A Proposal to Reduce Unnecessary Divorce - Razorplanet

FOR THE PAST FORTY YEARS, law and judicial policy on divorce have been crafted
with the assumption that once couples file for divorce, the marriage is over
and the only realistic goal is a fair, constructive divorce. Conversations with
judges and divorce attorneys about the topic of marital reconciliation are often
met with some version of the following: “It’s not our job to be marriage counselors,
and by the time people get to us they want help with getting a divorce,
not with saving their marriage.”
It was not always this way. In the 1960s, many family court professionals saw
their first goal as helping couples reconcile if possible, and then, if this was not
possible, helping them have a constructive divorce. This dual focus is documented
in the history of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, the leading
professional organization for divorce professionals, and in landmark works
such as Therapeutic Family Law: A Complete Guide to Marital Reconciliations. 12
The assumption in the field at that time was that many couples filing for divorce
could be helped to reconcile by teams of legal and mental health professionals.
Even if they were not successful, it was worth the effort by the courts.
This “reconciliation first” approach was short-lived. A headline in the history
section on the Association of Family and Conciliation Court’s website describes
the shift this way: “The 1970s: From Reconciliation to Divorce with Dignity.”
Marital reconciliation was quietly dropped from the organization’s mission
statement as court professionals turned their full attention to “helping couples
end their marriages with a greater sense of dignity and self-worth and
with less trauma to themselves and their children.” 13 By the 1980s and 1990s,
mediation and other forms of collaborative practice replaced marriage counseling
in professionals’ work with divorcing couples. No one denied the possibility
that marital reconciliation could occur as a result of a good, collaborative
divorce process, but restoring the marital relationship was no longer an intentional
focus of divorce practice in the United States. 14
However, neither the early enthusiasm for reconciliation services nor the later
abandonment of these services was informed by actual research on divorcing
couples. Prior to new research that will be shared in this report, no studies
asked divorcing people if they would be interested in exploring marital reconciliation
with professional help. The study cited below came out of the practical
experience of Judge Bruce Peterson of Hennepin County, Minnesota. His meetings
with divorcing couples convinced him that at least some couples would
15