‘Gray divorce’: How much of the growth in older people divorcing is due to the reluctance to try counseling, or skepticism that it can help?

Therapists have told me that when there is conflict, younger couples often begin therapy earlier than older ones. How much does this reluctance to begin contribute to Gray Divorce?

In 2013, a study came out entitled, The Gray Divorce Revolution: Rising Divorce among Middle-aged and Older Adults, 1990 – 2010.  Authored by Susan L. Brown and I-Fen Lin, both in the sociology department of Bowling Green State University, their research is revealing.

Here are some of the results:

  • The divorce rate among adults ages 50 and older doubled between 1990 and 2010.
  • Roughly 1 in 4 divorces in 2010 occurred to persons ages 50 and older. . . .
  • The rate of divorce was 2.5 times higher for those in remarriages versus first marriages while the divorce rate declined as marital duration rose.

The study looked at many factors and circumstances that may contribute to gray divorces. Some of them are directly related to “the unique events and experiences characterizing” the “life course stages” of middle age (50 – 65) and older adulthood (65+). During these stages, “many couples confront empty nests, retirement, or declining health, which can pose considerable challenges for marital adjustment. These turning points can prompt spouses to reassess their marriages, ultimately leading them to divorce.” (Citations omitted)

Other findings include:

  • Middle-aged adults are experiencing a higher rate of divorce than older adults.
  • Men and women 50 and over are divorcing at very similar rates (9.8 divorced men per thousand married persons; 10.3 women divorced per thousand persons).
  • “There is some racial and ethnic variation in the risk of divorce among those ages 50 and older.”
  1. Blacks (20.5 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons)
  2. Hispanics (11.3 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons)
  3. Whites (9.0 divorced persons per 1,000 married persons)
  • “The divorce rate also differs by economic resources” – including education. Those with a college degree experience a considerably smaller risk of divorce compared to those with lower levels of education.
  • The rate of divorce is highest among the unemployed.
  • Older adults who are not in the labor force (presumably because they are retired) have the lowest divorce rate.

One factor that isn’t considered by the study is the hesitation by those who are older to engage in therapy.  While a younger generation has grown up with the idea of meeting with a psychologist or social worker, for people who are older the thought may have more of a stigma.  For older adults willing to try therapy and couples counseling, how many are skeptical or so uncomfortable that they are unable to fully engage in the experience, and therefore end the process prematurely, or otherwise hold themselves back and greatly lower the chances that it will be helpful in saving their marriages?

In addition to factors that apparently contribute to gray divorce, the authors discuss the “implications for individuals, their families, and society at large.”

  • It is likely that divorce has “negative consequences, particularly for those who did not want the divorce or who are economically disadvantaged or in poor health.”
  • “Divorced older adults no longer have a spouse on whom to rely and are likely to place greater demands on their children.” These children may be asked to serve as care givers in lieu of the absent spouse. “The strain of such intense obligations may weaken intergenerational ties. . . .
  • Adult children are particularly unlikely to provide care to their divorced fathers.”
  • “Some older adults may not have children available nearby to provide care,” and so “the rise in later life divorce may place additional burdens on society at large, as divorced individuals will be forced to turn to institutional” assistance rather than look to the family for support.

The study, which the authors acknowledge has limitations, is somewhat alarming. But having this information will surely help society deal with the consequences of gray divorce, which are likely to become more apparent over the coming years.

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

When a Conflict Can’t Be Resolved – Part 2 of 2

In Part 1 of this post, I discussed issues raised by Bernard Mayer in his book, Staying with Conflict:  A Strategic Approach to Ongoing Conflict.  As mediators, we talk about ‘Conflict Resolution’ and ‘Dispute Resolution’.  Our field is often called ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’.  With so much of our focus on ‘resolution’, are we as mediators missing many of our (potential) clients’ concerns?  When we say to them that we help to resolve conflict, do some tune us out, because they know very well that not every problem can be fixed?

His answer is ‘yes’.  Many parties come to us with certain disputes that we may be able to help them resolve.  But frequently, they all also involved in ‘enduring’ or ‘long-term conflicts’ that aren’t resolvable, regardless of our skills and experience as mediators. These unresolvable disputes may, however, be manageable.

I’ll leave it to you to read Part 1 of this post as I continue now with the following question:

What does enduring or long-term conflict mean and look like for a divorcing couple; let’s say one with young children?   These parents know that they will have to deal with each other for many years to come.  Many such parents can reasonably expect frequent disagreements, tension, arguments, perhaps accompanied by pressure to give in and abusive language.

And so, if a mediator explains to such a couple that “I will work with you both so that you can reach agreement on all of the matters that you need to, so that you’ll be able to move on with your lives”, maybe that comes across to the parties as hollow.  Naïve.  Unrealistic.  Perhaps mediation sounds too good to be true, and so is seen as a waste of time and money.

In a blog post I wrote, Words Matter:  Out with ‘Custody’; In with ‘Parenting’, I discussed the importance of language when dealing with conflict.  While mediators know (or should know) this, we may be unclear in telling others about what we do, and what the potential parties can reasonably expect.  We can do better with our explanations.

Let’s see if this explanation rings truer and is more in line with the expectations of many people in conflict.  Let’s say it is for a couple ending their marriage.

  • If you’re getting divorced, I can help you to discuss the issues between you, and to reach agreements on all the matters you’ll need to, in order to be divorced under New York State law.  This doesn’t mean that all of your issues will be permanently resolved, and that you won’t have disagreements in the future, about your children, for instance.  Your kids will keep growing and changing, and you, the parents will change too.  You won’t always be on the same page.  But, part of my job is to help you consider what any agreements may mean for the future, to help you decide if they make sense for you.  And,  I’ll work with you to determine how to communicate in the future and handle questions that arise, to give you the best chance of dealing with them effectively and respectfully.

Recognizing that parties may be involved with an enduring conflict, and attending to such conflict, does not require ignoring the more immediate issues.  As Mayer writes:

  • A focus on enduring conflict does not mean that we are not interested in helping people resolve conflicts or achieve agreements on nagging issues.  We have an important contribution to make in this arena, and we ought not to sacrifice this important part of our work to our focus on enduring conflict.  But we also need to understand the role of agreements in enduring conflict.  They memorialize progress that has been achieved and create new and, we hope, more constructive platforms from with to continue the conflict t engagement process.  As we work with disputants on resolving issues in the course of an enduring conflict, we need to keep in mind–and help disputants to understand–that resolving issues does not end an enduring dispute.   (Staying with Conflict:  A Strategic Approach to Ongoing Conflict, pp. 269, 270.)

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

 

When a Conflict Can’t Be Resolved – Part 1 of 2

Mediators have long asked themselves, and one another, why more people don’t engage in mediation.  The process has so many advantages and few drawbacks, that it is difficult to understand why relatively few people are at least willing to try it.

Consider that mediation:

  • is generally a lot quicker than going to court;
  • much less expensive;
  • less adversarial, as parties are helped to listen to and understand one another, and then to work together; as opposed to the polarizing experience of litigation;
  • allows the people having the dispute to make their own decisions, rather than a judge deciding questions for them;
  • is voluntary, meaning that either party can end the process at any time; and,
  • allows for greater creativity in developing responses and solutions to conflict; because the spouses (or other parties) are experts in regard to what they want and need (as opposed to a judge who is a stranger, and one loaded down with a large docket of cases that doesn’t leave him or her time to fully consider many options).

What’s not to like?  What’s the risk?  Why oh why don’t we (mediators) have an overflow of clients? So many clients that we need to refer and turn them away in droves?  Bernard Mayer – mediator, facilitator, trainer, researcher – offers an answer to the question that I had never thoughtfully considered before reading his book, Staying with Conflict:  A Strategic Approach to Ongoing Conflict.

I have long believed that most people don’t try mediation when they are engaged in a conflict largely because:

  1. they don’t have information about what mediation is/how it works, and so “don’t realize what they are missing” (including that the results are binding, if the parties want them to be);
  2. going to court is familiar – think about the hundreds of movies, TV shows and novels involving a courtroom drama; and now see if you can name three dealing with mediation.  While people know that going to court (and perhaps to ‘divorce court’ most of all) can be a bitter and difficult experience, doing so still means dealing with ‘the devil you know’; and,
  3. family and friends are quick to suggest what may be conventional wisdom – hire the meanest, nastiest lawyer you can; feeling vulnerable, and perhaps angry, saddened, tired or confused, people follow that advice, usually not knowing what they are in for, and that there are other methods that may well work for them.

In his book, Mayer discusses another reason:

Perhaps some people don’t believe mediators when we talk about helping to ‘resolve conflicts’ (or to ‘resolve’ disputes).   Alternative dispute resolution may not be credible to people engaged in what Mayer calls ‘enduring conflict’ or ‘long-term conflict’.

Example:  If a mediator told you that s/he could help the parties resolve a crisis in the Middle East (take your pick of which one), you would probably be skeptical, to say the least.  Many of the conflicts are deeply rooted and have been going on for decades or longer.  That anyone is going to resolve (end/finish) such a conflict doesn’t seem realistic.

But what if the mediator said to you that, “I think I can work with the parties to help them manage the conflict.  I don’t have any illusions that I or any mediator can help all of the parties I work with to settle all of the issues for all time.  What I can do is assist them in discussing some of the most pressing and immediate problems; I may be able to help them reach some agreement(s) to improve the situation (such as for a cease fire or prisoner exchange during a war).  As a mediator, I can work with them on choosing ways to keep communication going, and help them to take advantage of opportunities to work together as the conflict continues.”

If the mediator is referring to a crisis in the Middle East, what s/he is proposing – helping the parties to manage the conflict – is still a very tall order.  But it has happened, as hard as that may be to believe with the chaos engulfing the region at present.

Enduring conflict does not only exist on the international level, or have to involve matters of life and death.  Such conflicts may exist between business partners,  teachers and parents working with a special needs child, communities and local governments, environmental groups and industry, two parents over child-care issues or religious upbringing; and of course, in many other situations.

Next time:  What ‘enduring conflict’ may mean for divorcing parents; and for the mediators working with them.

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

 

 

Words matter: out with “custody”, and in with “parenting”

I recently came across an article, ‘Custody’ and ‘access’ terms promote conflict, litigation. (Thanks to whoever shared it.)   The article appears on “AdvocateDaily.com:  Canada’s Legal News”, but is as valid for readers in the United States as it is for Canadians.

The subject of the article – how language affects conflict in parenting disputes – isn’t new. You may know that “custody”, the term found in many statutes dealing with arrangements for children following a separation or divorce, is the same word used in the criminal justice system (as in, “The suspect was taken into custody”).  It is also the same word that is sometimes used in regard to property.  But of course, children are not prisoners or property.

But, does language really matter?

Speaking from personal experience, I can say that one or two words can make a very big difference.  Many years ago, during my own divorce, I was absolutely infuriated when my wife’s attorney condescended to tell me that “Your daughter can visit with you.  You can have a room for her, with her own bed. . .”   I mean, how hard would it have been for that lawyer to have said instead, “Let’s talk about how the two of you as parents are going to raise your child.”  Like “custody”, “visitation” is a word associated with the criminal justice system.

The article notes that:

  • British Columbia is the first Canadian jurisdiction to change the terminology from “custody” and “access” to “parental responsibilities,” “parenting time” and “contact” in the province’s new Family Law Act.

How many of the states in the U.S. have done the same is a question I can’t answer.  (If you happen to know, please share that information).  But it is a step forward, and not an insignificant one.

One reason that the article made an impression on me is because a judge was quoted as saying:

  • “These words denote that there are winners and losers when it comes to children,” says Justice Mary Lou Benotto . . .  “They promote an adversarial approach to parenting and do little to benefit the child. The danger of this ‘winner/loser syndrome’ in child custody battles has long been recognized.”

When judges speak out, at least a few people tend to notice.  But, changes that would seem to allow for obvious improvements can be frustratingly slow; and, I’m not expecting the terms “custody”, “visitation” and “access” to be replaced nationwide anytime soon.

By the way, if you read the article, you will see that an attorney who is interviewed for it, Steven Benmor,  offers that “replacing [such] words with “parenting time” would be in the best interest of the child.”  [emphasis added].   Recently, I wrote about this subject for nyparenting.com, in a piece entitled Best Interest of the Child:  A Vague Notion.  The AdvocateDaily.com article does not define “best interest of the child”; but, it is interesting to see how this nebulous phrase – one that denotes an extremely important concept – is used.

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

Considering a custody battle? Ask yourself – and your spouse or partner – the following:

Larry Sarezky* is a Connecticut divorce attorney who has put together the following ten questions for his clients.

In my own divorce, my greatest fear was “What will our child go through if we [the parents] fight it out in court?”  Sarezky’s questions articulate many of the potential consequences, and they are serious ones.

If you are a separating or divorcing parent, they are well worth reading and thinking about.

If you are a friend or family member of such a parent, you may want to pass these questions along.

If you are a divorce attorney, you may decide to discuss them with your clients.

  1. Do you want your children to endure months of anxiety and uncertainty as to where they will be living and whether they will have the relationship they want with each of their parents and their siblings?
  2. Do you want your children subjected to interviews by attorneys, mental health professionals and court personnel during which they will be afraid and conflicted, and will feel pressured to be loyal to both their parents?
  3. Do you want your children subjected to the possibility of inquiry by these professionals about the most personal aspects of their lives including their fears and frailties?
  4. Clinical studies have shown that high conflict between parents exposes children to serious psychological harm. Do you want to risk your children developing emotional disorders as a result of your high-conflict custody battle?
  5. Do you want your inability to resolve your differences to serve as a model of parenting for your children?
  6. Do you want intimate details of your life to become a matter of public record?
  7. Do you want a stranger deciding how much you will see your children, and how you will make decisions concerning them?
  8. Do you want a substantial portion of your assets used for fees of attorneys and expert witnesses with no guarantee that you will be happy with the result?
  9. Do you want to give up attention to detail that a negotiated agreement will have but that a judge’s decision will not?
  10. Do you want to engage in costly, time-consuming and rancorous litigation that can make future cooperation between you and your co-parent extremely difficult at best, and the resumption of amicable joint parenting nearly impossible.

* Larry Sarezky is a former Chair of the Connecticut Bar Association’s Family Law Section and an award-winning screenwriter and child advocacy filmmaker.  His articles on divorce have appeared widely. You can learn more about his efforts at:  https://www.facebook.com/ChildCustodyFilm/

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

A Divorce Mediation Case (Part 2 of 4: Sessions on Parenting, Income & Expenses)

In my previous post , I introduced Bill and Angela who had decided to get a divorce.  Angela called and learned more about mediation, and shared the information with Bill.  After further discussion, they decided (Bill, a little reluctantly) to schedule a consultation, at which they got a sense of who the mediator is, and had more of their questions answered.

Here, I continue with both their first and second sessions.

November 10 – Session #1

● With the spouses permission, the mediator turns the discussion to parenting.

● Angela says that she wants ‘full custody’. Bill becomes defensive. They argue for a few minutes.  The mediator listens and considers whether the verbal exchange is constructive, and then raises a question.

● The mediator asks each to answer, “What do you mean when you say ‘custody’?

● The mediator listens and checks that s/he understands what each has said. The mediator then suggests that maybe the question isn’t “Which of you will have custody?”, but rather, “What agreements can you reach so that you can be the kind of parents you want to be to your children?”

● There is further discussion, some of it angry.  The mediator helps the spouses to fully express their concerns, and asks clarifying questions.  The mediator believes that, though Bill is having difficulty really listening to Angela directly at this point, he is able to hear her through the mediator’s restatements of what she is saying.  The focus is forward looking.  Each party acknowledges that the other has an important role to play in the children’s lives; neither wants to ‘take the children’ from the other.  With his fear of ‘losing the children’ alleviated, Bill especially becomes less tense, and the conversation is less strained.

● Bill and Angela agree to talk about parenting arrangements; at least for now, they are willing to leave the legal designations aside.

● Angela and Bill talk about the children: where they attend school, what they enjoy doing, their usual routines, and so forth.

● The mediator helps them to set out different possible parenting plans, which are discussed.

● The parents reach a tentative agreement on a schedule for the children. And, on how decisions involving medical, educational and religious matters will be handled in the future.  (The latter comes easily for them.)

● The mediator gives each spouse a blank form for setting out financial information.  Angela and Bill are both confident that they can fill in the information about their respective incomes and expenses within a week to ten days.  With that in mind they schedule the next session for two weeks later; if either needs more time to complete the income/expense parts of the form, they will let each other and the mediator know, so that the date of the next session can be rescheduled.

● The session ends after two hours, and Bill and Angela each pay $300 of the $600 fee.

 

November 23 – Session #2

● Angela and Bill arrive.  The mediator asks how they and the children are, and whether anything of note has happened since the last session.  They briefly discuss Thanksgiving plans.

● Angela asks a question about property.  The mediator gives the spouses a brief overview of Marital and Separate Property (and Debts), and makes a point of saying that this information is not “legal advice”. For instance, if either/both wants to know what a judge might decide regarding property, they are welcome to contact an attorney to get that advice. Both respond that they don’t see a need; instead, they’ll each meet with a ‘review attorney’ to review the separation agreement before signing it.

● The mediator then begins setting out Bill’s and Angela’s respective income and expenses. This is done using a flip-chart, so that all three of them can see the figures that the spouses supply.

● Bill questions why Angela is paying $400 month for clothes for her and the children. Bill isn’t angry; he just thinks the number is high. In discussing the matter, it turns out that Angela based her calculation on her September credit card statement, which has higher costs than average due to purchasing back to school clothing. Their daughter needed a lot of new thing because of how much she has grown over the past few months. Angela says that before the next session, she will look at her statements over the past year, which she can find on the computer, and take the average of that twelve month period. Bill thinks this is a good idea. The mediator makes a note to come back to this question.

● Angela asks if, since money will be tight, Bill can cut down on his recreational spending. Bill bristles at the suggestion, but looking at where his money goes, decides this is reasonable. In particular, Bill says that he can spend a lot less on sporting events and movies. Bill does a quick calculation, agreeing to reduce this spending by 10% each month, starting this month. He is confident that he will bring it down further, but feels comfortable starting at 10%.  The mediator, noticing Angela’s facial expression, asks if she wants to say something.  She answers that, “Well, I have mixed feelings.  I think Bill could do more here.”  (Bill immediately becomes upset.)   “But,”  she adds, “Bill is willing to commit to this, and says he’ll do more; and I believe he will.  (Turning to Bill)  And maybe it’s a good idea that you start with 10%; that way, you won’t feel deprived.  If you spent less now, you might hate it, and be angry with me, and we’d be worse off.  So, good.  Do the 10% for awhile.  Then, we can talk about it again in month or two.  Can we do that?”  Bill is still annoyed, but he also knows (and feels) that he is being heard by his wife.  He says, ‘Yes’.  They discuss what to do with the money that will be saved. Bill wants to use it to pay down a credit card, and Angela agrees to this.

● In regard to expense and income figures now displayed on the flipchart, the spouses agree that the numbers are pretty accurate.

● Bill raises a concern he has about the parenting agreement. He says that he has what is a minor change in mind that would allow him to spend more time with the children during the summer, if Angela would be ok with it. Bill shares his thought. Angela says that the change would be alright with her, if another small change can be made when it comes to the Thanksgiving holiday break, starting the following year. Bill tells Angela that he is willing; while he likes the Thanksgiving break and doesn’t really want to change the schedule they had agreed to, the change over the summer is a much bigger deal to him, and he thanks Angela for going along with his suggestion.

Next time:  Assets (especially the House) and Debts

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:

 

A Divorce Mediation Case (Part 1 of 4: The Decision to Try & the Consultation)

In a moment, we will meet Angela and Bill, a couple about to go through a realistic though hypothetical divorce mediation.  They will pay (combined) $3,350 for divorce mediation services. By contrast, in many actual litigated divorces, each spouse pays more than twice that amount ($7,500 or more) for the lawyer’s retainer.  $15,000 between them, and very often that is just the beginning of the court process.

But in going through mediation, many spouses are like Bill and Angela in regard to the fees they pay – incurring costs lower than $3,500 for their session.  For couples who split the cost in half, that is $1,750.  [This assumes the mediator charges $300. If the process takes eleven hours – more time than the large majority of my cases take – that is $3,300.]

Note:  When I say ‘going through’ and completing mediation, I mean that parties have reached agreement.  The agreement then needs to be written and filed with the court (both of which are also necessary for spouses who choose not to mediate).  There is still some work (and expense) once mediation is over; but when spouses have reached this point, they have gone a very long way in the overall divorce process.

Now, let’s meet Angela and Bill.  In this post, and the next three, we will follow them over the next several months, as they deal (sometimes heatedly) with their conflicts, assisted by the mediator.

Bill and Angela have been married for ten years, and have already decided to get a divorce. They have two children, ages six and nine. They own a home, some other assets and a couple of credit cards.  We could add many more facts, but using these should be enough to illustrate a fairly representative divorce mediation case in which the spouses have a few strong disagreements that they need to address.

 

                               Dates/What Bill, Angela and the Mediator Are Doing                                       

October  19th, 2015

Angela calls the mediator, who answers several of her questions.

 

 

October 20th, 2015

Angela tells Bill what she has learned about mediation. She tells him that:

● this mediator charges $300/hour;

● the mediator would work with both of them, together;

● they can split the fee (and Angela says she is willing to split it);

● there is a consultation that they would both have to attend together, which costs $50.

● in mediation, the mediator is paid at the end of each session (unlike most attorneys who require a retainer upfront).

● the two of them, Bill and Angela would be the ones making decisions about their children and everything else; the mediator wouldn’t decide for them.

● if they were to begin mediation, either Angela or Bill could end the process at any time.

October 25th,2015

Bill and Angela discuss trying mediation.

● Angela wants to try it.

● Bill is reluctant, thinking of it as a touchy-feely waste of time.  But, since the consult is $50, and he would pay $25 of that, Bill agrees to the consult. If it doesn’t work out, not a big deal.

● They look at a calendar and choose two dates/times that they both will be available.

November 3rd, 2015

Angela and Bill attend the consultation and learn more about mediation.

● They both like the idea of saving money – as opposed to what litigation costs.

● They would like the process to be amicable (as much as possible), especially as they have fairly young children – meaning that even when divorced they’ll have to interact with each other for many years.

● The mediator won’t guarantee anything, but tells them that many couples complete mediation within 6 – 12 sessions.

● Having children, and owning a home and other assets – and having some major disagreements on a few very important matters – the mediator offers that the case will probably take longer than 6 hours. “Let’s say it takes 10 hours,” the mediator suggests, noting again that it could be shorter or longer. “That would come to $3,000, plus the $50 for the consultation.”

● The mediator adds that, finishing mediation doesn’t mean couples are divorced.  There are things that come after:

  • “Whether you mediate or go to court, you’ll need a document that in New York is called a ‘separation agreement’; it is essentially all of the agreements spouses come to, written up in a format that the courts require.”
  • “A lawyer will be needed to write that agreement; if you’d like, I can do that for you. I charge $1,500 for that service. But you are free to choose another lawyer, if you would like to.”
  • The mediator informs Bill and Angela that “I always encourage people to each meet with their own ‘review attorney’ to go over the agreement before signing it.  Remember, as a mediator, I would be working to help you both.  Your separate review attorneys would each represent one of you.”  (“If you would like, you can certainly hire a lawyer to consult with at any time before or during mediation.”)
  • There is also a ‘filing fee’ that people need to pay to the court, again, whether they mediate or litigate.

● Angela and Bill read the “Agreement to Mediate” form, which largely sets out in writing how mediation works and other things the mediator discussed with them. They sign the form.

● The spouses schedule a first working session with the mediator for the following week.

● Bill and Angela pay $25 each to cover the mediator’s $50 consultation fee.

Next time: The Sessions on Parenting, Income & Expenses

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

 

Should I go to law school? (Part 1 of 3)

Over the years, many people who are/were considering law school have asked me to share my thoughts about getting a degree and practicing law.  Most recently, Melanie Malka Cohn, a woman who had read a blog post, contacted me with regard to these questions and others concerning mediation.  With her permission, I am sharing some of what we discussed, (as well as that she is 44 years old, with five children, and in line with her personal beliefs, “decided to have a family first and then pursue a career”), since it may be of interest to others as well.

I will preface this post by saying that many lawyers do wonderful things and change the world for the better through their efforts. One example that comes to mind is a professor I had while in law school, Toby Golick, a nationally recognized leader in legal services and education.  Among her other accomplishments, Professor Golick has for decades practiced and taught others to work in the areas of elder law and welfare law, serving those who would likely have no recourse without her expert assistance.

And lawyers don’t have to serve the elderly and indigent to be doing something worthwhile. Attorneys can, and do, represent all sorts or clients, responding to diverse needs in an ethical manner. Additionally, many people who leave law practice (or choose not to go into it after graduating) are still very happy to have had the education, along with the opportunities that may have come with it.

All that said, law school isn’t for everyone, and perhaps this post and the ones to follow will help you as you decide whether it is right for you.

Attending law school is, of course, a major commitment.  Generally, it takes three years to complete, and comes with large tuition fees and other costs.  The job market for attorneys is uncertain.  The nature of the practice of law is changing.  Are you contemplating a legal career?  If so, I would urge you to:

  • carefully assess your current situation (financial and otherwise);
  • examine your own feelings and attitudes realistically;
  • learn about what practicing attorneys really do; and,
  • conduct research, to the extent possible, as to what job opportunities are likely to be available upon graduating.

In other words, learn everything you can so you can make the best decisions for yourself; what is referred to in mediation as ‘informed-decision making’, a subject I’ve been blogging about.

Your current situation:

A good place to start may be to assess where you are now.  If you don’t already have a budget, it would probably be worthwhile to create one, so that you are fully aware of your incomes and expenses.  Your assets and debts may also figure into your ultimate decisions.

Look up the cost of law school tuition.  Most schools charge a pretty hefty fee.  Financial aid may be available; but it doesn’t make sense for everyone. Aid in the form of loans can lead to debt that may be difficult to repay, as the New York Times reminded us once again last week (Student Debt Is Worse Thank You Think, Oct. 7, 2015).

Ms. Cohn has a pretty good handle on these questions, and told me that she wants to find out about the City University of New York (CUNY) law school, which has a price tag that is a bargain, relatively speaking.  She’ll be attending the school’s open house to learn more.

In addition to fees, other obvious costs are for food and housing.  Would you be paying more than you do now to live at or near the school?  Would you go to restaurants more often and do less cooking – which would add to your food budget?   Check on other school-related expenses, such as for books, and less obvious ones like buying a good suit.

Where will the money come from?  How are your expenses likely to change – up or down – over the next few years?  Are you already in debt, due to undergraduate studies or for other reasons?   Could you live with your parents to save money?  Would you be willing to?  Would they?

Are you in a relationship?  Have you discussed with your partner what getting a degree involves?  Do you have children or other family members who depend on you?  The first year of law school especially takes up a lot of time; and it may well be that your partner has to pick up the slack when you’re not available.  Many parents, single and married, turn to day care, a very important service that can be pricey.

Next:  Part 2, Tomorrow:  Examining your own feelings and attitudes realistically

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.

Children of Divorce Love Differently

Reading and writing a lot about divorce has an unintended – but obvious and almost unavoidable consequence for me; I think a lot about divorce.  Sometimes more than I would like to.

Today, my own divorce comes to mind, though many years past.  I’m aware, in some painful way, of the waste that came with it, as I finally shred and throw out papers that I haven’t looked at in over a decade.

I remember an article I wrote, Easing the children’s transition from living in one home to two homes, which is especially meaningful for me because in it I shared some of what I did to minimize the hurt to my own child.

I look at two articles with almost identical titles:  14 Ways Children of Divorce Love Differently, and 16 Ways Children of Divorce Love Differently.  One was shared over 157,000 times, the other over 300,000.  I’m glad that there are so many readers for these, because the subject is important.  Hugely important.

Maybe it is just my mood, but I find that I can’t read these articles word for word.  Rather, I scan the bold type, thinking, “I don’t know if my daughter feels that,” or “Well, don’t a lot of people feel that way, whether their parents stayed married or not?”

I know that in some ways, the divorce has made my daughter stronger.  But, in the mood I’m in, this knowledge isn’t terribly consoling as I wonder – as perhaps many of you do as well about your children – how the divorce has affected this wondrous young woman, and will affect her, in ways that I may never fully understand or even realize, though I tried so hard to make the changes easier.

Why Mediation is Faster than Going to Court (Litigation)

Why Is Mediation Faster than Court?

Divorce isn’t easy, and divorce isn’t quick. But if the marriage is ending, you and your spouse can decide between a process that will take months (mediation) and one that very often takes over a year at a minimum, and which not infrequently takes several times that long (going to court/litigation).

[I am not talking here about an ‘uncontested divorce’. That is a different story and a different blog post, and an option to be considered for couples with a very ‘simple’ case and one without disagreements.]

Why Mediation is Faster

Mediation often takes between six and twelve hours to complete. That’s it.

Sessions usually run from one hour to two hours.

When dealing with parenting issues, spouses frequently meet with the mediator over consecutive weeks.

When dealing with financial matters, sessions may be scheduled for every other week (or with a longer interval) to allow the spouses to obtain information about the value of a house, business, pension, or other assets; or, let’s say, to work out a budget.

Of course, the spouses may need time between sessions because of travel for work, holidays or for other reasons. The mediator may also have a conflict.

In practice, many spouses successfully complete mediation within three – six months.

[When I say that parties have reached the end of the mediation, I mean that they have reached all of their agreements. But just as when going through the court process, the agreements need to be written out and filed with the court; then, there is the wait for the judge to sign the document.]

Why the Court Process/Litigation takes Longer

A spouse meets with an attorney; the other spouse does the same. A four-way meeting (with the couple and the lawyers) takes place. In many instances, though not all, these meetings bring out strong disagreements. Any of a number of motions (requests to the judge to make a decision) may be filed with the court. There is the first court appearance.   Over the course of a case, there will probably be at least one and maybe several adjournments (postponements), and the court appearance will need to be rescheduled.

In many cases, depositions are taken, where the spouses are questioned by opposing counsel during a multi-hour process that is recorded.

For four people to schedule a meeting can be a challenge and cause delay. Adjournments can be for six weeks or more.

And at this point, the court case is just getting started.

Most court cases require quite a few court appearances, not to mention a possible trial.

If there are children involved, a New York judge will likely appoint a forensic psychologist to meet separately with each family member. Think of the scheduling for that. After, the psychologist must write and submit a report to the judge, who will need to read and consider it. You’ll find out more about that report at the next court appearance.

Also, if there are children, an attorney for the child may be appointed to represent the child’s interests. That is another meeting (or more), and that attorney’s schedule to consider as well.

Just for some context, my own divorce many years ago took well over two years, and that was with my ex and I settling long before a trial was even in sight.

And that was at a time, I believe, when the courts were better staffed, making the process speedier than it is today.

Please Like me on facebook and follow me on Twitter

All blog posts are for information purposes, and should not be considered as legal advice.