I'm in the liberation business.
In the divorce portion of my practice, people come to see me for one of two reasons. They either want to divorce their spouse or their spouse wants to divorce them. Either way, at the end of the process, the couple goes their seperate ways. One of the parties has shed their spouse and the other party has been shed.
The party who sought the divorce obviously feels they are in a better place. But even the party who didn't initiate the divorce is in a better place. I have a bias here that you are better off not being married to someone who doesn't want to be married to you. It's painful, but I think it is self evident. Bonnie Raitt's song, "I can't make you love me," comes to mind.
The decision to divorce and the discovery that you are being divorced is painful. There's a lot of anguish there. The process of divorce can also be hurtful, though good divorce lawyers try to minimize that. The process of divorce can be a time for self discovery and reflection as you ready yourself to move into the next phase of your life. The final product, the divorce, is a better end for both parties. It can be bitter-sweet. Sometimes there are moments of self doubt, wishes that things could have turned out better, but by the end of the process, usually all of that has been dealt with and the bright light at the end of what felt like a very dark tunnel is immediately before you, beckoning you on.
Maybe it seems strange to read this, but divorce is about freedom. If you've gone through a divorce already, you know the truth of that statement. Whether you are choosing to be free, or are being forced to become free from a spouse who no longer wants to be married to you, in the end you get your freedom. You are either no longer burdened by a relationship you have deemed dysfunctional or even destructive or no longer burdened by someone who doesn't love you as you have a right to be loved.
When I boil it all down, it means a happy ending. And almost always, my clients think so too.
Michael Manely
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Just Waiting to Die
In my profession I get to hear many, many very sad stories. The one I want to talk about tonight is one of the saddest I ever heard.
A female client once told me, I've been married 26 years, and I knew in the first week that I wanted a divorce. That floored me.
This woman was approaching 50, now had two grown children and had been mostly miserable every one of those 26 years. She waited until her youngest was off at college before she came to see me. When her youngest found out about her now pending divorce he asked, "why did you wait until I was gone to get some peace in the house?"
Contrast that with another client, married five weeks. She, too, knew in the first week that she wanted a divorce. Her husband's antics in the remaining four only reinforced her judgment.
Five weeks versus 26 years.
Clients will often want to revisit their history, to recover monies paid for spouse's activities such as paid off credit cards or expensive hobbies, that, hindsight being 20/20, have proven pure folly. I always tell them the sums spent is water under the bridge. That money is gone.
In divorce, parties are rewarded for making a quick decision about whether they want to end or endure the misery they share with their spouse. While arguably laudable that you stay with a spouse long after they've "flipped your switch," the law does not reimburse you for it. Cutting your losses, whenever you've lost enough (money, time, self respect), is always the better course insofar as the law is concerned.
For years, my lengthy marriage client thought she was just waiting to die. My short marriage client wasted no time in getting back to living.
Where are you?
Michael Manely
A female client once told me, I've been married 26 years, and I knew in the first week that I wanted a divorce. That floored me.
This woman was approaching 50, now had two grown children and had been mostly miserable every one of those 26 years. She waited until her youngest was off at college before she came to see me. When her youngest found out about her now pending divorce he asked, "why did you wait until I was gone to get some peace in the house?"
Contrast that with another client, married five weeks. She, too, knew in the first week that she wanted a divorce. Her husband's antics in the remaining four only reinforced her judgment.
Five weeks versus 26 years.
Clients will often want to revisit their history, to recover monies paid for spouse's activities such as paid off credit cards or expensive hobbies, that, hindsight being 20/20, have proven pure folly. I always tell them the sums spent is water under the bridge. That money is gone.
In divorce, parties are rewarded for making a quick decision about whether they want to end or endure the misery they share with their spouse. While arguably laudable that you stay with a spouse long after they've "flipped your switch," the law does not reimburse you for it. Cutting your losses, whenever you've lost enough (money, time, self respect), is always the better course insofar as the law is concerned.
For years, my lengthy marriage client thought she was just waiting to die. My short marriage client wasted no time in getting back to living.
Where are you?
Michael Manely
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
"Am I Jewish, or what?"
Perhaps you've seen the news about Joseph Reyes, the Chicago divorced father who baptized his three year old daughter as Catholic. As a family law lawyer, that raises a red flag. In a divorce, usually one parent is designated to make religious decisions for the child.
Apparently, in this case, it was the Mother.
Mom is Jewish. At one time, Dad was apparently Catholic. When the parties married, Dad converted to Judaism and agreed to raise the child in the Jewish tradition. When the parties divorced, Mom received custody of the daughter and apparently obtained the authority to make religious decisions for their daughter.
There are four categories of "major decisions" which comprise legal custody: medical, educational, extracurricular, and religion. These distinctions are ever evolving, as is the nature of law, as is the nature of society. For example, the extracurricular category didn't exist 10 years ago.
In the religion category, one parent, usually the primary physical custodian, makes decisions about in which, if any, religion the child will be indoctrinated. Even so, there is no requirement that the non-custodial parent take the child to the custodial parent's church or even to a church of the custodial parent's denomination. There is no prohibition against the non-custodial parent taking the child to his own church on Sunday morning or Saturday afternoon or even during the Solstice. The prohibition is against overt acts which would create identity, such as baptism. Which is where we re-join our story.
Mr. Reyes not only took his daughter to Mass but he had her baptized Catholic, asserting, then, a Catholic identity. Mom hit the roof and obtained a restraining order against Dad from exposing the daughter to any religion but Judaism. Dad, not content with the negative spotlight already upon him, next notified the local television station that he was taking his daughter to Mass again, this time in living color on every Chicagoan's evening news. Now, Dad is looking at six months in lock up for contempt. I suspect that not only will daughter not be attending Mass in those six months, she probably won't be seeing a lot of Dad during that time, either. And she probably still won't be seeing a lot of Dad after his release.
This case is not about religious freedom. It is entirely possible that the Judge's Order prohibiting Dad from exposing his daughter to any religion but Judaism is unconstitutional. But there was no emergency need to rush the daughter to Mass. Dad did not have to violate the Judge's Order. Dad could have revisited the Judge's Order in many ways, Appeal, Motion to Reconsider, Motion for New Trial. And Dad could have been successful. But Dad took daughter to Mass, in wilful contempt for the Judge's Order, with the television cameras rolling, just to make it personal for the Judge. And I suspect he did.
This case is about power, Dad's power. First, Dad's effort to assert power over Mom. Now, Dad's effort to assert power over the Judge. And truly, Dad has power over neither.
Dad will quite possibly go to jail. I can imagine an outcry from an ill informed religous cabal that Dad's incarceration would be discriminatory, that he would be a martyr, but Dad was clearly in wilful contempt and jail would be appropriate. Further, Dad will have his access to his daughter significantly curtailed. He might be looking at supervised visits next fall, when he is released from jail.
Finally, and this tells you a lot about the story, Dad is a law student. Law students are supposed to show respect, not contempt for the law. It is quite possible that Dad will not be allowed to sit for the Bar, to become a lawyer. It is also possible that his stunt is an Honor Code violation for law students at his law school, which will result in his expulsion.
Given the brief 15 minutes of fame that will flow from Mr. Reyes' infamy, I'm reminded of Dr. Phil's famous question, "So, Dad, how's that working out for you?"
It is certainly not working out well for his daughter.
Michael Manely
Apparently, in this case, it was the Mother.
Mom is Jewish. At one time, Dad was apparently Catholic. When the parties married, Dad converted to Judaism and agreed to raise the child in the Jewish tradition. When the parties divorced, Mom received custody of the daughter and apparently obtained the authority to make religious decisions for their daughter.
There are four categories of "major decisions" which comprise legal custody: medical, educational, extracurricular, and religion. These distinctions are ever evolving, as is the nature of law, as is the nature of society. For example, the extracurricular category didn't exist 10 years ago.
In the religion category, one parent, usually the primary physical custodian, makes decisions about in which, if any, religion the child will be indoctrinated. Even so, there is no requirement that the non-custodial parent take the child to the custodial parent's church or even to a church of the custodial parent's denomination. There is no prohibition against the non-custodial parent taking the child to his own church on Sunday morning or Saturday afternoon or even during the Solstice. The prohibition is against overt acts which would create identity, such as baptism. Which is where we re-join our story.
Mr. Reyes not only took his daughter to Mass but he had her baptized Catholic, asserting, then, a Catholic identity. Mom hit the roof and obtained a restraining order against Dad from exposing the daughter to any religion but Judaism. Dad, not content with the negative spotlight already upon him, next notified the local television station that he was taking his daughter to Mass again, this time in living color on every Chicagoan's evening news. Now, Dad is looking at six months in lock up for contempt. I suspect that not only will daughter not be attending Mass in those six months, she probably won't be seeing a lot of Dad during that time, either. And she probably still won't be seeing a lot of Dad after his release.
This case is not about religious freedom. It is entirely possible that the Judge's Order prohibiting Dad from exposing his daughter to any religion but Judaism is unconstitutional. But there was no emergency need to rush the daughter to Mass. Dad did not have to violate the Judge's Order. Dad could have revisited the Judge's Order in many ways, Appeal, Motion to Reconsider, Motion for New Trial. And Dad could have been successful. But Dad took daughter to Mass, in wilful contempt for the Judge's Order, with the television cameras rolling, just to make it personal for the Judge. And I suspect he did.
This case is about power, Dad's power. First, Dad's effort to assert power over Mom. Now, Dad's effort to assert power over the Judge. And truly, Dad has power over neither.
Dad will quite possibly go to jail. I can imagine an outcry from an ill informed religous cabal that Dad's incarceration would be discriminatory, that he would be a martyr, but Dad was clearly in wilful contempt and jail would be appropriate. Further, Dad will have his access to his daughter significantly curtailed. He might be looking at supervised visits next fall, when he is released from jail.
Finally, and this tells you a lot about the story, Dad is a law student. Law students are supposed to show respect, not contempt for the law. It is quite possible that Dad will not be allowed to sit for the Bar, to become a lawyer. It is also possible that his stunt is an Honor Code violation for law students at his law school, which will result in his expulsion.
Given the brief 15 minutes of fame that will flow from Mr. Reyes' infamy, I'm reminded of Dr. Phil's famous question, "So, Dad, how's that working out for you?"
It is certainly not working out well for his daughter.
Michael Manely
Monday, February 15, 2010
The Great Recession and the American family
I work in the core of what makes families tick, sometimes like a bomb. Day in and day out I hear the brutally real life stories of how American families are living, are attempting to survive in this economy. And I'm here to tell you, by and large we are not doing well.
What we hear on the news I hear in my office several times each week: "we're struggling to keep our home." Or, "we lost our home." Or, "we can't afford shoes for our children anymore. Or, "the church has been helping us out with food." And these folks, until very recently, were middle class folks, working in regular jobs, living in regular neighborhoods, sending their kids to regular schools. But now, they are losing everything.
And the house values have plummetted. Borrowing against equity was probably always a bad idea, but even folks who hadn't used their homes like a piggy bank are watching their houses appraise at tens of thousands dollars less than they thought, and often tens of thousands of dollars less than they owe. What do you do with a home that nobody wants and nobody can afford? "I don't want it, you take it," doesn't work well in mediation.
Financial stress is one of the great catalysts toward dissolving a family. How much worse it is when the couple weren't liking each other very much even before these hard economic times?
I have heard many judges contemplate a time when divorce became so expensive and complex that couples just walked away from each other, not bothering to divorce any more. The legislature has made getting a divorce ridiculously complicated. Some judges have thrown up additional barriers for unknown reasons. Legal representation can get quite expensive and the complexity of the law often makes a mockery of anyone who tries to handle it on their own.
For many people, the day when they just walk away has already come. For some, that day came some time ago. I often meet with people who have put off doing things officially (legally). It's kind of like waiting for a tooth ache to get better or a breathing problem to self-resolve. It might get better, it might resolve, but odds are, it won't. Odds are, waiting will just make it worse.
In the practice, waiting will always make it worse because the client doesn't hire me while the times are good, only when something awful has happened, like the mother has moved away with the baby. "But our private agreement on custody worked out so well for several years. Now's she's in Michigan and I can't see my baby." Or another example, "I need a divorce quick because I need to get remarried real soon." Now it's complicated. Now its expensive. Before it would have been relatively simple and manageable.
There is no great answer. There's only the best answer. And you can't know the answer if you don't ask. Ask your questions. Talk is cheap. Not asking? That can get costly.
And costly doesn't help anyone in a recession.
Michael Manely
What we hear on the news I hear in my office several times each week: "we're struggling to keep our home." Or, "we lost our home." Or, "we can't afford shoes for our children anymore. Or, "the church has been helping us out with food." And these folks, until very recently, were middle class folks, working in regular jobs, living in regular neighborhoods, sending their kids to regular schools. But now, they are losing everything.
And the house values have plummetted. Borrowing against equity was probably always a bad idea, but even folks who hadn't used their homes like a piggy bank are watching their houses appraise at tens of thousands dollars less than they thought, and often tens of thousands of dollars less than they owe. What do you do with a home that nobody wants and nobody can afford? "I don't want it, you take it," doesn't work well in mediation.
Financial stress is one of the great catalysts toward dissolving a family. How much worse it is when the couple weren't liking each other very much even before these hard economic times?
I have heard many judges contemplate a time when divorce became so expensive and complex that couples just walked away from each other, not bothering to divorce any more. The legislature has made getting a divorce ridiculously complicated. Some judges have thrown up additional barriers for unknown reasons. Legal representation can get quite expensive and the complexity of the law often makes a mockery of anyone who tries to handle it on their own.
For many people, the day when they just walk away has already come. For some, that day came some time ago. I often meet with people who have put off doing things officially (legally). It's kind of like waiting for a tooth ache to get better or a breathing problem to self-resolve. It might get better, it might resolve, but odds are, it won't. Odds are, waiting will just make it worse.
In the practice, waiting will always make it worse because the client doesn't hire me while the times are good, only when something awful has happened, like the mother has moved away with the baby. "But our private agreement on custody worked out so well for several years. Now's she's in Michigan and I can't see my baby." Or another example, "I need a divorce quick because I need to get remarried real soon." Now it's complicated. Now its expensive. Before it would have been relatively simple and manageable.
There is no great answer. There's only the best answer. And you can't know the answer if you don't ask. Ask your questions. Talk is cheap. Not asking? That can get costly.
And costly doesn't help anyone in a recession.
Michael Manely
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Guardians
Today's installment comes from Stephanie Steele, Senior Associate and Supervising Attorney for The Manely Firm, P.C.
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Attorneys.asp
_________________________________
Guardians
I’m not referring to angels or security guards or even life insurance.
I’m referring to Guardians ad Litem. What or who is that, you ask?
Well, I grew up watching Law and Order, Matlock and LA Law. Before attending law school, I worked in a law office and spent hours talking to former jurors, attorneys and paralegals about how the court works and what happens during a legal case. During law school, I studied legal procedures, poured over judicial decisions and continued working in a law office.
It wasn’t until after law school, and after my first legal job that I ever heard of the little known yet hugely important Guardian ad Litem.
Literally, it means a guardian related to the lawsuit. Effectively, it means someone (usually an attorney) trained and appointed by a court to investigate and report to the court regarding the best interests of a minor child or children involved in a domestic law case.
The importance of a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) was brought home to me once again earlier this week. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed a ruling by Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge George F. Hutchinson, III, in which Judge Hutchinson adopted the GAL’s report and recommendation that a father be granted primary physical custody of the parties’ three children. Salmon-Davis v. Davis, Supreme Court of Georgia, S09F1609 (2-1-10).
In Georgia, the Uniform Superior Court Rules govern the appointment, authority and access to information of a GAL. Although our judicial system is the best in the world, judges are not omniscient. The GAL goes to places, talks to people and obtains information that a Judge often cannot, due to the nature of the Judge’s role in a case.
The GAL is a person who can and does speak for children who are caught between two parents who have differing views on who should have custody, the amount and nature of visitation that is appropriate and how to best ensure the children’s quality of life.
A GAL has the authority to candidly talk to teachers, relatives, doctors, friends and the children themselves regarding all aspects of the children’s home life, their relationship with each parent and what custody and visitation arrangement(s) will most benefit the children. They formulate opinions and report to the Court on their findings, making recommendations to the Court about which parent should have primary custody, the amount and nature of visitation the non-custodial parent should have and any other special provisions the GAL thinks appropriate.
I advise my clients to welcome the Guardian into your home with open arms. The Guardian is there to protect your children, to ensure the future healthy growth of your children and to assist in shaping a Court Order that will help to build secure, positive relationships between both parents and your children.
So, in a way, I guess I do refer to angels and security guards and life insurance when I refer to Guardians.
Stephanie L. Steele
http://www.allfamilylaw.com/CM/Custom/Attorneys.asp
_________________________________
Guardians
I’m not referring to angels or security guards or even life insurance.
I’m referring to Guardians ad Litem. What or who is that, you ask?
Well, I grew up watching Law and Order, Matlock and LA Law. Before attending law school, I worked in a law office and spent hours talking to former jurors, attorneys and paralegals about how the court works and what happens during a legal case. During law school, I studied legal procedures, poured over judicial decisions and continued working in a law office.
It wasn’t until after law school, and after my first legal job that I ever heard of the little known yet hugely important Guardian ad Litem.
Literally, it means a guardian related to the lawsuit. Effectively, it means someone (usually an attorney) trained and appointed by a court to investigate and report to the court regarding the best interests of a minor child or children involved in a domestic law case.
The importance of a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) was brought home to me once again earlier this week. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed a ruling by Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge George F. Hutchinson, III, in which Judge Hutchinson adopted the GAL’s report and recommendation that a father be granted primary physical custody of the parties’ three children. Salmon-Davis v. Davis, Supreme Court of Georgia, S09F1609 (2-1-10).
In Georgia, the Uniform Superior Court Rules govern the appointment, authority and access to information of a GAL. Although our judicial system is the best in the world, judges are not omniscient. The GAL goes to places, talks to people and obtains information that a Judge often cannot, due to the nature of the Judge’s role in a case.
The GAL is a person who can and does speak for children who are caught between two parents who have differing views on who should have custody, the amount and nature of visitation that is appropriate and how to best ensure the children’s quality of life.
A GAL has the authority to candidly talk to teachers, relatives, doctors, friends and the children themselves regarding all aspects of the children’s home life, their relationship with each parent and what custody and visitation arrangement(s) will most benefit the children. They formulate opinions and report to the Court on their findings, making recommendations to the Court about which parent should have primary custody, the amount and nature of visitation the non-custodial parent should have and any other special provisions the GAL thinks appropriate.
I advise my clients to welcome the Guardian into your home with open arms. The Guardian is there to protect your children, to ensure the future healthy growth of your children and to assist in shaping a Court Order that will help to build secure, positive relationships between both parents and your children.
So, in a way, I guess I do refer to angels and security guards and life insurance when I refer to Guardians.
Stephanie L. Steele
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Combustible Pants, Act two
Just a very short piece for tonight. It's been a long, but productive day.
I wrote earlier about a certain wayward fellow who seriously misled the Court in his pleadings. Today was his comeuppance.
The Court ruled that this fellow defrauded the Court. This is basically an iron clad declaration that the man is worthy of no belief.
The case is not over, just a major, major battle won in the fight to save the life of a child.
And I'm privileged to be a part of it.
Tomorrow I hope to have a special treat for you, a guest blogger. The Firm's very own Stephanie Steele will join our page on Friday.
Michael Manely
I wrote earlier about a certain wayward fellow who seriously misled the Court in his pleadings. Today was his comeuppance.
The Court ruled that this fellow defrauded the Court. This is basically an iron clad declaration that the man is worthy of no belief.
The case is not over, just a major, major battle won in the fight to save the life of a child.
And I'm privileged to be a part of it.
Tomorrow I hope to have a special treat for you, a guest blogger. The Firm's very own Stephanie Steele will join our page on Friday.
Michael Manely
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
"Sweetheart, I want a divorce."
Sonnets have been written and movies have been made over the fateful issue of how do you pop the question, the one that ends with, "will you marry me?"
But I haven't seen any treatment in prose or film that tackles the stickier subject of popping the question of divorce. There are songs about divorce, D-I-V-O-R-C-E, by Tammy Wynette, being one of my favorites, but I can't recall any about broaching the subject, unless you count Earl by the Dixie Chicks.
I deal with this issue several times each week. Potential clients schedule a consultation to learn about the law of divorce and how it applies to their situation. Fairly often the subject of divorce has not been broached in a serious, "this is it," way, though perhaps it has been bandied about as an ongoing threat by one side or the other.
So how do you tell your spouse that you want out, the deal's off, you are escaping, you want your freedom, hasta la vista, baby? (Another dark reference.)
The best practice is to plan for a time when you can have your spouse alone for at least an hour, free of interruptions. Have your outline ready, what you need to discuss, what you need out of the divorce: custody, child support, division of assets, division of debts, separation of property, etc. Predict your spouse's reaction. Plan how you will manage it. Say a prayer, light a candle or have a stiff drink, whatever helps your resolve, and dive in.
The big down side to this strategy is that if you and your spouse could speak this openly, it is far less likely you would be getting a divorce in the first place. Still, some couples are mutually far enough along to manage a productive conversation. In most cases, however, only one side is far enough along. The other side seems to be trapped in a paleolithic mode.
If you are vulnerable, financially, physically, even emotionally, the best practice approach will not apply to you. You already have experienced your spouse engaging in some form of extortion. "If you don't do what I say, I'll hurt you (financially, physically, emotionally). " If this is your situation, you have to plan your exit strategy without consulting your spouse because if you let him or her know about your plans, they'll make you pay for it.
If your spouse is likely to see your honesty as a weakness, giving him or her a head start on filing for divorce and gathering evidence for court, then this best practice approach cannot apply to you either, because the conversation will not be equal and will not be productive. Again, your spouse will make you pay.
At least half the time I recommend that my client have a generic conversation about divorce with their spouse. Finding the right time is the key. Some event has to be the catalyst so that divorce just comes up in the conversation. But use that event to explore your spouse's reaction and thoughts. Your spouse's response will speak volumes of whether you can set up the best practice meeting or whether you have to protect yourself by moving clandestinely.
Unfortunately, quite often the opposing party's conduct and attitudes requires the clandestine approach. In that case, we prepare the divorce complaint, the divorce is filed and process is served by a plain clothes process server. The service of process is the first time the opposing party learns of the once impending, now pending divorce. And by the time that process is served, we have constructed the protections you need.
Invariably, when process is served, the opposing party is shocked. "How could you do this to me?" This attitude will floor you because not only has the handwriting long been on the wall but it is written in bold, underlined and highlighted in fluorescent yellow! Still, the opposing party pretends that the divorce is out of left field.
So how do you ask for a divorce? Do you kill your spouse with kindness? "Sweetheart, you know I love you and think the world of you but this is just not working out for us. I think we need permanent, separate vacations." Or do you let your actions speak louder than your words ever could?
Bottom line? When it gets real, get help. Ask a professional. That's what we're here for.
Michael Manely
But I haven't seen any treatment in prose or film that tackles the stickier subject of popping the question of divorce. There are songs about divorce, D-I-V-O-R-C-E, by Tammy Wynette, being one of my favorites, but I can't recall any about broaching the subject, unless you count Earl by the Dixie Chicks.
I deal with this issue several times each week. Potential clients schedule a consultation to learn about the law of divorce and how it applies to their situation. Fairly often the subject of divorce has not been broached in a serious, "this is it," way, though perhaps it has been bandied about as an ongoing threat by one side or the other.
So how do you tell your spouse that you want out, the deal's off, you are escaping, you want your freedom, hasta la vista, baby? (Another dark reference.)
The best practice is to plan for a time when you can have your spouse alone for at least an hour, free of interruptions. Have your outline ready, what you need to discuss, what you need out of the divorce: custody, child support, division of assets, division of debts, separation of property, etc. Predict your spouse's reaction. Plan how you will manage it. Say a prayer, light a candle or have a stiff drink, whatever helps your resolve, and dive in.
The big down side to this strategy is that if you and your spouse could speak this openly, it is far less likely you would be getting a divorce in the first place. Still, some couples are mutually far enough along to manage a productive conversation. In most cases, however, only one side is far enough along. The other side seems to be trapped in a paleolithic mode.
If you are vulnerable, financially, physically, even emotionally, the best practice approach will not apply to you. You already have experienced your spouse engaging in some form of extortion. "If you don't do what I say, I'll hurt you (financially, physically, emotionally). " If this is your situation, you have to plan your exit strategy without consulting your spouse because if you let him or her know about your plans, they'll make you pay for it.
If your spouse is likely to see your honesty as a weakness, giving him or her a head start on filing for divorce and gathering evidence for court, then this best practice approach cannot apply to you either, because the conversation will not be equal and will not be productive. Again, your spouse will make you pay.
At least half the time I recommend that my client have a generic conversation about divorce with their spouse. Finding the right time is the key. Some event has to be the catalyst so that divorce just comes up in the conversation. But use that event to explore your spouse's reaction and thoughts. Your spouse's response will speak volumes of whether you can set up the best practice meeting or whether you have to protect yourself by moving clandestinely.
Unfortunately, quite often the opposing party's conduct and attitudes requires the clandestine approach. In that case, we prepare the divorce complaint, the divorce is filed and process is served by a plain clothes process server. The service of process is the first time the opposing party learns of the once impending, now pending divorce. And by the time that process is served, we have constructed the protections you need.
Invariably, when process is served, the opposing party is shocked. "How could you do this to me?" This attitude will floor you because not only has the handwriting long been on the wall but it is written in bold, underlined and highlighted in fluorescent yellow! Still, the opposing party pretends that the divorce is out of left field.
So how do you ask for a divorce? Do you kill your spouse with kindness? "Sweetheart, you know I love you and think the world of you but this is just not working out for us. I think we need permanent, separate vacations." Or do you let your actions speak louder than your words ever could?
Bottom line? When it gets real, get help. Ask a professional. That's what we're here for.
Michael Manely
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
