Beverly Willett 2014-12-28T21:03:55-05:00 Beverly Willett Copyright 2008,, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Beverly Willett Good old fashioned elbow grease. Move Over, First Families: 'Blended' Families Are the New Game in Town,2014:/theblog//3.5804574 2014-09-17T09:52:09-04:00 2014-11-17T05:59:01-05:00 Beverly Willett A few days ago, Honey Maid, the maker of a wide variety of well-known graham cracker products including the honey-flavored Teddy Grahams I once served my own children, unleashed the second installment in its "This is Wholesome" campaign.[1] The campaign, which is accompanied by two videos, celebrates stepfamilies and has been scheduled to coincide with National Stepfamily Day on September 16. Not only do these ads appear discriminatory toward still-married spouses and their intact families, they recklessly disregard the devastating consequences of divorce on millions of children.

The first video, a two-minute already-debuted documentary-style spot, is accompanied by the hashtag "NotBroken." The second spot, a 30-second clip, aired nationally on Monday, September 15.

The longer ad depicts a young boy and two stepfamilies that talk on-screen as soothing music plays in the background. The young boy mentions the difficulties of explaining his "blended" family to others when he perceives no meaningful differences between his new extended family and other families. As an example, he points to the differing hair colors of his two dads. And the boy's stepmother says she'll never forget the first time her stepson called her "mom." She notes, too, that she saves the "fun" things for her weekends with him. But "primary" and "custodial" parents know that trick, the one where the non-custodial parents and stepparents get to do the "fun" stuff, and the primary or custodial parents get to be the disciplinarians and take care of the day-to-day drudgery.

"I have two moms, and I've got two dads," the boy explains, the undeniable implication that it's certainly not the children of divorce who can't understand or cope with the difficulties of divorce. And, of course, that there are no differences between his "mom" and his "stepmom" or his "dad" and his "stepdad."

Honey Maid's spin goes well beyond any attempt to encourage tolerance toward stepfamilies though, by seeking to normalize divorce and sell the fallacy -- and fantasy -- that the serious consequences that follow divorce are nonexistent. [2] In my view, it also attempts to sell the proposition that stepfamilies may in fact even be the preferred family model. Indeed, when I first saw the ad, I instantly pictured some child in America running to his still-married mom or dad after seeing the commercial, kicking the dirt in front of him, as he screamed: "Why don't I have two moms? And why can't I have two dads!"

My ex-husband and I vehemently disagreed on many things during our divorce. But when we negotiated the parenting agreement that became part of our divorce judgment, we agreed to inclusion of a provision that our children would call him and him only "dad" and me and me only "mom," if either of us remarried. (My ex did remarry, although I have not.) Ads like Honey Maid's, however, place moms like me and dads like my ex potentially on the defensive, maybe even to be labeled bigots. But why should I ever need to defend myself for wanting to make sure that my children know that their dad is "Dad" and their mom is "Mom." Indeed, Honey Maid's commercial and ad campaign encourage adoption of the idea that the words "mom" and "dad" perhaps shouldn't have much, if any, meaning in our culture. Because, after all, aren't they just so passe'?

"[Divorce] is what it is," one on-screen dad proclaims further along in the video. But the video contains no disclaimers or other warnings about the harmful consequences of divorce, including that divorce and remarriage may be hazardous to your health and to your children.

For example, approximately 65-66% of second marriages fail along with 73-74% of third ones. One in 10 children under 18 are part of a stepfamily, and one-third of all marriages today are stepfamily weddings. The research is clear that being part of a stepfamily can be hazardous to your health for both adults and children. Why Marriage Matters: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences, by Brad Wilcox (and colleagues) concludes that "[f]amily instability is generally bad for children" and that "[t]he intact, married, biological family remains the gold standard for family life in the United States insofar as children are mostly likely to this family form." Moreover, research debunks the myth of the so-called "good divorce," including the results of a just reported study.

And despite the video's happy talk about making sure kids are not pulled apart, they inevitably are. And the research proves it.

In the closing segment of Honey Maid's video, one "mom" muses about divorce and "blended" families. "It's who we are," she says, "as perfect as we are supposed to be." Frail humans after all, I suppose, not meant for the hard work of rising above and beyond our difficulties, limitations and selfish desires, to honor our commitments or to spare our children suffering if we can.

The health and welfare of our nation's existing stepfamilies is certainly important. After all, they begin with so many strikes already against them, and the overwhelming likelihood that they will fail. I recognize, too, that many people, like me, tried to save their marriages and that many were also divorced against their will. Some of these individuals found love again and became members of stepfamilies. And my sincere desire is for these unions to succeed. But millions of spouses over the last four decades have not placed family "first" as the commercial claims. The proof is in our system of no-fault divorce and the millions of spouses who are divorced against their will and without cause.

Honey Maid should not be giving short shrift to marriage and encouraging the formation of more stepfamilies. And its campaign -- which denigrates "first" moms and dads and paints remarriage in a false light -- is thoughtless, discriminatory and, in my view, in reckless disregard of the welfare of millions of adults and children.



[1] Controversy has surrounded Honey Maid's first installment, which featured dads and families from different backgrounds, including gay dads and interracial couples. This essay focuses purely on the second installment and issues surrounding stepfamilies. I do note, however, that perhaps unlike its first commercial, in my view Honey Maid's second installment not only seems exclusionary, but to actually promote the stepfamily model.

[2] I use the term "stepfamilies" rather than "blended" families since Honey Maid's intentions seem suspect, and I am concerned about attempts to curb free speech especially in the absence of harm, bigotry or discrimination. Moreover, it seems to me that Honey Maid might not be all that dismayed if the terms "mom" and "dad" became extinct either.

What Kids Want for New Year's,2014:/theblog//3.4532831 2014-01-07T14:33:55-05:00 2014-03-09T05:59:01-04:00 Beverly Willett
It's not complicated, folks. Unless family life is literally a living hell (a minority of marriages), kids simply don't wish to be part of a broken family. And they don't want to travel back and forth between homes. Or negotiate for attention with stepmoms and stepdads, stepbrothers and stepsisters, boyfriends and girlfriends. Somehow I don't think that's what the little girl in AT&T's "more is better" commercial had in mind either.

Every year, however, approximately 1 million kids get what they don't wish for. Each year more couples file for divorce in January than in any other month, too, playing Santa on Christmas and pulling the plug on New Year's. It was hard enough when my ex left right before Christmas. Do other parents really think they're sparing their children by waiting until after the holidays? Giving children one last moment of innocence and the next showing them the limits of just how far Santa is willing to go when it comes to Santa's happiness versus theirs? If there's a teachable moment in bombarding kids with a banquet of new electronics, sports paraphernalia, dolls and gadgets in one moment and rendering the family obsolete in the next, I'm missing it.

It's mind-boggling to me, too, when proponents of shared parenting say that equal visitation time is fair because it gives children a voice, thereby serving their best interests. Let's not delude ourselves. Forcing divorce down our children's throats, splitting them in two and doling out their parts equally between mom and dad has nothing to do with what kids really want. I don't doubt some shared parenting advocates (and parents) have their hearts in the right place. It's true there's rampant injustice in our family courts. Undoubtedly some parents get the shaft when it comes to spending time with their children post-divorce. But it's the children of divorce who are the primary and most consistently ignored group of victims in America.

And if divorce professionals and parents truly wanted to honor the best interests of children, those wishes could drive down the number of family courts, matrimonial attorneys and divorces. More people and more resources would support efforts to help spouses solve their marital discord and hold their families together. Communities would unite to help shore up families. And state legislators across the nation would begin counteracting the tremendous damage of no-fault divorce by enacting divorce reform legislation.

A few weeks ago I conducted a small non-scientific Internet survey of articles and blogs on the topic of what children want most. The most prevalent answers boiled down to this: Children want to be loved and valued, to know that they're special, and to spend time with their parents. There's no better way to accomplish that than for parents to make every effort to repair their marriages and keep their families together. Research shows that marriage is far and away the gold standard when it comes to the welfare of children on every significant level of well-being. Children of divorce, on the other hand, face a host of difficulties, including dying on average five years earlier than their peers from intact families. And no amount of shared parenting, mediated divorces or improvement in co-parenting skills can ever compensate for those losses.

So here's my advice to parents in 2014, whether you're separated or still together but contemplating divorce. Don't listen to your lawyers or your therapists (unless they're of the pro-marriage variety). Don't listen to friends who tell you to split either. Listen to your kids instead.

That doesn't mean putting them on the spot, of course, merely so they can validate what you want to hear. Kids want you to be happy, and that means they're also eager to please. But put yourself in their place and listen to their hearts; that will tell you all you need to know.

And if you still have doubts about trying to save your marriage get your hands on every book and article you can about the effects of divorce on children. Find a marriage-friendly therapist and turn that next stone. Rent a copy of The Parent Trap and watch it with your kids. It's no mystery why that movie was so popular.

But my situation is different, you say. No, it's not. Not unless you're among the minority of marriages with high conflict or physical abuse. You're just like everybody else -- you want to be happy, your spouse wants to be happy, and your children want to be happy. And the best way to make that happen is to save your marriage and your family from divorce if you can.

It's true that saving your marriage may depend on getting your own spouse on-board, too, especially if you want in and he or she wants out.

Still, it all begins with your wish.]]>
First Monday in October,2013:/theblog//3.4017377 2013-09-30T18:07:42-04:00 2013-11-30T05:12:02-05:00 Beverly Willett
In the Defense of Marriage Act case, the high court struck down a portion of the law that forbade the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages for purposes of federal benefits in states where such unions were legal. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court rejected the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, the practical effect of which was to leave in place the California District Court's finding that Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that prohibited same-sex marriage, violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Both opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage hailed the Supreme Court's companion decisions as partial victories. My first reaction? Companion failures, an opinion borne out by the continuing rash of nationwide litigation.

Today, marriage has never been in greater peril. And the Supreme Court's decision to punt has lingering implications that will only make things worse for all Americans for years to come.


And it ensured that the same-sex marriage debate will continue to preoccupy the national stage - and our courts -- for years. Time, money and attention will remain diverted from addressing the overriding and more important issue -- making marriage work in America.


In the meantime, Justice Kennedy's slapping of all opponents of same-sex marriage with the brush of bigotry will only further fan the flames. How unfortunate.

Some defenders claim the Supreme Court's decision not to decide will buy time for continued evolution of public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage. Nonsense. That's not the province of the judiciary. Punting is expected in football and politics. Supreme Court justices, on the other hand, are tasked with making the brave - and often difficult - decisions, of leading, not following. Fear of looking bad is simply repugnant to the purpose of lifetime appointment and unworthy of the high office. The need for justices to remain free of partisan politics and popular whim is inherent in our system of checks and balances. Otherwise, it's a bit like saying that, at the time, the Court made the right call in Plessy v. Ferguson (the landmark "separate but equal" decision upholding racial segregation in public facilities) because Americans just weren't ready yet for desegregation.

Whether America is ready for same-sex marriage or not is not the issue. It's the Court's obligation to give us guidance on what the law is whether we like it or not. And circumstances need not reach a boiling point before it's obligated to do so. Instead of punting in 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren recognized that, even then, many in the nation would have difficulty accepting Brown v. Board of Education, the Court's repudiation of Plessy. Consensus building called for a plan of careful implementation, not avoidance. So he, then the Court, then the nation, got to work doing just that.



Granted, adherence to procedural formalities is crucial to maintenance of the Court's integrity. But as Justice Kennedy pointed out in his Hollingsworth v. Perry dissent, the Court's reliance on Article III of the Constitution to deny petitioners standing left them without any remedy to secure appellate review. Ironically, Article III also provides that the Court's power extends to all cases in both law "and equity." And the most basic canon of equity? That wrongs must have remedies. The remedy in Perry was simply for the Court to hear the constitutional debate and decide it.

Sadly, there would seem to be no middle ground in the same-sex marriage debate. And maybe there truly isn't. By leaving the ultimate question of constitutionality mired in uncertainty, however, the Supreme Court may have only hardened these lines of contention, making it harder for those who take the high road - on both sides of the contest - to be heard.

But Americans need not accept the bait. The Supreme Court's negligence of its duties does not absolve us of ours. With or without the Supreme Court's blessing, Americans on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate - even while they deliberate -- can begin the process of healing now by taking the same high road of tolerance parents demand of their children.

Is Forever Feasible?,2013:/theblog//3.3790939 2013-08-27T17:34:04-04:00 2013-10-27T05:12:01-04:00 Beverly Willett marriage is in deep trouble in the U.S., Brigham Young University Professor Alan J. Hawkins says that marriage is not dead. In fact, Hawkins believes that even "forever" is feasible through implementation of a series of affordable, state-run educational initiatives. That's the premise of his latest book, The Forever Initiative: A Feasible Public Policy Agenda to Help Couples Form and Sustain Healthy Marriages and Relationships, along with a step-by-step plan for getting there.

A professor of family life, for decades Hawkins has been researching and writing about marriage education, the importance of fathers, and government initiatives to sustain healthy marriages as well as a guidebook for couples on the brink of divorce.

I've been following Alan's work for a few years now and interviewed him recently to find out why he's so optimistic about the future of marriage and his vision for reversing family instability in America.

Why did you write this book?
More than half of first births in our country are to unmarried couples who will struggle to hold their family together. That -- and divorce -- make family instability the most important social problem of our time. That's saying something given the wide range of social problems that exist --intergenerational poverty, diminishing educational performance and opportunities, drug and alcohol addiction, to name a few. Sure, less poverty and better education and recovery services for addicts will make more fertile ground for healthy romantic relationships and more stable marriages. But it's equally true that family instability contributes significantly to poorer outcomes for children of these unstable unions, not to mention the adults themselves. I think there are some feasible things we can do to decrease family instability. That's why I wrote this book.

Marriage is dying off, or at least that's what some people are saying, haven't you heard? And you're going to facilitate "forever?"
If it's dead, explain why nearly all American youth and young adults still aspire to a healthy, life-long marriage, why 80-90 percent of all adults still marry at some time, and about two-thirds of adults age 35-44 are currently married. The research shows how beneficial good marriages are to adults, children, and communities. But the work of achieving that life goal has perhaps never been harder, especially for less advantaged Americans.

So what's your grand plan for fixing marriage and relationships?
Well, I'm not sure how "grand" my plan is; it's pretty basic. Scholars and therapists know a lot about how to form and sustain healthy relationships, but we need to get that knowledge out of academia's ivory towers and clinician's wood-paneled offices to the public, especially to less educated young people who are at much greater risk for churning, unhealthy romantic relationships.

Over the past decade lawmakers and policy makers have begun to experiment with ways to do this. In my book, I document how state and federal governments have invested nearly $800 million over the past decade in supporting educational programs, targeted especially to less educated and lower income individuals, to explore whether these programs can help them form more stable families.

Can you be more specific about your proposal?
I'm proposing public support for a series of voluntary educational programs to help couples form and sustain healthy relationships and enduring marriages. This isn't therapy, one-on-one work with a trained counselor working on specific, big problems. This is education -- how to have a healthy relationship, communication and problem-solving skills, things like that. It's trying to build a better fence at the top of the cliff rather than funding more ambulances at the bottom of the cliff.

But we need to start early, in the adolescent and young adult years, with relationship literacy education to help young people understand better their desired destination and the relationship rules of the road to help them achieve their family aspirations. Many young people today begin to run off the road when they get the crucial success sequence wrong (get an education, then get married, then have children). Children whose parents have not followed this life course sequence are, on average, at much greater risk for poverty and poorer outcomes. But most of these young, unmarried parents still yearn to make things work for the sake of their children. So I think we also need to provide them with what I call relationship development education to help them assess their relationship, strengthen their commitment, and improve the quality of the relationship so that more can achieve their dreams of a loving, stable family.

Then, when couples make that commitment to marriage, we need to provide them effective marriage preparation education to help them build a stronger foundation for marriage with, for instance, better communication and problem-solving skills. And in the process we will also help a few couples come to realize that they are making a poor decision and prevent a future divorce.

Multiple doses of well-designed marriage and relationship education at critical points along the early life course will get more young people to their desired destination of a happy and stable marriage and improve the odds for their children.

What's the track record like for the programs that exist so far?
The research is mixed. Lower income individuals are coming to these programs in significant numbers and they say they benefit from them. Some research has found these programs help to increase family stability and some have found that they don't seem to make a difference over the long run. The pessimists see the stresses and strains that lower income couples face and doubt that a little relationship education can overcome these challenges. The optimists -- myself included -- see encouraging signs in the early research -- better communication and problem-solving skills, stronger commitment to working on the relationship, and greater family stability. Optimists like me think over the next few years we will see significant improvements in these first-generation programs and expect that future rigorous research will show even stronger and more consistent results. In the same way that we have built safer and more efficient cars over the past generation, I think we will build better educational programs to help couples form and sustain healthy marriages.

Isn't this going to cost a fortune?
No. We can support these educational opportunities with current resources. And they can be delivered through existing educational infrastructures in our communities already working at reaching young and needy populations. The major purposes behind our welfare program -- Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF -- already include strengthening marriages and increasing the number of children growing up in stable, two-parent families.

I am advocating for states to set aside just 1 percent of their TANF funds that already come from the federal government and invest those funds in an integrated series of preventative educational services. Only a couple of states have been doing something like this (OK, UT), so we need to find ways to encourage more states to get on board. If we can't set aside 1 percent of TANF funds to try to prevent the relationship churning that is a major contributor to poverty in our society, then how serious are we about helping needy families? I am also calling for states to set aside $10-20 of each marriage license fee to fund these initiatives. A lean staff of dedicated civil servants and a passionate advisory board of expert volunteers can provide strategic direction for this state-by-state public policy agenda.

I can already hear the chorus of critics telling the government to get out of their bedrooms.
I devote a whole chapter of my book to those concerns. And you're right. Some people do see this kind of government support as intrusive in our personal lives. But family instability is already incredibly costly to taxpayers. Plus when families are unstable, it necessarily inserts government deeply into our personal lives. These programs can actually prevent government intrusion.

Others critics argue that less educated and lower income couples don't need relationship education to form and sustain good marriages; they need a good economy and good jobs, better education and healthcare, more access to services to deal with addictions, etc. I agree that policy efforts to improve the social ecology of romantic relationships will make it easier for couples to form and sustain healthy marriages. But it's not like the nickels and dimes being used to support these educational programs are detracting significantly from the massive amounts of funds being invested in policy efforts to improve the opportunities for disadvantaged Americans. According to my research, we've been spending, on average, about $60 million a year over the last decade, maybe closer to $75 million a year over the last few years. In comparison, in 2006 we spent $1.3 billion on Medicaid family planning services. We spend billions each year on Head Start, employment assistance programs, and so forth. The kind of money being spent on educational programs to help couples form stable, healthy families is a fraction of 1 percent of all the funds we spend to try to alleviate poverty. Why would we ignore a known, significant cause of poverty -- relationship instability -- if there's something we can do about it? Let's look at the empirical evidence that is emerging. By the way, it is pretty unusual to launch a new policy initiative and also start to evaluate it right away. We're doing that in this case, and that is something I appreciate a lot.

Don't some scholars think we're going overboard with this marriage is disappearing hysteria and that we'll eventually see a flourishing of many functional family forms?
Yes. But I guess I'm less patient. When do we get to see the functional? Children exposed to the kinds of family instability that we have seen over the last 40 years in our society are not flourishing. They are at greater risk for experiencing a whole range of problems. I struggle with the idea that these problems will just go away in a generation or two if we're patient. Most of the diverse family forms that we are seeing look much poorer in terms of relationship quality and they are much less stable. These affect children negatively. I think "marital cooling" is as real a problem as global warming.

Any last thoughts?
Forever is still the dream of virtually all Americans regardless of their social and economic circumstances. But getting and staying on the road to forever is probably more challenging than it has ever been. Successful navigation of that road provides tremendous personal benefits for children and adults and strengthens the communities they live in. I think I have a feasible agenda that we can implement right now that will help many more achieve their dream, for their sake, but especially for their children.]]>
Is the Way We Divorce in America About to Change?,2013:/theblog//3.3112085 2013-04-29T14:30:04-04:00 2013-06-29T05:12:01-04:00 Beverly Willett we launched the Coalition for Divorce Reform (CDR), a non-partisan coalition of divorce reform leaders, marriage educators, domestic violence experts, scholars and concerned citizens. Our goal? To increase awareness of the negative impacts of divorce, encourage debate about solutions, and most important, to support passage of divorce reform legislation.










How To Choose Your Next Husband,2013:/theblog//3.2593677 2013-02-15T02:57:34-05:00 2013-04-16T05:12:01-04:00 Beverly Willett Suzanne Venker's new book How to Choose a Husband And Make Peace With Marriage. As John Gottman has pointed out, Americans have a divorce epidemic on our hands. Grey divorce is on the rise and divorce rates for second and third marriages are high as well. We're obviously doing something wrong when it comes to our relationships.

In my opinion, unless there's abuse, turning in your current spouse is not the answer. I'm a firm believer in trying to work things out the first time around, especially if you have children. But if you're already divorced like me (not by choice, in my case), what should you know in order to enhance your odds of success before you remarry?

Venker has been studying women and families for over a decade. She's been around the block herself, too. Her first marriage -- with no children -- failed, but she's been happily remarried now for about 15 years with two children.

In a recent post that went viral, Venker writes about why women aren't having success in marriage. According to Venker, men feel that their female counterparts just "aren't women" anymore. I talked to Suzanne over phone and e-mail to find out more about what that means and what Suzanne thinks women -- in particular divorced women of a certain age -- should do about it.

Q. What's key to choosing wisely the next time around?

A. The majority of second marriages that end in divorce do so because of issues regarding stepchildren. Getting divorced and marrying someone else isn't the easy answer it appears to be.

I also think what keeps many women from making the right choice the second time is the inability to look in the mirror to see what they did wrong or could have done better. I've read the divorce literature, almost always written by women, and noticed a common theme: blame. The same thing happens in the press whenever there's a Hollywood divorce, too, with the heroine wife hailed as finally free of the loser husband. Blaming one's ex may feel good, at least temporarily, but it's ultimately counterproductive if the goal is to be successful the second time around.

Q. That's a sweeping statement. What about victims of infidelity or domestic violence, or women whose husbands were addicts or walked out for no good reason?

A. While most of the divorce literature is blame-oriented, that's not to say there aren't women who get divorced with good reason. But we have to look, unflinchingly, at what's going on with modern women. To suggest all or even most of the women who initiate divorce (about two-thirds) were married to "bad guys" and had no choice but to get out is to bury our head in the sand.

Women have been taught to view men and marriage in a negative light and often end up creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you enter a marriage thinking it's going to ruin your identity or whatever, that's a very negative attitude you're taking with you. Chances are, you'll get what you expect to get: not much.

Q. Why do you think baby boomer women initiate so many divorces?

A. Largely because they can. Since women are living longer than ever and their children are no longer at home, women view this phase of life as a new beginning. Of course, if two people have been miserable for decades and stayed together all those years for the sake of the kids, that's one thing. But if they're just bored or want to see what else is "out there," that's something else.

I have an entire chapter in my new book called "The Green Grass Syndrome." I think it's human nature to wonder if there's something better "out there" than what we have. But the truth is, you'll never get everything you want all wrapped up in one man.

There's no reason married people can't be free to live as they wish once their children are gone with one exception: sex. So if sex is the reason baby boomer wives are leaving their marriages, they're going to be disappointed. They'll most certainly find sex with a new person exciting, but in time that will fade and they may very well be left with less of a relationship than they had to begin with.

Q. What do you mean by "free to live as they wish?"

A. I'm just saying it's children, not husbands, that curtail a woman's freedom because of their enormous needs. Parents can't come and go as they please, but married people whose children are gone can live according to their own needs and desires. That's liberation!

Q. Let's go back to sex. How do grey divorcees, or any divorcees for that matter, handle sex and dating the second time around?

A. In my book, I drive home the point that young women have been sold a bill of goods. Being so aggressive and available to men -- as though the sexes are "equal" or "friends" -- is not going to get women the love they want. Men like to chase, or "catch," women. If women raise their standards en masse by demanding traditional dating and postponing sexual intercourse until the relationship is established, men would have no choice but to rise to the occasion. I do think the "rules" should be somewhat different for, shall we say, more seasoned men and women. But the same general idea still applies.

I was talking with a group of women a few weeks ago, and I asked them to imagine eating chicken every night for seven days and then being offered a filet mignon. Yum! When men come across a filet mignon -- a woman they'd like to spend time with and get to know, as opposed to just have sex with -- they know it instantly. The problem today is that there are too many chickens and not enough filet mignons!

Q. Your book advises women to leave their office persona at the office once they come home. Is being strong and outspoken a problem for women and are we supposed to just put our core beliefs to the side?

A. I would never suggest anyone, male or female, put his or her core beliefs to the side. I'm referring to attitude, tone and style. If you're used to being in charge at work, that doesn't mean your husband wants to be bossed around at home. You have to switch from work mode to married mode.

I don't believe men are put off by strong, outspoken women. I wouldn't have found two men willing to marry me if that were the case! But most men are turned off by women who use their power and strength to undermine their guy's masculinity. As clinical psychiatrist Paul Dobransky, M.D., wrote in Psychology Today (in response to my war on men piece at, "Men know women are powerful, and we don't mind that one bit. It empowers us that you are empowered. Unless, that is, when you disempower us in order to feel empowered."

Q. So what would I look for in my next husband?

A. Someone who values marriage as much as you do, for one. And whose interests are very similar to yours since you're entering a phase of life where marriage is not going to revolve around children. Without the stress of children, a marriage becomes more about the partnership itself, as opposed to being a partnership with parenting thrown into the mix. That's an huge stressor.

Q. I have two daughters, approximately college-aged. Would your advice to them be different than your advice to me?

A. My book definitely speaks to your daughters' generation more than yours. They are facing issues you and I didn't, particularly with respect to dating. Dating is defunct. That wasn't the case for you and me.

In a broader sense, however, the issues are similar. It was the "grey divorce" generation that taught their daughters to "never depend on a man" and "find yourself first" before getting married. These are modern concepts that became extremely chic. But that doesn't mean they're true. Baby boomers, as a whole, did not provide good role modeling for marriage. Many members of Generations X and Y were also raised in broken homes and thus have no idea what a good marriage looks like.

I happen to think divorced people make great mentors for what works and doesn't work in a marriage if they were self-reflective about their own divorce.

Q. Any last words?

A. I think women need to understand that, more often than not, the power is in their hands. All women, but especially the modern generation, have been groomed for power and independence, not for how to be a wife or how to be married. Thus, woman lack the tools they need to get the marriage they want. I believe my book can help them.

But a word of caution: How to Choose a Husband is not your personal overnight guide to getting a ring, nor will it help you find the perfect husband or marriage. I have neither. No one does. It merely offers a whole new way to approach men, marriage and frankly, life.]]>
The Number One Problem Facing America,2012:/theblog//3.2117961 2012-11-13T20:35:55-05:00 2013-01-13T05:12:01-05:00 Beverly Willett
While the countdown to the fiscal cliff has begun, this past year our country also reached what could be an equally cataclysmic juncture: the marriage rate barely crossing the 50 percent mark. Meanwhile, the percentage of cohabitating couples increased, and divorce rates remained high.

Yet, it is undisputed that marriage builds economic wealth and promotes physical and emotional well-being. And that marriage helps safeguard children from the ravages of poverty, drug abuse, physical abuse, teen pregnancy, smoking, reduced educational attainments, depression and early death.

Our nation was built on the premise of unity while fully embracing our differences. Our finest moments in American history reflect our collaboration; our worst reveal our separation. So, too, it is with our relationships. Divorce reform is truly a no-brainer; it's also possible.

A year and a half ago, I partnered with Chris Gersten to form the Coalition for Divorce Reform (CDR), a "non-partisan coalition of divorce reform leaders, marriage educators, domestic violence experts, scholars and concerned citizens dedicated to efforts to reduce unnecessary divorce and promote healthy marriages." I'm a Democrat; Chris was the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families during the Bush administration. Nevertheless, Chris and I are firm in our foundation.

And our supporters, including our Board of Advisors, span the spectrum from left to right. We do not let what separates us in other arenas divide us in our common mission.

We care deeply about the future well-being of our nation's families. We know for certain that divorce does not serve that end, and that the price paid for millions of divorces over the last 40 years has proven devastating, especially for our children. We believe that a majority of the marriages that end in divorce can be saved. And we are committed to building public awareness about the negative impact of divorce and advocating for legislative reform. It's that simple.

One of our nation's most respected leaders had this to say about America's divorce crisis:

"Divorce has become too easy because of our permissive laws and attitudes."

"Recent studies demonstrate convincingly that while many adults claim to have benefitted from divorce and single parenthood, most children have not."

"Children without fathers, or whose parents float in and out of their lives after divorce, are the most precarious little boats in the most turbulent seas."

"With divorce as easy as it is, and its consequences so hard, people with children need to ask themselves whether they have given marriage their best shot and what more they can do to make it work before they call it quits."

The source of these powerful statements? If you guessed a conservative, Republican and possibly Evangelical man, you'd be wrong on all counts. The leader is Hillary Clinton. She also said: "I think getting a divorce should be much harder when children are involved."

It is a widely held misperception that such views are only the bailiwick of Republicans and conservatives.

Indeed, when no-fault divorce came before the New York legislature for a vote several years ago, the Catholic Church had an unlikely bedfellow: the New York chapter of National Organization for Women (NOW). According to NOW New York, the New York Senate had thrown "women and children under the bus." The CDR believes that no-fault has thrown our nation's fathers under the bus, too, and is therefore sponsoring modest divorce reform legislation: the Parental Divorce Reduction Act.

For over a decade, I've been attending an Episcopal church near my home. It's unlike any house of worship I've ever attended -- black, white, Hispanic, gay and straight, wealthy and poor. We come only to worship. And during the peace, we shake hands. Then we break bread. We can do the same with divorce reform.]]>
We Are Seven,2012:/theblog//3.1904350 2012-10-04T01:30:12-04:00 2012-12-03T05:12:02-05:00 Beverly Willett We Are Seven" is one of his best. It recounts a conversation between a gentleman and a delightfully "innocent" eight-year-old "little girl."

Ten years, ago, when my husband left, my daughter Ella was seven; a few months later she turned eight. She's the baby of the family and, to her occasional dismay, I suppose some part of me will always think of her that way. Sometimes I forget how she looked at say 9 or 10, without getting out the family photo albums. Seven I remember.

The other day I did a Google image search of "seven-year-old." Have a look at their faces.

At seven, most children are transitioning to second grade. In general, they're curious, ask lots of questions and choose to take on more responsibility and become more self-sufficient. They even understand sarcasm! In school, they're learning how to measure, beginning to memorize their times tables and developing a broader understanding of the world beyond their own. Their vocabularies consist of several thousand words; fluency with reading, writing and storytelling is really taking off. And they're forging friendships.

But these little ones are also prone to worry and self-criticism. They care how others look at them and their self-esteem can be fragile.

With all these developmental changes, it's no wonder pediatrician guidelines recommend 10-11 hours of sleep per night.

I have dozens of boxes loaded with school work and other mementoes for both my daughters, labeled year by year. Ella's second grade box is filled with stories. Poems about sharks and sea monkeys and rock stars. Haikus, shape poems and comic strips. Family tales involving mom, dad and sister about baking bread without yeast and lobster ice cream.

And then our family was blown apart by divorce. And Ella joined the ranks of the one million other children who are victims of divorce in the U.S. every year, thereby required to divert their time and energy "adjusting" to the break-up of a family they never asked for. Time and attention they would otherwise spend playing, sleeping, doing homework and just being a kid, instead gets taken up with traveling back and forth between two homes, packing and unpacking, laying their heads down at night on a new pillow and learning -- and keeping track of -- the new rules in another home. Many children must also "welcome" others into their lives -- stepmoms, stepdads, step-siblings, and boyfriends and girlfriends who now sleep in mommy's and daddy's beds.

A few years ago, researchers of The Longevity Project from the University of California concluded that divorce was harder on children than death. Imagine that -- experts believe it's generally easier for a seven-year-old, or any kid, to "adjust" to the death of a parent than to the death of their family by divorce. (Not "easy," of course, but "easier.")

My own father died more than 20 years ago, and at times, the heartbreak still feels like yesterday. Sure, my father could have stopped smoking and taken better care of himself. Still, I don't consider that choosing to walk out on me. I'm a grown woman and adjusting to a divorce I didn't ask for took its toll even on me.

If you have a seven-year-old of your own -- or a child of any age -- I imagine you've often watched them sleep. Try also imagining this. Envision yourself in your child's place if you decide to walk out the front door. And then carry that memory around with you for awhile. Because seven only comes once, you know. Or 8 or 9 or 10.

If your spouse is abusive or threatening, or you're living with some other high-conflict situation that makes staying dangerous for you or your children, perhaps it's better if you walk. But otherwise, is it really too much to ask of yourself that you think long and hard about getting over your own frustration or anger or marital boredom and do whatever it takes to get help for you and your spouse to make your relationship work?

If I'm happy, my children will be happy, too. That mythical logic has been floating around since at least Wordsworth's time. Indeed, the gentleman in "We Are Seven" thought he knew best, too, exasperated to the very last stanza by the "little Maid's" refusal to see things his way. Her final words, however, leave no doubt who possessed the greater wisdom.]]>
Why Black Marriage Day?,2012:/theblog//3.1366573 2012-03-20T08:48:45-04:00 2012-05-20T05:12:01-04:00 Beverly Willett 1960 high of 72 percent to just barely half. Leading family scholars are troubled. Studies show that children from cohabitating and single-parent households face increased risks for a wide range of social, emotional, and economic ills compared with their peers from intact, married households, whose numbers are rapidly dwindling. Black families fare far worse.

"The black community has the distinction of the lowest marriage rate in America," says Nisa Muhammad, founder of the Wedded Bliss Foundation, the sponsor of Black Marriage Day. "When White America has a cold, Black America has pneumonia. And we don't have the resources or history to rebound as quickly."


Over ten years ago, Muhammad, a journalist raising her own five children, went searching for answers to the problems plaguing the African-American community. She found her way to a Smart Marriages conference, and left "mesmerized" by all the information available about the benefits of marriage.

"Black married people make more money, their kids do better in school, marriage rescues blacks from poverty, their kids are less likely to go to jail, become teen parents and get divorced," Muhammad says. "I started thinking, does anyone in the black community know this stuff?"

She asked around and nobody did. Even among the well-educated. She couldn't find anyone promoting marriage within the black community either.

Mainstream cultural cues mostly excluded blacks. No black Bachelors or Bachelorettes. Muhammad thought "27 Dresses" was a cute movie, but notes that the average black woman doesn't have 27 married friends, much less has attended 27 weddings. When Muhammad spoke at Morehouse College, a distinguished all-male black college in Atlanta, Georgia, she asked the young men in the audience to name a song where a black man says "I love you" to a woman in the lyrics.

"They look baffled," she says. "They couldn't name one song. College students being nursed on music that offers sex without responsibility."

Relationship stories in the black community typically center on "somebody did me wrong" or "woe is me," she points out.

When Muhammad couldn't find anyone offering portraits of healthy marriages, she took on the task herself. "Our silence co-signs a lot of negative behavior. We say it's not me, but then it becomes you. That bothered me."

So she founded Black Marriage Day in order to shine a national spotlight on all the positives. Stories of black couples married 50, 60, 70 years. Relationship workshops, celebratory dinners, vow renewal ceremonies, inductions into a Black Marriage Day Hall of Fame. She praises President Obama's example of regular date nights with the First Lady.

Her philosophy focuses on building communities that embrace the concept of "wedded bliss." A few years ago, one Dallas community organization asked black couples their secret to marriage and curated an exhibit that traveled throughout the city, from City Hall to museums to the airport.

"When marriages succeed, communities thrive," Muhammad explains. "It is to the community's benefit that marriages are successful." In those communities, she says, marriage goes hand in hand with lower crime, increased property values and better schools.

Still, though, the task of fostering marriage as the norm within the black community remains an uphill - and delicate - challenge.

"We are the poster child for single moms, and in the black community, single mothers are glorified. We don't want to criticize or disrespect the awesome work single moms do." Yet, at the same time, marriage remains critical to the economic and social vitality of the black community. Some experts suggest the correlation between poverty and the African-American community and its progeny -- and the crucial broken link i.e. family structure i.e. marriage -- has been known for decades and widely dismissed by law and policymakers.

The first time I met with Nisa I asked her how the first Black Marriage Day got started. She laughed, and then proceeded to tell me. When I spoke with her by telephone again a few weeks ago, I asked her to relate the story again. I knew what it was; I just wanted to hear it one more time.

She'd spoken at a conference, and made an off-hand comment that someone ought to start a black marriage celebration. Someone from Essence magazine just happened to be in the audience, and called her later to follow-up.

"Tell you more about what?" Nisa asked the reporter, confused.


"So I called her back and I said 'Black Marriage Day is celebrated on the fourth Sunday of March," Nisa told me.

In 2003, Black Marriage Day launched in 30 cities. Today that number has risen to over 300. This year the celebration will take place on March 25.

Is Lasting Bliss Really Possible?,2011:/theblog//3.1130806 2011-12-13T11:42:45-05:00 2012-02-12T05:12:01-05:00 Beverly Willett Marriage Gems, still says lasting bliss is possible.

The unusual suspects she interviewed for her new book, "First Kiss to Lasting Bliss: Hope & Inspiration for Your Marriage", not only achieved lasting bliss, but faced some of life's worst hardships and ended up with stronger marriages. Their difficulties included everything from cocaine addiction, traumatic brain injury, and infidelity, to loss of a child, financial disaster, and biracial backlash. One couple had to remove their own child from life support. Another rebuilt their lives when, only newlyweds, the young Florida wife was the victim of stranger rape.

These aren't tales of mere endurance, though. Lori calls them "great love stories." I spoke with her about how they can inspire all marriages.

BW: Why did you write "Lasting Bliss"?

LL: I'm a child of Gen X and, as you know, we had a doubling of the divorce rate. When I spoke to other people in my generation, they agreed they didn't grow up with a lot of role models in terms of marriage. Also I have a neighbor, a really inspirational couple, and thought if more people had a neighbor or positive role model that example might provide an inspiration for them. Because I was a child of divorce, too, I wanted to be a positive voice for marriage.

BW: Each couple you interviewed tackled unique problems. Is there a common thread that runs throughout all the success stories?

First of all, a very strong commitment to the marriage. A daily effort not to drift apart. A commitment to choose love every day, and live in gratitude. These couples were not willing to give up either, and because of their difficulties they understand how to be unified. They told me they wouldn't change the past even when it was difficult because it brought them to a stronger, better place.

BW: Some of the stories blew me away. Did any of the couples surprise you?

The couple from the beginning of my book. The husband was a drug addict. And I think most people would say that's a really good reason for a divorce. What I didn't realize is how well a couple could rebound from that. There were also financial problems that went along with the drug use. I think the reason he got clean is because his wife made their initial separation happen. She made her expectations firm and clear, and I think that was the motivation he needed to receive treatment. She also had a lot of forgiveness and patience in her heart. Before writing the book I would have said this was too big an obstacle to overcome. It really shocked me a cocaine addict would eventually become such an awesome husband.

BW: Are some marital obstacles more challenging than others?

I would say infidelity is one of the top. The research I've read says 65% of couples divorce after infidelity. It's a tough one because it's difficult for spouses to regain trust. It can be done though. Many people who overcome it say their marriages are stronger than before. I don't want to judge anyone, but I don't think people should say to themselves if my spouse cheated that would be it. I think there are more things people can get through than they think is possible.

BW: Does anything top infidelity?

LL: An even bigger problem is couples that "drift apart" like it was something they couldn't control. It's natural for people to drift apart unless they are making a conscious effort to grow together and improve their relationship. Think about it as being in separate boats or not rowing together in the same boat. The winds and waves of life pull and blow us in different directions. People think this happens without their control. They blame the job, the kids, finances, whatever. It's really all the same reason - allowing yourselves to be pulled apart. It takes daily effort and a commitment not to drift apart.

Another big problem is couples who lose hope that they could be happier. They convince themselves they're with the wrong person. We get encouragement from other people who say "you deserve better." They are striving toward this elusive happiness and convinced their partner is not part of the equation. But the research shows that couples who stay together are often happier five years down the road. So if you're searching for happiness the odds are better to stay together rather than separate. If we take responsibility for our own happiness we can ultimately be happy together.

BW: Don't give me a spoiler, but do you have an example from your book?

LL: The biracial couple. She finally put her foot down and said you have to back me up. But she also had to stop blaming him. When he figured out how to have her back, they were able to build a great marriage.

BW: Your book is not a traditional self-help book, but rather a collection of stories. How can couples use it in a practical way?

LL: I want the reader to feel like they're sitting down for coffee with each of the couples. To have a heart to heart talk and really get to know them. I used the couples' actual words as much as I could so that maybe that story would come back to the reader when they had a problem of their own. And because the story had an emotional connection, it might give them a different perspective.

BW: Some of the scenarios are rare, like stranger rape and brain injury. How are these lessons relevant?

LL: Even if the scenario is not similar, the heart of the issue is something couples can relate to. For example, one wife was convinced her husband was going to leave her because she was so depressed over the loss of their child. You may not have lost a child, but you may have assumed your partner was thinking the opposite of what they were.

Then there are readers who will have had the same literal experience. They have lost a child, had infertility problems, were separated because of the military. People have lots of health crises though maybe not the exact ones in the book.

The theme that goes throughout my book is hope. Whether couples have experienced the literal problem or can relate to some of the feelings, the goal is to give them hope things can still work out when you have tough times.

BW: What would your one piece of advice be for newlyweds?

LL: Love is a daily decision.

BW: And for couples going through difficulties?

LL: Don't give up hope that your marriage can be great.

BW: And you really believe lasting bliss is possible?

LL: Yes, I think so. Life is bumpy at times. Often outside forces impact our happiness. And sometimes we don't feel very loving. But if we choose to act lovingly, often the loving feelings follow. By saying "I have to trust my feelings," we may be selling ourselves short. Feelings change day to day, minute to minute. We choose to love every day.

Are Stay-At-Home Parents At Financial Risk During Divorce?,2011:/theblog//3.907792 2011-07-26T10:30:47-04:00 2011-09-25T05:12:01-04:00 Beverly Willett five million stay-at-home moms in the United States. (The number decreased slightly from 2008, statistically insignificant according to the Census Bureau because of the recession.) In 2007, the Pew Research Center reported a significant uptick in the number of moms who preferred staying home to raise children.

Ohio State University sociology professor Liana Sayer says that society still generally feels it's unacceptable for men to be stay-at-home dads. Nevertheless, their numbers are on the rise, too. The Census Bureau estimates the number of stay-at-home fathers at 159,000, which tripled over a decade. Some say that's a gross underestimation, however, because it fails to account for nearly 2 million more fathers now primary caregivers due to the recession as well as fathers who work part-time to care for their children.




The financial risk stay-at-home parents face when it comes to alimony is even more troubling. When no-fault was instituted, permanent alimony awarded to spouses who had given up their careers to become stay-at-home parents began to fall out of favor, permanent alimony being deemed incompatible with the clean break idea behind no-fault. Today, many states cap alimony awards. Unless you're the victim of spousal abuse or have been married ten years or longer, or have physical or mental disabilities, in Texas you're out of luck. Even then alimony is limited in amount and cannot exceed three years. The Massachusetts House of Representatives just approved a bill that will end lifetime alimony altogether. These are just a few of the many examples of the trend toward rehabilitative alimony designed to give stay-at-home spouses just enough time to find jobs and get back on their financial feet.

But what if alimony ends, or you receive none at all, and you've been out-of-work for years, home, taking care of your children? Today's economic climate makes employment hard to come by, let alone a job allowing parents to maintain their pre-divorce standard of living. What, too, if because of custody arrangements, you're forbidden to relocate where the cost-of-living would be considerably less and potential jobs more plentiful? What if you've past the mid-point of mid-life and competing for jobs with freshly graduated college, graduate and law school students who can't find employment themselves?

When his son became unable to attend day care because of health issues, Charlie (a pseudonym he asked me to use because custody issues are still pending) and his wife agreed that he would give up his full-time job to become a stay-at-home parent. Several years later, Charlie's wife left without explanation, filed for divorce, and took her high-paying job with her. Though he has been a stay-at-home dad for six years, Charlie told me he never received a penny of alimony and only one year of limited child support. He recently had a job opportunity in another state, but turned it down. It's more important to him to watch his son grow up.

Divorce financial strategist Jeff Landers says alimony reform has gone too far. "[I]t seems that stay-at-home moms . . . with little or no income of their own have lost their voice in state legislatures largely controlled by men." I believe the lack of sufficient protections applies equally to stay-at-home fathers.

Unlike millions of other Americans who find themselves suddenly out-of-work and without funds, unemployment benefits don't provide a safety net for stay-at-home divorced parents either.

Ditto for health insurance. For 19 years I was covered under my ex-husband's health and dental plans. During that period, I had four operations, not counting the birth of my two children. Divorce booted me off, just like millions of other spouses who are no longer considered "family" once the divorce gavel sounds. My current $971-a-month COBRA plan, funded out of dwindling savings, runs out in a little over six months.

When Charlie's divorce became final, he was excited to learn about that part of President Obama's stimulus package that provided for a reduction in COBRA insurance premiums of 65% for those who had lost their jobs. Like me, though, Charlie's excitement was short-lived. The plan excluded divorced stay-at-home parents who lost their "jobs" and their marriages.

The list goes on. The lack of pensions for stay-at-home parents. The social security benefits breadwinners build up, but stay-at-home parents don't. The absence of disability insurance to protect divorced stay-at-home parents.

The Most Pioneering Divorce Reform Effort In 40 Years,2011:/theblog//3.863024 2011-05-18T15:05:42-04:00 2013-04-18T13:51:44-04:00 Beverly Willett
Each year tens of billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on the divorce-associated fallout, not including the millions spent by individuals hiring lawyers and obtaining a divorce. Social science research confirms the devastation -- the heavy emotional toll on children, women and men, the reduced longevity, the diminished physical health. Recidivist rates are alarming -- children of divorce are 89% more likely to divorce than their peers from intact families, and divorce rates for second and third marriages have soared to about 67% and 74%, respectively. And one million children a year continue to be split between their own mothers and fathers. While divorce may be necessary in certain circumstances, such as domestic abuse, research indicates the vast majority of divorces involve low-conflict marriages, many of which can be repaired. (The "Evolution of Divorce" by W. Bradfox Wilcox, provides a good summary of these alarming findings and the research behind them.)

Behind all the pie charts, there are countless anguishing personal stories of betrayal, abandonment, and financial hardship.

As Andrew Cherlin so eloquently put it in his recent book, we are on a marriage and divorce merry-go-round. And it is high time to get off.

Introducing the Coalition for Divorce Reform ("CDR").

After my controversial article opposing no-fault divorce last August, Chris Gersten, a former high ranking official in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services responsible for launching the Federal government's Healthy Marriage Initiative, contacted me about creating a national organization to reform our divorce laws and educate the public about the impact of divorce. The result is the launch of the Coalition for Divorce Reform, and website, formed in order to increase awareness of the negative impact of divorce, encourage discussion and debate about the effect of divorce on our culture, and support passage of divorce reform legislation.

Below Chris talks with me from Washington, D.C. about the Coalition.

How did the CDR get started?

Chris: The breakdown of the traditional family is the social equivalent of the national debt as a crisis in America and the West. I have spent the past decade leading the effort to find government funding for marriage and relationship strengthening programs, and have realized for some time now that simply increasing the availability of marriage education isn't sufficient to address our divorce problems. We also need to overcome cultural influences that encourage and destigmatize divorce by making it so easy. I believe the marriage education infrastructure is sufficiently developed to now create a new field called "divorce reduction education."

According to the website, the CDR is a "non-partisan coalition of divorce reform leaders, marriage educators, domestic violence experts, scholars and concerned citizens dedicated to efforts to reduce unnecessary divorce and promote healthy marriages." Tell me more about the members and how it was formed.

Chris: I knew we needed draft sample legislation people could look at before becoming involved so we worked with divorce attorneys, domestic violence experts and victims of divorce to craft the Parental Divorce Reduction Act ("PDRA"). After the Act was drafted, I used the Internet and my database of contacts from a decade in the marriage education field to reach out to people from all walks of life. Our 17-member advisory board includes the nation's leading marriage educators, scholars, attorneys, political leaders and other concerned citizens. It's bi-partisan and includes people from left to right; some are victims of divorce themselves. I have also spoken with hundreds of community activists and state leaders.

You've been married to the same woman for 44 years so why the passion for divorce reform?

Chris: Everyone I know in the marriage education and divorce reform movements has a personal story motivating them to work on strengthening marriage and making sure more children grow up in strong two-parent families. My own experience took place when my sister's husband, a college professor, walked out one day and never saw his four children again. I saw the emotional devastation that divorce wreaked on those kids and my sister. I felt helpless to do anything about it, other than try to be as good an uncle as I could from 400 miles away. Ever since, I moved my career in the direction of family and marriage strengthening efforts. I still see the devastation of that divorce in the lives of my nieces and nephews more than 20 years later. The lives of over a million children a year are turned upside down because their parents can't or won't work to save their marriages. From my work in the field, I know that many marriages in crisis can be saved if even one partner is committed to working hard to save the relationship.

You've said to me that there's been nothing like this reform effort in over 40 years. But there have been other reform efforts. Why is the CDR different?

Chris: There have been serious efforts like The Americans for Divorce Reform, which basically compiled data on the Internet in one place, and the Covenant Marriage movement. Yet the divorce rate was not reduced. Covenant Marriage passed in only three states and has been a disappointment. The CDR has crafted a new kind of legislative proposal and created a network of marriage educators that never existed before. We now have a huge amount of compelling social science research on the impact of divorce, too. Now, we have social media as a vehicle to communicate quickly with hundreds of thousands of people who can work together in this effort. We have a grass roots effort of political leaders committed to passing the PDRA. You and I have been volunteering nearly full-time on this effort and dozens of others give significantly of their time. This coalescence of events and circumstances has never happened before.

Tell me about the Parental Divorce Reduction Act.

Chris: It's still a work in progress, but provides a new framework for divorce reform. It focuses on reducing unnecessary divorce among couples with minor children. Before filing for divorce, couples must complete divorce reduction classes of four-eight hours (two hours online). This program is a first cousin of marriage education and will be modeled from the top programs in the country and taught by certified marriage educators. The classes will educate couples about the harmful effects of divorce, help them develop skills to improve their relationships, and work with couples who want to reconcile. Couples will then wait eight months before filing for divorce. This is a reflection and reconciliation period during which many couples will continue to work on their relationship. These requirements must be fulfilled before the divorce filing because afterwards attorneys take over and couples struggle over children and finances. There is also an opt-out for victims of domestic violence.

Why do you think passage of this legislation will reduce divorce?

Chris: I know passage will reduce divorce. For 25 years, marriage education classes have demonstrated they reduce divorce by 50%. The U.S. military invests heavily in classes for the armed forces, and it's proven to be a good investment by helping keep couples together.

But what chance does the PDRA have of passing the state legislatures?

Chris: A good chance, even though it won't be easy. But I know we can pass this in several states in 2012 where we have good leadership and state legislators already committed to passage. We'll need real results in a few states before the rest of the nation will follow. But once people see divorce reduction, and the cost savings to taxpayers, I think a dozen states will pass the PDRA over the next five years, with the trend continuing.

Tell me about the CDR's new blog.

Chris: Social media is critical for a movement strong enough to change our culture and current divorce law, and our website will be filled with useful information for those working to change divorce laws or even contemplating divorce. Our bloggers include accomplished writers and bloggers with experience in the field of marriage education, divorce reform, divorce itself, law and social policy. And this is just the beginning.

There's bound to be opposition. And plenty of people will claim you're trying to take away their right to divorce under no-fault that exists now in all 50 states, in some for as many as 40 years. What are your thoughts on this?

Chris: Children must have rights, too. It should not be easier to get a divorce than a driver's license. We know the devastating consequences of divorce on children so we owe it to the children to slow down the divorce process and give kids a fighting chance to grow up in intact two-parent families. If a couple if set on divorce, our legislation won't stop them; it will just slow down the process and hopefully save marriages.]]>
No-Fault Divorce? Maybe Yogi Was Right,2011:/theblog//3.836052 2011-03-16T02:46:34-04:00 2011-05-25T18:40:24-04:00 Beverly Willett I was heartbroken when I heard about the bill; to me, standing up for marriage and family in America now was truly an impossible dream.

Under the new statute, parties no longer need prove fault or that they've lived apart under a separation agreement for one year in order to obtain a divorce. Now, they can opt for no-fault by alleging under oath that the marriage has "broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months." According to Elliott Scheinberg, an appellate attorney whose practice is limited to matrimonial law, the statute allows for unilateral exit from marriage based solely on the subjective view of the party suing for divorce, no defense to no-fault permissible. In other words, presumably, merely swearing under oath makes it so. Pleading specifics, he says, can also open up a "can of worms."

Well, the can of worms has now been opened. On Friday, Veronica O'Dell, counsel for the defense in Strack v. Strack, received a copy of a notice of appeal to the New York Appellate Division, Third Department, challenging the decision of Justice Robert Muller of the Supreme Court in Essex County. The pending appeal indicates that the celebrants who pushed through New York's no-fault may have uncorked the champagne a bit too early. (This is despite rumors that judges in Manhattan are placing their stamp of approval on no-fault divorce purely on the basis of the moving party's sworn statement.)

In Strack, Justice Muller held that the defendant was entitled to a trial to determine if the parties' 47-year marriage had "broken down irretrievably." While the plaintiff did not technically assess blame, her complaint alleged that the parties had no emotion in their marriage, kept separate vacation and social schedules and lived separately during most of the winter. In ordering an immediate trial on the issue of whether the couple's relationship had in fact broken down irretrievably, Justice Muller wrote that the new statute "is not a panacea for those hoping to avoid a trial. Rather, it is simply a new cause of action subject to the same rules of practice governing the subdivisions which have preceded it." This is particularly true, he said, because the legislature failed to define irretrievably broken, thereby leaving determination to the finder of fact. In other words, Mr. Strack had the right to be heard and contest his wife's claim that the marriage was irretrievably broken, even though divorce might ultimately be granted over his objection.

Curiously, the defendant was sued by his wife twice before, in 1986 and 1990; each time, however, the couple, now in their 70s, reconciled.

Justice Muller also held that the defendant was entitled to trial by jury if he so elected since the legislature failed to exempt no-fault divorce from § 173 of the Domestic Relations Law which grants the right to trial by jury in divorce actions. O'Dell told me that trial is currently scheduled for June, that discovery is underway, and that her client intends on seeking a jury trial. To date, she has received no motion to stay the trial pending appeal.

Last month, another appeal had been pending before New York Appellate Division, Second Department, in the matter of Stroffolino v. Stroffolino, a matrimonial case in which Brooklyn Justice Eric Prus had similarly ordered the parties to proceed to trial on no-fault grounds. Attorney for the defendant, Lloyd Thompson, told me, however, that the matter of grounds has now been resolved, rendering the appeal moot.

It's unclear whether even more cases of discontent by spouses who have no say in the ending of their marriages are brewing in the New York courts. At a recent bar association presentation, I asked one of New York's matrimonial judges whether spouses were contesting lawsuits filed against them under New York's no-fault statute and, if so, how judges were responding. He declined to comment, stating that the judicial canon of ethics precluded him from doing so.

"He was just ducking the issue," one of New York's most high-powered matrimonial attorneys, who asked that his name not be mentioned, told me yesterday.

The upshot is anyone's guess at this point. Those familiar with the no-fault battle may recall that one of the reasons floated for the new statute was the elimination of institutionalized perjury - for years spouses who wanted to get around the statute had been cooking up fault, with one party agreeing to lie under oath and assume the blame. Yet isn't the sham that was drummed up to replace it, where cause is purportedly unnecessary and one party is able to chuck a marriage and family, far worse? Isn't an "irretrievably broken" standard meaningless if its only purpose is to give the law a veneer of respectability, when in fact divorce can be granted on one party's subjective say so alone? Indeed, if one spouse can obtain a divorce merely for the asking, lying is simply irrelevant, as are the reasons for wanting out, including that the marriage is "irretrievably broken." How is no-fault divorce then any different from saying "I divorce you three times?" Perhaps that's just what nagged at Justice Muller.

And so, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra: "It ain't over till it's over."

Would that the ongoing debate would forge understanding, compassion and a true meeting of the minds about an effective way to restore marriages and preserve families. ]]>
'Feminists Love Divorce!',2011:/theblog//3.825208 2011-02-22T11:22:16-05:00 2011-05-25T18:35:25-04:00 Beverly Willett Phyllis Schlafly and her co-author Suzanne Venker make in their new book, The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know - And Men Can't Say, to be released this March. Schlafly--political activist, bestselling author, syndicated columnist, radio personality--is often called the grande dame of the conservative movement (she is perhaps best known for her successful campaign to stop passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and founding of the national volunteer organization known as the Eagle Forum). Venker, a.k.a. "No Bull Mom," is author of 7 Myths of Working Mothers and a regular contributor to NewsReal.


Why do you claim feminists love divorce?






You claim feminism failed women. Why?








How so?


Do we need divorce reform?










And yet Gilbert remarried?




So how did things get so out of hand?


Where were conservatives when the divorce rate got out of hand?

Phyllis: They were quietly raising their own families.







Any final piece of advice for parents contemplating divorce today?


Divorced + Children + Relocating? Fuhgeddaboudit!,2011:/theblog//3.818823 2011-02-08T11:50:57-05:00 2011-05-25T18:30:24-04:00 Beverly Willett
Long about this time every year I get the urge to head south, or west, for good. I'm aware that last month every state except Florida had snow on the ground, though it's not usually that way. Still, fantasizing about moving is about as far as I'll get-- divorce pretty much prevents it.

My daydreams about running away began after my ex-husband left. Not that I really wanted to pull up stakes from where I'd set them down 20 years before or uproot my children's lives even further. (Just like I never wanted a divorce.) But getting smacked in the face by a wrongful lawsuit at mid-life made Jon-Kabat Zinn look like the enemy. At least in the beginning.

"I've seen judges prohibit custodial parents from moving more than a few blocks," my attorney Saul Edelstein said when I inquired about my options.

"But I have no family here to help me," I said. "And it's expensive."

"Too bad," Saul said. In other words, as the well-known Brooklyn sign says when you're about to exit the borough: Fuhgeddaboudit.

Though I was still trying to save my marriage, resentment set my imagination spinning. Conjuring up places to move I never even had an inclination to visit, especially after finding out the law provided no countervailing compensation for the restrictions on my constitutional right to travel.

"Years ago, I left Manhattan and a great group of friends to move upstate with my husband, only to have him leave me for another woman," Erica Manfred told me. "Now I'm stuck in the boonies, much older and alone, because we co-parent my daughter."

Of course, in certain circumstances courts do permit custodial parents to relocate. But getting the green light can be complicated. Laws vary from state to state, from balancing tests to the "best interests of the child" standards; some states require proof of good faith. Suffice it to say unless your ex and non-custodial spouse blesses your relocation plan, even if it's only to the adjoining school district, you'll likely find yourself in a complex, costly legal mess by petitioning to head out of Dodge.

Proof will be required on a whole host of matters such as your relocation plan, reasons for it and proposal for how your child will maintain contact with the non-custodial parent; your child's relationship with parents, siblings and grandparents, special needs, and the impact of relocation, including quality of life and effect on education and social relationships; the financial impacts, etc. Before it's all over there may be psych evaluations of the entire family as well as appointment of a law guardian to interview your child. Older children might have a say, and that can engender an entirely different sort of stress on the home front. (And who can blame them - as a rule, children don't want their parents divorcing in the first place!) The move may be expensive, too, along with the physical and emotional strain of readjusting.

"The bottom line is if you choose divorce, or have it chosen for you, you ultimately put the courts in charge of everything related to your kids until they are grown - including where you live and by extension, where you'll work and where your new spouse may work," says matrimonial attorney John Crouch.

Indeed, the courts--or even your ex--may force your hand.

"Courts can order that child custody change to the other parent if the custodial parent moves," says Crouch.

"When I was in the middle of divorce, my lawyer asked the court if my four kids and I could move to Houston where I have lots of family and the cost of living was much lower," Debby from Chicago told me. "My ex said of course I could move and come back whenever I wanted to visit my children. Needless to say, I remained in Chicago, where we had no family other than each other. Ten months later my ex left the state to avoid paying child support."

Awhile ago my own doctor said divorce had caused such stress that I should consider a long sabbatical.

"But my daughter's a teen, and she'd miss her dad," I pleaded. No matter that he and I had been through the litigation mill; he was her father. I understood her needs, even though I had my own oxygen mask to think about.

Only my doctor had something else in mind. "You're misunderstanding me," he said. "You should go alone." Talk about a sucker-punch. He's a brilliant, caring physician, but I ignored his advice for the time being and stayed put.

Unless the parties agree otherwise, however, the law generally imposes no impediments on the constitutional right to travel of non-custodial parents, even if they're the ones who do the leaving. They don't need a good reason to move, just like under no-fault divorce they don't really need a good reason to leave the marriage or family either. (Of course, custodial parents don't really need a good reason either.) If a better employment opportunity comes knocking, or an out-of-town romance presents itself, or pure whimsy strikes, they answer to no one but themselves.

Of course, not all non-custodial parents want to flee, even the left ones.

Charlie, a once full-time stay-at-home dad, who asked me not to use his real name because he's fearful of repercussions, told me that he, too, was the victim of a unilateral divorce. As a result, his parenting time dwindled to half. And, now after years of not working outside the home, he's forced to re-enter the job market during one of the worst unemployment periods in recent history. He hasn't been able to find work nearby, and doesn't want to move because his parenting time would be slashed even further. But he may have no choice.

Sadly, it's the kids who invariably get caught in the middle. There are few studies of the effects of relocation on children of divorce, but the data that exists along with research about the effects of relocation on children generally suggests that the picture is not pretty. Moreover, the social science research shows that in the majority of cases the best interests of children are better served if parents remain together in the first place. Indeed, why not have a "best interests of the children" standard where it counts most? Unfortunately, our divorce laws and practices do nothing to educate parents about the harmful effects of divorce on children or to promote reconciliation. (Of course, divorce may be better for children in certain cases such as those riddled with abuse.)

February 7-14 is National Marriage Week. So why not celebrate this year by tossing that divorce complaint where it belongs? In the garbage.