Think about this statement: “The rise of cohabitating households with children (where parents aren’t married, just living together) is the largest unrecognized threat to the quality and stability of children’s lives in today’s families.”  That’s pretty strong stuff, but it’s exactly what a new research study concludes.  While divorce has been the leading cause of the breakdown of the family and marriage for the last 40 years, the study shows that divorce is no longer the leading cause.  The study shows that cohabitation is now the greatest threat to the welfare of children in the United States!

The August 2011 study was sponsored by the Center on Children and Families at Brookings and is entitled “The Marginalization of Marriage in Middle America”. It was written jointly by two family scholars, one a conservative (W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project) and one a liberal (Andrew J. Cherlin, professor at John Hopkins University).

The study found the following: in affluent neighborhoods where many college-educated Americans live, marriage is alive and well and divorce has declined to levels not seen since the “divorce revolution” of the 1960’s.  In contrast, marriage and family stability have both been in decline in the kinds of neighborhoods that we used to call working-class, where large numbers of young adults who have completed high school but not college reside.

Researchers discovered that the breakup rate for parents with children under 12 who are cohabitating is 170 percent higher than it is for married parents.  Approximately 24% of kids born to married parents will see their parents divorce or separate by age 12, while 42% of kids will experience a parental cohabitation by age 12.  Further, the study shows that children in cohabitating households are three (3) times more likely to be physically, sexually, or emotionally abused than children in intact biological married parent homes.  They are also significantly more likely to experience delinquency, drug use, and school failure.

What has caused Middle America to retreat from marriage over the last four decades?  Well, the study found that many realities are behind the shift.  First is the transformation of the U.S. economy.  As automation has increased and jobs have gone overseas, many moderately-educated Americans have been left with jobs that provide less stability and lower wages.  That has left moderately-educated young adults who don’t have great jobs to now view cohabitation as a viable living arrangement that requires less economic stability, less money to make it happen.  The study shows that these days cohabitation more often than not means a short-term relationship, simply because neither partner makes the same commitment as they would to a marriage.

The study also found that cultural causes are behind the devaluation of marriage by the moderately educated.  Changes in norms about sexual activity, the use of birth control, and the apparent fading of the stigma surrounding living together before marriage or of having a child outside of marriage have all greatly changed over the last 40 years.  Add to that the fact that family law has shifted away from the primacy of the marriage bond to the primacy of the parent-child relationship and to individual rights.  The rise of the “no-fault” divorce, like we have here in Ohio, and the increased push for unmarried fathers to, at least, support their children have also worked to chip away at the importance of marriage, the study found.

Finally, for the last 40 years, Middle America has moved away from organized religion.  Religious institutions used to foster higher-quality, stable relationships by providing norms, social networks and a sense of meaning.  The last four (4) decades has seen a much greater drop in church involvement among moderately-educated Americans than among the college-educated.  Taken together, all of these cultural and economic trends have made Middle Americans less likely to get and stay married.

After describing the problem, the authors of the study next listed the following six (6) ideas that might help strengthen marriage and family life in Middle America:  1.) Increase training for middle-skill jobs to assist moderately-educated young adults who would like to start families.  2.) In the same way that federal and state governments have conducted successful social marketing campaigns against smoking and drunk driving, government agencies to work to change cultural attitudes towards marriage and the family.  A campaign could be organized to encourage young adults to follow a “success sequence” characterized by finishing high school, getting a job, getting married, and then having children. 3.) Expanding the Child Tax Credit to $3000 per child and making it fully refundable.  4.) Expanding early childhood educational programs for the disadvantaged in order to seed long-term improvements in education and training.  5.) Consider reforming divorce laws (i.e. – mandatory one-year waiting period for couples with children, optional programs for couples who express an interest in reconciliation,  legal reforms that would allow judges to move away from “no fault” and factor in breaches of the marital contract in making determinations about child custody and property division).  6.) Reform the entire Earned Income Tax Credit benefit schedule to reduce/eliminate the loss of benefits for couples who marry.

Finally, the authors of Why Marriage Matters offer three conclusions about marriage and families today:

1. An intact marriage between biological parents remains the “Gold Standard” for family life in the United States, and children are most likely to thrive economically, socially, and psychologically in this family form.
2. Marriage is “an important public good” with a wide range of economic, health, educational and safety benefits that help local, state and federal governments serve the common good.
3. The benefits of marriage extend to poor, working class, and minority communities despite the fact that marriage has lost its value in these communities over the last four decades.

As a 67-year-old Family Law practice, the attorneys at Holzfaster, Cecil, McKnight & Mues have witnessed, firsthand, just how the devaluation of marriage has adversely affected the welfare of children, parents, and our community as a whole. Unfortunately, we often see the cycle repeating itself from generation to generation.  What do you think is the solution?

Research published last month in Child Trends reported that happy marriages generally result in happy children. I was asked by a reader if children with any type of physical, emotional or developmental problems cause unhappy marriages.

Research has focused on parents raising children with such problems as Attention Deficit Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder and similar types of disabilities. The research findings have been ambiguous, with some studies finding a higher rate of divorce among such parents, and with others documenting no real differences. However, it’s clear that raising a special-needs child can result in a severe strain on a marriage. Here’s how successful marriages navigate these problems.

1. Put your marriage first. A child with any type of disability demands more time and attention than other children. Good parents naturally want to meet those special needs, but that may result in neglecting your spouse. Healthy relationships take time and work, so it takes an extra effort by both spouses to be attentive to the needs of their marriage partner.
2. Create a “no talk about children” zone. I recently learned about this technique from one of my clients. She found that virtually every conversation with her spouse revolved around some issue with the kids. They established a routine time every week when they are alone and prohibited themselves from talking about the children. This structure has provided both parents with the opportunity to stay connected with each other as people, not just as parents. I like this idea a lot.
3. Maintain your own hobbies and interests. Do something on a routine basis just for you. This makes you a better spouse and a better parent.
4. Talk with your spouse. While communication is a key attribute in all healthy marriages, it is essential if your child has any type of special problems. These youngsters typically have many issues involving their academic progress, medical or psychological therapies, or just increased challenges getting through the day. Dealing with these problems should not fall on one parent, typically a mom, to negotiate and resolve. Parenting is a team endeavor.
5. Don’t let your child’s behavior control your happiness. Many years ago I was a teacher in a classroom of severely disturbed and delayed children. I became close to several of the parents, and asked them how they maintained such a positive and cheerful disposition in spite of their children’s severe problems. They remarked that while their children were extremely important, they refused to allow their kids’ behavior to determine their happiness. They always tried to focus on positive things in their lives.

By the way, what group of parents are least likely to divorce? Couples who marry when they are older than 25, come from an intact family, have a religious affiliation, make more than $50,000 a year, wait until after marriage to have a baby and have attended college have the lowest divorce rate.

Gregory Ramey, Ph.D., is a child psychologist and vice president for outpatient services at the Children’s Medical Center of Dayton. For more of his columns, visit www.childrensdayton.org/ramey and join Dr. Ramey on facebook at www.facebook.com/drgregramey.

[Reprinted by permission from the May 8, 2011, edition of the Dayton Daily News, “Do Challenging Children Cause a Bad Marriage?” Family Wise, Gregory Ramey, PhD]

In the midst of an intense discussion or at the end of a difficult day, we don’t always say the right things to our children. But what we say can make a big impact, good or bad.

Here’s a list of things you should never say to your kids:

“I know exactly how you feel.” This is a real turn-off for kids. You can’t be sure you really know their feelings, and it comes across as dismissive. Instead, reflect back what you think your child may be experiencing. “You seem disappointed that you didn’t make the basketball team.”

“The pilot won’t let you off this plane unless you stop crying.” I heard a frustrated dad say this to his young son on a long plane trip. The rule is simple. Never threaten what you are unable or unwilling to deliver.

“You are too young to understand.” This is one of the most condescending things that parents say to kids, particularly to preteens. Instead of denying information to kids, answer their questions in a way that is consistent with their level of understanding. This doesn’t mean that kids are entitled to always have their questions answered. For example, you have every right to keep confidential the reason for your divorce or your sexual behavior with your spouse.

Lies. Trust is one of the most important character traits you should impart to your children, and honesty is the basis of trust. This won’t always be comfortable or convenient, but your children will learn a sense of integrity. Kids may ask questions at inopportune times, or challenge you with issues that leave you uncertain about how to respond. Just give yourself a time out. “That’s a great question. Let me give it some thought and we will discuss it later tonight.”

“I hate you. I wish you had never been born, etc.” We all get angry at times and say hurtful things. This becomes an opportunity for you to teach your children how to deal with mistakes. Acknowledge you did something wrong. Apologize. Say how you will avoid similar situations in the future.

Criticism of your ex-spouse. It’s hurtful for a child to have his parent criticized, even if the concerns are valid. This can be difficult if the other parent is lazy, irresponsible or incompetent. Focus instead on your values and expectations. “There are different rules in each family. In our house, you need to complete your homework before playing video games.”

“I won’t tell your Dad.” Never keep secrets between spouses. It sends the wrong message to kids and it undermines your relationship with your partner.

Always saying “yes”. Don’t always give kids what they say they want or need. Say no a lot, and help youngsters deal with the reality that they are not the center of your world.

Gregory Ramey, Ph.D., is a child psychologist and vice president for outpatient services at the Children’s Medical Center of Dayton. To sign up to receive Dr. Ramey’s Family Wise monthly E-newsletter, click here. For more of his columns, visit www.childrensdayton.org/ramey and join Dr. Ramey on facebook at www.facebook.com/drgregramey.

[Reprinted by permission from the January 23, 2011, edition of the Dayton Daily News, “8 things you should never say to your children”, Family Wise, Gregory Ramey, PhD]

The National Runaway Switchboard reports that between 1.6 and 2.8 million youth run away each year. It also reports that there has been “a significant increase in the number of crisis calls identifying abuse or neglect as a reason for the call, with abuse calls up 33 percent and neglect calls up 54 percent between 2005-2008″ (National Runaway Switchboard Crisis Caller Trends, 2009, p. 2).

Youth in out-of-home care often choose conduct that does not ensure their own safety. They elope from foster homes, group homes, or other residential settings at an unknown rate. When children are known risks for eloping a court may find that it is the legal duty of the caregiver to take all prudent means to take appropriate preventative measures.

Instinctively, we are aware of the links between youths running away in general and youths eloping from out-of-home care. Social science research has made significant progress in describing runaway youth in general (Martinez, 2006; Sanchez, Waller, & Greene, 2006), but has made minimal inroads in accurately describing the phenomenon of youth eloping from out-of-home care.  Similarly, while federal laws and conventions exist to address runaways and missing children, scant legislative attention has been paid to youth eloping from out-of-home care.

Because of this relative dearth of data there exists no consensus concerning fundamental definitions regarding this population. For purposes of this article, a working definition of “elopement” is any unauthorized absence from within or outside of a youth’s assigned location: i.e., when a youth can not be accounted for or when there is reasonable suspicion to believe the youth has absconded. Such situations include, but are not limited to, failing to return at a designated time from an approved leave or the unauthorized departure from a foster home or facility.

Between the time of elopement and the time a youth returns or is apprehended, their safety is in jeopardy. Should harm befall the youth, liability against the agency may result under a negligence theory.  The four essential elements of negligence are:

• The defendant had a duty to the plaintiff.
• The defendant failed to perform that duty.
• As a result of the defendant’s violation of that duty, the plaintiff was injured.
• The plaintiff suffered damage as a proximate result of the breach of the defendant’s duty.

If a court determines that a facility neglected a vulnerable child by failing to adopt reasonable preventative measures, liability may attach.  Of course, constitutional due process will not require that an agency’s elopement policies be drafted to address every conceivable elopement scenario. That is to say, an agency is likely not going to be subject to a strict liability standard; i.e., legal responsibility for an injury that can be imposed on the defendant without proof of carelessness or fault. Rather, courts are most apt to use a reasonableness standard, requiring that agencies make reasonable efforts to properly supervise its residents. It follows that a defendant caregiver that assumes responsibility for a vulnerable child should know the general capacities of that child and should exercise care to prevent foreseeable harm to the child.

Examples of preventative measures that caregivers may be expected to take include:

• Adequate supervision, monitoring, and record keeping;
• Hiring and training staff in accordance with the minimum requirements established by state law and the agency’s own policies;
• The existence of or sufficiency of an elopement prevention policy, especially if there is evidence indicating that there had been previous elopements (whether or not they resulted in harm);
• The need to properly assess a youth for elopement;
• The use of available and reasonable technology (alarms, GPS transponder technology);
• The need to adequately respond once a youth has eloped.

As the licensor of many out-of-home facilities from which children elope, departments of human services may want to further investigate their own responsibilities and potential liability in this area.

Daniel Pollack is a professor at Yeshiva University’s School of Social Work in New York City and a frequent expert witness in child welfare lawsuits.  Click here to read his biography. Dr. Pollack can be reached at dpollack@yu.edu

Reprinted by permission of the author. This article was originally published in Policy & Practice, December 2010, 68(6), 13.

Most of us are familiar with Child Protective Services, or CPS.  CPS, or an agency with a similar name, is the agency in each state that has assumed the task of protecting our kids from abuse or neglect by adults, especially their own parents. A recent study explained in the October 2010 issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine suggests that child abuse investigations do not significantly reduce risk for future violence or abuse.  In fact, the study links investigations to increased depression in mothers.  The results have given ammunition to many who had already been calling for a drastic scaling back of CPS and the many millions of dollars that Congress and state legislatures annually direct towards CPS.

Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974 because of concerns about battered children.  That Act was also designed to encourage more thorough and accurate reporting and record-keeping in child abuse cases.  These days, the role of CPS has grown and evolved.  In 2007 alone, CPS nationally investigated more than three million cases of suspected child abuse.  Today, CPS also enjoys almost unlimited investigative and search and seizure powers, much greater than that of police, that can quickly trample a parent’s constitutional rights.

The Archives of Pediatrics study examined the records of 595 children nationwide.  All the children shared a similar high risk of maltreatment and all were tracked over a four-year period.  The authors used data from interviews conducted with the children’s maternal caregiver, first when the child was 4 years old and again at 8. During those four years, Child Protective Services investigated the families of 164 of the children for suspected child abuse.  The authors found that during the interviews at age 4, households of children in the investigated group had lower family function and more poverty than households of non-investigated children.

Four years later, the researchers interviewed all the families again and compared the 164 children who had been investigated to the 431 families who had not been investigated.  The researchers looked at seven factors known to increase the risk for abuse or neglect.  Those factors included poverty, social support, family functioning, caregiver education and depressive symptoms, anxious or depressed child behavior and aggressive or destructive child behavior.  Surprisingly, researchers were unable to find any differences in the investigated families compared with the uninvestigated families in any of those factors, except that maternal depressive symptoms were worse in households with a CPS investigation.

Those results did not come as a complete surprise to many of the researchers.  They pointed out that when CPS intervenes and services are offered, CPS usually takes aim at immediate risks – substance abuse or domestic violence, for example – not ongoing problems like poverty or poor social support.  The interventions performed by CPS in the study, whatever they were, apparently failed to reduce the risk for future child abuse.

Researchers postulated that the increased maternal depression could have been because the investigated families were at a greater risk to begin with and that their investigation helped them to recover to the expected level of risk.  If that theory were true though, the authors surmised that households with recent investigations should have had greater risks than households with more distant investigations.  The results found no such association.  That led researchers to the conclusion that Child Protective Services investigations had little or no effect.

Many of us are familiar with stories where Child Protective Services has entered a situation, not nearly as bad as it was presented, and removed children from a stable parent or home.  This track record of CPS leaving behind a trail of broken homes has left some screaming to scrap CPS altogether.  Phyllis Schlafly, a lawyer with WorldNetDaily.com, has recently written an article titled “Shut Down Child Protective Services”.  In addition to discussing the Archives of Pediatrics report, Ms. Schlafly pointed out that the researchers did not look at the harm caused by “CPS bureaucrats who arrive unannounced with the police, interfere with a functioning family, and often take the children away from their parents and turn them over to foster care.”

To illustrate her point, Ms. Schlafly described two cases involving Child Protective Services that are presently before the U.S. Supreme Court.  In Camreta and Alford v. Greene, an Oregon court found that CPS investigators violated a 9-year-old girl’s constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.  The case involved a CPS caseworker and a deputy sheriff interrogating the girl about possible sexual abuse at home.  The caseworker and deputy interviewed the girl for two hours without a warrant, a court order, parental consent or exigent circumstances.  Those facts caused Ms. Schlafly to then question why some governmental agencies, such as CPS, seem to be more concerned with guaranteeing constitutional due process to, say vicious criminals, than to parents.

The other case cited as being before the Supreme Court, Los Angeles v. Humphries, has already been briefed and argued.  That case involves the constitutionality of the child abuse index, or list, that is maintained by Child Protective Services in California.  More than 800,000 people are currently listed on California’s child abuse index.  CPS puts people on their list from agency reports that are based on anonymous tips and suspicion, not proof.  (The child abuse registry should not be confused with the sex offender registry, which lists only those who have been convicted of sex crimes.)  The child abuse registry puts individuals on the list who have never been proven guilty of anything or even charged with a crime – a punishment that entirely goes against our legal assumption of innocent until proven guilty.

As a divorce attorney, I can see how it would be awfully easy for a malicious wife or ex-wife to allege child abuse as part of her game plan to get child custody or increased child support.  As one might imagine, being listed on the index can be very hurtful to individuals since employers consult the index before hiring employees to work with children.

The big issue in Humphries is the fact that there are no procedures, no standards and no criteria for a wrongly accused person to get his or her name off the child abusers index.  The Supreme Court is reviewing the Ninth Circuit ruling that Craig Humphries (whom the court found innocent of all charges) had a “nightmarish encounter“ with the California system, and found “there is no effective procedure for Humphries to challenge the listing.”

Congress toyed with a plan to create a national child abuse registry in 2006, but ultimately decided that the unreliability of state lists and the lack of due process were too much to overcome.  The U.S. Supreme Court is obviously concerned with those same issues in Humphries.

The research results that were published in Archives of Pediatrics were accompanied by an editorial entitled, “Child Protective Services has Outlived its Usefulness” by Dr. Abraham B. Bergman.  In it, Dr. Bergman suggests some serious changes be made to the way CPS does business.  He believes that because child abuse is a crime, it should be investigated by the police.  Because issues of neglect concern a child’s health, Dr. Bergman contends that public health nursing services should be the first to respond to concerns of child neglect.  Finally, he thinks social workers should assess appropriate living situations and work with families to obtain services, rather than focus on law enforcement like they so often do.

Not everyone, though, takes the results of this study as proof that CPS should just go away.  Dr. Kristine A. Campbell, the lead author of the study, believes differently and states that it may be too easy to blame Child Protective Services.  “I believe that CPS has a critical role,” she says.  “As a pediatrician, when I’m there in the middle of the night with a child who has been beaten up, I need them.  But we have to look at other systems that can really create a safety net for these children.”  Dr. Campbell then said, “I don’t believe that CPS has outlived its usefulness.  The problem is that someone needs to continue working with these families – those risk factors don’t go away, and I’m not sure we should expect CPS to deal with them.  CPS deals with acute issues.  We don’t know how to deal with what remains.”

I believe that Dr. Bergman would tend to agree.  His editorial summarized the situation that CPS faces today: “The concept of Child Protective Services was idealistic when it first came into being in the early 1970s.  Initially, the task of identifying non-accidental trauma was relatively straightforward because it was the classic ‘battered child’ that was among most frequent diagnoses.  Much has changed in the child welfare field over the past 40 years, notably the types of child maltreatment seen and the explosive growth of the foster care system.” Dr. Bergman continues, “How has CPS responded to these changed responsibilities?  Not well, according to this study by Campbell and colleagues in this issue of the Archives.  This gloomy prognosis notwithstanding, the changed picture of child maltreatment in the United States demands, at the very least, that we begin a wide-ranging discussion and testing of alternative responses.”

I haven’t written an article about the holiday season for the Ohio Family Law Blog for a couple of years. At that time, I mentioned that this is certainly an appropriate time to reflect upon core values as well as memories of past Christmas celebrations and traditions.

In our family, we were very involved with a Christmas project providing gifts for needy children for many years while our sons were growing up. As a family, we spent countless hours working at the Center. We have tried to instill upon our family the importance of sharing and helping others. It is too easy this time of year to become consumed by all the shopping, decorating, numerous errands and superficial things. Focus can be lost on real matters of consequence, such as the meaning and importance of family. Regardless of one’s religious convictions, this is an excellent time to reflect upon our core values and aspire to do what we each can to make the lives of others around us better, even if it is in some small seemingly insignificant way.

This year we visited a local church hosting an Alternative Holiday Gift Giving event. This is a new concept for us. It was sponsored in part by Alternative Gifts International, a non-profit organization that inspires support for humanitarian and environmental causes. They offer donors the option to designate charitable gifts through carefully selected agencies in the name of their relatives, friends and associates.  It was really a wonderful event! My wife and I brought our long list of family members we exchange gifts with. We then spent considerable time visiting each of the 40 or so booths all promoting charitable organizations or agencies from the Dayton, Ohio, area as well as throughout the United States and abroad. There was such a huge array of wonderful causes it was both mind boggling and heart wrenching!

We did our best to match the names of the people on our list with a cause that was in keeping with that person’s interest and personality. It was a lot of fun!  But the best part was how it made us feel knowing that the small contributions we made to over 20 organizations were going to help the lives of people who were REALLY in desperate straits. It was nice that for each contribution made we were given a handmade ornament, a fact sheet about the specific charity or organization’s mission, and a holiday card with a thoughtful message to mail.

When Christmas comes, I know that my 13-year-old niece will be thrilled about her gift of a small fish pond and a vegetable garden to a rural school on the border of Thailand and Myanmar, where over 50% of those children are significantly malnourished.  Likewise, my daughter-in-law’s dad, who is an avid outdoorsman, will smile knowing that he made a gift to plant 130 trees in Haiti to help ecological efforts and the Haitians recovery from the tropical storms and the 2010 devastating earthquake… I don’t want to spoil the entire gift list, so I will leave it at that. I hope you are intrigued enough to go to the website of Alternative Gifts International yourself and get some meaningful holiday satisfaction yourself by clicking here.

Another idea, if you get hooked on this concept and have a child between 9 and 12 on your list, perhaps you might consider buying a book titled “The Good Fun Book” by Karen Duncan and Kate Hannigan Issa. It is a gift in the real sense of the word because it can help us turn the “gimmes” into giving; it serves as an antidote for extravagant children’s parties; and at the same time, it really provides lots of “good fun” for kids and adults. For each month of the year, the authors suggest activities where kids can give to others, can make things, and can find out about real people who have created efforts to do good. Take February–children are inspired to have a Valentine’s Day party where they make Valentine’s Day cards for children in local hospitals and make care boxes for children at local crisis centers or shelters. They can read about two people who have made a difference–Matt Flannery and Jessica Jackley. After visiting Africa and seeing many people in dire need, Flannery and Jackley created Kiva, a micro-lending website where children and adults can select struggling entrepreneurs and lend them some money for their business ideas, such as a banana seller in Uganda who wants to build a house. These are loans, and thus are repaid–so if your child lends $25 dollars, he or she will get it back and can reinvest it in someone else. A cool concept. Click here to read about “The Good Fun Book” or to learn where you can order it.

I want to wish everyone a wonderful holiday season. May it be one of the best ever!

“How often do parents cheat on each other?” asked 16-year-old Jason during one of our recent sessions.

There was an uncomfortable silence for several moments. I knew this was going to be extremely difficult for Jason to handle, so I started by providing him with some facts about marital infidelity.

I told him that it was impossible to really know the answer to his question, as people are reluctant to be truthful. However, experts estimate that anywhere from 30 to 60 percent of married people have sexual relationships with someone other than their spouses.

“Do they usually get divorced once it’s discovered?” he asked.

“Not always,” I responded. “About 30 to 50 percent of the time, marriages can survive in spite of this serious problem.” He seemed reassured by my answer.

There are typically concerns behind such questions. Jason eventually told me that he had read an e-mail on his dad’s computer describing in graphic detail the sexual contact that had apparently been going on between his dad and a female friend.

Jason was emotionally traumatized after reading this letter. He felt angry at his dad, but Jason also was extremely confused about what if anything to say to his mom. If he told his mother, would he be responsible in a way for their divorce? If he kept silent, would he be enabling his dad to continue this deceitful behavior? How would Jason’s mom feel about her son if she found out that he knew but said nothing about his dad’s affair?

Here are the three things that I tell kids who are stuck in such a quandary.

1. Maintain your integrity. Honesty is the foundation of all relationships. There is simply no way Jason could live with his family and maintain silence about such an important issue. I encouraged Jason to speak with his dad and explain how emotionally traumatic it was learn of his father’s behavior. While not meant as a threat, it was also important for Jason to be firm with his dad that Jason could not continue living under this conspiracy of silence. Either his dad would speak with his mom or Jason would talk with her.
2. Prepare to deal with lots of confusing and intense feelings. Jason was an emotional wreck. He was mad at his dad, protective of his mom, fearful of his parents’ divorce and terrified about the uncertainty of what might be happening to his family. I encouraged Jason to reach out to friends and family for support, understanding and love.
3. Learn to forgive. Jason was furious at his dad, and rightfully so. I reminded Jason of all the good things that his dad had done over the years. Good people sometimes do bad and stupid things. I urged Jason to be open to the possibility of re-establishing his relationship with his father.

Marital infidelity can cause incredible pain and have lifelong negative consequences for the kids in these marriages. Is it worth it?

To sign up to receive Dr. Ramey’s Family Wise monthly E-newsletter, click here. For more of his columns, visit www.childrensdayton.org/ramey and join Dr. Ramey on facebook at www.facebook.com/drgregramey.

[Reprinted by permission from the September 11, 2010, edition of the Dayton Daily News, “Should Teen Expose his Dad’s Infidelity?”, Family Wise, Gregory Ramey, PhD]

Would my kids be better off if I got a divorce” is one of the toughest questions I have been asked in therapy. I try to help parents work through this complicated question. The answer has lifelong implications for the entire family.

Here are the five factors that I ask parents to consider:

1. Unhappy marriages can improve. Overwhelmed by the stress of work, children and a perceived lack of support from a spouse, many parents feel trapped in unhappy relationships with few prospects for improvement. Recent research by Linda Waite has challenged that assumption, finding that two-thirds of unhappy spouses who stayed together actually improved their marriages over a five-year period. Sometimes couples’ satisfaction was due to actively working on problems, but in other cases marriage partners just became more accepting of their spouses. In other situations, marital satisfaction increased when stressful events such as finances or child-rearing decreased.

2. Divorce doesn’t always bring happiness for the adults. Some of the same issues that cause an unhappy marriage can linger on after a divorce. I’ve found that many parents, both men and women, misattributed the reasons for their unhappiness. They blame their spouses for feeling unhappy or unfulfilled and romanticized that life would be wonderful if they were alone or with a different partner. Research has found just the opposite. One 10-year study found that divorced men were six times more likely than their married counterparts to experience depression and women were three and a half times more likely to be depressed. These results are understandable in view of the many financial, social and psychological problems that come with a divorce.

3. Divorce is generally bad for children. Kids growing up with divorced parents are at a significant risk for serious academic, behavioral and social problems. They are more likely to drop out of school and become pregnant during their teen years. As adults, they are twice as likely to get a divorce as kids who grew up with married parents. Youngsters from divorced families typically have less contact with their parents, less supervision during their childhood and experience more stress associated with numerous changes in their lives.

4. Divorce is good for some kids. One of the few occasions when I do strongly advise parental separation is when the safety of the children is at risk, due to physical or sexual abuse, violence or drug abuse. Kids deserve a safe home, even if that means with separate parents. Kids raised in homes with constant conflict live a terrible life, feeling insecure, unsafe and unwanted. They often blame themselves for marital discord and enter into unhealthy relationships to find acceptance.

5. Your ex-spouse is rarely an ex-parent. Many parents experiencing marital problems are under the illusion that their problems with their spouse will end with a divorce decree. Unless one spouse gives up parental rights, you’ll still need to communicate and compromise with someone you may not like. Please remember this as you go through your divorce process.

To sign up to receive Dr. Ramey’s Family Wise monthly E-newsletter, click here. For more of his columns, visit www.childrensdayton.org/ramey and join Dr. Ramey on facebook at www.facebook.com/drgregramey.

[Reprinted by permission from the August 29, 2010, edition of the Dayton Daily News, “Should I get a divorce for the sake of my kids?”, Family Wise, Gregory Ramey, PhD]

In 2005, a seventeen-year old girl named Shynerra Grant was murdered by her ex-boyfriend, Antonio.  She had just graduated high school in Toledo, Ohio, and was heading to college in the fall.  Shynerra had been stalked by her ex-boyfriend for more than a year before she was murdered.  Antonio stalked and abused Shynerra, including an incident in May 2004 when he broke into her home and put her in the hospital with a broken jaw.  At the time an adult could obtain a Civil Stalking Protection Order (CSPO), but it was almost impossible for minors to get that same protection if the aggressor was another minor.

In March 2010, the Ohio General Assembly passed legislation that would confront this issue.  House Bill 10, named the Shynerra Grant Law, was sent to Governor Strickland for his signature.  The Governor signed the bill into law and it will become effective on June 17, 2010.  The law is designed to allow a minor to go to his or her local juvenile court to obtain a protection order in certain situations.  A teen who is the victim of harassing, stalking, or threatening behavior by another teen, now has the option of going to court to get protection.  Once the order is in effect a teen can be immediately arrested for violating the order.  No longer will that teen be able to call the individual or go to his or her house.  Punishment for violating the order can include house arrest or electronic home monitoring.

The procedure is similar to what has existed for adult CSPO’s for some time.  A person may go to the court and ask for a temporary ex parte order.  Basically, this hearing is to determine whether there is enough evidence to grant the order until a full hearing can be held.  The individual who is seeking the order is typically the only party present, and the person accused of the unlawful behavior is not generally there for an ex parte hearing.  Following the ex parte hearing a temporary order may be issued.  If this happens, the matter will be set for a full hearing where the defendant has the right to be present and has certain due process rights that are triggered; such as the right to counsel, right to cross-examine witnesses, etc.  The right to counsel is discretionary under the law.  The protection order may last for a certain period of time but may not last beyond the defendant’s nineteenth birthday.  A party seeking a protection order against someone older than nineteen must seek relief in the Common Pleas Court as was the procedure before.

The bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Edna Brown, said, “The current law, which allows judges to issue no-contact orders to juveniles, is basically useless. This new law will save lives, where juveniles will be able to be protected from persons who would cause them harm."

Hopefully, the enactment of this law prevents instances of teen dating violence.  One study by the Columbus Dispatch in November 2009, found that teenagers in Ohio were twice as likely to be victims of dating violence as they were likely to be injured in a car accident.  That being said, the same potentials for abusing the system now exist where a teen may be falsely accused.  If either you or a child of yours is experiencing instances of harassing, stalking, or threatening behavior, or your child has been accused of this type of conduct and is the subject of a temporary protection order of this nature, it is essential that you consult with an attorney immediately.

To read the text of the Shynerra Grant Law, Click here.

Throughout life, we sometimes encounter difficult people. We may argue with them, fall silent, comply or take distance. In a divorce, particularly an acrimonious one, difficult behaviors abound. No one is on their best behavior under this amount of stress. Figuring out how to cope with difficult behavior is a bit easier once you can identify why a person behaves in a certain way and what he/she hopes to accomplish. Here is a list of the most common behaviors that frustrate us all and suggestions for dealing with them:

The Bully – uses temper tantrums to overwhelm you; makes insulting and cutting remarks. Needs to feel superior and not lose control of the situation. Wants to get his/her own way.

*Stand up, listen, do not attack back, and take time-outs. Keep to the agenda.

The Complainer – gripes about everything incessantly. Needs to keep looking like a victim, does not take any responsibility, tries to bring others down to make her/himself look/feel better.

*Listen. Try to pin down specific complaints. Offer no apology. Ask, “How do you think we could fix this?”

The Silent Type – the most response you get is “nope,” “maybe,” and “I don’t know.” Needs to punish, hurt and control. Also may be evading resolution as a way to maintain power.

*Try a direct approach to the behavior. “I cannot read your mind, so there are things you need to tell me.” Do not badger or nag. Set a time limit, and then walk away. Part of the reward for being silent is the constant attention and urging. Do not reward the behavior with this response.

The Promiser – agrees with everything, but then doesn’t follow through on anything. Needs to be liked and accepted by everyone.

*Try saying, “I really want to know what is on your mind.”

The Wet Blanket – finds something wrong with everything. Tries to deflate your optimism. “It will never work” is their battle cry. Wants power and control over your life. Is threatened when you feel good about something.

*Do not argue. Do not get drawn into a power struggle. Do not ask for advice from this person.

The Staller – afraid to make a mistake. They never can decide on anything. They stall a major decision until it is made for them. Their sense of self is often tied to getting approval from others.

*Do not become irritated. Examine the facts and work on problem-solving.

The Big Shot – the “know it all.” Condescending, imposing and pompous. Sometimes doesn’t know what she/he is talking about, but thinks she/he does. Seeks approval and respect. They build their self-esteem on knowing “the facts.”

*Do not correct or counter. Do not get involved trying to “out-expert” this person. Listen and validate. Be sure to affirm their stance when they are right.

Here are some steps to help you cope and stop pulling out your own hair in frustration!

• Assess the situation. Is this really an issue you have to win?
• Stop wishing and hoping things were different. That sets you up to be blind-sided again – and again.
• Plan a strategy for getting your point across.
• Stick to your agenda. Do not be distracted by techniques designed to infuriate or diminish you.
• Do the best you can and then let it go.

As you assess your situation and your estranged partner’s behavior, make sure to look at your own style as well. Without realizing it, you may be implementing some of the above behaviors and creating roadblocks to resolution. While it is always easier to see the flaws of others, looking at your own behavior is where you can create real change.

©2010. Donna F. Ferber, LPC, LADC, is a licensed psychotherapist in Connecticut. Her newest book is available at bookstores everywhere, Amazon.com or at www.profileactics.com. This article is from her first book, From Ex-Wife to Exceptional Life: A Woman’s Journey through Divorce, which won an Honorable Mention Award by the Independent Publishers Association. To read more about the author and her work, please visit www.donnaferber.com