proposed Senate Bill 711. This bill’s short title is the Presumption of Shared Parenting Act . The bill would rewrite the primary child custody statute in North Carolina.
The first section of the proposed law sets forth a statement of North Carolina’s public policy regarding parenting of children whose custody is in question. The first listed policy is to “Encourage child-centered joint parenting agreement [sic] to reduce litigation over child custody matters.”
The remaining policy statements collectively state that North Carolina’s policy is to encourage maximum contact between a child and each parent, that the courts should PRESUME that both parents are fit parents and that the parents’ inability to get along with each other should not be used to overcome this presumption.
The statute then creates a legal presumption that “each parent will share as close to an equal amount of time with the child, but not less than thirty-five percent (35%) of the amount of time with the child as research currently suggests.”
First, it is important to note that this law would make official North Carolina’s policy of encouraging parents to agree to a co-parenting plan on their own and not bring these issues to the courts. This is a policy that I would certainly encourage. When the very government that will be making the decision about your kids is telling you that they don’t want to make decisions about your kids, then maybe we should listen…This policy really is an admonishment to parents to act like adults and handle their co-parenting issues in a reasonable way outside of court.
Secondly, the law would create a new legal presumption in custody cases. In reality, this presumption probably just makes explicit the assumption that many judges make at the beginning of a case. That assumption is that both parents in a case are valuable and capable of parenting their children in an acceptable manner, unless somebody proves otherwise. But, those judges that do harbor conscious or subconscious biases towards one parent role or the other would have to start from a different starting point if this law is passed. This presumption would probably function much like the current legal presumptions of a 50/50 split of marital property in equitable distribution or the presumption that the child support guidelines will be used in a child support case. That is, somebody will have to present a fairly compelling reason (some of which are mentioned in the bill) as to why a child would not benefit from roughly equal time with each parent before a judge could legally stray from the presumption.
Further, the presumption is given some clear(ish) lines by creating a floor of 35% of the time with each parent. The bill as currently written is not clear enough on this point, however. It does not state what “time” means. Does it mean 35% of the overnights? Is that 35% of the overnights in a month, a year? Or, is it 35% of the hours in a day, week, month or year?
Regardless of the exact eventual meaning, the number gives a clear indication of what is considered roughly equal time with each parent under this bill. Anything outside of that range and the court would have some explaining to do, literally. The trial court would have to include sufficient findings in its custody order to justify altering the 35% floor.
The practical effect would, most likely, be that attorneys would have a stronger basis upon which to predict the outcomes of potential custody suits for their clients. Much like the 50/50 property distribution presumption and child support guidelines in place now, the 35% presumption would narrow the range of predicted outcomes such that the resolution of cases would be easier. A narrow range of predicted outcomes facilitates settlement (as can a very wide range for risk reasons, but the current situation creates a range of outcomes that is neither predictable enough to force settlement nor risky enough to scare everybody into settlement).
The bill is currently sitting on the desk of the rules committee, which, to my understanding, means that it is probably dead for now. But, given the constant and unsustainable burden on the courts created by custody cases, and family law cases in general, this bill or a future iteration will probably make its way to a vote in the not too distant future. It will be fascinating to see what policies are delineated in that version.
(P.S. If the Legislature really wants to lower the number of cases in family court, an alimony formula or presumption would perhaps go even further than a child custody presumption.)
photo credit: <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/85608594@N00/15300693940″>Carl Jung Children are educated by what the grown-up is and not by his talk</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/”>(license)</a>
Analytics has confirmed what family law attorneys have known anecdotally for a long time: There are not many clear cut winners in divorce cases in court.
Analytics has taken root in almost every industry in the world. Now it’s even made it’s way to the notoriously mushy world of family law.
As described in this article in the Miami Herald, an analytics firm recently dug into data from litigated (i.e. outcome decided by a judge) family law cases in Miami. The results paint a pretty ugly picture for anyone considering asking a court to determine their divorce and related legal outcomes.
According to the researchers, the results of the analysis revealed three important dynamics:
1. Favoritism exists: Judges appear to have favorite lawyers and those favorites fare better with those judges.
2. Big firms offer a 7% outcome benefit, but for a significantly higher cost.
3. More expensive attorneys do not win more than less expensive attorneys.
There are some caveats to be mentioned here in my mind: First, it could be that good lawyers choose their battles more effectively, settle their weaker cases or prepare more effectively; and that could be why they have higher win rates with particular judges. Favoritism is one possible explanation, but it may not be the correct one. The numbers are curious nonetheless.
Another caveat is given by the authors, but it is even more alarming than the results! The researchers admit that “determining win rates is highly problematic.” Why? Because, “there really aren’t many clear ‘winners’ in domestic proceedings.”
The researchers go so far as to claim that “Family law is the Wild West of the Legal profession.” (Que the Gunsmoke theme music)
Given all of this, it seems that a savvy consumer would steer clear of court when getting divorced. Choosing a process that allows them to determine their own outcome and allows both parties to define their own “win” seems to me to be a far better choice than “the Wild West.”
The good news is that in North Carolina, there are great alternatives to the Wild West. Collaborative Law allows a divorcing couple to keep their divorce out of high noon duels in the courtroom. It allows a couple to sit down and negotiate a resolution face to face with the help of their attorneys, and other professionals. There are no bullets to dodge, no posses to round up (and pay), and no hired guns to fear.
The objective evidence against getting a positive divorce outcome in court continues to mount. It’s a good thing alternatives exist.