A Proposal to Reduce Unnecessary Divorce - Razorplanet

More documents

Recommendations

Info

38 Marriage education programs have been used for decades in the U.S. and have a demonstrated track record in helping to improve and save marriages. Marriage education aims to equip individuals and couples with the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to succeed in marriage. Most marriage education occurs in classroom settings with trained instructors who are professionals or qualified lay volunteers. A key tenet in marriage education is that marital success depends neither on finding the “perfect match” nor on the notion that love conquers all, but on the belief that knowledge and competencies can be taught and learned. Knowledge includes an understanding of the benefits and advantages of marriage, the reasons to work hard for one’s marriage, and a roadmap of the predictable ups and downs along the way. Competencies include developing communication and conflict management skills and finding positive ways to connect in everyday life. 53 Several of the more well-known marriage education programs have been evaluated and proved effective. A prominent evidence-based marriage education program called PREP has recently been found to lower divorce rates in a study of military couples. 54 In the faith community sector, the Retrouvaille program, which consists of a retreat weekend and follow-up group meetings for distressed couples, has a long track record of restoring hope to and rebuilding troubled marriages. A weekly drop-in group program called The Third Option, which has secular and faith-based versions, combines training in communication skills, group support, and mentoring by seasoned married couples. 55 Educational approaches such as these are skills-oriented and require less disclosure of personal problems than traditional marriage counseling, and thus are more acceptable to couples who are reluctant to go to therapy. Group programs also typically cost less than individual counseling sessions. Some, like Retrouvaille and The Third Option, ask only for good will offerings. 56 State legislatures can promote these preventive educational programs for couples at risk for divorce by offering an incentive via a modest tax rebate to defray some of the costs. 57 As an example, couples would be eligible for a $100 tax rebate. Given the high costs of divorce to states, including court costs, increased welfare payments, educational costs, and juvenile justice system costs for children and youth, a modest decrease of tax revenue that prevents even a small percentage of divorces would be in the public interest. 58 States like Minnesota, which currently has a financial incentive for obtaining premarital education, have seen success in increasing the rate of couples preparing for marriage. 59
CREATE CENTERS TO HELP PREVENT UNNECESSARY DIVORCE The final piece of our proposal concerns the creation of centers of excellence to develop state capacity to help couples at risk for divorce. These centers would focus on providing public information and training professionals who work with couples considering divorce. They would access or develop innovative ways of working with such couples and improve the capacity of professionals and communities to implement these methods. The centers could also promote the best marriage therapy models and the best marriage education programs currently available. State universities are logical places to house these centers, although a stable nonprofit agency would be an alternative if there is not adequate expertise or interest at the state university. A recommended stable funding mechanism is a small surcharge, such as $5 to $10, on marriage license fees. Because nearly half of newly marrying couples are at risk for divorce, this surcharge can be thought of as a form of insurance to make sure that good help is available if they need it down the road. In Minnesota, the legislature created the Minnesota Couples on the Brink Project in 2010 (www.MNCouplesontheBrink.org or www.cehd.umn.edu/cbp). Based at the University of Minnesota, the center’s mission is to develop, evaluate, and disseminate best practices for helping married couples at high risk for divorce who are interested in considering reconciliation. Some examples of what the Minnesota Couples on the Brink Project is doing include: n Developing, with a group of attorneys, the Family Law Marital Reconciliation Option Project, which is gathering and disseminating best practices for lawyers on the frontline of the divorce process. n Working with clergy who have agreed to develop and disseminate best practices for working with “crisis marriages” in religious communities. As we know, struggling couples often turn first to their religious community for help. Center professionals provide secular expertise and participating clergy determine how to integrate this expertise with their faith traditions. 39
Page 1: Sec nd Chances A Proposal to Reduce
Page 4 and 5: THE AUTHORS ARE GRATEFUL TO Charles
Page 6 and 7: 6 October 21, 2011 DEAR READER: As
Page 8 and 9: 8 MAJOR FINDINGS n About 40 percent
Page 10 and 11: 10 1. RESEARCH 1. RESEARCH FINDINGS
Page 12 and 13: 12 In a compelling use of data, Pro
Page 14 and 15: 14 These costs arise from increased
Page 16 and 17: 16 be interested in an “exit ramp
Page 18 and 19: 18 Table 1 Minnesota Couples on the
Page 20 and 21: 20 2. RECOMMENDATIONS The remaining
Page 22 and 23: 22 In her classic qualitative study
Page 24 and 25: 24 Table 2 State Waiting Periods fo
Page 26 and 27: 26 5. States and nations with waiti
Page 28 and 29: 28 years but has remained in the ma
Page 30 and 31: 30 clergy, pastoral counselors asso
Page 32 and 33: 32 MARSHA: “What do you mean, tru
Page 34 and 35: 34 communication and conflict manag
Page 36 and 37: 36 had Internet access. 49 In addit
Page 40 and 41: 40 n Innovating and offering “dis
Page 42 and 43: 42 3. MODEL LEGISLATION FOR THE SEC
Page 44 and 45: 44 A BILL ESTABLISHING A CENTER TO
Page 46 and 47: 46 o I am experiencing an emergency
Page 48 and 49: 48 education program is responsible
Page 50 and 51: 50 justice leah Ward Sears was the
Page 52 and 53: 52 divorce was determined by multip
Page 54 and 55: 54 24. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., a
Page 56 and 57: 56 42. Susan L. Pollet and Melissa
Page 58: 58 61. More on “hopeful spouse co

A Proposal to Reduce Unnecessary Divorce - Razorplanet

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?