A fellow divorce lawyer over at the UK has funny story about the silly things people do to get back at each other…
January 2009
Nobody can go back and start a new beginning but anyone can start today and make a new ending.
— Maria Robinson
Via: twenty-three
I just came across this video of a therapy game for children of divorce. I’m not sure what to think. I got really stressed out just by watching the video. It is certainly good to acquaint divorce lawyers with confusion and pain that some children of divorce feel. However, is this appropriate for children? Wouldn’t it make a child going through a difficult custody battle feel even worse?
In law school we learned how to “frame” the facts to make a winning argument. This basically requires viewing things from a different point of view. The framing of facts, however, is not limited to the practice of law. In fact, how you frame (or view) “success” and ”failure” is an essential element in achieving happiness and success in life.
The New York Times has an article on about a man whose son, Sam, was so uncoordinated that in elementary school he fell out of his chair if he tried to get something from his backpack. Sam grew up to play varsity football in high school — And lost every single game.
Still, Sam didn’t feel bad at all. He played his best and that is all that mattered.
Psychologists who study the effects of optimism and pessimism will often try to help depressed patients “reframe things” to see loss more positively. That might mean encouraging them to take pride in getting through an awful experience, or saying ‘you didn’t fail, you found something that didn’t work.’”
Conclusion: Divorce is not failure. Through your marriage you learned about love, loss and negotiation. In the end, it didn’t work out. You still have these skills. They’ll be useful later on.
An associate law professor at the Seattle University School of Law argues that reluctant fathers should not be considered the “fathers” of offspring conceived during a one night stand.
The Professor believes that the men should be held financially responsible for their offspring. However, she sees no benefit in “roping” the man in as the “father” and forcing him to co-raise the child. She believes that the child would be better off raised alone by the mother or by man of the mother’s own choosing.
This is my response to her article (assuming Illinois law applies):
- No one will force a father who does not want custody into joint custody. This means that the “father” does not need to do any “raising”.
- If the father doesn’t want visitation and the mother agrees, this can be included in the parenting agreement. Anyway, there is very little that a court or judicial system can do to force a non-custodial parent to visit with their child.
- If the mother finds a husband who is a better “father” for her child, then the biological father can waive his parental rights and give up the child for adoption.
- Recognizing the reluctant biological father as the “father” of a child encourages the man to pay child support and take responsibility for his child.
In essence, apart from child-support, there is very little that the law requires from a reluctant father. However, changing the law to take away the rights of any father would create devastating results for caring, loving fathers and their children.
I will cut the Seattle Professor some slack though, she’s not a divorce lawyer and hasn’t seen the harm that children suffer from a distant relationship with their fathers.
