Joint Parenting - A Blog by Two Parents

I just stumbled upon a wonderful new blog jointly authored by two parents sharing joint custody of their children. It is honest, heartfelt, insightful and engaging. The authors are New Yorkers Magda Pecsenye and Douglas French. 

Their blog is called "When the Flame Goes Up" . 

Here is an excerpt from a blog posting by the father, Doug French, talking about the state his relationship with his now ex-wife and co-parent (and co-author) Magda Pecsenye. 

... I’m not in love with her anymore, and that ship has sunk.

I don’t say that lightly, because not being in love with the mother of my kids is a drag. Ever since I was a young adult, I had visualized a specific event in my head. It was to attend my youngest kid’s college graduation, look over at my wife, my life partner, plant a big kiss on her and say, “We did it.” We stayed together, we weathered the storms, and we did all we could to raise emotionally stable kids who can function in the adult world.

I spent a long time mourning what I perceived was the loss of that, but when you think about it, it’s still sort of partially possible. All that’s really missing is the kiss, the most expendable pigment in the painting.

Doug and Magda were interviewed by the Globe and Mail about their experience blogging together. It is worth a glance too. The comments are negative. I like the blog. I think it is helpful for someone who is trying to establish their own shared custody regime just to get a sense of the struggle; the ups and downs of co-parenting. 

I think the bottom line message from this couple is that when you go through a divorce and you have children, it's never completely over. You still have to parent together, so you might as well get on with it as best you can. I like it.

What is the divorce rate anyway?

How often has someone said to you "Isn't it amazing how many people are getting divorced these days? The divorce rate sure is rising!"

As a divorce lawyer, I get the comment all the time but frankly until recently I did not have a clear picture of the trends and actual divorce statistics. Now I do, thanks to Dr. Anne-Marie Ambert of York University. She wrote an excellent article for the Vanier Institute of the Family called "Divorce: Facts, Causes and Consequences". I recommend you read her full article for her insights and the details. 

Here are just some of the facts from her article. These statistics are generally about the Canadian experience unless stated otherwise. 

 

Percentage of all relationships (married & common law) that end in separation 50%
Percentage of marriages ending in divorce before 30th anniversary in Canada 38.3%
Percentage of marriages ending in divorce before 30th anniversary in USA 44.0%
Rate of divorce for first marriages 30%
Province with highest divorce rate Quebec
Province with lowest divorce rate NL
Average length of marriage 14.2 years
Average age of men who divorce 43 years
Average age of women who divorce 40.5 years
Divorces per 100,000 population in 1921 6.4
Divorces per 100,000 population in 1987 (peak year) 362.3
Divorces per 100,000 population in 2003 224.0
Rate per 1,000 population in 2003 in Russia 5.30
Rate per 1,000 population in 2003 in USA 4.30
Rate per 1,000 population in 2003 in Canada 2.23
Rate per 1,000 population in 2003 in Mexico 0.56
Percentage of men with custody of children 11%
Percentage of women with custody of children 47%
Percentage of parents with joint custody 42%
Percentage of divorced men who remarry 70%
Percentage of divorced women who remarry 58%
Percentage of common law relationships that end in separation within 3 years 50+%

 

 

 

Should You Retain an Aggressive Lawyer for Your Barrie Divorce?

One of the questions I am often asked by people who are seeing me for an initial consultation, particularly if their matter involves litigation, is “are you aggressive?” to which I always respond “No.”

When people are involved in family court litigation their greatest fear is that the lawyer who represents their spouse will succeed at intimidating their lawyer, or outshining their lawyer in front of the judge, and this will lead to an unfair result for them.  While this fear is very understandable, it is a mistake to conclude that an “aggressive” lawyer is necessarily a good lawyer and that hiring an “aggressive” lawyer to represent you in court will necessarily lead to a better result for you.

A lawyer’s job is to provide you with information and advice about the law that governs your family law matter and the court procedure, to present your case to the judge accurately so that the judge can either give you suggestions regarding how to move your matter forward or make a determination on an interim or final basis and, most importantly, to assist you in negotiating a settlement with your ex spouse.

Most cases involving litigation are settled prior to any judicial determination having been made. Only about 2% of matters involving family law proceed to a trial. This is largely because a lot of emphasis is being placed by our family court judges on settling matters, rather than having a judge make the decision for you. The “Family Law Rules” that govern the procedure in family court also heavily emphasize settlement of issues prior to trial. Because of these rules you are required to have a Case Conference before you can bring a contested motion before the court. One of the main goals of your Case Conference is to discuss options for settlement of your matter before you proceed further and incur more costs.

Once you have had a Case Conference, you can proceed to bring a motion to seek interim relief such as an interim order for child support, an interim order for spousal support, an interim order for custody and an interim order for access. However this is not as simple as it appears on the face of it, as the family motions court in many jurisdictions is overwhelmed with litigants, many of whom are unrepresented. As a result, the judge may not even be able to hear your case on the date that you scheduled your motion for, and may make you come back another day after having waited all day to be heard. This is not an uncommon experience in Barrie where I practice.

After your Case Conference, the next required step is a Settlement Conference where a judge once again will give you suggestions on how to settle your case. If you cannot settle at the Settlement Conference the judge will schedule a Trial Management Conference. At the Trial Management Conference there is usually another attempt to settle the case. If the case does not settle, the judge will make a Trial Management Endorsement which lays out all of the steps for each party in preparing for trial and sets time lines for serving and filing your materials for trial. There is then a trial scheduling court when you would be scheduled to be heard during a specific “trial sitting”. However, there is no guarantee that your trial will be heard during those sittings, as matters are often not reached and are adjourned to the next trial sittings. It can easily take up to two years from the date the litigation commences for your trial to be heard.

At every step in the proceedings you will likely be encouraged by the judge to settle your matter prior to returning to court. There are many ways of negotiating a settlement of your family law issues, even when you are involved in litigation with your spouse. You can still attend mediation, have four way meetings with your lawyers and negotiate at court prior to and after having seen the judge. There have even been some cases that I have had where the parties have agreed to put the litigation on hold and have signed a collaborative agreement that they will attempt to resolve their matter out of court.

There are many advantages to negotiating a settlement rather than allowing a judge to make a decision for you. These advantages include, but are not limited to the following:

a)      Costs- the cost of litigation, if you have a lawyer of record, is prohibitive. This is mainly due to the time spent waiting with your lawyer to be heard. Each day in court can cost you as much as $2,000 to $3,000. By settling your matter early on in the proceedings, you are potentially saving yourself thousands of dollars in future legal costs.

b)      Dissipating conflict- it is widely known that conflict between parents can have very adverse effects on their children. Litigation, particularly contested litigation, has a tendency to inflame conflict between the parties as things are said in court documents about the other person  that are very hurtful. The children can feel this tension between their parents and it affects their sense of security and stability. Sadly, some parents use litigation to alienate their children from the other parent and this can have devastating effects on the children’s future development. As an old African proverb states- when two elephants fight it is the grass that suffers. Similarly when parents fight, it is their children that suffer most from the conflict.

c)       Having more control over your life- it is a mystery to me why anyone would ask a complete stranger, i.e. the judge, to decide for them what will happen to their children, their finances, their property, etc… No matter how good your lawyer is at presenting your case, the judge has very little information before them from which they can make these decisions and often there is a lot of conflicting evidence that they have to weigh in making a decision. Some people think that the judge will punish their spouse for their bad behavior (eg. Having had an affair and abandoned their family). This never happens as the judge’s role is not to assign fault for the marriage breakdown. They are simply trying to put each party on a relatively equal footing as they start their new life and to ensure that children are properly cared for.

Very often, the result of the litigation is very predictable and a lawyer with experience in family law can give you an idea fairly early on about what will likely happen if you went to trial. If you are wise you will heed their advice and settle on this basis.

The danger of hiring an “aggressive” lawyer is that that lawyer will take control of the litigation and keep it going when it would actually be in your best interest to settle the case. You should always be doing a cost-benefit analysis for yourself to determine whether pursuing the litigation may end up costing you more than settling the litigation. Also, keep in mind that there are other costs to litigation that are not pecuniary in nature such as the stress that it causes for you and your children and the time that it takes away from your other activities. 

Should Equal Parenting Time be Presumed?

 Hilary Linton, LL.B., LL.M. (ADR), Acc. FM.Hilary Linton is a well respected mediator, trainer and lawyer in Ontario. She writes a provocative blog about whether there should be a presumption of 50/50 in custody cases. I have reproduced her blog for you below. The Riverdale Mediation Blog always is an interesting read. 

In response to Hilary's blog below, I feel the movement toward a presumption of 50/50 in custody cases is in response to the traditional, unspoken presumption held by some traditional judges that mothers are best suited to care for children.  Of course a true "best interests" test would be best but unfortunately it seems the pendulum is, once again, moving in the opposite direction.  Thanks Hillary for your excellent, thought-provoking blog.  

Here is Hillary's blog. 

Should equal parenting time be presumed?

The always-hot topic of post-divorce parenting time is once again in the news.

The Canadian Bar Association is speaking out against a Conservative bill that seeks to make 50-50 time sharing for children of divorce the norm.

Such a presumption, of course, puts the rights of parents ahead of the best interests of their children, but is hard to get the advocates of such legislation to understand this.

Without question, a 50-50 time sharing arrangement is often best for the child. But not so in all cases. The only way to arrive at the best possible plan for each child is to look at all the circumstances, in each separate case, of both parents and the child and tailor the parenting plan to meet that child’s needs.

To legislate any particular parenting plan as the presumptive norm would eliminate the “what is in the best interests of this child” analysis. And that would put children at risk of not having their needs met.

There are many cases where a 50-50 is not the best for the child. This does not make one parent better than the other. Nor does it mean the child will be estranged or alienated from the parent who is less involved in the day to day upbringing. Research is clear that a child’s bond with his or her parent is determined more by the quality of the time spent together than by the amount of time.

To presume that it will always be in the child’s best interests to live equally with each parent could seriously jeopardize the stability and well being of a child, especially a young one, who has formed different kinds of attachments to the parents. A presumption of a 50-50 arrangement ignores the possibility that what will be best for the child is a gradual change to allow the child to develop the kinds of safe attachments necessary to be parented differently from what the child has grown accustomed to.

It is unfair to the child that the onus of proving that any particular arrangement is NOT in the child’s best interests should fall on the parent who may in fact understand the child better but not have the resources to fight a legal battle. That is why mediation is almost always the best way for parents to determine, together, what will be in their child’s best interests.

The system is not broken. The “best interests of the child” test is the only one necessary and it works. Leave it be.

A Good Divorce Can Fix a Family

Psychotherapist, author and speaker, Donna Ferber wrote an excellent blog called "Is There Such a Thing as a Good Divorce?"  I reproduce it in its entirety below: 

Imagine a marriage where both parties are unhappy and bickering all the time. Their values and goals are different. There is no chemistry between them. The children are exposed to awkward silences and all-out battles. There may be emotional, verbal or physical abuse. Everyone in the family is miserable. Should this couple stay together? Most of us would agree they would be better off apart.

Now what if those two people, without the stress of trying to get along in this marriage, found that they were happier separately? What if they could get along on parenting issues? What if, outside of the rigors of the marital relationship, they were able to consistently exercise respect and clear communication? As separate individuals, they could thrive, experience good viable relationships and perhaps, remarry. The children would also thrive, as there would be reduced stress between the adults. The children would be exposed to happier, calmer parents with different, yet high-functioning lifestyles. Now, that would be a good divorce!

Sometimes there are good divorces. There could be more good divorces, if we could get beyond the desire to blame and seek revenge. Also, if we would stop seeing divorce as anti-marriage or anti-family, people would feel less stigmatized and less like failures. There would be less hurt feelings, bitterness and acrimony. Divorce could be a good solution to a bad situation.

Marriage is not going out of style, but it is changing. Some say this is in response to the women’s movement, increased life expectancy, the sexual revolution or economics. Whatever the reason, we are marrying just as often, but divorcing more frequently. We try again and again. We keep trying because love, connection, and commitment have not gone out of style. They merely look different.

No one takes divorce lightly. It is a decision everyone wrangles with. Often, we take more time considering divorce than we do marriage. Divorce is not always a negative thing. It can be an opportunity for all parties involved to have a better, healthier life. It can be a gift to our children and future generations as well.

Consider the possibility that your family might actually thrive after your divorce. Maybe your divorce can be a good divorce. To that end, maybe you can work at improving your post-divorce communication in a way that was not possible in the marriage. After all the dust settles from the legal process, you may find that a bad marriage doesn’t have to lead to a bad divorce.

Donna is right. Many families are better off after their divorce than they were before their divorce. That's why I don't like the term "broken family".A divorce may actually "fix" the family. 

I am not advocating divorce. I know that the transition of divorce is painful for everyone involved. It sucks. I wish everyone could have loving, fulfilling, functioning, healthy family relationships but if you don't have one, divorce may be the only way to "fix" your family. 

So fix it. Don't destroy it. 

Family Court destroys families. Here is an article about the realities of family court. 

The Collaborative Process is a way for families to get through the transition of divorce in a humane, respectful and civil manner.  It gives you the best chance at having a "good divorce". 

Okay... maybe you won't ride off into the sunset, happily ever after... but a "good divorce" beats a "rotten marriage" every time.