Suzy Miller 2013-05-21T04:24:28-04:00 Suzy Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=suzy-miller Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Suzy Miller Good old fashioned elbow grease. I Want More Time With My Kids: Court or Not to Court - That Is the Question? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2971014 2013-03-28T09:44:24-04:00 2013-03-28T13:29:07-04:00 Suzy Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-miller/  


Despite railing against adversarial divorce in my role as the UK's Alternative Divorce Guide, the one time that going to court can seem a necessary evil is over disputes regarding contact with the kids.


 


I have witnessed a father who - with the help of national charity Families Need Fathers - represented himself in court and achieved a defined contact order, which meant his ex-wife could not whisk their child away at will despite previously agreed contact being arranged - including holidays abroad where you just don't want the added stress of wondering if you will be getting on the plane alone due to the mother's sudden desire to keep the child with her.


 


However, having read the very thought-provoking article by David Burrows which I spotted via @RaydensLaw on Twitter, I shared this article today with a father who is currently despairing of a non-adversarial approach and wondering if he needs to go to court and instil some discipline into the parenting relationship using the law.


Evidence, Practice and Procedure: Rule of children law, and of control in children proceedings dlvr.it/38Jj5p is a disturbing article in some ways, but important. It is vital that people who use the legal system take a broad view of the chaotic nature of family law before going down that road.


They need to understand that the legal processes can turn initially reasonable demands into a whole new set of game playing on an expensive scale, and as for who wins and who loses, I recommend a coin is taken into the court room and tossed, as that is about as accurate a way of guessing outcomes as any.


 


Positive Steps You Can Take to Improve Contact with your Kids Post Divorce:


My advice to parents thinking of using the courts to gain regular access to their children, that they get their ducks in a row first. "He said - She said" dialogues are not productive. If you are really turning up at agreed times, on time, then it's easy enough to prove. Use a shared online diary (eg. Kids On Time) and when you arrive at the pickup point on time, use a Google Check-In (one of the Kids On Time features) to prove via GPS that you are indeed at that location at that time.


If the other parent will not allow contact dates to be fixed in a diary, then surely that indicates to any judge unreasonable behavior? Online applications remove some of the emotive upset that can occur when messages are sent via text, email or even Facebook, and reduce the miscommunication that beleaguers so many post-divorce parallel-parenting relationships.


 


Non-Legal Support


If you and your Ex just cannot communicate, then don't drag in well-meaning friends to help mediate. That is a poisoned chalice that no friend needs to be handed! Mediation is a skill and requires training and experience. Family mediators can help resolve key issues regarding parenting and access - as can parenting experts. Even better, parents could consider individual coaching to help them get a less emotive perspective on their reactions to what they perceive as the button-pushing of their Ex partners, so that they are able to make the mediation or parent coaching sessions really work.


 


Whose Rights - the Parents or the Children?


Most of all, parents need to stop thinking about their rights, their needs - and focus on what the children need. Children benefit from spending regular time with both of their parents, in ways that fit into their (the children's) busy lives. Not what suits the parents best. Most of all, the children want mummy and daddy to grow up, stop fighting, and demonstrate how they can learn to treat each other with politeness and agree on at least one thing: what they want their children to learn about relationships.


Denying another parent access because they let the children play video games or eat junk food may seem reasonable at the time, but it is really a power struggle more than it is caring for the kids. The kids care more about their parents being able to resolve conflict and put their children's interests first, than they will ever care about how many burgers they ate on a weekend with dad or sleepless nights from a mum desperate to finish the washing up sticking the child in front of a computer game which leaves their brains buzzing.


I know that some of my earlier fears about how my kids were spending their time with their dad, felt totally reasonable - and they were. But the bigger picture was always what is best for the kids in the long term. Nagging their dad was never going to make him change his views, so setting an example (which luckily for me also happened the other way round) was always the best policy.


 


Managing Expectations in Child Contact Disputes


When a parent behaves in a way that is actively harmful to the children, or potentially so - or they resolutely prevent or block contact or create parental alienation telling the kids bad stuff about the other parent - then the law does need to step in. But it is often ill-equipped to do a good job, so any parent heading towards the courtroom needs to do their homework, question their own motives, and remember to take a coin in their pocket.

]]> The True Divorce Stats the Marriage Foundation Want You to Know tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2711157 2013-02-18T10:52:46-05:00 2013-04-20T05:12:01-04:00 Suzy Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-miller/  


Perhaps it was just my imagination, but I thought I could feel a slight frisson of unease when I introduced myself at the Marriage Foundation conference in London 2013 as: "I'm Suzy Miller, of Divorce in a Box".


I was not one of the speakers - just asking a question. I'd raised some laughter when first telling friends that I was off to the Marriage Foundation's first national conference "Modern Marriage: Myths, Realities and Prospects", but this event turned out to be even more relevant to my own business than I had presumed. The conference was detailed and thought provoking, and for someone like myself - with a mission to encourage divorcing couples to avoid adversarial lawyers, and make healthy co-parenting a reality - the information I gleaned was extremely valuable.


 


Busting the divorce myths:


The following data is from the ONS but has now been analysed by Harry Benson, Communications Director for the Marriage Foundation. It was not only refreshing to hear intelligent conclusions being drawn from the number crunching of the Office of National Statistics, but it was invaluable to finally get some of those persistent divorce myths busted for good. Myths that I had adopted just the same as everyone else.


"The 7 Year Itch" - yes, it is a myth:


For over 40 years, divorce rates have been consistently at their highest between 3 and 6 years after the marriage. After peaking between three and six years, the likelihood of a marriage ending in divorce decreases with each year thereafter. One in five newlyweds divorce after ten years of marriage, with the likelihood of a marriage ending in divorce further shrinking with each decade. A tiny 2 per cent of weddings end in divorce after thirty years of marriage, with divorce rates after forty years of marriage even rarer: fewer than 0.5 per cent of couples divorce after being married forty years or more.


"Recession raises divorce rates" - yes, it is a myth:


The divorce trend has remained constant in the UK despite recessions, booms and cultural changes in social attitudes.


"2nd Marriages are more likely to fail" - yes, it is a myth:


The second marriage for the husband shows a lower divorce rate than if it is the first marriage - possibly because the first marriage could have been a 'slide' whereas a second marriage is more likely to be a conscious commitment.


Silver Surfers:


Older couples divorce rates are not as alarming as has we have been led to believe: if a married couple survive the first ten years of marriage, their risk of divorce is the same as it has been in the previous four decades.


Divorce Rate trends:


In 1986 there was a divorce rate peak of 44% of married couples divorcing in that year.


Current trends show a rate according to ONS calculations of 42% - however, they exclude people who were married outside of the UK. If all marriages are included for UK citizens, then the rate of divorce is actually only 39%.


 


Why is it so important to draw the right conclusions from these statistics?


The answer to that is simple. Because the cost of family failure in the UK is £44 billion per year. That's more than we spend on defense. So one of the questions that was raised at the conference was whether law makers were aware of the long term effects on family health when they passed new laws - for example, could it be that the changes in the law which now allow fathers who are named on their child's divorce certificate to have parental rights, even though they are not married, have in effect influenced the rise in the number of men cohabiting, having children and not getting feeling it necessary to get married? There are of course other factors as well - but it's a fair question to ask.


A question that wasn't asked directly - but which I felt was implicit - was should marriage be made less easy to avoid in the interests of stable families and the cost to society as a whole? Despite regular affirmations that unmarried parents still can have long successful relationships, the evidence that was being shown indicated clearly that children born into a married household are much less likely to end up becoming the children of a broken home.


The question I still need an answer to in order to form my own clear opinion on this, however, is whether those statistics for broken families from cohabiting couples can be broken down further to separate out parents who cohabit because they have slid into unplanned pregnancy, from those who have made a deliberate decision to be together and create a family without first getting married. I say this because I know that in the 1980s home birth statistics included mothers giving birth in the back of taxi cabs or homeless people giving birth in fields - basically, any place that babies were not born in hospital. It wasn't a fair or statistically accurate comparison with hospital births, yet even now there is a myth that home births are less safe than hospital births which is not supported by statistical evidence.


I would also argue that stable co-parenting families do often later marry - so the ones that don't may be less confident about their long-term happiness together, so it makes sense to me to compare long term marriages with long term cohabiting families, all with children, and to see if the differences in break up rates are as dramatically diverse as the Marriage Foundation indicate.


I'm not suggesting for one moment that cohabiting as parents is not a good thing - I did it myself for 10 years. In my case, I don't believe being married would have led to our current extended family being any happier than it is now. However, it is important to get greater statistical clarity on these issues, and there is more work to be done.


What is undeniable is that cohabiting parents lack the legal protections of their married counterparts. When you give up your career and become the main carer for your children, that leaves that particular parent extremely vulnerable.


"Living together before marriage increases the divorce risk" - is a myth - sort of....


I asked Harry Benson during tea break if living together before marriage affects the solidity of the marriage. He told me that statistics indicate that living together before marriage appears not to be an issue if the couple are engaged. But living together prior to the engagement does seem to affect divorce outcomes.


This could be because couples who get engaged before living together have already made a clear decision to be together for a long time, rather than sliding into marriage for other reasons - perhaps family pressure, or because their friends are all getting married.


 


CoHabitation - Millions are choosing it over marriage:


Professor Rebecca Probert of the Warwick School of Law, was also one of the speakers at the conference, and her statistical data was very revealing.


Currently, a quarter of all births in the UK are recorded as being from couples who are cohabiting and not married (where both parents are registered on the birth certificate and have the same address). This means the parents lack the protection of the marriage laws, since 'common law marriage' has never existed in the UK.


We have 2.9 million cohabiting couples in the UK today. So that means a great many parents who are the main carer - mainly the women - who are not able to work the same hours or follow the same career path they would have done if not becoming parents, who are not putting money into a pension, who are unable to claim anything from their working partners pension, and who have no automatic rights to the property they are living in if their names are not on the mortgage deeds. What is even more disturbing, is that about half of those people will not be aware that 'common law marriage' is a myth, and always has been.


 


Should marriage be a social seat-belt enforced by the State?


So should marriage be enforced in the same way as using a seat-belt become obligatory in cars? Is it really safe for society to make having families outside of the legal framework of marriage so easy, with so many of those cohabiting families breaking up - and with the cost of family failure (as it was referred to at the conference) at £44 billion pounds a year to the UK as a whole?


Personally, I would like to see further interpretation and data gathering to provide clearer information on whether a conscious commitment to a stable family is more likely to have been made by couples who get married, than those who choose to live together. I definitely agree with the mood of the conference that greater relationship preparation should be encouraged.


Actually, I think it should be obligatory to attend a coaching course in communication skills with a future spouse, creating a life plan together that is positive and visionary, and also openly discussing finances and 'what if' scenarios - in other words, a prenup. Just imagine how many marriages would benefit by accessing the coaching skills and financial advice at the beginning of their union rather than when things start to crumble. One suggestion I proposed during the conference that was well received, was that mediators have a positive role to play in helping couples to create prenups rather than just having their services being used when people are getting divorced.



Taking out the romance?


Not at all. It doesn't have to be unromantic to be able to talk openly with your life partner about your dreams, your values and your finances.


Married or not, there is no romance in a lack of communication, a fear of talking about money, nor in not knowing how you will co-parent if you end up living in different houses further down the line.


 


 


 



 


 


 


 

]]> The Big Five Divorce Myths tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2301830 2012-12-14T12:49:40-05:00 2013-02-13T05:12:01-05:00 Suzy Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-miller/


There are five main reasons that families today can find themselves in an adversarial divorce process. These reasons are caused partly by the divorce industry, and partly by people not wanting to take full responsibility for keeping their divorce non-adversarial. It's up to us to change things!


 


True or false?


1 "We didn't want it to get nasty, but we couldn't stop it becoming adversarial"


2 "I have to fight for a good settlement and what's fair or I'll lose out"


3 "He/she have become completely unreasonable so mediation won't work"


4 "I feel betrayed and if I have my day in court, I will feel compensated for my suffering"


5 "I don't understand the process so I need a lawyer to take control of the process for me"


 


So are the Big 5 truths - or are they really myths?


Well of course they seem pretty true to a lot of people finding themselves going through family breakup. But in my experience I see that they are in fact myths, and here is why:


 


1 "We didn't want it to get nasty, but we couldn't stop it becoming adversarial"


True or False?


I'll give it to you straight. The common denominator in adversarial divorce seems to be adversarial lawyers. No matter how much you want to "break up right - please don't fight"™, once you start giving over responsibility to the divorce process to traditional family lawyers then communication often breaks down, and the process can become adversarial, expensive, and very slow to resolve. This is why it is vital to clearly understand your choices from the start.


For example, if you use mediation, you only need to use solicitors at key points for some independent legal advice including turning your final agreement into something that a court will recognise and accept. If your want lawyers all the way through the process then use collaborative lawyers - you won't be able to go to court and the process focuses on direct communication, not expensive letters flying backwards and forwards.


If you really want an amicable divorce, then it's up to you to choose the right people to help you, and the first divorce lawyer you interview may not be the right person for the job.


 


 


2 "I have to fight for a good settlement and what's fair"



True or False?


False. Particularly for mothers, the idea that negotiating a settlement and ongoing financial support for the children will be less fair - or let's speak plainly here - less money - if they use mediation for example, is not only illogical (how can a mutual agreement between you and your ex be less beneficial than an arbitrary decision by a judge?), but it is also not statistically true.


US studies have shown that women using mediation end up with higher maintenance payments over a long period of time, than women who go through the courts. And that's not taking into account the cost of court hearings and legal fees which can fritter away money better targeted on university fees or investing it in a business start up opportunity.


 


 


3 "He/she have become completely unreasonable so mediation won't work"


True or False?


This is the myth that really annoys me the most. EVERYONE is unreasonable and sometimes a little bit mad when going through divorce (or everyone I know, anyway). Family breakup and divorce is one of the most traumatic, horrible experiences a person can go through, and feeling anger, pain and grief are all natural human reactions to the process. Deal with the emotions, and then the brain kicks back in.


Not only do mediation and collaborative law allow couples to feel listened to, to express their feelings and to then be supported to find the best way forward for the family as a whole, but with the support of other experts in coaching for example, that 'unreasonable' ex can express and work through their anger, fear - or whatever is driving their destructive behaviour - and providing their ex has not risen to the bait and has held a reasonable and consistent space for open and safe communication, then that unreasonable ex will usually decide to work with you rather than against you. It is invariably in their interests to do so.


I have often heard of ex partners who are determined to drag their ex through the courts, who suddenly 'wake up' when they realise how much money, time and energy this approach is taking, and the harm it is doing to their children. But keeping that faith in your ex being ultimately an intelligent and good-hearted person when their behaviour is not reinforcing that, is a real challenge. But challenges are what make us grow and evolve as human beings so bless them for giving you that opportunity, get appropriate support (not an adversarial lawyer, please) and hold on tight for the ride!


 


 


4 "I feel betrayed and if I have my day in court, I will feel compensated for my suffering"


True or False?


A family law barrister told me recently, that when a couple take their divorce into the courtroom, they might as well toss a coin as to who will 'win' and who will 'lose'. And of course in reality, no-one wins, and an adversarial approach costs both sides money, time and stress. Not to mention the serious effects on the children.


If you are parents, you will not like what I'm going to say at this point, but for your children's sakes' I'm going to say it anyway: Divorce is not what causes harm to children. Adversarial divorce is what causes harm - more than you can imagine. A long term study has shown that children whose parents divorce through the courts - compared to those parents who were randomly chosen in the study to use mediation - that those children of the adversarial divorce process were significantly less likely to be in regular contact with both parents post-divorce. Other studies confirm that: "Children who are exposed to more intense conflict between parents are more likely to suffer harm resulting from their parents' divorce. The lower the level of conflict between parents, the more likely those children will emerge emotionally whole."


The judge is not interested in your pain. But if you are a celebrity the local press may well be, and they are allowed to come into the courtroom and report on whatever dirty laundry is paraded before the judge. If you choose mediation or collaborative law, your ex has the opportunity to really listen to you in a supportive environment, as part of the process of seeking a sustainable settlement and a way to start over as separate people. And you have the opportunity to really listen to them, too. As co-parents, that is a good way to begin the many years of co-parenting that lie ahead. If you're really clever, you'll do some work singly or together with a relationship coach as well, which can transform the way you negotiate the divorce journey and make staying out of an adversarial frame of mind much much easier.


 


5 "I don't understand the process so I need a lawyer to take control of the process for me"


True or False?


As the creator of the Alternative Guide to Divorce, I am of course going to say that lawyers are not all that they are cracked up to be - but the truth is, they can be worth their weight in gold - but you need to be careful that you talk to a lawyer who is aligned with what you really want as an end result. So if what you really want is for your kids to not be traumatised by their parents having an angry divorce battle that rages for years, then choosing to involve family lawyers who are trained in mediation or the collaborative process to advice you at key points in the process, makes sense, as they are going to be more likely to steer a non-adversarial route.


But it is you who is getting divorced - not the lawyers. You are in charge of your divorce, not the lawyers. Which is why getting a clear overview of the process from a wellbeing and financial and parenting perspective is so important. Every divorce is different, and only you can hold the bigger picture as a vision of what you want to achieve, and it is you who needs to take responsibility for getting the right support at the right time.


Luckily, you know better than anyone what you need. Talk directly to all those experts offering clarity on how to stay out of court, helping you to open your heart to CoParenting, plus saving you money and stress in the process.



At Divorce in a Box we're different. We've taken an industry that is resisting change, and used our own twist to shake it up a little - to make sure everybody wins...

]]> Infidelity: It's None Of My Business tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2006215 2012-10-23T14:03:08-04:00 2012-12-23T05:12:01-05:00 Suzy Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-miller/
The events that lead up to it should have left clues, but they didn't register: The bank letters addressed in his name that I didn't open because I'd learned that it was, apparently, none of my business how he kept missing the payments on the credit cards; the time he spent at the local pub which was natural for a hard working man, to need time away from our three young children after a long day on the factory floor.

I, remote and oblivious to the inebriated courting dance played out across the bar room tables with the publican's girlfriend, while I breastfed on the move, trying in vain to create a comfortable calm space for their tired father to return home to each night, rambling on when he finally did deposit himself on the sofa, unaware in my lactating, nappy changing, 10 cups of cold tea littering every mantlepiece daily life, that a monologue does not constitute a conversation; waffling on about the latest gleaning from Radio 4 heard only in snippets due to the constant interruptions from child no one, two or three - the eldest only just having turned 6, and the youngest having finally decided to move under his own steam.

I had learned over the 10 years to listen to the tales of door manufacturing, details that after a day with the children, seemed quite fascinating, but to mind my own business when it came to more esoteric concerns such as what dreams were held for the future, what adventures lay ahead, until the future became a place I felt in no hurry to get to. Which is why I now thank god that it was so abruptly pillaged.

And then one night it all exploded. The infidelity. The shame. The utter confusion. The end.

My response was not normal behaviour. I forced myself to return to the Pub where the young woman who had stolen what I had mistaken for my life - then promptly returned the goods, spoiled - would scuttle upstairs as I took courage from a friend at my side, refusing to use the other perfectly good pubs in the village when I could show my resilience by using this one. I did not scream or rail at her - but instead made it plain that she had 'done me a favour' and pretended to ignore the agony of guilt that tortured her every time I walked into her domain.

Nine and a half years later, I'm dancing with my friends at a local hooley. Love and pain and joy has moulded my spirit and form these last years in such a way that it is now impossible for me to regret any of it, even the parts that caused all that agony of 9 and a half years ago. Forgiveness foiled by a lack of forgetting, yet a shift in consciousness that made the person I had once been seem like a stranger to me.

And now there she stood in front of me. Breathing a little too heavily for someone who had been standing still for an hour building up the courage to come up and stand before me. I stopped dancing, and recognised immediately the lost girl who had come so close to taking everything I had - or thought I had - which at the time did seem like everything.

Physically she had taken him, and had been about to run away and marry him, leaving me with my name not on the mortgage and no marital bonds to protect my interests, with three small children living in a house that, with one swift secret runaway to Gretna Green, she would have then owned half of. But luckily, as I suppose it was luck, my children's father confessed his hidden debts, the gnawing canker of which was eating at his mind and spirit until running away to Scotland had actually seemed a good idea.

But that night 9 and a half years ago he had confessed his debt, first to her, and then later to me. Unloaded it as if it were a terrible curse, and yet it was the performance around it that had caused the real injury. And she had decided swiftly that he should return home, and she returned to the bed of her partner as if nothing had happened. But it had happened, and I was never one to stick my head in the sand or put on dark glasses when the truth was glaring me in the eyes like the eruption of an exploding supa nova.

"I've been watching you for an hour" she said, her voice trembling, out of sorts with the joyous dancing of adults and children that surrounded us. "I was too afraid to come up to you".

'Afraid' I thought. It seemed odd. After all these years of working through the anger, the hatred, the indignation. She was the one who was afraid? We had not ended our relationship on angry terms. "He's yours if you want him" I had told her that night before I moved out to begin my new life. "Just make up your mind. He's losing the plot and I need him to keep his head together. We have to sell the house for debts. Debts I didn't know we had." And neither had she known, for if she had perhaps the incentive for that illicit temporary love would have remained a bar-room daydream. Before the mountain of loans and unpaid credit cards were laid out on the table, one night it seemed she had all that she so wanted. The package was meant to include a house, and children ready made and no doubt more to come. It is not unusual for a woman longing for what she has not got, to try to substitute herself for a woman who does have what she wants.

And yet ironically, in the destruction that followed, I found slowly over the years that my precious treasures were not attached to any bricks and mortar, nor pension plan, nor sharing a bed with my children's father. I had gained, not lost, over those years.

I was driving home later that night so alcohol can not be blamed for my actions. I read once that "happiness is the best revenge", and I remember longing for that revenge to come to pass. Without a second thought, I hugged her, and immediately shouted in her ear above the roar of the band "It's all water under the bridge".

"You look amazing" she said. She must have expected my nearly 49 years to have left me more scarred. "I'm happy!" I roared, and carried on dancing. And I meant it. There was no fakery here. There was no need to forgive either. I had acceptance, and that was doing the job nicely thank you.

And yet something nagged at me over the following days. Why after all this time, would she be so afraid to come and say hello? I had given her no reason to feel that fear. It had all been most amicable - and my true rage and pain had found other ways to express itself over the ensuing years.

It bothered me, that she should be carrying that unease for so many years, while I had shed mine. It gave me no pleasure, to see no tangible sign of her having attained those treasures that must have seemed with her grasp, which I had kept in the bank with added interest despite the destruction of my world as I knew it. A sense of annoying arrogance nibbled. And then I remembered something.

All those years of wondering why. Of wondering how I could have loved a man who so easily seemed to transfer his love - temporarily - to another. Why she had crept into my house when I was out, to be with him, the children asleep upstairs. Why such sacrilege? Why me?

But learning to leave the victim's soft mink-lined slippers at the temple door, and walk barefoot instead as the creator of my own life, responsible not for all the events that befall me, but at least for the way I respond to them, this had led me to many teachers. And one recent workshop had offered a real gem.

When wondering about an ex partner, or any other person who tramples on your heart, remember this mantra as you go around in circles making up stories about how they think or feel, or what motives them:

"I don't know".

Because we don't know. We can create a thousand theories but really, we just don't know why another person thinks or feels or acts the way they do. Because they are not us.

I hope that the trembling woman, now in her forties, who seemed partly relieved, partly unnerved by my reaction to her appearance after all these years, will not let the past hold her back from her future. But the fact is, it's just none of my business.]]> Do Lawyers Really Want More Friendly Divorces? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1931808 2012-10-02T08:02:35-04:00 2012-12-02T05:12:01-05:00 Suzy Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-miller/ Norwegian statistics showing that couples who share the housework are more likely to get divorced, and concern over the recent figures indicating a rise in the divorce rate in the UK, the national family law association Resolution are running their first ever Family Dispute Resolution Week.   

But is this merely a necessary reaction to the continued push from Government for mediation over court battles, or is Resolution - who represent 6,500 lawyers in England and Wales - finally leading the way forward into encouraging non-adversarial divorce?

Resolution lawyers maintain that they have always been non-adversarial and try to find the least painful route through divorce for their clients.  But even if that is true on an individual basis, with many regular family lawyers preferring amicable settlements,  the current legal system seems to reward them financially if couples get the gloves off for a full-on court battle.

Is it truly the case that Resolution as an organisation has done enough to lead the way out of the courtroom towards the negotiating table?  If so, why has it taken 16 years to publicly promote non-adversarial solutions in this way?

The Family Law Act of 1996 encompassed the view that mediation was a helpful way forwards to resolve issues resulting from family break-down and thus prevent long-drawn-out court battles.  Sixteen years later, Resolution dedicates a week to promoting alternatives to adversarial divorce.  Could the slow response be due to the fact that not all mediators are Resolution accredited?  For example, National Family Mediation trains mediators and offers a national service, and although couples are encouraged to seek independent legal advice at various stages of the process, using the lawyers themselves as the gatekeepers to divorce is no longer being seen as necessary.  As people seek information through the Internet, access stay-out-of-court resources like Divorce in a Box, and begin to take more control over their own divorce process, it does look a bit like Resolution has reacted to a situation they can no longer ignore, rather than boldly led the way forwards to a better way of doing things. 

It may also be challenging for an organisational body that must represent all its members, for it to stand tall on the platform of dispute resolution, when some of those members are openly hostile towards mediation and collaborative law, publicly claiming (contrary to studies that prove otherwise) that they don't work.

A recent opinion poll conducted by ComRes to coincide with Resolution's Family Dispute Resolution Week confirms the importance of providing support to families undergoing a divorce or separation. The poll found that the overwhelming majority of people in London believe that putting children's interests first or avoiding conflict are the most important factors when undergoing family breakdown. 

Rayden Solicitors in Hertfordshire have chosen to promote their collaborate lawyer through the Divorce in a Box web directory which is significant, as many collaborative lawyers complain of a lack of collaborate clients, and until now there has been very little effort made my family law firms to actively promote the practice, which is probably why so few members of the general public have even heard of it.

Innovative law firms like Family Law In Partnership who focus on non-adversarial routes such as mediation and collaborative law, are putting packages together for clients offering parenting and wellbeing support as they recognise the huge role that such support can play in increasing the success of alternative dispute resolution.  

A new guide to dispute resolution has been made available by Resolution, entitled "Separating Together: Your options for separation and divorce." The booklet can be easily downloaded and is clear and accessible, and it has some links to some useful organisations, and it encourages parents to: "Take care of yourself. Make sure that you have support around you to help you through this period, without leaning on your children or burdening them with your anxieties."  This is sound advice - but there is no clear suggestions on what kind of support would be helpful, for example, the kind of support that will help them to be able to sit around the negotiating table with someone who makes their blood boil, or help them to deal with an ex who they feel emotionally traumatised by when they are in the same room with them.

So do lawyers really want friendly divorce?  

There are certainly many who see alternative routes as unrealistic and feel that it is down to the couple rather than the divorce method as to whether they stay out of court or not.  Others genuinely dislike going to court, and an increasing number have trained in mediation and collaborative law and openly say they would prefer all their clients to use those options. 

When I speak to collaborative lawyers and mediators, they often find that the anger and pain of family breakup blinds the couple to the other options available, because they are not emotionally and psychologically able to really take that level of responsibility at that point.  Like the doctor in the white coat offering cures, the couple see the lawyer as a professional who they expect to sort it all out for them and make the pain go away.  However, if that same couple had experienced some communication coaching, parenting advice, and discussed their financial futures with the help of a financial planner and a life coach, focusing on creating a new and positive future rather than on the suffering of their present situation, then suddenly non-adversarial routes become much more logical and appealing.  And if they get stuck on a specific area in mediation, for example, instead giving up and going to court where the whole process often unravels and begins all over again, they can call in an arbitrator to decide that particular outcome for them, without having to lose the benefits of what they have already agreed to.

Instead of blaming the failure of some couples to engage in mediation and collaborative law on the couple themselves, is it not appropriate for Resolution to take a more holistic approach and encourage greater collaboration between their accredited mediators and collaborative lawyers with divorce coaches, wellbeing and parenting experts, and even start-up business opportunities to empower the couple to feel more hopeful about their future financial independence?

We may now see an increase in divorce coaches and products like Divorce in a Box becoming the first port of call for couples considering breakup.  If so, then family lawyers have every reason to be nervous of losing their status as the gatekeepers of divorce, as couples become increasingly able to choose a wider range of routes which will have a direct effective on the income of many family solicitors.  

What is most disturbing about the ComRes poll is that despite the overwhelming desire to avoid conflict, three quarters of people believe that children end up being the main casualties of divorce and over a third believe that conflict is inevitable in family breakdown.  So in order to change this perception, what we need is not just a gathering of mediators and collaborative lawyers at a Resolution conference.  We need a culture shift throughout the UK that will change the expectations of parents as to how they navigate family breakup.

Many families like my own are still termed 'broken families' with a single parent at the helm.  But the reality is that our families are not broken.  We co-parent effectively with our ex-partners, as extended families, and one of the key factors in being able to achieve this is not to have undergone a bitter and expensive legal battle to separate the lives of the parents, the biggest cost being born by the children.]]> Let Parents do the Job of the CSA? Are You Crazy? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1668598 2012-07-12T13:00:33-04:00 2012-09-11T05:12:10-04:00 Suzy Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-miller/
In plain English, what I see happening here is partly the Government needing to make the CSA unnecessary (because they are scrapping it) and also something else - something quite amazing - an ambition for our population to communicate and collaborate when it comes to caring for children, even when they feel anger, pain and even hatred towards each other.

The two key objectives of this new Innovation Fund are to:
 
• Increase the number of children benefiting from child maintenance arrangements by reducing conflict and improving collaboration between separated and separating parents. This will be achieved by developing effective interventions that help parents work together to make their own arrangements and avoid using the Courts or the Child Support Agency.

• Test a wide range of interventions to understand what is effective in encouraging collaboration and reducing conflict amongst separating and separated parents. 


The kind of people who claim that "mediation doesn't really work' will see this as unrealistic and impossible, and merely a cover for funding cuts.  People like me, however, don't see it that way at all.

So often over the last few years I have see angry, upset parents manage to move from courtroom battles to coffee shop discussions and resolve previously unresolvable conflicts.  Sometimes they achieve this on their own or through mediation. The truth is, that when the adversarial influences of the legal system, emotional pain, fear of loss and well meaning but disastrous advice from family members and mates down the pub are sidelined, couples often do just work out a solution, simply because they love their kids and they get fed up with being angry with each other and want to move on.

But how do we encourage still angry and financially vulnerable parents to 'collaborate' instead of seeking financial Rottweilers from the CSA to do their bidding?

Work and Pensions Minister Maria Miller said recently: "The Government wants to encourage and support parents to make their own family-based arrangements whenever possible because they are better for families."  She is right.  And I believe that educating parents and giving them access to free or affordable resources - like parent coaching, communication training, debt solutions - will empower parents to be able to make their own arrangements.  But how can we resolve the fundamental problem of sharing the costs associated with parenting when breakup decreases the money available?  Two homes are always more expensive to run on the same income as one. 

Initiatives like Divorce in a Box (www.sosdivorceinabox.com) are focused on a holistic approach to supporting parents through family breakup and collaborative parenting, and the London version of the Boxes currently contain 27 experts and services - but no divorce lawyers. This in itself illustrates how many choices are available to separating couples which will empower and inspire them, before they need to sit down with a lawyer or mediator to deal with the nitty gritty of divorce. Debt solutions, money coaching, stopping the ex from pushing your buttons, communication skills - as well as parenting experts, life drawing party planners (celebrating what is good in life) and a Hatton Garden jeweller who transforms your old diamond ring into a beautiful pendant to hand down to the children.

Families Need Fathers are on the coal face of family breakup and fully aware of the level of anger, mistrust and pain that couples put each other through during a divorce. Ken Sanderson, CEO of Families Need Fathers, commented, "Initiatives like this are a great way to promote a holistic approach to coping with separation, and helping  ensure that couples can quickly access the right type of support when they need it most. Divorce in a Box provides early, effective assistance that can help parents to set aside their differences and focus on planning for their and their children's futures, which is crucial if more families are to avoid being dragged into the legal system."
 
I asked my 13-year-old son his views on how parents should 'break up right - please don't fight' - a catch phrase he came up with a couple of years back which I now use as part of my promotion of Divorce in a Box .  I didn't tell him that years ago I myself had called upon the CSA to chase his dad for funds.  Nor did I mention that by the time they got his dad pinned down, he was in a better frame of mind and was happy to contribute financially towards the care of his children - but I still requested they act as go-betweens, as I did not want to have to chase the father of my kids for money if he stopped paying in the future.  I wanted the CSA to do it, so that I didn't need to talk about money and sully an already delicate co-parenting relationship.

My son thought for a few moments and then suggested: "Everyone should pay some of their tax towards a fund for their children, like a pension.  If they breakup or stay together or don't have kids, they can use the money but it's already there so you don't have to fight over getting it."

Is this such a radical idea?  That parents should prepare a financial base for their kids - as they do for their old age - that is not dependent upon whether they remain in a relationship with each other or not?

What I love about this idea is that the money becomes something separate from the individuals involved.  De-personalised.  I think that my 13 year old son may be on to something.  

Suzy is the inventor of Divorce in a Box - a Travel Guide for stay out of court Divorce, which includes over £500 of complementary access to skilled professional advice, with a focus on collaborative parenting. Available for £45 including vat and UK postage at www.sosdivorceinabox.com. Ribbon is optional.


200 of the London Boxes will be available from mid-July at no charge to people lucky enough to get hold of a Box Coupon.]]> Are Divorce Expos Encouraging People to 'Stay Out of Court' ? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1462359 2012-04-29T06:59:16-04:00 2012-06-29T05:12:01-04:00 Suzy Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-miller/

The Start Over Smart Expo played host to a wide range of exhibitors but the strong presence of mediators and collaborative lawyers was noticeable, which I believe to be a powerful signal to us over here in the UK that 'things are a-changin'!"

The US suffers from the same drawbacks to increasing the prevalence of non-adversarial divorce that we experience in the UK - people thinking that mediation is about 'getting back together' instead of how to break up amicably; not having ever heard of Collaborative Law, and not being aware that Financial Planners can play a powerful role in sorting complex finances directly with the couple in ways that can keep them out of court. However, mediation in particular appears to be thriving in the city, with ongoing training of a high quality. I was intrigued by meeting one mediator who had just finished attending a training on 'Mindfulness', and I found myself engaging in almost esoteric conversations about 'forgiveness' that I have not yet experienced when chatting to mediators in the UK. Not that UK mediators are any less trained or widely-read - but I feel our culture pushes 'Alternative Dispute Resolution' into a 'legal' box that discourages dealing with the wrongly perceived 'fluffy' emotional and psychological aspects of divorce and family breakup.

It was refreshing for me to see that an holistic approach to divorce was being embraced through the Start Over Smart event, and how experienced divorce mediators like Ken Neumann of Team Mediation, also works with clients in a therapeutic role, and even practices Marriage Mediation - helping the couple to allow their marriage an opportunity to continue.

From a 'marketing perspective' this may seem a jumble. But what I became aware of, which resonated with my own work in creating Divorce in a Box which supports people in staying out of court whilst divorcing - is that when a more holistic set of resources and services are made available to couples facing divorce, they will access what is most relevant to them at that time. Often they have no real idea what they need or what services could be of value, which is why Divorce in a Box provides vouchers for free introductory sessions from everything from Mediation to Divorce Coaching. But once empowered by a little knowledge, even the most hurt and angry of couples can find their way back into a happy relationship, and even the most adversarial divorce can recalibrate and successfully use mediation to move forward in their lives - albeit living in separate houses.

Suzy Miller is a UK stay-out-of-court Divorce Planner whose mission is to make Divorce in a Box available at no cost to all divorcing couples in the UK and North America.

See more images of the Start Over Smart New York Expo here: http://uk.startingovershow.us/2012/04/25/new-york-divorce-expo/

Find out more about Divorce in a Box UK here: www.sosdivorceinabox.com or www.divorceinabox.us]]> A Strange Gift tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1462351 2012-04-29T06:52:07-04:00 2012-06-29T05:12:01-04:00 Suzy Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-miller/  
"W E L L... My partner of ten years has just dumped me. I was supposed to live with him into old age. I had no idea he wasn't happy. I loved the bastard. But that was only the half of it - he has dumped me with three kids under seven. With not enough savings to build a realist future.....
 
With no job.

With a house that was going to be sold to pay off debts.

With no pension.

With a fortieth birthday coming up that year..... Fucking hell."

Its now almost a year later. I've been in the bath, listening to Alanis Morissette and her passionate angry lyrics, and trying to cry. This is one of my latest self-help ventures, a continuation of productive attempts to turn a major emotional disaster into a life enhancing success. Getting to where I am now has been an interesting process.
 
Alanis is singing it all for me - "I recommend getting your heart trampled on to anyone" (in my case it felt more like a machete job); "waiting for deliverance" (the "oh God somebody please come and rescue me" stage); "I don't want to be a band-aid if the wound is not mine" (Jesus - how can he save me - he's got more emotional baggage than I have!); "The cross I bare that you gave to me" (No-one can do that victim-thing better than a woman scorned). Anger and pain that seemed to shred me from the inside out. A slow, crippling, crumbling of the core of my body that I didn't even know existed within me. For me, this was my first taste of bereavement.
 
Obviously, after all that had happened, my shattered sense of self worth was screaming for a shag - but fortunately, the offers on hand were by people who seemed even more lost and confused than I was. I managed to steer clear - more by luck than judgement - through that first clichéd hurdle. I went through the "oh, he's bound to realise what he's done and try to make another go of it" phase. But he didn't. Meanwhile, I was experiencing the early stages of panic attacks, and a weird sensation that time was moving far more slowly than it ever had before.
 
It finally dawned on me - I was in grief. I had never had any one truly close to me die before, but this was the closest thing. I had lost a whole life - past and future. Gone in an incomprehensible instant. Always thinking it might reappear around the next corner - but gradually realising that that part of me was gone forever. So I did what my many wise friends were encouraging me to do - I got real.
 
I had the blessing of so many fantastic friends - friends I didn't even know I had - who gave so much more than just emotional support and the time to listen. They were brave enough to be honest with me - comments like "God, what's happened to you is so awful I can't help laughing" were strangely helpful. I also loved the response from one dear friend, after the guilt I had been feeling of dumping such awful news on my family and friends. When I told her that I was now joining the club of single motherhood, she said with great passion and absolutely no tact - "FANTASTIC!" But my friends also prevented my tackling of the mundane realities - possible financial holocaust; children torn out of school - from leaving me devoid of hope, and they helped me to believe that the world still had some good stuff waiting for me up ahead.
 
I was fighting. I moved out, got a place to rent, started panicking about my future. But I was still the victim fighting against the odds - and the trouble with that is you just never get your act together, because it's always someone else's fault. It's only when you face up to the horrifying reality of a situation that you can truly take it in hand - and own it. You make it your own. It's no-one else's fault or responsibility if you don't make things work out. I looked the worse case scenarios of every aspect of my life right in the face - and made whatever provisions I could. And somehow, by making that appointment with the loan parent advisor with my youngest child screaming throughout most of the interview (no toys provided or changing room), applying for State Benefits and enrolling the kids in schools I hadn't previously wanted them to go to - took the fear away. It didn't mean "that was it" - it just meant I was taking back some control. And you know the amazing thing? Even though it took a real leap of faith, and a good helping of black humour, to really start taking control of my life, the more I did it, the more I believed it was going to work out somehow. And the most amazing thing for me was, that other people seemed to be drawn in and they began to believe it too.
 
Strange as it may sound, but it was the children who helped the most, because they forced me to take back control of the present. I didn't have the luxury of descending into total emotional freefall. There were these very strong brave little people who needed me to make things work out for them. They kept me sane in other ways too. When your partner has acted as if the past ten years was merely a passing of time without any emotional consequence, you really begin to question whether you have imagined the whole thing. But the children lie as physical evidence of something beautiful that no mid-life crisis can obliterate.
 
A good friend sent me off on an excellent motivational course. Boy was I ready for that. It was like someone had handed me a load of really useful tools to continue turning my life around even more dramatically than I already had done - and getting rid of all those stupid self-limiting beliefs that I didn't know I had. Now that I wasn't a `mother of three in a stable relationship with a house and two cars", I had the opportunity to become anything I wanted. Of course, I could have done all that before, but oh, the children are so exhausting and the house has to be finished and the list of excuses for not thinking about my own personal growth were endless. People would ask me "how do you cope on your own". But strangely, having one less adult to care for actually made my life easier. Also, not having to bear the burden of someone else's unhappiness that neither of us had really been able to acknowledge - well that was like a massif weight lifted from my shoulders. I got rid of all my excuses and allowed myself to dream of what I wanted with ambition instead of frustrated regret. I had become free. I had become myself again.
 
I did have one tricky problem for a while. No one tells you what to do with your ex-partner. You're supposed to hate and despise them - they are the reason behind every sorrow in your life. It was all so horribly negative, and somehow, the children took me from the bitterness of the usual break-up mentality and gave me every reason to fight for something better. When you have a living reminder of unconditional love each day, it makes you question the quality of the love that you think has now broken your heart. And that was yet another revelation - it's not `love' that causes the pain. Love is a good thing. What causes the pain - and so many problems within relationships of all kinds - is being `needy'. That was not a person I wanted to be any longer.
 
After ten years of learning to live with someone in love, in seemed so crazy just to give it all up because I now wanted to find a new way to live with them - albeit separately. I finally realised that posing 'unanswerable questions' and re-examining the past ad nauseum were clearly not getting me anywhere. I decided to let the love that had kept us together for ten years be the guiding factor with keeping us healthily and positively apart. The children were a constant reminder that anger and self-pity and doubt and fear - in other words, parenthood - can all be balanced with, well, love.
 
I was lucky enough to be able to put down a deposit on a house and get out of the Benefit trap - thank god for interest-only mortgages. I make the house `work' for me by taking in lodgers, though some of my friends are keeping a book out on how long each one will last. I enrolled on a training course that takes up almost every Saturday for the next two years and THEN organised the childcare, knowing that was the only way I would make it happen. I am home schooling one of my kids and loving it.
 
I would not change anything in my life. I never realised that being single was such a natural state, and the more I enjoy it, the more I know that I will end up eventually with someone who is happy and motivated and probably want to hang around for a while, because they will be with me because they want to be and not because they are afraid to be alone. Meanwhile, I am enjoying a social life I would have felt was positively indulgent during my previous life as happy housewife. Of course I do sometimes miss man-cuddles, and I definitely miss sex. But God, if there wasn't anything to miss everyone would stay single forever.
 
The kids and I had a drink at the pub today with their dad. And I played him at pool - and lost (but not badly). It was good. I still get those deep unremitting pains sometimes - especially when the first Christmas and New Year struck - but the pain starts to take on a familiarity that makes it somehow less debilitating. I don't know what the future might bring, but I know that at least the past is not going to fuck it up for me.
 
I've been lucky to have an ex-partner who has been financially supportive and taken on the role of fatherhood with an ever-increasing confidence and enthusiasm. Things could have been a lot worse for me and for some people they are. I have learnt that being with three young children, either in or out of a relationship, is not a chore or a burden. Even though it is hard sometimes, it does not stop you from living your life to the full. Parenthood, in any form, is a gift.
 
So I'm sitting in the bath and I've finally managed to blubber a bit, and I'm wondering how to describe that odd feeling I have when I'm all alone in the house and the kids are quiet in their beds. A kind of familiar feeling that seems to be growing stronger all the time - that precious time that I have for myself. I think I can only describe it as - "Freedom"...
(1st Published Juno Magazine 2006)
 
Suzy Miller is the creator of Divorce in a Box
www.sosdivorceinabox.com
www.divorceinabox.us]]> Suicidal Children and Divorce Reform tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1269522 2012-02-14T19:00:00-05:00 2012-04-15T05:12:01-04:00 Suzy Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-miller/
In a divorce survey by Mischcon de Reya, one in five parents said that their primary objective during separation is to make the experience "as unpleasant as possible" for their former spouse. Half of the parents involved said that they had sought a day in court to haggle over residency arrangements despite knowing it made matters worse for their children. A quarter of parents said the process traumatised their children so much that they self-harmed or were suicidal. Between 15,000 and 20,000 couples go to court to resolve child access disputes each year.

Should it be left to government and the legal profession to be solely responsible for trying - so far unsuccessfully - to improve a situation that leads to children being so unhappy that they feel like killing themselves, or in later life becoming at greater risk of having a stroke?

Over a year ago, I was called in to the Ministry of Justice to chat with their press office about how the Starting Over Shows (www.startingovershow.co.uk) are providing a platform for mediation and collaborative law - both ways of reducing the risk of a combative approach to divorce. I made my point that it is essential to deal with the emotional fall-out from relationship breakdown; that inspiration and hope are needed if people are to respond well to mediation, as well as good practical advice.

Overstretched family courts, costing millions in public money in Legal Aid and court time, are making the government look for better ways forward. But how are we to empower parents and encourage them to put their children first, when the whole process of divorce is so dis-empowering, overwhelming and downright scary, especially to those who feel forced unwillingly to take matters into their own hands?

"Why is it that we aim to encourage parties to put the past behind them and yet we start by insisting that 65% present issues of fault?" This is the view of Collaborative Lawyer James Pirrie of Family Law In Partnership: "Our laws are now almost 40 years old (the '73 act was a slight remodelling of the '69 act); what was 'creative' back then has become destructive now. If we are so aware that children face fall-out where their parents' separation is handled badly, why is there no government support provided for parenting information sessions?"

When even some lawyers are calling for change, why are the general public not campaigning for a less aggressive way forwards through divorce? Is it that we are just so used to handing over responsibility to others? Just leaving it to the government to make finding out about mediation mandatory before choosing your route through divorce, is just not enough.

And what about those children that this process is ultimately designed to help - how do they fit in? How will their voices be heard?

Perhaps part of the problem, is that some of the legal profession are trying to remain the gatekeepers to the divorce process, rather than actively encouraging couples to stop expecting their lawyers to sort it all out for them, and to take full responsibility for the process themselves.

A divorcing couple will approach separate lawyers, often receiving conflicting advice, and then hope for a 'cure' from the illness of divorce. They treat their respective lawyers like doctors who have given them a bottle of pills, whilst the patient continues to eat badly, drink and smoke too much - then wonders why they never seem to stay healthy for long and blames the medical profession instead of themselves. They bemoan the fact that the divorce process takes years longer than they ever imagined and costs them most if not more than the value of their joint assets, yet are unable to sit down and talk with each other and find a better way forwards.

Of course, to create communication in a broken relationship is tough and it does take help and support - but many divorces begin amicably, and only become soured as the process takes hold. Sadly, the existing system does little to improve this situation - many claim that it actually encourages it.

Sandra Davis of Mischcon de Reya says that: "The millions spent on Legal Aid and running the courts could be better spent educating parents about their children's needs and how to avoid long-term disputes." But should the government or the legal profession be leading the way on such a sensible initiative? Looking at their past failures to achieve such an admirable goal, should there not be other, more independent organisations getting actively involved?

I believe that it is not government and the law that needs to lead the change, but that this is the responsibility of us all: As James Pirrie warns: "We need to get to the point where parliament is no longer frightened to deal with this crucial area because of what the Daily Mail says - it was effectively responsible for the abandonment of the 1996 reforms."

Whilst we create structures to 'resolve' the problem of a divorce system that costs misery to families and millions of pounds to the State, we should also work harder to educate and enlighten. To speak of improving the welfare of children whose parents are divorcing yet continue to support laws that say it's absolutely fine to hit our own children - as long as its not too hard - is somewhat bizarre. If I got cross with an adult in a shop and slapped them, without causing bruising, I'd quite rightly be arrested - but not apparently if I 'smacked' my child!

This is not to say that we don't still need the lawyers - but we need to be more aware of the different legal services on offer, and use those choices wisely. For divorcing couples to have no idea how the collaborative process works, or think that mediation is no more than a tick box for getting legal aid, but then expect their lawyers to rescue them from their divorce nightmare without taking any real responsibility for the process themselves, is unfair. It is up to us to ask questions and find out what choices we have, and then choose the right set of professionals to help us. I would expect my plumber to fit my heating system, but I would not expect them to help me decide between having a wood burner or a combi boiler - my plumber's not the one whose going to be sitting in my living room on a cold winters night.

Is it not time that parents themselves led the way in divorce reform, by investing in pre-nuptual agreements that are updated regularly, created with the help of mediators and even life coaches so that they become a vision of a positive future for the couple, with a sensible 'if it doesn't work out' provision for what would happen next? After all, we don't assume we are going to die tomorrow just because we protect our families by creating a Will. Let 'pre-nups' become a mission statement for the couple and their children instead of simply a legal and financial document in case everything 'goes wrong'.

By taking more responsibility for the whole process of marriage as well as divorce - accepting that it is an emotional and psychological journey and not just a set of legal forms, is vital if the current situation is to improve.

The parent/children resource page on my www.sosvillage.org site received a comment recently from Libby Rees - whose parents went through a bitter divorce. As a child she developed strategies to cope which she shared in her published book "Help-Hope-Happiness" to help other children deal with the stress and trauma of parental breakup.

The children are already doing all they can. Is it not time for us parents to fight for a better way to change from a 'living together' to a 'living apart' relationship without causing emotional and physical harm to our children, which if a similar level of harm were caused to us by an employer, we would be suing them through the courts?]]> My Kids Re-Write of the 10 Commandments tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.933313 2011-08-22T15:01:14-04:00 2011-10-22T05:12:02-04:00 Suzy Miller http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzy-miller/
ONE: 'Put me first - make me the incentive to break up right. Please don't fight.'

TWO: 'Don't think new partners buying presents and chocolate will make them take the place of my real mum/dad. Kids don't worship false idols.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of each other in vain. Remember the day you said 'I love you' and know that love lasts forever, even if the relationship doesn't. And if your love has gone, good manners will do.'

FOUR: 'Remember our day of rest, and which parent we spend it with, should include us in the decision making process.'

FIVE: 'Honor both father and mother - treat each other with at least the same level of respect you would give to a complete stranger.'

SIX: 'Your old relationship may be dead, but don't kill the new one - you need a working relationship with your co-parent whether you like it or not.'

SEVEN: 'When you take a new partner, keep us kids informed through the process - don't just say "here's your new dad/mum, the last one's in the bin".'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal my childhood. Be honest with me - but that doesn't mean you can dump all your emotional baggage on me either.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness or lie - but neither can you slag off our mother or father even 'out of earshot' - we kids hear everything.'

TEN: 'Appreciate what you have with us and don't compare it to what others have - but now that I have two homes instead of one, that also means double the presents, shopping trips and holidays. OK?'


Suzy Miller

Creator of Starting Over Show

A holistic approach to divorce, redundancy & other major life changes. www.startingovershow.co.uk

suzy@startingovershow.co.uk
07525 059 634

Tickets available here
http://www.divorceredundancybereavement.org/buy-a-ticket]]>