by Ryan McKeen
Before leaving work on Friday, I read an article in the Law Tribune about the horrible Tyler divorce. The article asks the question what can be done to prevent this from happening again?
This question haunted me this weekend.
All divorce is stressful. The amount of loss one suffers in a divorce is significant. Lost are a spouse, a way of life, friends, time with children, possibly a home, money, and dreams. There’s no way around it.
Most divorces are civil. There’s always dispute and hurt feelings. But most cases resolve by agreement in fairly short order. Though, often not short enough for the parties.
But then there are cases like the Tyler divorce. Horrible in every way.
The problem is I’m not sure what can be done differently.
The easy answer is early intervention using a blend of counseling and mediation. Those are always good ideas.
The problem is that crazy doesn’t negotiate. Counseling and mediation in the hands of a disturbed person becomes another tool to harass and intimidate.
I’m at a troubling point in my thinking about this issue. Right now, I don’t think there is a solution. That troubles me greatly.
From where I sit, perhaps the best thing our courts can do is to expedite the process. I think the longer the proceeding the more stressful it becomes for a party to a divorce.
I think anything that policy makers can do to streamline the process of divorce is a step in the right direction in reducing the amount of conflict in any divorce. Of course, policy makers must balance speed with the rights of litigants and that’s hard to do.
It seems that this issue is on the minds of most family lawyers these days. I've had a discussion of this nature with several colleagues recently (this afternoon, in fact). The longer the divorce goes on, the more emotionally charged it becomes. When one party is irrational and "disturbed", things spiral quickly. I agree completely that early intervention can be beneficial … but it is ineffective with a disturbed person. How do we fix this system?
Reply
Another problem that (at worse) fuels high conflict divorce cases and (at best) allows such instances to drag-on is that members of the legal community who perpetuate the conflict in a divorce as a means to benefit their own, and at least their client’s, financial nest(s). I’ve been involved in such a case for going on three years now, and it is not only stressful but the system too doesn’t seem (as an outsider looking in) to have a desire or even a means to deal with these instances. Sadly, in the end, it is true that no one benefits (wtih the exception of the attorneys), but the price that is paid is typically paid in the emotional scares of those involved, most disturbingly any minor children.
Reply
I practice law in Northern Virginia, with an emphasis in my work on collaborative divorce and divorce mediation. Mediation doesn’t help “crazy.” Collaborative, to some extent, using a full team approach, including mental health professionals, does much better, BUT I don’t think it solves “horrible.” Seems quicker court dates may be the answer.
Reply
I think it is really easy to jump on the “crazy” bandwagon and to blame the problem of high conflict divorce on the fact that one of the parties in a divorce case is “disturbed.” No, this is simply not what is going on in cases like this, at least in my view. What is going on is the Court’s tolerance for one or the other party simply refusing to obey Court Orders even up to the point of absurdity. We don’t need more mental health counselors, who often cause more trouble than they are worth. Many of the mental health professionals who are doing some of the crucial work at family court are in their seventies and have attitudes that you can only describe as antediluvian. I think we could do without their contribution. What we need are judges who are willing to enforce the law. Also, the kinds of individuals who are causing the problems in family court are not crazy; they are psychopathic. Such individuals are perfectly sane, but they have chosen to follow through on actions that harm others.
Reply