Why Divorce Reform is Beneficial

An article published today in the Dallas News expresses a negative outlook on the divorce reform law being reviewed for legislation. I'd like to flip the coin on the writer's thoughts, and provide insight from someone who has actually benefited from the TwoGether in Texas program and the state-funded marriage initiative curriculum. My rebuttals will be posed in italics for easy identification.

"State-mandated divorce counseling would be too little, too late for most"

06:33 AM CDT on Friday, April 3, 2009

How's your marriage?

No, seriously, because if you're not feeling the love, a man from Pampa wants to help you. More specifically, he wants the government to help you.

The man is state Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, the government is the state of Texas, and the "help" is a particularly officious brand of interference in your private affairs.

(Officious? I myself have read through the curriculum several times, and have found it pertinent, easy to relate to, insightful, and even entertaining. I wonder if Ms. Floyd has founded her opinions without bothering to read the curriculum first.)

He had introduced legislation mandating that if you have kids and you want a divorce, you won't get it until you sit through 10 probably fruitless and possibly embarrassing hours of state-approved marriage counseling.

(This law does target families with children. As any concerned parent would attest, wouldn't you do anything for your kids? Even take a bullet if you had to? Just to keep them as safe and and happy as you can. That's every good parent's responsibility. So, tell me then, why would you balk at potential embarrassment? Hasn't parenthood in itself primed you for endless occasions of mortifying situations? This law provides parents with the ability to honestly say to their children, "We did everything we could." So kids can know that their parents truly care about their emotional well-being. And 10 hours is sacrificing one or two Saturdays for your child's welfare. Is it really so hard to exchange two football games for the sake of your child?)

Disclaimer: I'm not an anti-government crank. And I'm a great believer in the institution of marriage, being a contented denizen of that blessed state. I have firsthand experience of the misery and trauma that divorce engenders.

(So it's written here that divorce engenders misery and trauma, for all parties involved. This law strives to help families rectify as many common family problems so that even if the marriage can't be saved, the parents can still function with each other civilly and keep their kids out of a hostile environment. Marriage education teaches effective communication and conflict resolution. Hardly officious, it serves to open up each party to communicate honestly to avoid misinterpretation and potential conflict, keeping tempers - and kid's tension - low.)

No question that many of us are too quick to make major life decisions – marriage, parenthood, divorce – on impulse, or without realistic expectations. Ours would be a more stable society if everyone afforded these decisions the gravity and respect they're due.

(Floyd admits here that many file divorce impulsively, without thinking through the full ramifications before it's too late to turn back. This law encourages both parties to really sit and consider what is really going on in the marriage, and see if it's possible to change things for the better.)

Chisum has already tackled the issue from the front end. He authored a law that took effect last September giving engaged couples a price break on the marriage license if they underwent state-approved counseling before the Big Day.

(It is incorrect to call the curriculum "counseling". It is not one-on-one, but in a group setting of several couples, often on a Saturday with lunch and cake provided. Couples receive research-proven effective relationship skills. This strives to head off conflict before getting locked in. Learning things such as spending personalities can help couples learn how each differs from the other and understand why, instead of quibbling over why she went out and spent last week's grocery money on a new pair of shoes.)

Absurdly named "Twogether in Texas," the program hasn't exactly caught fire. In February, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported during its first five months, only 602 couples statewide had taken advantage of the deal.

(This is a blatantly false statistic. The Twogether in Texas program - and don't ask me why alliteration is now deemed absurd, being a fan of grammar and wordplay myself I think it is aptly named - has served nearly 20,000 families in Texas. A staggering number considering the legislation was only passed this last September. 602 couples have obtained their marriage licenses at the reduced rate. Considering the fact that you can only file for your license 30 days out from your wedding, and prime wedding season hasn't even hit yet, I'd consider that number wildly successful. The TNT program is not exclusive to marrying couples either, singles, parents, teens, and even seriously dating couples can attend the workshops - again, not counseling as was falsly stated previously. None of whom would be filing for marriage licenses any time soon.)

But at least you can opt out of that one for a few bucks. The new counseling bill, with narrow exclusions for those who can prove they have been victims of abuse, would apply to every married person with children who petitions the court for a divorce.

(A few bucks is more specifically considered $60. Hardly petty cash to a struggling familly in this current economic status. And these free, yes free!, classes help those same families learn relationship skills to prevent the even costlier fees of divorce. As far as her allegations of "narrow exclusions", the bill outlines that any sort of paper trail - be it protective order, DV report, hospital bill, threatening email even - will omit the petitioner from any requirements.)

No class, no split. The nonpetitioning spouse doesn't have to take the class – but if he or she does not, the judge can weigh that lapse when doling out property or even custody of the kids.

(And why should an unresponsive second party not be considered? Wouldn't a judge rightly see this as uninvolvement? That this person is unwilling to provide 10 measly hours - again, two football games' worth - to learn useful skills for a functioning relationship, whether married or divorced? I'm sure the kids would appreciate Mom and Dad negotiating who gets the kids for spring break without verbal lacerations.)

Look, I have nothing against counseling, a noble resource which helps a lot of people in desperate need. I think judges should have the option of ordering counseling as a condition of divorce, if they see fit in individual cases.

And I think programs that help divorcing parents minimize the stress on their children are all to the good.

But Chisum makes no bones about the fact that his idea of counseling isn't to make divorce more civilized – it's to talk you out of it.

"The deal is, we need to take marriage more seriously," he told the Austin American-Statesman last summer. "If this just saves one marriage, it'll be fine with me."

(Why would saving a marriage be a bad thing? Yes, if it saves even one marriage, keeps one family whole and functioning, wouldn't you consider that a winning cause? And even if it doesn't save the marriage, it at the very least helps civilize divorce, another positive outcome. So, basically Floyd is just muttering over the inconvenience over spending 10 hours with someone you're already irritated with, not considering the fact that this inconvenience is highly beneficial for your children. I wonder what her opinion is on pregnancy.

Well, not you gay couples. You don't have to worry about divorce counseling, because this same lawmaker was behind the state amendment that makes it illegal for you to get married in the first place.

(I don't see why riling up her audience with the gay marriage issue is pertinent to divorce reform. When the day comes that gay couples can file for a marriage license and a divorce, lawmakers will be just as concerned for reducing taxpayer responsibility there as well.)

As for the rest of us, though, a lot of veterans of the divorce wars will tell you that once somebody already wants out, it's too late for 10 hours of earnest training in "conflict management" and "forgiveness skills" to rekindle those refrigerated embers.

Worst of all, though, is the awful, one-size-fits-all assumption that the same "skills" workshop is the fix that every troubled marriage needs.

In Chisum's cheery view, everybody's just like him and his neighbors and his church friends back home in Pampa.

(I also do not see how criticizing Chisum's hometown is pertinent to reform either. Visit any of the nonprofit providers of the TNT program workshops and read the participants testionies. Here's a link, even. Once again, how is attending a 10 hour workshop in order to learn how to improve lines of communication such a burden? And though couples do attend workshops in groups, it is by no means a "one size fits all" solution. Facilitators work with each individual to address their specific needs.)

He seems to think a government handout and maybe a (shudder) sharing session with a roomful of unhappy strangers can address the most complex issues of human relationships – kind of like a licensing exam for morticians or a class in boat safety. There's an eerie mix of impersonal regimentation and deeply personal intrusion about the whole thing.

Chisum is right about one thing: We, as a culture, need to take marriage more seriously.

But making people fidget through government divorce school won't make it happen.

(Comparing a relationship workshop to a mortician's exam is quite a simile. Kind of like the time my judge compared my annulment petition on the grounds of domestic abuse fraud to my sadistic, abusive husband telling me he preferred Marlboro Lights to Camels. He was a real sweet guy too, Ms. Floyd.)

My only response to this article is that it seems to be written by an embittered woman with a personal vendetta against laws requiring inconvenience. Nowhere in this article did I see a presentable argument to a legislative committee. Could marriage education reduce divorce costs? Yes. Either by preventing the divorce or aiding with an amicable dissolution. Could marriage education benefit the children? Yes. Either by helping parents stay together or preventing those messy divorces that scar children for life. I suggest Ms. Floyd do her research before writing such an opinion piece, and get the facts straight. She could start by calling the agency providing the TwoGether in Texas program in Dallas and serving her own local families. Anthem can be reached by phone, 214 426-0900, and you can learn more about the program by visiting their website, www.anthemnorthtexas.org.