Couples Who Are "We's" Are Happy

Posted by Daniel Clement on January 31, 2010

Couples who refer to themselves as 'we' are happier than those who say 'I', 'me' or 'you.”

The study conducted at the University of California at Berkley, found a link between the use of pronouns and marital happiness. According to the study, reported in the Daily News and in the Domestic Diversions blog, middle-aged and older couples who used words like “we” and “us” when discussing their marital disagreements experienced less stress than those couple who used the words “I” “me” and “you.”

Not surprisingly, more older couples than middle aged ones identified themselves as “we;” shared life experiences, birth, death and other milestones, probably gave the more senior couples a greater sense of shared identity.

According to the Daily News, earlier studies have shown that “we-ness” versus “me-ness” is a strong indicator of how happy younger couples are.

It would be interesting to see if the pronoun/identity factor is predictive of divorce. Do couples who team up to become a “we” stay together? Conversely, do couples who become polarized “me’s” divorce?
 

New York's Divorce Law Must Be Changed

Posted by Daniel Clement on January 20, 2010

Last week, the New York Times ran a blistering editorial about New York’s antiquated divorce law. New York remains the only state in the nation that does not have a no-fault or an irreconcilable differences grounds for divorce.

In New York, someone seeking a divorce has to prove that their spouse is guilty of marital fault, that is their spouse committed adultery, treated them in a way that is cruel and inhuman, abandoned them or has been imprisoned. A divorce is also available if the parties have been legally separated for one year.

The absence of a no fault divorce has severe repercussions:

The current rules inflict serious financial and emotional costs. Litigants end up spending thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal fees, and courts devote significant time to airing the painful and highly personal details of a breakup. It is a ridiculous use of judicial resources at any time, but especially in tough fiscal times.

As the Times concludes, the failure to recognize no fault divorce does not save marriages, it just makes it more painful and expensive to end them. Moreover, as I discussed last week, the judicial system also pays a price as judges are forced to turn a blind eye to litigant’s contrived tales of marital fault.

The time has come for New York  to join the rest of the nation and permit a no-fault grounds of divorce.
 

Why is Perjury Condoned in New York Divorces?

Posted by Daniel Clement on January 12, 2010

The absence of no fault divorce in New York has many unintended and unfortunate consequences. Perhaps the single most disturbing consequence is that divorce courts are forced to accept as true, testimony known to be false. That is, as one trial judge, recently pointed out, “it forces judges and special referees who preside over these cases to in effect turn a blind eye — or at least a myopic one — to what is technically perjury.”

In the case of Andrew T. v. Yanna T, the husband was granted an uncontested divorce from his wife on the ground of constructive abandonment- simply stated, the wife’s unjustified refusal to engage in sex for one year preceding the commencement of the divorce. Problems arose because before the divorce was granted the Wife gave birth to a child, which had to be conceived during the period when the parties were allegedly not having sex; the husband claimed he was the father.

Had the case been brought in any other state, a no-fault ground could have been alleged with no fault being assigned. But because New York does not recognize no-fault divorce, litigants are forced to assign blame and, most often, allege that they have been constructively abandoned by their spouse. As noted by the Court, herein is the problem:

. . .when the ground is utilized there is quite often a wide discrepancy between what is said to obtain the divorce and what really has taken place between the parties in the privacy of the marital bedroom.. . .

Although perjury of any kind is not to be condoned, the context in which it arises must be taken into consideration. The sad truth is that New York's insistence on fault-based divorce ends up promoting a disregard for the truth by "fostering and encouraging the embellishment of a spouse's wrongdoing as to grounds, often with immeasurable effects upon a divorcing household.

The problem takes us down a slippery slope. How can a court condone permitting perjury to make out marital fault in divorce but not in other circumstances? Why is it ok to lie about a constructive abandonment, but not the family finances?

The fix is easy. The legislature should recognize a no fault grounds for divorce and then there will be no need for courts to ever condone perjury.

 

Relationships Move Online and Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

Posted by Daniel Clement on January 07, 2010

Break-ups were always difficult, but, with the advent of social networking, breaking up is now really hard to do.

It used to be a getting a key to your lover’s apartment or a drawer in a dresser was a sign of commitment. When you broke up, you packed up your toothbrush and simply returned the key.

Now, a sign of commitment is exchanging passwords to email or online accounts (both social and financial). In addition, part of the evolution of a relationship entails becoming Facebook friends with your significant other’s friends.

As Laura Holson points out in her article in the New York Times, as every aspect of a relationship has moved online, the whole idea of break up has changed.

Where once a spurned lover could use scissors (literally) to cut an ex out of the picture, digital images of the smiling couple in happier days abound on the Web and are difficult to delete. Status updates and tweets have a way of wending their way back to scorned exes, thanks to the interconnectedness of social media. And breakups, awkward and drawn-out in person, are even more so online as details are parsed by the curious, their faces pressed against the digital glass.

It is common sense that following a break up of a relationship or the commencement of a divorce, passwords to bank and email accounts should be changed. Clearly, you would not want communications from your divorce lawyer discussing strategy to be read by your soon to be ex.

Unfettered access can also be used as a weapon. Just yesterday, when in court, I heard testimony in a case of cyber stalking, where one “heart broken” party possessed passwords to his ex’s personal and business accounts and was being accused of attempting to delete and hide important online files.

Just imagine all the ways a scorned lover could destroy someone’s personal and professional reputation armed with unfettered access to someone’s twitter, Facebook and email accounts.

As Holson points out, “A byproduct of the digital revolution is that trust is being assigned a new meaning.” Given the potential for damage and embarrassment, before sharing passwords, trust should yield to caution.