WASHINGTON—A family therapist has teamed up with a former judge to propose what they call “modest reforms” for reducing “unnecessary” divorces in the United States.
William Doherty, professor of Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, and Justice Leah Ward Sears, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia, see an opportunity largely ignored by researchers, psychologists, therapists, and judges, to reduce the nation’s divorce rate.
Doherty and Sears challenge two conceptions widely held in society: that divorce is the result of a long process of misery and bitter conflict that dissolves the marriage; that once a couple files for divorce, the parties are no longer receptive to reconciliation.
The two say that these assumptions are not true for the majority undergoing a divorce today.
“The whole system is set up to expedite divorces and to minimize conflict,” professor Doherty said, adding that it is based on a mistaken notion that the marriage is over once a couple files for divorce.
Drawing on their experiences as therapist and judge, the two have summarized their research and recommendations in a 59-page report, “Second Chances: A Proposal to Reduce Unnecessary Divorce.”
The proposal was published by the Institute for American Values, an organization that says it is devoted to research in the family, and civil society. The authors presented their findings Oct. 21 at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Doherty says his research was prompted by a conversation he had with a Minnesota judge, who was surprised to see that some couples in the process of getting a divorce showed a high level of communication and sensitivity.
The judge asked Doherty whether there was existing research on a couple’s ambivalence toward undergoing a divorce, and in reconciliation after filing papers. Doherty found no such research and decided to look into the matter himself.
Surveying 2,484 Minnesota adults in the final stages of divorce proceedings, he and his team found that 30 percent of couples had one spouse interested in reconciliation, with 10 percent having both spouses open to attempts to reconcile.
Professor Doherty asserted that if they had been reached earlier, these couples would have been more likely to indicate an interest in reconciliation.
Studies conducted over time of couples with children (“longitudinal research”) in the last decade show that the majority of divorces (50 to 66 percent, depending on the study) were of couples that two years prior were “average marriages in terms of happiness, low levels of conflict, and average marital satisfaction or happiness scores, and something happened [during this] period that propelled them to divorce,” said Doherty.
A minority of divorces (33 to 50 percent) showed “a pattern of high conflict, alienation, and sometimes abuse,” says the report.
Doherty made it clear that his recommendations are not intended to delay or hinder this latter group of divorces, which are “going downhill, making a poisonous environment for everyone in the household.”
He said a shift has occurred toward “soft” reasons for divorce, explaining that two motives for divorce today are “growing apart” and “lack of communication.” The ascendance of the low-conflict-home divorce may be related to high expectations modern couples have for marriage.
When a high level of conflict and hostility between parents is present, children will likely benefit from a divorce, says the report. But the majority of divorces today are based on soft reasons that are mostly preventable, and come down especially hard on children.
“Divorces with the greatest potential to harm children occur in marriages that have the greatest potential for reconciliation,” says the report, quoting from the research of sociologists at Pennsylvania State University. “The children are being reasonably well taken care of and then the bottom drops out,” Doherty said.
There is abundant data that children of divorced families fare worse than children from whole families. Children of divorced parents are less likely to finish high school, complete college, or attain a high-status job, and more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, and engage in teen delinquency, and so on.
The nexus between family fragmentation and poverty is well accepted, according to the report.
Recommendations
As a jurist for 23 years, Sears has personally witnessed the effects on children when their parents are separating. She makes the case that the state has an interest in the welfare of the children, and reducing costs of anti-poverty, criminal justice, and education programs related to divorce.
Both Sears and Doherty recommend legislation they call the Second Chances Act, calling for states to adopt a waiting period of at least one year before divorce of couples with children is finalized. Currently, states can range from no wait period, to two years.
Only five states—Arkansas, Louisiana (with children), Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina—have a waiting period of one year or more. The report cites research that found that of the 10 states with the highest divorce rates, nine had no waiting period.
For households where domestic violence is prevalent, a waiver can be given. Doherty and Sears made clear that they have no desire to reverse the progress that has been made in the last 40 years on divorce law, and insist that the no-fault divorce standard would not be affected by their “modest” proposals.
Sears recommends the use of a voluntary early notification letter that a spouse is contemplating divorce as a way to notify the other spouse of serious problems with the marriage. The authors say it would be much less of a shock than the current method of being served divorce papers.
Finally, the authors favor having states provide effective counseling for couples on the brink of divorce, recommending a four-hour parent education course—online or in the classroom—before either spouse files.
Doherty says that today’s therapists are typically trained in individual therapy and don’t make good marriage counselors. He doesn’t trust counselors today, who typically adopt a neutral stance on whether a marriage survives or ends in divorce.
“The professional bias that divorce is the only realistic option for couples in the legal process is very strong,” says the report.
