Among the areas of law where there is the greatest dissatisfaction is how American courts handle divorces. Many judges don’t like the assignment so some courts treat the assignment as a rite of passage for the least experienced judges. The nature of the conflict does not easily lend itself to resolution through the adversary system. Parents who try a contested custody case frequently find that there ability to thereafter co-parent is made even more difficult by the conflict escalation caused by the trial. The expense of the process can make both parties pretty poor if attention is not given to containment of legal fees. Should courts care about these issues? There is near universal agreement on that:yes. But should courts (or the law) care about more than just not making marital conflict worse but actually “save” marriages. There are some who say to this question yes as well In an artile in the Washington Post a therapist and former Georgia Supreme Court Justice argue:. “Conventional wisdom holds that about half of U.S. marriages end in divorce — and that most Americans wish the divorce rate were lower. Still, many are skeptical about whether we can lower the divorce rate without trapping more people in bad marriages.
This skepticism is fueled by two common assumptions: Divorce happens only after a long process of misery and conflict; and, once couples file for divorce, they don’t entertain the idea of reconciling.
We now know those assumptions are wrong.
Research over the past decade has shown that a major share of divorces (50 to 66 percent, depending on the study) occur between couples who had average happiness and low levels of conflict in the years before the divorce.
blog.amjudges.org 
Having represented clients in divorce proceedings for more than 25 years, it does not surprise that 10% of both parties to a divorce might express an opinion in response to a survey question,well in to the process,that they might be amenable to reconciliation. In my opinion, many of these respondents are not necessarily being forthright in expressing such an opinion. I believe that many of these respondents expressing a wish to reconcile would actually fail to engage take concrete, good faith efforts to reconcile their marriage. It is all too facile for a party to a divorce to deflect responsbility for their decision to seek a divorce by expressing a desire to reconcile. It certainly can be tempting for some respondents to act as if the process of divorce was foisted upon them by their attorneys, the court, the system, etc. A survey of divorcing parties which fails to correct for such false positives cannot be used to guide public policy.
LikeLike
Michael, thanks for the comment it will be posted right now. If you would like to elevate this to “A Commentary About How We Need To Think About Family Court Reform” I’ll post the Commentary as a seperate post. I really appreciate your willingness to help. Just send me an e mail and I’ll put it on . Kevin
LikeLike
If a one year waiting period is adopted in a state which has no waiting period or a waiting period of less than one year, I suggest that the unintended consequence of the enactment of such legislation will be more litigation and less reconciliation. If a litigant knows that it will now take them one year to get divorced, the natural inclination will be for them to file as soon as possible to ameliorate the effects of the waiting period. I suspect that uch over-anxious filers will not be thinking too much about reconciliation and instead will be focusing on soldiering through the process of divorce.
In Minnesota where I practice, we have adopted innovative and succesfu case management programs in our family courts. These programs, which have reduced the amount of itigation and costs for parties going through a divorce, will be negatively impacted by the imposition of a waiting period. There are many cases which currently don’t need to be managed because they are being resolved through mediation and negotiation prior to the filing of the divorce petition. If the parties to such cases feel compelled to file their petition as soon as possible in order to propel the divorce process forward without first mediating, they will unnecessarily add to the parties’ costs and the workload of court personnel who now have to set aside time on a judicial officer’s calendar to triage a case that otherwise would have been resolved upon filing. In addition, parties to a divorce who do not want to wait until the year is over, will be more likely to seek certain types of remedies that our efficient case management system currently discourages them from seeking, such as orders from temporay relief, harassment restraining orders, orders for protection, and child support orders issued by child support magistrates . When parties to an elongated divorce proceeding cannot reach agreement over temorary support and parenting time issues and cannot obtain finality, the result will be additional conflict and litigation, poisoned relationships, increased costs, and strains on our scarce judicial resources. The one year waiting period is a solution our state cannot afford.
LikeLike
Pingback: AJA Blog » Blog Archive » The move to extend the waiting period has another side, a comment by Michael Dittberner