Think Before Divorce

Here are some recent statistics from a seminar which I attended that paint a disturbing picture of the divorce process and should give any lawyer pause before filing their next divorce case:

Children of Divorce are:

-twice as likely to drop out of school as those from intact homes

-three time as apt to have a baby out of wedlock

-five times more likely to be in poverty

-twelve times more likely to be incarcerated

(McManus: Ethics & Religion Sept. 12, 204 Column #1,203)

I understand that there is a distinct difference between causation and correlation, but the societal costs of divorce are tremendous. Ironically, I happened to be reading an article in the most recent edition of the Family Law Quarterly which supports the same premise. Another Inconvenient Truth by Patrick Parkinson reiterates the same point on a global scale. I’m not saying that we should stop being family lawyers, I’m just saying that we need to be aware of our client’s issues. They may have a lot more going on at home than just their divorce action. As a real world example, all one needs to do is volunteer at Attorney-for-the-Day in Probate Court. These statistics are a sobering reminder of the struggles that our potential clients may face. I just recently came across a website to help with post-divorce issues which I recommend to anyone dealing with post-divorce issues so that we can put a dent in some of these sobering statistics: http://www.freshstartafterdivorce.com/blog/.

What a 209A Means for the Kids

209A Abuse Prevention orders are valuable tools to protect families from domestic violence. A judge can issue a 209A that requires an abuser to stay away from his or her partner, or extend the order to include any children in the household. Because of the power of a 209A (they often are in effect for a full year), a judge must carefully weigh the facts of the case when deciding the provisions of the order. 

The 1995 case Jodi Smith v. Robert Joyce out of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that while the plaintiff, Ms. Smith, had demonstrated that she was "in fear of imminent serious physical harm”, thus meeting the statutory requirement for a 209A protective order, there was no evidence of abuse or harm between the defendant, Mr. Joyce, and his sons. Originally, the 209A in this case only allowed Mr. Joyce bi-weekly phone calls with his children. However on appeal, the judge ruled that, “If there is to be a G.L. c. 209A order that a defendant stay away from and have no contact with his or her minor children, there must be independent support for the order.” Because the only evidence of abuse was between the plaintiff and the defendant, the court struck the provision from the 209A order that directed him to stay away from his sons.