Our News RSS
The Center for Work and Family at Boston College researched the changing view on fatherhood through a series of in-depth interviews. The results of the study show that increasing numbers of men define the role of father as someone who has breadwinning and caregiving responsibilities. The fathers reported that many caregiving responsibilities were as important, if not more important, than financial responsibilities when defining what it means to be a good father. Fathers under the age of 40 are a little more likely to place a greater emphasis on caregiving.
The study also showed there is a gap between what fathers think they should do and what they actually do. Despite a desire to equally share in caregiving responsibilities, many fathers reported that in reality, they do not. Financial and career responsibilities dominate most fathers’ time. More than half of participants believe their job prevented them accomplishing everything they need to do at home, and slightly less than half reported their job interrupts time with their children.
How spouses share financial responsibilities impacts whether caregiving responsibilities can be shared equally. When there are high financial expectations, it is possible that many fathers cannot participate equally in caregiving responsibilities. The men who participated in the BC study earned significantly more money than their partners, and 56% of participants had a spouse who is unemployed (31%) or only works part-time (26%).
The BC study concludes:
“Thus, we are left with an image of today’s fathers as caring, committed and conflicted, struggling to be engaged parents while striving for advancement in their careers. This leaves us with the obvious question: can they have it all? Can they increase their caregiving role without sacrificing their advancement goals in their workplace? Or must they adjust their expectations – redefining what it means to be successful in both domains?”
One of the primary recommendations in the BC study is for fathers to explore their parenting goals in combination with their career goals. Marital mediation encourages spouses to examine together in a controlled setting with a neutral mediator how their ideal situation for sharing financial and caregiving responsibilities differs from the way responsibilities are actually shared. Spouses can reflect upon how splitting responsibilities impacts their goals. Marital mediation is a good way for spouses to explore parenting roles and create a plan on how to balance between competing responsibilities and correlate or adjust career expectations.
9-11-2011 to 9-17-2011
The latest marriage news:
Here are other articles our readers were interested in this week:
This week’s most popular marriage advice based on Twitter retweets.
- Respectful assertiveness is necessary for marital communication
- Next time you’re frustrated with your spouse, remember your vows were “for better AND for worse”
- Stop assuming you know everything about your spouse. Ask questions. Show interest and curiosity
For daily marriage advice follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook.
Michigan law divides postnuptial agreements into three categories. The requirements and enforceability of a postnuptial agreement depends upon its classification. First, postnuptial agreements that are entered by spouses who have separated will be upheld as settlement agreements. Second, postnuptial agreements that deal with inheritance rights are valid, provided the agreement is fair, equitable, and has consideration. However, the third category, postnuptial agreements that deal with divorce rights, entered by spouses who are not already separated, are unenforceable in Michigan.
As recently as 2008, Michigan courts declared unenforceable those postnuptial agreements that are entered before separation and deal with property distribution at divorce. In Wright v. Wright, the court reiterated Michigan’s prohibition on spouses entering contracts that anticipate or encourage a future separation or divorce. Such contracts were held to be against public policy, relying on case precedent from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Generally, alimony and property settlement provisions in postnuptial agreements are considered to anticipate or encourage future separation. As stated by the Wright Court, an example of when this occurs is if the postnuptial agreement leaves a spouse in a better position in the event of a future divorce. Under this theory, the postnuptial agreement at issue in Wright was held to encourage future separation or divorce. The agreement attempted to protect the husband’s premarital assets and retirement accounts. The agreement also declared all marital property that required substantial financial investment from the husband, including the marital home, was to be the sole property of the husband at divorce.
The primary issue appears to be whether separation or divorce is contemplated when spouses enter a postnuptial agreement. Michigan did uphold the validity of a postnuptial agreement at divorce, even though it was entered before the spouses separated and it did not deal solely with inheritance rights. In the 1965 case of Randford v. Yens, a divided court upheld the postnuptial agreement because it found the agreement did not anticipate or encourage divorce. The purpose of the postnuptial agreement in Randford was to determine what property rights already existed, not to change or define future property rights. Both spouses had substantial premarital property and a conflict arose as to the status of a particular piece of property. The postnuptial agreement was entered to eliminate confusion regarding what property was separate and what was marital.
While states across the nation are changing their public policy to reflect approval of postnuptial agreements, Michigan appears reluctant to change their long-standing public policy. While the Wright case was decided by the intermediate appellate branch of the Michigan judiciary, the state’s highest court declined to address the issue. The Supreme Court of Michigan denied the original appellate request and the request for reconsideration.
Originally, Michigan viewed prenuptial agreements as a way to circumvent the legal duty to support a spouse; a view the court still holds regarding postnuptial agreements. Michigan’s support of prenuptial agreements is not likely to influence the courts’ view on postnuptial agreements in the near future. The public policy considerations that allow prenuptial agreements to be enforceable are not easily applicable to postnuptial agreements.
When Michigan changed its view on prenuptial agreements, it was for two main reasons, according to Rinvelt v. Rinvelt. The court stated that without the ability to organize finances prior to marriage, people would choose to stay in informal relationships rather than get married. Additionally, the court reasoned that dealing with finances prior to marriage would foster permanency of the marriage. These viewpoints would be hard to attach to postnuptial agreements.
Without a major change in public policy or the legislature providing for postnuptial agreements by statute, a change in enforceability of postnuptial agreements in Michigan is unlikely. Michigan has classified pre-separation postnuptial agreements as different from other marital agreements. Under current law, postnuptial agreements that anticipate or encourage a future separation or divorce are unenforceable.
Young Americans can be divided into 5 primary groups based on their views on marriage, according to a survey of approximately 3600 adults aged 18-30.
The “Marriage Realists” made up 23% of the respondents. They are characterized by a balanced view on marriage. Members of this group were more likely to have higher income and educational attainment.
The “Not Yet Ready” group accounted for 22% of the respondents. This group was predominately male and the most ethnically diverse. This group views marriage as a long term goal.
The “True Believers” were also 22% of the respondents. This group had the highest level of educational attainment and was predominately Caucasian. It is characterized by a very high motivation to marry.
The “Romantics” made up 19% of the respondents. This group views marriage as a fairy tale and is more likely than other groups to believe in soul mates. This group was predominately African American and mostly made up of women.
The “Disbelievers” were 14% of the respondents. This group is characterized by a cynical view on their personal marital success and found divorce acceptable and common. Members of this group were more likely to be urban and have low income.
The United Nations Statistics Division collects official data on marriage and divorce from over 200 countries on an annual basis. Though each country does not use the same standards or procedures for divorce, for statistical purposes, divorce is defined as “a final legal dissolution of marriage, that is, that separation of husband and wife which confers on the parties the right to remarriage under civil, religious and/or other provisions, according to the laws of each country.”
The following results are the crude divorce rates based on the annual number of divorces per 1000 people, using mid-year population numbers. Crude rates are the total number of divorces occurring in the entire population without adjusting for related circumstances.
Countries with the Highest Crude Divorce Rate
|
Rank
|
Country
|
Divorce Rate
|
|
1.
|
Russia
|
4.5
|
|
2.
|
Gibraltar
|
4.2
|
|
3.
|
Ukraine
|
3.8
|
|
4.
|
Moldova
|
3.5
|
|
5.
|
United States
|
3.4
|
|
6.
|
Belarus
Lithuania
|
3.3
|
|
7.
|
Cuba
Latvia
|
3.2
|
|
8.
|
Czech Republic
|
3.1
|
|
9.
|
Cayman Islands
|
3
|
|
10.
|
Bermuda
Belgium
Estonia
Switzerland
|
2.8
|
|
11.
|
Netherlands Antilles
Korea
Denmark
|
2.6
|
|
12.
|
Austria
Finland
Hungary
Luxembourg
|
2.5
|
|
13.
|
Slovakia
New Zealand
|
2.4
|
|
14.
|
Cyprus
Kazakhstan
Aland Islands
France
Germany
Liechtenstein
Norway
Portugal
|
2.3
|
|
15.
|
Sweden
|
2.2
|
|
16.
|
Jordan
|
2.1
|
|
17.
|
Japan
|
2
|
|
18.
|
Bulgaria
Netherlands
Poland
|
1.9
|
|
19.
|
Seychelles
|
1.7
|
|
20.
|
Iceland
|
1.6
|
For a complete list of international divorce statistics, see “Divorces and Crude Divorce Rates, by urban/rural residence: 2002-2006” released July 21, 2008
Weekly recap 9-3 to 9-10
Highlights of the past week:
Learn more about marital mediation – our most popular pages of the week:
Most popular marriage tips of the week, according to our Twitter followers:
- If the issue is settled, let it go. No one gets anywhere in marriage by holding grudges.
- We get an annual checkup for our personal health, time to start getting them for marital health.
- Stop trying to “win” the argument and focus on resolving the issue.
For real time updates, friend us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.
Our responses to this week’s marriage chat hosted by blackandmarriedwithkids.com.
How should spouses address disagreements?
Spouses need to give each other the time and space to be heard and to process what the other is saying. This can’t happen when there is yelling or if one is always talking over the other. Poor non-verbal communication may also a negative effect. It’s amazing how much subtle and not-so-subtle body language can skew a conversation.
If you and your spouse have trouble giving each other the opportunity to be heard, try setting some ground rules. If yelling is an issue, make a deal that you’ll take a break if emotions get too strong and return to the conversation when you’ve each had a chance to calm down. Take turns talking for a set amount of time uninterrupted. If rolling of the eyes, or other non-verbal communication, gets in the way, go for a walk or a drive to make it less likely that you’ll get distracted by each other’s expressions.
Should spouses make a plan for how to come to an agreement after an argument?
Having a plan for how to reach an agreement is nice in theory, but once emotions are added, the plan can quickly go out the window. There isn’t a one size fits all approach to solving marital disagreements. Different phases in the relationship and different problems will require you to learn and use different skills. If spouses hold on too tightly to a specific plan, there may be times when it’s like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It’s better to have communication and conflict resolution skills that will lend themselves to a variety of situations. Marital mediation is one way that spouses can learn those skills.
Is the saying “never go to bed angry” doable? Why or Why Not?
Yes, it’s possible to not go to bed angry, but that doesn’t mean the issue is resolved. “Less angry” is a pretty good standard to aim for. Sometimes you have to recognize that you’ve done all you can for one night. If you’re not getting anywhere in the discussion, the disagreement won’t get easier to resolve as you get tired and cranky. A little space to reflect can make things look different in the morning.
What is your best advice for handling anger & disagreements in your marriage?
Forgetting about “winning” the argument. Nobody wins when spouses fight. Ask yourself if this fight is worth ending your marriage over. If it’s not, then the only thing that matter is compromise. Do your best to keep things in perspective. It’s not the first disagreement you’ve had with your spouse, but it could be the last if you let it go too far. And never forget the power of saying “I’m sorry”
For real time marriage advice, follow us on Twitter!
Powerful Non-Defensive Communication (PNDC) is a style of communication developed by Sharon Stand Ellison. Sharon believes the traditional method of communication – what she calls the “war model” – increases conflict because the focus is on winning the argument rather than resolving the issue. To the contrary, PNDC is honest, open communication that focuses on avoiding defensive maneuvers and power struggles that fuel conflict.
Communication under the “war model” leads to defensive reactions. Scientific research shows that when defensive, our limbic system is activated. This is the emotional part of the brain that controls the “fight or flight” response. With the limbic system engaged, a person reacts instinctively, not rationally. This diminishes, and may even temporarily eliminate, the ability to effectively communicate. Once stimulated, the limbic system remains activated for 20 minutes to 1 hour. This is one reason why it may seem impossible at times to move past an argument and resolve the conflict.
Once defensive, Sharon believes we engage in power struggles as part of the “fight or flight” response. Sometimes when faced with conflict, a person withdraws or surrenders. However, appearing weak or vulnerable is generally against human nature, as this leaves open the opportunity to be attacked and hurt. The remaining option is to search for the other person’s weakness and vulnerabilities, and counterattack. While engaging in defensive tactics (surrender, withdraw, or counterattack), effective communication is prevented.
Sharon’s solution: avoid defensiveness and power struggles through PNDC. She explains PNDC requires a person to “(1) change key attitudes, and (2) shift how we ask questions; give feedback; express our own thoughts, feelings and beliefs; and create clear boundaries. These shifts include changes in (a) intention, (b) tone, (c) body language, and (d) formatting (phrasing).” Here are some examples of how defensive communication differs from positive non-defense communication.
With PNDC couples can minimize conflict and reach a level of deeper understanding. Examples of the skills taught are:
- Speaking in a way that prevents others from becoming defensive.
- Preventing yourself from responding defensively to others.
- Stating opinions without superiority, criticism, or persuasion.
- Setting limits without coercion or ultimatums.
Sharon’s book, Taking the War Out of Our Words, a how-to guide on using PNDC. She also offers conferences for couples and for the mediators who work with them.
Parents naturally want to do all they can to take care of their children. Sometimes this instinct leads to spouses trying to create contracts about how they will raise their children if they ever divorce. The hope is the family can be spared from a lawsuit if the parents can agree in advance. However, enforceable postnuptial agreements do not resolve issues surrounding children. They are used to define financial rights and obligations. As a general rule of thumb: if it does not deal with property, it does not belong in a postnuptial agreement.
It might seem strange that parents cannot include provisions for raising children in a postnuptial agreement. Every day parents make decisions about their children’s lives: what they eat, what time they go to bed, whether they can go to a friend’s house, etc. The difference is those daily decisions don’t affect the legal rights of the children. On the other hand, child custody, support, and visitation do.
The right to child custody, support, and visitation does not belong solely to the parents. Therefore, a private contract between the parents is insufficient to resolve children’s issues. Instead, the law balances the rights of both of the parents, the children, and the state. Each parent has a right to raise their child. Every child has the right to be raised and to have a relationship with both parents. The state has the right to oversee child rearing because of its interest in protecting children from harm.
A postnuptial agreement cannot eliminate child support payments or establish the amount that will be paid. Child support may seem like a property right since it deals with money. However, the law does not view child support as a financial right. Child support deals with the right of the child to benefit from both parents’ income. States recognize that every parent has the responsibility to financially assist in raising their child to the fullest extent that they are able. The state’s child support guidelines establish the amount of child support that is paid, not the parents.
A postnuptial agreement cannot determine who the child will live with and if the other parent will see the child. Child custody and visitation is determined by the “best interest of the child” standard. There is no exact definition of what “best interest of the child” means. There are many factors. Ultimately, it involves whether the child is in a healthy, stable, and safe environment in which the child’s needs are being met and relationships with both parents are being preserved. A judge must determine the type of custody and when visitation is appropriate in every divorce case in order to ensure that the child is in a good environment. Even when parents agree on custody and visitation, they are required to obtain approval from the judge.
Public policy prohibits spouses from determining child custody, support, and visitation in postnuptial agreements. Children are not a commodity that can be traded between parents and cannot be used as a bargaining tool. If your postnuptial agreement contains provisions for children’s issues, the court may ignore those parts and still uphold the rest of your agreement or the court may invalidate the entire agreement. The best decision is to simply not include unenforceable children’s issues in a postnuptial agreement.
Weekly Recap: 8-27-11 to 9-2-11
The latest information added to maritalmediation.com
Here’s what others found interesting this week.
We encourage guest submissions. Send us your marriage related articles and be featured on maritalmediation.com
Want more marriage updates? Follow us on Twitter or like us on Facebook
The Center for Work and Family at Boston College researched the changing view on fatherhood through a series of in-depth interviews. The results of the study show that increasing numbers of men define the role of father as someone who has breadwinning and caregiving responsibilities. The fathers reported that many caregiving responsibilities were as important, if not more important, than financial responsibilities when defining what it means to be a good father. Fathers under the age of 40 are a little more likely to place a greater emphasis on caregiving.
