We must ban divorce! (letter to The Times)

I have received the draft of a letter which I lay out below from an individual who is very much against divorce, to the point that he feels we should ban it altogether…….

Ban Divorce I say! (Letter to The Times) by Lord Goebbles-Glaxo-Smith

Bravo I say to that John Marcotte chappy who is defying the myth that Californians are a bunch of liberal untrustworthy hippies, and instead he is fighting the good fight to ban that abomination of our modern times – Divorce! And bravo to my good friend Lady Preach for her intelligent speech the other day about female celebrities who take their husband’s to the cleaners and suggestion that we banish them to an island where they can live out their miserable lives on a 24 hour TV reality show.

If only we could turn back the clock and cleanse our society of this aberration enshrined in our legal system, then we never again would be forced to listen to that blonde woman with the large breasts singing D-I-V-O-R-C-E as we struggle to turn back to Radio 3 whilst negotiating a particularly tricky bend driving the Bentley to the family estate in the Cotswolds. An estate torn apart by the destructive and unforgivable legal decision that left my Ex wife with more than I wanted her to have.

A study recently of 8,652 people between the ages of 51 and 61 found those who were divorced or widowed had 20% more chronic health problems than those who were still married. Well, there you have it – getting divorced is unconstitutional because it causes cancer. If these liberal scallywags are going to fine me every time I forget to put a seatbelt on, then surely they should protect my pocket – I mean health – by making divorce a capitol offence?

“Divorce has a lingering, detrimental impact on health that even remarriage cannot fully repair”, the Chicago study suggests. And that must be true, because my remarriage to a stonking rich society girl has not in anyway cured my persistent gout, which is clearly down to the trauma I suffered from that witch, who once had the honour of being known as `Lady Goebbles-Glaxo-Smith’.

All this fuss about Viagra being at the centre of divorce cases because it encourages men to cheat on their wives. For goodness sakes, we don’t need drugs to do that! And when you consider that (according to the Grant Thornton divorce survey of 2008) that in 91% of cases women filed for the divorce, the main reason consistently being ‘extra marital affair’, then it is clear to even an idiot that if women don’t want their husbands to do what comes naturally to any full blooded male, then they should become lesbians – which I believe to be legal in this country.

Let us get back to how it was in the good old days, and blessed be the political party that returns us to true old fashioned family values. At the very least we could return to the more enlightened times prior to 1960 when the divorce rate was very low, mainly because it took 7 years to get one – which gave those unlucky enough to be subject to such a humiliation time to redirect a few funds here and there and make sure the villa in Spain was safely in the hands of one’s Nephew, who hates the sun and can’t swim.

And what about the psychological issues, eh? Compared with no disorder, those with a psychiatric disorder are more likely to be separated or divorced (14 per cent compared to 7 per cent). They are less likely to be married or cohabiting (62 per cent compared to 67 per cent).

There once again is a clear reason for banning divorce altogether. What are we going to do with all those mentally ill people who don’t have a wife or husband to care for them? Wandering the streets, that’s what – are we not supposed to be a caring society? Make them stay married, I say. The upper classes have been putting up with mad spouses for centuries – why should the commoners have it better than us?

Some of those liberal ‘collaborative’ lawyers down the club have been trying to convince me that the current laws need changing – but they seem to want to make it even easier to get divorced! “Why is it that we aim to encourage parties to put the past behind them and yet we start by insisting that 65% present issues of fault (84,129 out of 128,290)? “ They winge. “Our laws are now almost 40 years old (the 73 act was a slight remodelling of the 69 act) and we must reform!” I agree we should reform, but several brandies later I was still unable to shift my deep conviction that when a man marries a woman she is his for life, and if he really must get rid of her, there is always the “Oh I didn’t see her standing behind me when I backed the Bentley out of the garage” routine.

The fact is that first marriages have halved since 1970 whereas re-marriages have doubled. This means that people clearly like being married, they just don’t seem to be very good at sticking to the same partner.

It’s really not hard to stay with the same person year in year out as long as you approach it from an intelligent, and moral perspective. Separate rooms – houses if you can afford it – allow for privacy and individual pursuits. And I suggest also a ‘mission statement’ placed prominently on the fridge, inspired by the John Marcotte t-shirt I bought off Facebook: “Till death us do part – and you’re not dead yet”.

Yours most sincerely,

Lord Goebbles-Glaxo-Smith
Blog: www.oldfashionedfamilyvalues(mine).com

If California ban divorce – should the UK follow suit?

With the UK divorce laws under attack from Lady Deech and the chances of your marriage failing having much better odds than you winning the lottery, the initiative by John Marcotte to change the law in California to ‘ban divorce’ may be more dangerous than it sounds.

The Starting Over Show - which was the UK’s first ‘divorce fair’ and which hopes one day to take it’s mixture of legal and financial information to the US, along with it’s inspiration to start over whilst keeping on talking terms with your Ex, not surprisingly vehemently opposes such a proposition – but for reasons that we should all be concerned about.

As the Starting Over Show’s creator, I believe that it is a fundamental human right to feel supported and encouraged when you want to move forward from any life changing event, and that to be condemned to going back to a society where abuse and adultery were tolerated, couples slept in separate rooms and ’till death us do part’ was the only way out, this would be the result of any ‘ban’ or attempts to make divorce more difficult. This would also mean that accidentally backing the car over your spouse would become the best option for those no longer willing to accept a life-time of punishment, because their marriage didn’t pan out as planned.

But how real is the threat of public support for banning divorce?

By October 17^th John Marcotte will have heard from the US Secretary of State whether he will be allowed to gather signatures supporting his proposed law to ‘ban divorce’ in California. Marcotte has 4,000 Facebook fans, and close to a thousand dollars in donations. He’s even sold out of T-shirts which read, ” You said, till death do us part, you’re not dead yet.”

Following on from Lady Deech’s accusations that the the old public divorce hearings have been replaced by “an unpleasant inquisitorial procedure designed to establish the husband’s financial position and revials the old law in its depth, length, cost, temptation to lie and humiliation,” and a clear desire to stem the tide of “undeserved millions” being handed out to celebrity wives, is it just possible, that with the more right-wing approach to government likely after the next general election, that such outrageous ideas of banning divorce altogether could take hold in the UK?

The Conservative think tank that produced ‘Every Family Matters’, an in-depth review of family law in Britain, estimated that the direct financial cost of family breakdown in the UK to be in excess of £20 billion pounds per annum. They were also clear about not wanting to currently reform the lack of legal protection for the increasing number of people who cohabit: “we want to encourage a high commitment culture and break the relationship breakdown culture”. This is a significant statement, when you consider that ‘common law marriage’ is a myth and particularly women with children are increasingly finding themselves without any legal rights if their relationship breaks down – unlike their married counterparts. 58% of the YouGov Poll (April 2008 & January 2009) thought that giving cohabitants similar legal rights to marriage would undermine marriage, and 84% agreed that it is important for the law to support marriage.

Surely the simplest way to achieve this is to make divorce more difficult? Is this not what is effectively happening with the stubborn refusal of Government to bring in ‘no fault divorce’ as a standard, irrespective of the (sensible) need for ‘cooling off periods’? Although marriage is undeniably a legal contract that should be respected as such, the very fact that what is essentially an emotional and spiritual matter is not treated as such by the current legal system suggests that for government, marriage is seen as an indicator of a healthy society – or at least one that is behaving as the powers that be wish it to.

More progressive family lawyers, who are increasingly gaining links with mediators or becoming ‘collaborative’ lawyers, approach divorce with more sensitivity to the emotional state of their clients than has traditionally been the case.

The Starting Over Show exhibitors have regular networking meetings so that the lawyers can form trusted relationships with the mediators, divorce coaches and holistic therapists so that they will be better able to refer their clients to specialists who can help make a less combative divorce the primary focus. It’s hard to be nice, or even reasonable, to someone you’re divorcing when you are frightened, confused, don’t have any positive vision for your future and have forgotten that your children deserve you to at least try to be a ‘good Ex’.

I agree with one thing Marcotte says about banning divorce: “What it might do is cause people to really think about it, and really value their marriage while they are in it.” But wouldn’t it be better to encourage people to do that in a more proactive way, rather than punishing them if they get it wrong? The Social Justice Report ‘Every Family Matters’ concludes “that there should be strong government encouragement of couples getting married to take part in high-quality, standardized and accredited pre-marriage information and preparation, delivered in an accessible fashion.” Of course they are right that we should not all go into marriage without a tool-box of skills – such as communication techniques, parenting skills, positive shared visions for the future – but are government the right people to be judging and accrediting how we access those skills? Let’s face it, are we able to find any politicians or government employees to hold up as fine examples, mentors even, of how to have a ‘successful marriage’?

US attorney Kevin Healey says, a “No Divorce” law is unconstitutional and will never happen.
“Anybody can get something before the voters, but I think it will be shot down handily. ” But does Healey have a facebook group of 4,000 fans, many of whom are taking comedy writer John Marcotte’s campaign as a serious suggestion, not as the ‘parody’ that some claim it to be?

Whether it’s pre-marriage support, refusing to provide legal protection for cohabiting couples or making divorce even more difficult and painful than it already is, the political drive to control society in order to reduce that £20 billion pound cost of ‘family breakdown’ needs to be taken seriously.

UPDATE:

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen today authorized the backer of an initiative that would ban divorce to begin collecting signatures to put the proposed constitutional amendment before voters.

John Marcotte now has until March 22, 2010, to collect 694,354 signatures of registered voters in order to get the measure on the ballot next year. The proposal would change the California Constitution to “eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California.”

Couples could still get their marriages annulled under the proposal.

Here is the official text of the initiative:

ELIMINATES THE LAW ALLOWING MARRIED COUPLES TO DIVORCE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings.

References:

New York Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/ban-divorce-ballot-effort-gets-ok-to-gather-signatures.html#comments

Times article on Lady Deech’s speech http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6832973.ece

Fox40 News

http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-nodivorce,0,5509809.story

is maintenance an ‘insult’ to women?

Would you pay £30,000 a year for your wife to run the home and raise a family?  That’s the estimated value of the stay at home mum should you have to replace her.  With the Conservative Party openly committing to making Pre-Nups more binding, will women themselves value their worth as stay at home mums?

“Stop giving ex-wives these undeserved millions, says Baroness Deech”.  So screamed the Times Headline on 14 September 2009 as the Baroness gave her controversial views on whether maintenance was appropriate for women who could still go out to work post marriage.

“Housework has to be done, whether single or cohabiting, and for many women giving up a career on marriage is a myth,” revealed the Barnoness. She believes that either it was a career they would have given up “with a sigh of relief with the prospect of being kept” or it is “a free choice to opt for the home rather than the office. The choice to stay at home and care for the children is only possible if the man’s income permits and is far less likely to be available to his second wife.”

But isn’t she missing a vital point here? Of course you can ‘work’ whilst having children to care for, but the quality of that work and the money earned for having to leave earlier than your colleagues, miss days when the kids (or child minder) are ill, have no peace or space or time at home after work to try to catch up so you can keep up with your colleagues – well the truth is you just aren’t going to get the best paid jobs. Your colleagues have the luxury of a take-away on the way home and watching the telly while you have to shoot home and slip into mummy, wife, cook, housekeeper role and still make sure you have something ironed to wear the next day for work.

The Baroness makes some good points about not splitting everything 50/50 after only a short marriage when no children are involved. But what she doesn’t do is seem to place any financial value on the parent who ‘chooses’ to stay at home. This ‘choice’ is normally made by BOTH parents, and for good reason.

When I got life insurance, I had to calculate what it would cost my children’s father to replace me, so that he would be able to have the luxury of carrying on working – you see, my dear Baroness, from a woman’s point of view, being able to apply for any job you like and work the hours you want to get it done is indeed a luxury that many parents don’t have. I was astounded at the amount of money it would cost my kid’s father to replace me.

Add up the cost of the two nannies (they don’t work 24 hour shifts) and childcare (for when the nannies are on holiday, ill, or the working partner wants a night out with their mates), cleaner, taxis to and from school, housekeeper, cook, caterer (for work colleagues round to dinner) etc and times that by the number of years of the marriage. Then add on the fact that the house parent has not followed a career (creating well paid careers around school runs and washing is tricky, I can tell you) and the fact that when the house is sold post divorce when the youngest reaches 18, they have not had time to build up a pension, save for a mortgage deposit (house may not have much equity in it), or buy their own car, then perhaps most women would not feel at all “degraded” to receive maintenance even though they can now begin to compete in the work marketplace.

According to a survey by the networking site www.alljoinon.com in 2008, the average housewife would earn almost £30,000 a year if she was paid the market rate for the chores she does in the home.  Legal & General calculated the value of the tasks performed by a woman in 2006 to be almost £24,500 a year, or over £2,000 a month.This was higher than the national average wage, which was then £23,400, according to the 2005 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings.

Financial advisors like Barry Browning of Browning Financial, Fiona Monson of Armida and Mark Robinson of Private Wealth Management, all exhibitors at the Starting Over Shows next March, specialize in helping couples create a realistic basis for a settlement.   Those assessments are always going to be different depending upon the couple and their circumstances, but it is important that both of the couple recognize the value of the one who ‘stays home to look after the kids’.

If we are to change the way we assess ‘maintenance’ then we need to begin to talk about a fairer assessment of financial worth of both partners in a relationship, and the choices they make together.
If you combine the reality of the financial worth of a house parent dedicating themselves to being the main carer for the children, and also create Pre-Nups that are guaranteed to be taken seriously by a judge (even if you’re not a foreign millionairess), perhaps we would begin to create that greater sense of fairness.  If the prevailing attitude is that stay at home parents are not effectively adding to the financial pot, by providing and caring for a family, then it will be inevitable that people will haggle bitterly over what money should go to whom if the relationship ends.  And we are not even mentioning here the psychological benefits to children and our society for children to be brought up by parents rather than childcare providers – the undermining of the value of stay at home parenting is a far reaching and pernicious force that goes beyond arguments over maintenance payments.

Instead of focusing on the divorce process and snatching at the spoils, is it not better to guide couples towards a long healthy relationship as Ex’s – which those of us with kids know to be a worthwhile effort made harder by the current legal system. Something which the Starting Over Show actively encourages?

It’s not the multimillion pound awards that are “degrading to women” as Baroness Deech proclaims – it’s the fact that a shared decision to bring up children is still viewed as an ‘easy option’, and most mothers are financially disadvantaged by the divorce unless they happen to be married to a millionaire.  Yes, the dads lose out too financially – but as more fathers choose the house parent role, it’s in everyone’s interests to put a financial worth on the decision to stay home with the kids, if only to use this as a guide in creating fair settlements where the house parent is not left feeling like some kind of sponger ripping off their hard working partner, instead of being recognized as a full financial contributor to the family, particularly in regard to significantly affecting their future career and salary opportunities.

Acknowledgements:

Times Article: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6832973.ece

http://www.alljoinon.com/clippings/Alljoinon.Mirror.p25_19.02.pdf

http://www.fool.co.uk/news/comment/2006/c060324d.htm

a different pair of shoes

How do you begin to change negative attitudes about divorce? Seems a bit ambitious – even crazy. And what’s the point of even trying anyway?

When I stuck my new Iphone in the faces of three of my friends and video’d them, I asked them a question they had never been asked before.

“Say something nice about your Ex” I demanded. The result was not only a two minute short film, but as they wrestled with the subject matter this was a learning experience for me too.

Although I included myself in the film – and after six years of being separated from my kid’s father found it no problem to find good things to say about him – it was having to prompt my friends to follow suit that reminded me of why I, and ultimately they, succeeded in this endeavor.

You see, there’s a trick to it. You have to forget about yourself for a minute. Forget about the pain you suffered or even what disruptions, annoyances or downright fury your Ex may still be able to elicit from you – and instead, to just see them as a person unconnected to yourself. As an individual, another human being like anyone else. It’s a bit like putting on a different pair of shoes – standing in them and seeing everything from a completely different perspective because you are feeling ‘different’ to your normal self. (Ok, perhaps it’s a girl thing, but you get the idea).

And then, suddenly, it becomes quite easy to think of at least one good thing to say about your Ex. Maybe even two.

But what’s the point of it? I guess that’s up to the viewer to judge. One woman I spoke to recently, who is currently going through a divorce and not on ‘speaking terms’ with her Ex, viewed the film and said she had been avoiding saying anything about her kids’ father when the children were around. She reflected that perhaps she should try to find some good things to say about him in front of the children – rather than keep him a subject of no discussion – and she felt sad that she had not thought of doing that before.

Coming from someone who is currently enduring some very unhelpful behaviour from her Ex, this was emotional generosity at its best. Not just because she was ‘putting the children first’, but because she had the courage to let go of her own unhappiness for a moment and try on a different pair of shoes.

I believe that if only more couples used counselling and mediation processes more effectively (no offence to Relate, but I’m talking communication skills here, not getting people back together), by learning how to step into another pair of shoes, another viewpoint, and to let go of their own anger, fear, or just plain exhaustion for long enough to see something positive, something real, in a person who was not always as difficult to deal with as they may be at this time – then suddenly a less aggressive and painful divorce would be more likely.

It can be painful to remember the good things about someone when you are still struggling to say good bye to that person. Even years on, being asked to ‘say something nice about your Ex’ can bring up all kinds of emotions that you thought were dead and buried.

The most humbling moment for me in making the film was the final comment made by my friend Andy at the end: “… what makes her the best Ex in the world are the same things that made her the best partner in the world at the time”.

Now, as an ‘Ex’ myself, I can see that is something to aspire to.

Want to be a good Ex? Want to get free legal, financial and wellbeing help to become a good Ex?
Take a look at our fantastic offer for a selected number of couples……

September 2009 SOS Team get together

With special thanks to our kind hosts Jeffrey Green Russell…..

Your’s not back at school yet…. ?

Whilst the rest of the world are returning to sanity because the ‘kids are back at school’, I am still hanging on in there because instead of making use of a perfectly good local primary school, I in my infinite wisdom decided to send my children to an eco farm school that has extremely long holidays.  So while other parents have kids exhausted from the unfamiliar early mornings and sudden academic workload, mine are currently wide awake as we approach nine O’clock at night with no intention of crashing into a deep slumber, while Mummy is focused entirely on getting her head onto a pillow as soon as possible.

Being a single mum can sometimes be a little tiring, but ironically not so much because of the children themselves.  It often involves spending so much time trying to run the house, create a solid financial future and keeping going, that actually spending quality time with the kids can be the biggest challenge of all.

I have sometimes felt jealous of their dad being able to devote a whole day – or even weekend – to just enjoying their company.  Of course no-one is stopping me from taking ‘time out’ to be with them, but I tend to grab time randomly – rather than create a wholesome rhythm – and there can be fall out.

Yesterday’s trip to Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens (wonderful, by the way) involved an argument on the train going up which turned into an all out rebellion.  Cries of “We don’t want to go to London” turned into my 12 year old daughter saying she was going to return home alone, my agreeing ‘that’s fine with me’, then her trying to get my 10 year old son to break ranks (so I countered with a tactic of bribing the 8 year old to stay with me and scupper the complete mutiny), and all this being listened to by a train of polite gentlemen and ladies with raised eyebrows.

We finally made peace before London Victoria and had a great day out.  But it occurred to me that ticking the ‘you can’t say I didn’t do anything with you in the holidays’ box by slipping in a bit of Peter Pan just before school starts at the end of a two month school holiday was really not good enough.

Like everything in a busy life, balance is best achieved by writing things down and creating a schedule.  Preferably one that is created along with the children – not something just ‘presented’ as a fait accompli.  This is how I hope to plan for the Xmas holidays, which seem oh so near.

Upstairs my 10 year old is practising his cornet and driving his 8 year old brother insane with the racket – which is the main reason so much music practice has come willingly from a boy who only today suggested we advertise the youngest on Ebay for 10p, with free postage.

The 12 year old is scouring the internet for a dog after I recklessly agreed to us getting one, though my insistence on a rescue dog of a specific breed and particular age range is making the search hard enough to slow down her success.  But her amazing stubborness will ensure ultimate victory whatever obstacles I randomly throw in her way.

So perhaps the first thing I should do when the kids go back to school next week, is take some moments to schedule some time with them that is not based on feeding, cleaning or moving from one place to the next.  And then, maybe, I shall shall schedule in some time just for me as well while I’m at it.

Talking about the Ex

Want to be a good Ex? Want to get free legal, financial and wellbeing help to become a good Ex?
Take a look at our fantastic offer for a selected number of couples or individuals…..

One of our participants in the SOS Divorce Makeover is Michelle, who gave her reaction to the ‘Talking About The Ex’ video:

“By the way the videos were spot on. I think anyone with their given set of divorce circumstances recognises many if not all of the highlighted points.

I never really mention the kids’ dad, other than to catch up with what they did the weekend and the whose, who of their new extended family.

The particular video I had in mind here was when asked to say something positive about your ex… I never really do that, I never put him down but I never acknowledge the positives, which is sad when you come to think of it.

Maybe I should let the children know this, but their does seem to be a bit of a silence surrounding mentioning him of late.”

Michelle

The best Ex in the world

Do you want £1,000′s worth of valuable expert help to become the best Ex? Just share your experiences of the SOS Makeover with us, so others can benefit from your experiences ….

Click here to download information pack: sos-divorce-makeover-2110093

Talking to real people: TALKING ABOUT THE ‘EX’ (2 minute film)