The Crises of Marriage Breakdown and Processes for Dealing with Them

• Author: Julien D. Payne, Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 130-172



 

e Crises of Marriage Breakdown

and Processes for Dealing with em

A. THE CRISES OF MAR RIAGE BREAKDOWN

For most families, mar riage breakdown provokes three cr ises: an emotional

crisis; an economic c risis; and a parenting c risis. Both of the s pouses and

their child ren suer severe emotional upheaval when the un ity of the family

disintegrates. Failu re in the most basic of life’s commitments is not lightly

shrugged o by its v ictims. Marriage break down, whether or not accompan-

ied by divorce, is a painf ul exper ience. Furthermore, relative ly few families

encounter separation or divorce without encounter ing nancia l setbacks.

e emotional and economic cr ises resulting from ma rriage brea kdown are

compounded by the co-parenta l divorce when there are dependent children.

Bonding between c hildren and thei r absent parent is inevitably t hreatened

by spousal sepa ration and divorce.

Paul Bohannan identi ed six “stations” in the h ighly complex human

process of marri age breakdown:

• the emotional divorce;

• the legal divorce;

• the economic divorce;

• the co-parenta l divorce;

• the community divorce; and

• the psychic divorce.

 Paul Bohann an, “e Six Statio ns of Divorce” in Divorce and Af ter (New York: Doubleday

& Co, ) c .

Chapter : The Cris es of Marriage Breakdown an d Processes for Dealing with Them  

Each of these stations of divorce involves an evolutionary process a nd

there is substantia l interaction among them. e dy namics of marriage

breakdown, whic h are multifaceted, cannot be addressed in i solation.

History demonstrates a pred isposition to seek the solution to the crises

of marria ge breakdown in ex ternal syste ms. During the pa st  years, the

Church, law, and medicine have e ach been called upon to deal wit h the crises

of marria ge breakdown. Understand ably, each system has been found want-

ing in its search for solutions. People are averse to losing control over t heir

own lives. Decrees a nd “expert” ru lings that exc lude aected part ies from

the decision-ma king process do not pass uncha llenged. Omni science is not

the prerogative of any profession. Nor should the fam ily’s right to self-deter-

mination be light ly ignored.

B. THE EMOTIONAL DIVORCE

For many people, there are two cr iteria of self-f ull ment. One is satisfac-

tion on the job. e second, and more important one, is satisfaction with

one’s marriage or fami ly. When marriage breakdow n occurs, the spouses and

their child ren experience a g rieving process. e de vastating eect of m ar-

riage breakdow n is particu larly evident w ith the displaced long-term home-

making spou se whose united family h as crumbled and who is i ll-equipped ,

psychological ly and otherwi se, to convert homemaking sk ills into gai nful

employ ment.

Most legal divorces in Can ada are uncontested. Issues relat ing to the

economic and parenting consequences of ma rriage break down are usual ly

resolved by negotiation between t he spouses, who are often represented by

independent lawyers. Be cause the overwhelming majorit y of all divorces are

uncontested, it might be assumed th at the legal system works well in resolv-

ing the economic and parenting con sequences of marri age breakdown. at

assumption cannot pass unchallenged.

In the typic al legal divorce scena rio, spouses negotiate a sett lement at

a time when one or both are undergoing t he emotional trauma of ma rriage

breakdown. Psych iatrists and psyc hologists agree th at this “emotional di-

vorce” passes through a var iety of states, includi ng denial, hosti lity, and

depression, to the ultimate acce ptance of the death of the mar riage. Work-

ing through the spou sal emotional divorce ra rely takes less tha n two years.

In the interim, per manent and legal ly binding decisions a re often made to

regulate the economic a nd parenting consequences of the mar riage break-

down. From a legal perspec tive, the economic and parenting consequences of

the marriage breakdown are interdependent. Decisions respecti ng any con-

tinued occupation of the matr imonial home, the amount of ch ild support,

  

and the amount of spousal sup port, if any, are conditioned on the arr ange-

ments made for the future upbri nging of the chi ldren. e perceived legal

interdependence of property r ights, support rights, and parental r ights after

divorce natural ly aords opportunities for abuse b y lawyers and their cl ients.

e lawyer who has bee n imbued with the “will to w in” from the outset of his

or her career, coupled with the client who negoti ates a settlement when his or

her emotional divorce is unresolved , can wreak future havoc on the spous es

and on their chi ldren. Far too often, when sett lements are negotiated, chi l-

dren become pawns or weapons in t he hands of game-play ing or warr ing

adults and the battles do not cease w ith the judicial divorce.

e interplay between t he emotional dyna mics of marr iage breakdown

and regulation of t he economic consequences of marri age breakdown may

be demonstrated by the follow ing examples. A needy spouse who insist s that

no claim for spousa l support should be pursued may be manifestin g a hope

for reconciliation or a state of depression. A spouse who makes excessive de -

mands is often ma nifesting hostility. A spouse who proers an u nduly gener-

ous nancia l settlement may be expiating g uilt. Denial, depression, host ility,

and guilt are a ll typic al manifestat ions of the emotional divorce th at elicit

inappropriate responses to dea ling with t he practical economic and pa rent-

ing consequences of marr iage breakdown. Furt hermore, like most emotional

states, they change w ith the passage of ti me. Separated spouses, law yers,

and mediators should be aware of the d angers of premature sett lements

when one or both of the spouses are sti ll going through emotion al turmoil.

Indeed, the notion of a “cooling-o ” period, though unsuccessfu l as a means

of divorce avoidance, might have sign icant advantages w ith respect to ne-

gotiated spousal set tlements upon marr iage breakdown. Cer tainly, spouses

and their law yers should more frequently assess the st rategic potential of

interim agreements a s a stage in a longer-term d ivorce adjustment and ne-

gotiation process.

e legal divorce and the emotiona l divorce usually involve di erent time

frames. Furt hermore, the emotional divorce is ra rely contemporaneous for

both spouses. Law yers frequently encounter situations where one spouse

regards the mar riage as over but the other spouse is unable or unwi lling to

accept that realit y. In circumstances where one of the spouse s is adamant-

ly opposed to cutting t he marital umbi lical cord, embittered negotiations

or contested litigation over support, proper ty divi sion, or custody or access

often reect an unresolved e motional divorce. Spouses who have not worked

their way through t he emotional divorce displ ace what is essential ly a non-

litigable issue relati ng to the preservation or di ssolution of the marri age by

ghting over the liti gable issues of support, propert y sharing , custody, and

access. In such cases, t he judicial disposition often fa ils to terminate spousa l