GUEST POST: Making Sense of Divorce Statistics

In today’s society, couples are led to believe that 50% of marriages end in divorce. How accurate is this statistic, though? In actuality, relationship experts have found the arbitrary figure of “50%” to be misleading. Recent, detailed analysis indicates that more encouraging statistics lie beneath this often referenced yet exaggerated data point. So, what can couples learn from the new research in order to build a healthy marriage?

First, it’s important to note that this “50% myth” is false. In fact, the divorce rate has been declining since 1980. An article published in The New York Times, “The Divorce Surge Is Over, but the Myth Lives On,” states that 70% of spouses who tied the knot during the 1990s have celebrated their 15th anniversary, a 15% increase from those who married in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Moreover, couples walking down the aisle from 2000 onward, are experiencing even fewer causes for separation. The current ratio of divorced couples to married couples is measured at 1:3, and if this trend continues, nearly two-thirds of marriages will never end in divorce.

This steady decrease in divorce rates is based on several factors. Here’s a breakdown of why exactly marriages either thrive or fail, and how couples can use this data to improve their chances of maintaining wedded bliss.

Education Level

According to Sharon Pastore of the Main Line Family Law Center, spouses who have both earned degrees are 25% less likely to divorce than those without collegiate training. In fact, of college-educated people who married during the early 2000s, only 11% had divorced by their seventh anniversary (so, don’t take that “Seven Year Itch” stereotype too seriously!).

Age Range

A study launched by the CDC has concluded that those who tie the knot between 20-24 years old, face a higher threat of getting divorced than any other age demographic. This can be attributed to a young person’s tendency toward self-absorption, emotional immaturity, ill-preparation and tenuous grasp on adult responsibilities.

Financial Status

Households that generate an annual income of at least $50K are 30% less likely to divorce than those living within the budget constraints of a $25K annual income, as determined by the Main Line Family Law Center. Lower socioeconomic status often results in marital tension and subsequent separation. However, ironically, the actual divorce process can potentially lead to financial hardship for both parties involved, as well.

Religious Affiliation

On average, divorce rates within the church tend to be lower than among secular environments. The American Family Association Journal surveyed over 50 churches from 2012-2013, and found that only 22% of married congregants had been divorced. Furthermore, if spouses are actively engaged in practicing a religion together, they are 14% less likely to separate than those lacking any faith-based ties.

Geographic Location

The prevalence of divorce can also depend on where people live. For example, in the United States, West Coast couples are more vulnerable to marriage failure. According to The Demographic and Household Estimates for 2005-2009, conducted by American Community Survey, New York City exhibits less divorce than any other U.S. metropolitan area. Why do Big Apple-based marriages stick? NBC New York reports: “It’s difficult to file for divorce in New York which might contribute to the lower rates. New Yorkers also tend to stay single longer, so there are fewer people per capita getting married, thus fewer people getting divorced.”

Part 2 of this Guest Post will identify other relevant factors.

Guest Author:NANDA DAVIS  is a graduate of George Mason University School of Law. She practices family law in Virginia at The Davis Law Practice. Her articles have appeared in several legal publications including Justipedia.  http://www.davislawpractice.com/

$500,000 Custody Case Garners Harsh Criticism

 

Another day…another courtroom, but the same insanity…. a custody battle that has cost two parents $500,000 in legal fees. This time it’s an exasperated Ontario Superior Court judge from Hamilton who asks the question, “How does this keep happening? What will it take to convince angry parents that nasty and aggressive litigation never turns out well?”

Mr. Justice Alex Pazaratz presided over a 36-day trial, awarding sole custody of an 8-year-old child to her father, a Toronto police officer. The Court’s Reasons for Judgment begin with the recitation of an email sent by the husband to his wife, a year after their separation, and before litigation commenced:

“We are both reasonable people and I really think we can work this out without spending $40,000 to $50,000 a piece in lawyer fees only to have a judge tell us something we could arrange ourselves. Please I’m begging you to be reasonable.”

It only takes one parent to turn a family law case into a hellish nightmare, and according to Judge Pazaratz that’s what an angry, foolish woman did. Consider the optics: Father wants generous parenting time, and mother refuses, turning the child against her father. In these situations, fathers will get nowhere unless they ask a court to intervene. At this point, most right-thinking parents would instruct their lawyers to negotiate a parenting plan, or attend mediation, with the goal of maximizing each parent’s time with the children, focusing always on the child’s best interests.  Sound so simple, doesn’t it?

In this case, dad spent $300,000, while mom spent $200,000. Judge Pazaratz said:

“Pause for a moment to consider the overwhelming tragedy of this case,…These are nice, average people. Of modest means (now considerably more modest). They drive old cars and probably pinch pennies shopping at Costco.”

The harshest criticism was leveled at the child’s mother, who the Court found had manipulated and falsified evidence, engaged in provocative and dangerous behaviour, and poisoned the child against her father. Judge Pazaratz described her conduct as “emotional child abuse… with their only child caught in the cross-fire”. Her deviant behaviour was triggered when her estranged husband began to move on with his life and began a new relationship.

The Court ordered the mother to pay costs to the father in the amount of $192,000, wryly concluding:

“In retrospect, (the father’s) sombre warning about ‘spending $40 – $50,000 a piece in lawyer fees’ now amounts to wishful thinking.”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Late for Court? Go to Jail!

BarristerJudge Amanda Sammons of Campbell County, Tennessee has a strict rule that if defendants don’t arrive at court before 9 am, or 1 pm for her afternoon session, they can’t come in! When she first started this practice she instructed the court bailiffs to lock the doors. Later she agreed the doors could remain unlocked, but no one could enter after the prescribed court commencement times.

More than a few people have been caught by her rule, which is antithetical to the concept of open courtrooms and transparent justice.

Case in point: Suzanne Webb, age 39, arrived at the courthouse at about 1 minute to nine for a hearing in a misdemeanour vandalism case. She was barred from entry and waited in the hallway. Once the doors were opened she entered, took a seat, and read a book until her name was called. Judge Sammons asked her why she was late. She replied that she was not permitted to enter, whereupon Judge Sammons said, “That’s no excuse. You’re going to jail, you violated your bond.”

Ms. Webb was handcuffed and led to the jail holding area adjacent to the courtroom. Her only previous charge was for driving with a suspended license, a charge that was dropped after she paid an outstanding ticket.  She remained in custody waiting for her aunt to bring her the funds to pay the new bond, and then was released.

A few months later she was back in court where the vandalism charges were dropped in exchange for the forfeiture of her $424.00 bond. Coincidentally, the fine for a vandalism conviction? $424.00!

Other “victims” of Judge Sammons include Ryan Daniel Currier who was held without bond for 24 hours and Laura Hatfield who was ordered to post $15,000. One unlucky lady was arrested on a bench warrant, and Jason Inman was ordered held pending his posting of a $75,000 bond.

Not surprisingly, Judge Sammons, whose nickname is “the blue-eyed assassin”,  is not a stranger to controversy. She has been accused of refusing to sign orders for accused persons who are entitled to have their records expunged, and ordering children into foster care in the absence of any request from the Department of Child Services.

Formerly a kick-ass prosecutor, Judge Sammons’ election website says:

“With a low tolerance for foolishness, Mandy’s tough approach to prosecuting crime has earned her a reputation as hard-nosed prosecutor who “goes for the jugular” and doesn’t quickly back down from a fight.”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Bill O’Reilly Loses Custody Appeal

GeorgiaLeeLang025The founder of the “No Spin Zone” may think that New York judges are “pinheads”, and that’s because they ruled against him this week in his bid to have his teenage children live with him, rather than his ex-wife.

Last year the Nassau County Supreme Court awarded his ex, Maureen McPhilmy, age 49, full residential custody of 13-year-old Spencer and 17-year-old Madeleine, although O’Reilly, age 66, has full visiting rights and shares legal custody.

As is typical in custody cases involving teenagers, both teens expressed their views, which given their ages, were highly persuasive to the judges hearing the case. The children wanted to remain living with their mother.

The Appellate court, however, spoke in favour of continued joint legal custody saying:

“…the record supports the court’s finding that if either parent were awarded sole decision-making authority, there would be a danger that it would be used to exclude the other parent from meaningful participation in the children’s lives.”

An unfortunate finding that suggests this custody battle has been high-conflict and that the once-married O’Reilly’s can no longer say anything positive about the other. It has also been reported that O’Reilly’s daughter advised a child custody assessor that she had witnessed domestic violence in the home, a charge that O’Reilly has adamantly denied.

What is not so unusual about this case is that the name O’Reilly does not appear in the court registry or in court documents, undoubtedly to protect the children.

The case is listed as Anonymous 2011-1 v Anonymous 2011-2 which indicates their fight has raged on for 5 years.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Has a B.C. Father Been Labelled a Sexual Predator Based on Fraudulent Expert Evidence?

GeorgiaLeeLang025In a groundbreaking decision last summer after a 147 day trial, Mr. Justice Paul Walker of the British Columbia Supreme Court found that B.C.’s child protection authorities had negligently permitted a father to sexually abuse his child while the youngster was in the custody of the Ministry. The Court found that the government’s failure to protect this child was “egregious, negligent, and a breach of duty” and government social workers showed a “reckless disregard to their obligation to protect children.”

The evidence before Mr. Justice Walker included expert evidence from Dr. Claire Reeves who had been an expert witness at the 90 day family law trial that preceded the action against the Ministry by several years. Dr. Reeves’ opinion played a significant role in the original finding that this father had sexually abused his children. The parties agreed that her expert opinion from the family law trial would be admitted in the Ministry trial.Throughout the lengthy proceedings, the father adamantly denied abusing his children.

After the family law trial Reasons were handed down, the father had 30 days to file an appeal of that decision, however, no appeal was filed. Yesterday the Court of Appeal allowed the father to appeal the original family trial decision, although three years had passed since the original ruling and the 30 day window has long passed.

Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett in the Court of Appeal remarked that “one would be hard pressed to envision an act as vile as sexually abusing one’s own children or a travesty of justice as great as being falsely accused and found guilty of such acts”. The father’s successful application was based on new evidence that appears to establish that Dr. Reeves’ evidence was fraudulent. The credentials she touted, including a Doctorate in Clinical Counselling, Masters of Science in Clinical Psychology, Bachelor of Science in Family Mediation, and a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism, are from so-called “diploma mills”.

Her assertion that she had testified as an expert on child sexual abuse on numerous occasions in a variety of courts also appears to be untruthful. The substance of her trial opinion was based on a theory of child abuse that has long been discredited, even by the expert who originally proffered the “child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome”.

Dr. Reeves has not responded to the allegations outlined by the Court of Appeal, however, a Google search, where one would expect to find many entries regarding her professional work, is sparse. She is the President and Founder of Mothers Against Sexual Abuse.

CBC News reports their online research indicates that Dr. Reeves says she was instrumental in bringing in chemical castration for child molesters in California. She also has unusual views on related topics. On her Facebook page she wrote:

” Why test on animals when we have prisons full of pedophiles”.

She also believes many people have had controlling microchips implanted in their brains — and have been given trigger words that could turn them into saboteurs.

“I believe people have been chipped, targeted individuals, and more of them than we can imagine,” said Reeves, calling it, “Mind control. Because it really is mind control.”

The father’s appeal will be of great interest to those who decry the failings of the family law administration of justice. No doubt the children’s mother will seek to legitimize her reliance on Dr. Reeves as an expert. The truth will, undoubtedly be revealed.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

All is Not What it Seems: Wealth and Divorce

You may be surprised to learn that many of your seemingly wealthy neighbours are not wealthy at all. They are simply part of a burgeoning group of North American families who live beyond their means. They may have all the outward signs of success: expensive cars, designer wardrobes, extravagant vacations, and upscale homes, but the reality is they owe money to everyone and live in a state of perpetual angst.

When they face an unexpected event, such as the loss of employment, the collapse of a business, a devastating illness, or a divorce their house of cards collapses. What I have seen in almost three decades of working with families in crisis is how often spouses are unaware of mounting debt and overspending, until it is too late. Most frequently the debt is consumer credit loans and unpaid personal and corporate income taxes, together with punishing interest payments and in respect of taxes, penalties and fines owed.

It can be a terrible shock to live in a splashy area of town in a million dollar home only to realize that your husband or wife has remortgaged the property multiple times to support a heavily leveraged lifestyle, and the boat, ATV’s and snowmobiles are owned by the bank!

A recent case in Britain is emblematic of court hearings across the country where apparently prosperous husbands and wives split up, agree to sell assets, pay debt, and share the proceeds, but the sinking economy negates all the good intentions.

A businessman in London made a fortune in the mining industry and was obliged to pay his wife $2 million dollars. He immediately paid her $1.375 million in 1999 and the balance was to be paid over time. But he never did pay her the remaining amount. After several futile court appearances, she asked the judge to order her ex-husband to pay what he owed together with interest for the past 17 years or be sent to prison. The man lived in an expensive rented apartment but insisted he was penniless, deeply in debt, and was relying on housing benefits for the poor, and the charity of his friends and his synagogue.

His ex-wife, of course, argued that her ex-spouse’s alleged circumstances were an elaborate façade meant to deprive her of her rightful entitlement and that he should pay or be sent to jail. The judge sympathized with her, particularly acknowledging that without the funds she may lose her home, but pointed out that there was no evidence that he had any hidden assets or secret funds. The Court declined to order a jail sentence finding that he had no current ability to pay her.

How can a spouse protect herself from a scenario like the one above? Clearly, it would have been best if this lady had received all she was entitled to upfront, but often that is not possible. If the remaining monies had been secured by an asset retained by the former husband that would also have assisted, but again circumstances do not always permit that and judges in British Columbia have been reluctant to encumber a spouse’s share of the property to protect the other spouse. A life insurance policy on the husband only helps if he dies, while still owing monies.

Most frequently this problem of collecting monies after the divorce arises in cases where a spouse has a long-term obligation to pay spousal support. Many spouses fail to realize that if they agree or are ordered to pay support, it will be most difficult to escape the obligation and unfortunately, there are spouses who create situations where they appear to be impecunious. Lump-sum support is one solution but again, judges are loath to order a spouse to give up their capital to pay spousal support.

The lesson to be learned is that spouses must insist on being aware of how family finances are handled during the marriage and that upon divorce a “bird in the hand may be worth two in the bush.”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Watch What You Say Online or Be Sued

A  divorce  lawyer in Florida was awarded $350,000 in punitive damages for false statements made by a former client who was unhappy with the services she received from her lawyer.

Both the client and her ex-husband  posted comments on multiple websites which read:

“This lawyer represented me in my divorce. She was combative and explosive and took my divorce to a level of anger which caused major suffering of my minor children. She insisted I was an emotionally abused wife who couldn’t make rational decisions which caused my case to drag on in the system for a year and a half so her FEES would continue to multiply!! She misrepresented her fees with regards to the contract I initially signed. The contract she submitted to the courts for her fees were 4 times her original quote and pages of the original had been exchanged to support her claims, only the signature page was the same. Shame on me that I did not have an original copy, but like an idiot . . . I trusted my lawyer. Don’t mistake sincerity for honesty because I assure you, that in this attorney’s case, they are NOT the same thing. She absolutely perpetuates the horrible image of attorneys who are only out for the money and themselves. Although I know this isn’t the case and there are some very good honest lawyers out there, Mrs. G.  is simply not one of the “good ones. Horrible horrible experience. Use anyone else, it would have to be a better result.”

“I accepted an initial VERY fair offer from my ex. Mrs. G. convinced me to “crush” him and that I could have permanent etc. Spent over a year (and 4 times her original estimate) to arrive at the same place we started at. Caused unnecessary chaos and fear with my kids, convinced me that my ex cheated (which he didn’t), that he was hiding money (which he wasn’t), and was mad at ME when I realized her fee circus had gone on long enough and finally said “stop”.  Altered her fee structures, actually replaced original documents with others to support her charges and generally gave the kind of poor service you only hear about. I’m not a disgruntled ex-wife. I’m just the foolish person who believes that a person’s word should be backed by integrity. Not even remotely true in this case. I’ve had 2 prior attorneys and never ever have I seen ego and monies be so blatantly out of control.”

Both the client and her ex-husband appealed the damage award, however, just before the appeal was to be heard the ex-husband withdrew his appeal saying that he had settled the matter with the attorney.

 

His ex-wife however, did not abandon her appeal and the appellate court remarked that even if she had, they would not have dismissed the appeal, because it raised an important issue with respect to free speech protections vis a vis reviews of professional services posted on the internet. The court said the issue merited discussion as it presented a scenario that would likely occur again.

At trial, both defendants admitted they had posted the online reviews. The evidence at trial included a written retainer agreement signed by the attorney’s client which proved that the lawyer had not charged her four times more than what was quoted in the agreement, a fact both defendants later admitted.

If a statement is true it will not be defamatory, but in this case the alleged overcharging was a falsehood. It simply wasn’t true. The appeal court rejected the defendant’s suggestion that their rights of free speech protected them from voicing their “opinion” online.

 

The court disagreed saying:

“An action for libel will lie for a ‘false and unprivileged publication by letter, or otherwise, which exposes a person to distrust, hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy or which causes such person to be avoided, or which has a tendency to injure such person in [their] office, occupation,  or business….”

 

The lesson here is to think twice before you publicly criticize a service provider, but if you feel compelled to do so, you better be sure you can prove your comments are true.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee