Slashdot Mirror
The Internet Has Transformed Modern Divorce
stern writes "The internet may be contributing to divorces (thanks, Facebook!) but it's also reducing the pain, especially the bitter fighting associated with joint custody. Calendars are now much easier to coordinate, and if one parent denies a court-ordered phone call to another, there's no way to hide the fact that the call didn't happen. Because of these and other technologies, divorce has changed radically in the last ten years. From the article: 'When [one divorcee] requested court-mandated parent counseling, the judge ordered the two to use an online tool called Our Family Wizard instead. Now, lawyers supervise e-mail exchanges between her and her ex, ensuring that each party responds to the other in a timely manner. All e-mails are time dated and tracked. Parents can create a shared expense log and receive automated notices and reminders about parental obligations.'"
The internet may be contributing to divorces (thanks, Facebook!)
Or you could instead say that its facilitating the catching of cheating rats.
Yes! At the same time that lawyers and courts have discovered on-line calendars, many offices have adopted word processors instead of using IBM Selectrics!
Seriously, this is hardly news. What has changed in divorce is that most jurisdictions have abandoned most of the moralistic old garbage surrounding it, and now make it (reasonably) painless for intelligent adults to dissolve a marriage. Even when there are kids.
Not that there aren't still enough idiots out there to keep the lawyers busy.....
Three Squirrels
I'm a divorced parent myself, and I found myself at least partially agreeing with one of the people who commented on the original article on the NYT web site. He said he doesn't understand America's insistence on joint custody and co-parenting with these toxic relationships that end in messy divorces.
I can't speak for the accuracy of his claim that in "other cultures", it's usually a winner take all scenario where one parent walks away and disappears, and the other steps up to raise the kid. But I definitely think there are times when this really is the best outcome for the kid.
It seems like we've made an automatic assumption that it's universally best for the kid(s) to spend as much time as possible with both parents, and on the surface such a suggestion sounds plausible. But not all marriages end simply because both people were immature and foolishly got married too quickly. Many times, one parent has a drug or alcohol addiction and becomes unbearable to live with. Other times, like in my own situation, the other parent suffers from mental illness (and contrary to what you may hear - medications for such things as bipolar disorder don't ever fully bring some people back into reality).
Our court systems essentially force these unfit parents to pretend they're able and willing to parent anyway, and the kid(s) pay the price.
I'm not against the idea of using tools like texting or email, or even some sort of moderated message system, if it helps parents work through the details of sharing custody in cases where it's the situation they're both striving for anyway. But I literally had my ex-wife tell the attorneys she was perfectly happy to sign all of her parental rights away. Yet the Family Court judge declared such a thing unacceptable, and made us come up with a shared custody arrangement instead. Something really is wrong with a legal system that believes they made a "better choice" by doing this. My ex moved to the other side of the country with some younger guy and only came to visit our daughter a total of 2 times in 10 years since then. She has a very small child support obligation she practically never pays, which has built up over time to total up to close to $20,000 so far. Reality is, my current g/f and I are raising my daughter -- not my ex-wife. And it would be foolish to ask her to make any kind of important legal decision on my kid's behalf since she practically has no idea about who she is and her needs anyway.
I suppose I could fork out the money to go back to court and fight to get full custody, and at this point, they'd probably grant it based on a decade of evidence of how things went.... but it's VERY irritating on principle that this could have been settled from the beginning when SHE said she wanted no part of being a mom during the divorce proceedings.
No, if you have chosen to reproduce, "think of the kids" should be your first consideration. But only for people who are parents.
As a reason to abridge the rights of the public, many of whom have not chosen the responsibility of having kids, you're right, fuck that in the ear with a rusty railroad spike. And I say that as a parent: if my kid accesses images of bestiality or whatever you're into and is scarred by it, that's my fault. You can watch all the depraved videos you want, and put them on whatever websites you want. You can take whatever privacy measures you want even if it means that law enforcement would be unable to make sure you're not transmitting illegal material. If law enforcement has no good reason to think you're doing something illegal, then you should be free to be as secretive as you want. Anyone who says otherwise is an asshole. "Think of the children" has no place in such discussions, except to mark very stupid people who should not be allowed to vote in a country that claims to be the land of liberty.
It's just that assholes who want to increase the government's powers find it useful to use that line the wrong way. Using it to remind parents that they have greater responsibilities is not as useful. That's why typically when you hear it, it's with a bad idea, it's not an inherently evil idea in and of itself. In divorce cases, it can be quite the opposite. If you're upset at your ex-spouse, you really need to put that aside for the children and act like an adult.
Twenty-three years into it, I have to say that I disagree. Though I wasn't a likely candidate, marriage (and later, a daughter) is one of the few life choices that I can say was an unqualified success, thanks to my improbable success in finding such a great mate.
That reminds me, my anniversary is in two weeks, and the old girl wants a tablet computer. I better get to picking out a good one for her.
"Meant" by whom? That's the great thing about being human: we get to make choices about how we're going to live.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The point is that you are proclaiming publicly a promise, and if you break your promise (your vows in this case) you and everyone -should- feel, and rightly so, that you do not have personal integrity, and your word should not be trusted. Complex societies are built on a web of trusts, and when we can no long trust each other, public order will crumble and we will abandon our complex civilization. This happens one person at a time. Children need good examples to follow, especially example of trusting relationships. So now, do you still wonder why children are ill-behaved, and we feel that society becomes more corrupt each day, with a sky-high divorce rate such as we have? And so it falls.
Sent from my ENIAC
Fraking things you do for love :( I loved her much more than myself. Stupid but true.
What language can't be improved with the liberal application of parentheses?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
What language can't be improved with the liberal application of parentheses?
Lisp