Mandatory Couples Counseling Prior To Granting Divorces?

[Leo 9]

Liz Mandarano.
Family and Matrimonial Lawyer
Posted: January 27, 2011 12:05 PM.

Mandatory Couples Counseling Prior To Granting Divorces?

Earlier this month, Nebraska State Senator Tony Fulton (R) introduced a bill that would give judges the option to send married couples with minor children to marriage counseling before granting a divorce and require marriage counseling in divorce actions where no minor children are involved and where one spouse believes the marriage should be saved.

And in Wyoming, incoming House Speaker Ed Buchanan (R) introduced a bill requiring any couple who wanted to marry to attend three hours of premarital counseling. If couples fail to get the required counseling, they must wait a full year to get a marriage license. Additionally, the Wyoming bill requires couples seeking a divorce to attend three hours of counseling or wait a full year to file. Notably, the bill requires that couples pay for the counseling themselves.

Both politicians have stated that the purpose of the proposed bills is to lower divorce rates. According to the Census Bureau, Wyoming has the fifth highest per capita divorce rate. Nebraska is in the middle of the pack.*

Interestingly, even accounting for lower marriage rates per capita, Wyoming has lowered its divorce rate over the past decade and Nebraska's has remained statistically the same. Given this fact, why the sudden attempt by these states to mandate pre-divorce counseling?

snip

The recent flurry of proposed legislation raises many questions. First, why now? The marriage to divorce per capita rate has not increased over the past decade. Not that the current divorce rate is anything to brag about, it has significantly decreased since the 1980s and 1990s. Perhaps a better use of our legislators' time is to examine the reason(s) for this development to see what has helped to lower the rates over the past decades before trying to push through any bills.

Second, why have legislators chosen to usurp decision-making traditionally handled by state court judges? Pre-divorce counseling is often ordered by individual judges within their discretion prior to dissolving a marriage. Arguably, judges handling specific matters are better suited to determine whether a couple may benefit from therapy, irrespective of whether it is focused on trying to save a viable marriage or ease the path for a more peaceful dissolution. Likewise, family courts and staff are in a better position to advise the parties of available resources.

snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-mandarano/mandatory-couples-counsel_b_813844.html

[Newsjock]

1. For everyone who didn't think same-sex marriage bans were a big deal

They're coming for you now. And it's not like you weren't warned.

[The Straight Story]

2. Same thing folks said about other issues and no one cared

Smokers, seat belts, etc and so on...

Govt was there to defend our freedoms and rights, our choices - and each time they remove one I hear people making excuses as to why it is a good thing.

Stand up against bans - get labeled a libertarian.

Stand on principle, even when it is something you do not like or hate - sadly, so many on the left have abandoned the principals they say they are for (your body, your choice, freedom to choose where to drink/eat/work/etc).

Choice - if you fight it and work against it on some things while working against it on others, are you really for it in the first place?

[david13]

5. There is no such thing as a society with no rules, no restrictions,

no responsibilities.
And when people learn and accept their responsibility you end up with a better society.
dc

[david13]

3. In California there is mandatory counseling wtih regard to

the issue of custody and visitation with the children.
You could call it marriage counseling, but it is called parental rights and responsibilities or some such thing.
The idea is that there is a 6 month waiting period for dissolution of marriage in CA and that is to maintain the stability of a marital relationship.
Why? For the children.
The only reason for it if there are no children, which is somewhat rare, is to make certain that is what the parties want.
What with Nevada so close, it is not unusual here for people to pop into a marital relationship on a weekend whim in Vegas.
But where there are children, both parties need counseling to learn that they are parents forever, whether they get a divorce or not.
A lot of them do not understand that, and think they will get a divorce for the kids, ... from the other parent.
They also use the children as pawns in a volatile personal struggle between spouses.
The state must needs have an interest in protecting the children in this way. And CA does.
dc

[Liquorice]

10. That sounds like a good system because children can get so messed

up when their parents divorce. It's a tragedy, but I think CA is on the right track with the mandatory counseling.

[Kceres]

4. But I thought republicans were all about the government staying out of our lives?

[yellowcanine]

6. I thought Republicans were against the "nanny state." And they say we can't make someone buy

health insurance but we can make them pay for and attend marriage counseling?

[customerserviceguy]

8. Health insurance is not a covenant with God

Marriage is. Of course, that's strictly the Republicon view, not my own.

[TheMadMonk]

7. The Churches have a lot of misery to answer for.

It must be over a decade ago I heard of a Family Law court backed study on the subject of Divorce.

The conclusion reached was that the best possible long term outcome was to provide divorce facilitators, rather than marriage counsellors. In the face of a marriage counsellor, (one or both of) a couple determined to divorce can often elevate the acrimony between them to "prove" their need for divorce, a practice that often ends up including shared friendships in the unoffical part of the final settlement.

A facilitator looks at the matter from the other direction. They start with the presumption that the relationship is failed and explore how the couple can part with a degree of cordiality.

Edit to add: Of course the pollies shitcanned it toot sweet, because probably quite rightly they believed the aforementioned Churches would see them crucified them at the polls.

[Leo 9]

9. Grounds for annulment?

News of the Weird

Grounds for annulment?

A Roman Catholic church tribunal in Modena, Italy, ruled in November that a marriage should be annulled on the grounds of the wife's adultery even though she apparently only "thought about" having an affair.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/115307879.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUHPYDiaK7DUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU0c7Ok:Pia_eyckciUr