Ah. I see.
I'm not sure what I expected. One thing you sort of picked up on is how terrible a system the judicial system is for dealing with family interrelationships. All of us in the business know this, but few who don't get intimately involved in the system realize just how bad it is. In fact, the only good thing about it is that it seems to be better than any alternative we've been able to dream up so far.
Another thing so far not commented on at all, that I did expect comment on, is the amount of power that judges have over children (and adults) once a divorce is started. Few people getting married, or even those starting a divorce, realize that they are placing their whole futures, and their children's futures, in the hands of a single judge (or, if you can afford to appeal, a panel of judges) few if any of whom are trained family law counselors or therapists. Yes, they may listen to counselors and therapists, but often these are starkly competing views depending on who pays them. There is the option for a "neutral" third party, but there is never enough money or resource to do the job right. So divorced families are thrown into a limbo where here is a final, absolute, binding order that says this child is to go here at this time and there at that time and if the parents' aren't flexible and positive there is no room in it for the things that happen in life.
Another aspect not yet discussed is the view that children are the property of their parents, to be handed back and forth as though they were a pitcher of milk. Oh, it's not quite that bad, but close. The balance to that, though, is that if the child is allowed to express views that the court will respect, there is a very great likelihood (it happens already, but would be much worse) that the parents will try to get the child on "their" side, forcing the child to make choices that no child should ever have to make.
I am becoming more and more of the view that we made a major societal mistake in allowing no-fault divorce so easy. Walk up, say I'm done with this marriage, and it's over. It's much more expensive, but no less final, than the purported right of a man in Islamic countries to divorce his wife simply by saying "I divorce you" three times. Rather than the tens of thousands of dollars we put into the court system to get families divorced, support the kids, etc., we should be spending a fraction of that money helping families stay together, learn tools to work out the inevitable conflicts that arise in marriage, etc. I can make a strong argument for a law that provided that if there is no physical abuse in the marriage, a couple with children may not get divorced until the last child has become emancipated.
The current divorce picture very much reflects a society that wants instant, no effort everything, including instant, no effort happy marriages and families. When that doesn't happen, when one realizes that "happy ever after" doesn't happen and getting close to it requires a lot of effort and commitment and hard work, divorce looks so easy.
Those are some of the issues that the case, for me, folded into its decision. |
