New York Divorce Report - New York's Divorce and Family Law Blog

            There is probably no easy or correct way to tell your children that you and your spouse are separating or divorcing.  It would be an understatement to say that divorce will have a devastating impact on their emotional and psychological well-being.   But, how parents inform their children and negotiate future parenting responsibilities affect how children will react to the news.

            Dr. Marshall Colt gives parents several common sense tips to addressing the issue with their children:

• It’s best to tell your children together, simply, honestly and directly.
• Don’t go into detail about why or bash your spouse.
• It’s okay to reveal your sadness, while allowing them to also show their feelings.
• If you’re separating and not sure about divorce, don’t make predictions or promises you can’t keep.
• Try to keep things as consistent as possible.

            Going forward, encourage the relationship with the other parent. Though you and your spouse are separating, neither of you are divorcing the children.  Children should be encouraged to maintain their relationship with both parents.   If your spouse is a “bum” let the children find this out for themselves. Do not indoctrinate or impose your views on them. Do not attempt to alienate your children from your spouse. Not only can this have a negative financial impact, it may be you that the children end-up resenting.

Like two Cold War adversaries, Chana and Simon Taub are separated by a wall built down the middle of their home to keep the bickering spouses apart.

The divorce case, which has been staggering through the courts for nearly two years, has been dubbed Brooklyn‘s "War of the Roses," after the 1989 movie starring Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner as a battling couple.

It‘s not as if the Taubs have no place else to go. For one thing, they own a place two doors down. But for reasons that include stubbornness, spite and their love of the home, both insist on staying in this particular house in Borough Park, a heavily Orthodox Jewish neighborhood.

Chana, 57, who claims her husband abused her, says she has as much right to stay as he does, if not more. "I need a house to live in and money to live on!" she says. "I worked very hard, like a horse, like a slave for him."

But an actual wall? That‘s a new one, says Barry Berkman, a New York divorce lawyer.

She gets the top floor, where the bedrooms are situated, along with the kitchen on the second floor. He gets the living room on the first floor and the dining room on the second floor. So that they don‘t run into each other on the second floor, the door between the dining room and the kitchen is barricaded on both sides.

Chana says that for two decades she served Simon like a virtual slave, putting up with physical and mental abuse that grew more severe over the years. She says she had to flush the toilet after him, and put on his socks and shoes for him. He became so violent by mid-2005 that she filed for divorce, she says.

Chana says she doesn‘t want much from her husband, mainly just alimony, child support and a fair share of property.

At one point during the transition, someone said Chana had 300 pairs of shoes trapped on Simon‘s side. Chana claims that is a lie Simon cooked up to make her look like the Imelda Marcos of the Orthodox Jewish community.

Simon retorts: "Maybe it was 299. I didn‘t count it."

Chana says that since Simon has returned, he has been monitoring her via video cameras. Simon says the surveillance goes both ways, and points to cameras on her side, though Chana claims she does not control those. Chana says Simon has bugged her phones. Simon says that‘s crazy — he doesn‘t care who she talks to.

Kimberly Flemke, a couples therapist in Philadelphia, says when spouses go so far as to refuse to leave a house while divorcing, it often means neither is ready to move on.

"It‘s clear that if they‘re going to go this length, there‘s still far too much connection," she says. "I would hope they‘d both go to therapy

Much ado has been made of  Jason Kidd’s allegations of domestic violence against his wife. Notwithstanding the celebrity factor, much of outcry is a product of the sexist preconception that there is no way a woman can abuse a man.  Moreover, how can a star athlete be a victim of domestic violence?

Any matrimonial attorney knows that domestic violence is not limited to husbands abusing their wives. Most practitioners could relate a war story where- in a husband was either emotionally, psychologically or physically abused by his wife.   

ABC News reports that experts on domestic abuse disagree on the number of men who are physically abused by their wives, but they agree that it is an underreported phenomenon.

There are few statistics regarding domestic violence against men.

A 1999 National Violence Against Women Survey sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicated that while 1.5 million American women were beaten by a domestic partner or husband, 835,000 men — more than half that number — reported that they also were victims, a surprisingly high number to some.

Philip W. Cook, advocate and author of "Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence," is working to change what he calls "societal disbelief" in domestic violence against men.

"Attorneys don't encourage prosecuting it," Cook said. "Fred Lane of the … Carolina Panthers was shot and killed by his wife, and Tyrone Williams of the Green Bay Packers had his clothes slashed and tires slashed, and he needed to get stitches. … These were obvious victims. Just because a guy is a big athlete doesn't mean he's not a victim."

Lisa Mills, a feminist and author of "Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Response to Intimate Abuse," agrees.

Mills notes that when women get violent, they often seek out tools and weapons to make up for what they lack in brawn.

"Men are beaten just as often as women, but women are injured twice as often," Mills said. "But the question really comes down to the validity of each claim."

While the marriage between a same sex couple was declared void, their separation agreement, which resolved all of their property and financial disputes, was declared valid  by Justice Phyllis Gangel-Jacob in Gonzalez v. Green.   Although the parties were “married” pursuant to a Massachusetts law that permits same sex unions, their marriage was void since such marriages are not recognized in New York.

Although the parties were not married, the Court declared that they were free to contract to resolve their respective property claims arising from the break-up of their relationship. While cohabitation without marriage does not give rise to property and financial rights, “Cohabitation does not disable the parties from making an agreement within the normal rules of contract law.”

Justice Gangel-Jacobs correctly noted that while the Court of Appeals’ holding in Hernandez v. Robles declined to recognize the validity of same sex marriages, it did not negate the existence of the same sex relationships or the reality that same sex relationships dissolve. As when married couples divorce, courts are called on to resolve disputes regarding the distribution of assets from same sex couples.   Litigants have always been encouraged to resolve their disputes without resort to protracted litigation

If “divorcing “same sex couples could resolve their property claims by written agreement, why should their settlement agreements not be deemed valid?

The Wall Street Journal ran an article today in which a couple, in the absence of lawyers, easily divided their assets on the way to an easy and amicable divorce. This scenario, I am afraid, has limited applicability.

The article details the divorce of Tim and Edra Blixseth, who were married for twenty five years and, together, amassed a fortune worth two billion dollars. Apparently, the couple was able to sit together, share a bottle of fine wine, and divide their wealth in a relatively short time. 

For most couples, a divorce is far more complicated than deciding who gets the 420 acre estate and who gets control of the fleet of corporate jets.  For most, a division of the assets is simply not that easy. Assets, like homes and automobiles, are generally encumbered by debt.   The parties are generally so leveraged that assets must be liquidated in order to distribute the equity. 

Since the Blixseths had adult children, they did not have to address the issues of child custody or visitation. Often, these issues are more emotional and demanding than the economic issues.

Absent greed, there was no reason why the Blixseths could not easily settle their case. The multi-billion dollar marital estate left both parties with more than adequate wealth to support their luxurious lifestyle or to replace any asset given up as part of the divorce settlement

Often, it is the less affluent divorce that requires good lawyering to settle. In a case, where there are insufficient assets and income to support both parties in the marital lifestyle, a couple of hundred dollars a month in child support or spousal maintenance payments makes a big difference.  I am certain that part of what made the Blixseths’ divorce so easy is that they did not have to worry if they would have enough cash flow to make their monthly mortgage payments.