October 22, 2013

Dear Sir,

I am not one for writing letters to the editor; however, having read the recent article on the inability of couples obtaining a divorce due to our financial climate caught my attention.

It would appear that some members of the legal community are lamenting the fact that the divorce rate has declined over the past five years. Implicit in this statement is the fact that they are more concerned with the loss of revenue due to the downturn in the economy, than the possibility of couples attempting the salvage their marriages irrespective of their financial difficulties.

Cited as the primary reasons for this decline is the fact that there has been a reduction in our expatriate community followed by couples deciding to opt out of marriage altogether and lastly the financial costs associated with obtaining a divorce.

This is, in my opinion, a gross overgeneralisation based almost exclusively on economic factors in explaining why couples are not seeking to end their marriages. No attention has been given the fact that many couples who are “going through unhappy times in their marriages” may have explored other options to salvage their marriages particularly in light of the fact that a contested divorce involving custody issues can cost in excess of $100,000.

All marriages face challenges and with the exception of spousal abuse, or where the children are in real or potential danger, the first option to address marital strife should not be divorce.

Ms Rachel Barritt commented that when approached the parties are seeking information on the divorce process and costs involved. It is hoped that such inquiries would also include information on mediation, counselling or a cooling-off period, as is standard practice in other dispute resolution situations.

Regrettably, neither attorney references the merits of mediation, nor marital counselling, to resolve many of the deep-seated issues many couples bring into the marital relationship. Oft-times more attention and planning are focused on the marriage ceremony than preparing couples for the long haul.

As an alternative to lengthy court proceedings Collaborative Law is cited as an alternative; however, this approach to resolving marital issues, and the future care of the children would be a futile exercise if both lawyers do not prescribe to this practice philosophy.

Invariably, the party who has retained a Collaborative lawyer will feel their interests are not being aggressively pursued and are at a disadvantage if the other parent is represented by an attorney who does not intrinsically value the need for a family to function post divorce.

This disparity in perception will only serve to increase the parent’s frustration and stress levels to the point where contentious litigation is a predictable outcome.

In these times of economic restraint this may be the ideal time for serious attention to be given to the creation of a unified family court, whereby those individuals who are contemplating divorce will have access to accurate, and unbiased information, as to their full gamut of options and opportunities to either strengthen the family unit, or in circumstances that clearly speak to the dissolution of the marriage, create an atmosphere where the best interests of the children are deemed paramount by both parents.

This is not a time to bemoan a loss of revenue by members of the legal community due to a decrease in the number of divorces, but a time to command much needed resources from the private, and public sectors, to ensure that we can further decrease the divorce rate by empowering parents to make decisions that are in the best interests of the entire family unit.

Sincerely,

Family Advocate