Stolen Vows

The Illusion of No-Fault Divorce and
The Rise of the American Divorce Industry

On the first day of August, the locks on the office doors were changed and my work with couples was over. Two weeks later, I was allowed back in to remove my personal belongings. By the end of the month, the furniture and equipment were hauled away and the office was closed down for good.

I’d never been through the experience of a divorce. But the day the locks were changed, I understood how it must feel to spouses who don’t want a divorce — or who feel their pleas are being ignored. Those who find themselves trapped in an unwanted divorce can be forced out of their marriages without being allowed any voice in the matter.

After my initial shock wore off, a feeling of humiliation crept in. I felt like I had been utterly violated by those who were formerly part of my family.

Because of my growing conflict with those who had control of the business which offered mediation to divorcing couples — I was forced out of the work that I loved. And during this conflict, I was not allowed to defend myself or have any say in the outcome. It was an awful predicament — but one that many spouses face at the time of divorce.

Being locked out was a personal disaster for me. Many people will not understand very easily why it happened. But understanding this conflict is like understanding any conflict that arises between two parties. There are always two viewpoints — just like in mediation, when a husband and wife are struggling to solve their problem. But, the short version of my side of the story is that — over time — I had become ever bolder in my work with couples as a divorce mediator. Increasingly, I had come to view many of the disintegrating marriages as fixable if each spouse would only be able to look at things from a different angle.

I had also come to believe that we needed to handle such problems that lead to divorce much differently in this country — that, instead of really helping those who were going through this painful event, the system was often doing more harm to them. But, the ones responsible for the demise of my work were not interested in my perspective and did not wish to change theirs. They were in the mediation business and charged a hefty fee for their settlement-work. Without a steady flow of customers, their business would dry up.

My own work in divorce mediation had dwindled as I’d become increasingly disenchanted with the court system — its legal underpinnings directing how the divorce process was to play out. There was little concern with whether a couple had tried to salvage the marriage — going to counseling before filing for divorce. They didn’t even have to give any reasons for the divorce.

In fact, what was most troubling was that the rhetoric used in child custody disputes — ‘best interests of the child’ — did not even take into consideration in its meaning that the loss of an intact family is such a disaster for children. ‘Best interests of the child’ was only preoccupied with choosing between Mom or Dad — not with improving the chances of having both Mom and Dad together in the same home.

I had also become sensitized to the injustice inherent in my role as a divorce mediator. The mediation statute in Wisconsin confined me to addressing only issues surrounding the post-divorce living arrangements of the child. The fact that one parent didn’t want the divorce — or that one of them had broken the promises they’d made when they were married — I was supposed to ignore these things in my role as a ‘neutral’ mediator. The more I learned, the more I believed that, as a society, we could do a lot more to reduce the flow of divorce casualties — and the more I became a problem for those invested in the present system.

The sense of violation I felt from the office lock-out was the final blow that propelled me to begin speaking out about what I had seen — and why it needs to change. The day-to-day violation — from a system that is supposed to help families — is a national disgrace that has been ignored for too long. The rules designed by those who were supposed to protect us, have instead, hurt those who get caught in the divorce trap, causing great harm to society.

* * * * *

My work as a Family Court Mediator began six years ago. My clients included anguished parents sent by the judges to work out a post-divorce living arrangement for their children. By making such decisions themselves, couples could avoid the intrusion of further professionals in their lives such as a lawyer to represent their children, psychiatrists to assess their mental health, and social workers to evaluate each of their homes.

When I first began mediating, I felt that I’d chosen a good and honorable profession and that I could help families avoid courtroom battles. Judges needed the help of mediators as well, in order to help move along these difficult cases and thereby reduce the court time spent on these difficult cases Mediation seemed like a way to meet several needs at once.

But, my growing awareness of the problems faced by children-of-divorce made me question even more the ‘status quo’ thinking in the mediation field. Judith Wallerstein’s newest book told about the insidious ‘sleeper effects’ of divorce that showed up even after so many years had passed.1

As I became even more uncomfortable with my work, I began suggesting to some spouses that they should resist their divorce — if they felt it was wrong. And for those who were ambivalent or unaware of how children reacted to such felt about such a life-changing event, I found myself warning them of the greater risks they were imposing on their children — from depression, early pregnancy, suicide, criminal behavior, unstable future relationships — as a result of a divorce. When anyone expressed an inclination to salvage their marriage, I was happy to direct them towards resources that might help them to reconcile.

But my increasing activism presented me with a dilemma I had not foreseen. I was going too far astray from the mediation training that warned me to be ‘neutral’ about divorce and not express any attitudes. My former colleagues were increasingly uncomfortable with me and I became further isolated in my new activist role. As a mediator, I was supposed to help clients arrive at a ‘settlement agreement’ — not assist them in reviewing their decision to divorce.

Eventually, when the judge terminated my work with the courts without even sending a letter of explanation, my clients slowed to a trickle. I learned that the court had replaced my service with that in an adjacent county — a court-run service that stayed strictly within the guidelines set by the judges who ran it.

I’d slowly become an outcast in the mediation field and my reputation and professional standing was slowly diminished. The office lock-out was the final traumatic event that propelled me into the next phase of my work — to write about the things I had learned and what I thought was wrong with this system. But, it wouldn’t be easy. None of my former colleagues could understand why I felt so strongly or why I had stepped so far out of line. But, I discovered there were others like me who saw what I saw. They were beginning to speak out too.

Over time, what I had come to understand was that the problem — that I now saw so clearly — had been well-hidden so that it took me six years to finally see the whole dismal picture, including the unjust role I had played as a mediator. Realizing how hard it had been for me to see it, I knew it would be hard for others — who hadn’t worked so closely with divorce — or had never been subjected to one.

Going through the trauma of the office lock-out made me bitterly aware of what people face when they are forced out of a marriage. Like many of them, I too, had no voice in the matter.

In order to understand what happened that caused this problem, we need to go back to the time when no-fault divorce was first designed — and then cleverly hidden behind a veil of illusion, disguising what it would be like for marriages and families. The children’s tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes, serves as a perfect framework to tell the story of no-fault divorce, for it has all the elements.

And just like the mischief that was perpetrated in the Emperor’s realm — where the people were fooled into seeing fine clothes on their Emperor — we too, were fooled into thinking that the change to no-fault divorce was a good thing. Over three decades have passed and the country still does not see what the Emperor is wearing.

1. Wallerstein et al, “Unexpected Legacy.”