Thanks for your condolences.

To be clear, I’m not asking that he be “forced” to remain in the marriage. (I am not hanging on to this man out of desperation…if this divorce becomes a reality, I will ultimately fare FAR better than he will, realistically speaking. I’m concerned for him. His affair will not survive, for very specific, sound reasons, and he does not have a strong emotional support system to fall back on at this time, if I am out of the picture.)

I am asking for, in SOME circumstances, the option of additional time and the opportunity to have a VOICE.

And here’s why:

What the general public is widely unaware of is that 90+% (NINETY PLUS PERCENT!!!!–most of us assume that once an affair has occurred, game over; not true) of spouses who cheat DO return to the marriage…but an affair situation requires TIME to runs its course, and 6 months is often NOT enough time (affairs can be tenaciously addictive…the infatuation produces chemicals in the brain that are, literally, addictive, and people are hard-pressed to give it up…it often has to subside on its own, as infatuation does).

When a person is in an affair, they lose their sense of logic, and they WILL throw away EVERYTHING on a whim (for instance, his lover has two daughters, whom she is neglecting, because she is focused on him instead)…destroying their own life in the process, just like a drug addict…because of the addictive nature of the “feeling”… which, like infatuation, fades, just as soon as the pressures of real life intrude.

Affairs thrive on fantasy, secrecy, and the thrill of deceit. The affair relationship is virtually doomed (only 1% can withstand real-life pressures, and even among those, the divorce rate is exponentially higher than among REGULAR SECOND MARRIAGES, which already experiences divorce at a higher rate than first marriages), but by the time it unravels, the “easy divorce” has often decimated the marriage.

The spouse that is “waiting” must, like those intervening on behalf of a drug addict, stand as the “voice of reason”. It is NOT a matter of “keep[ing] people in relationships against their will”…it’s a matter of helping them through a time when they literally are not thinking straight. It is upholding the “for worse” of “for better or worse”. I’m not bailing out on him just because he’s in crisis.

My husband has gone from being a sunny, logical, responsible, balanced, and a “neatnik” to his polar opposite. He is like an angry, rebellious teen, acting out, cursing, and has turned into a slob. He has gone from enjoying exercise to being completely obsessed…the lion’s share of his week is dedicated to that and the affair.

Despite the challenge, I have been calm, patient, loving, and working closely in tandem with our therapist to act constructively as the situation has unfolded.

When we engage in discussions, the thought process of this logical man is now meandering, circular “logic”. He waffles. He flip-flops. He does not KNOW what he wants, despite professing so. (He is only 39, so it’s definitely not senility :-)

When the affair unravels, he may find himself sitting alone, in a studio apartment, wondering what the hell he did to his life. (He didn’t say that he was dissatisfied UNTIL after he was neck-deep in the affair…this is quite typical…small issues are amplified once a person experiencing an identity crisis “connects” with another person experiencing the same thing, when they both have “boundary issues”).

Ours was, of course, an imperfect life, but it was a GOOD life, and the issues could easily have been worked through in counseling…we are STILL very attracted to each other in many ways, and we are very compatible. There is passion. We just need to air and renegotiate a few issues. That’s it. Not worth divorce.

But with such an easy “out” available, the son of twice-divorced parents is ready to fulfill his family destiny. That’s all he knows. People who walk out when things get confusing.

Our country has become numb to the concept of divorce…we see it on TV shows and in movies every day. People bed-hop and swap spouses like it’s nothing. Ratings demand it. Real commitment seems so BORING. But it’s NOT. It’s deep. It’s intimate. It’s REAL. It’s sexy. It’s fun. It’s exciting beyond the butterflies-in-the-tummy feeling that an affair gives you…yes, the beginning is so exciting, but it’s not substantive…if you know how to “go deep”, there is SO much more to be had…but most people only scratch the surface, and turn tail and run when the honeymoon phase wears thin. Most people fail to reach their “second wind”. We are a throwaway culture, and we don’t give a second thought to throwing away people or history, either.

Marriage is a commitment. Not just until you get bored. And love is an action…it’s more than a willy-nilly, nebulous “feeling”…the feeling waxes and wanes and comes back stronger…it fluxes over the years and changes…just as all feelings do. But ACT on love regularly, and you will feel it more consistently.

SO, yes, we are all so concerned about “free will” and “happiness” and “feelings”, but what happens when an individual “thinks” they know their own mind, yet they have actually checked OUT? I am not just looking at my OWN happiness and best interests here…I am looking at those same things for my spouse. He is not currently equipped to do so. At any point in the past, I would have trusted him with my life and any life decision. Right now, he truly is NOT thinking clearly…and I assure you, I do NOT say this simply because his position is in oppostion to mine.

I don’t see this as a “prison” for this type of person (even if THEY might at the time…a drug addict views rehab as prison, certainly, but it IS typically done in their best interest, not intended as a mechanism of control); rather, as the opportunity for a “reality check”.

As I stated, what *I* am asking for is the OPPORTUNITY to present EVIDENCE of our extenuating circumstance…the OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD…the OPPORTUNITY should EXIST for a judge to say, yes, in THIS case–in SOME cases–the waiting period SHOULD be extended OR the petition denied at this time (even if it could be resubmitted for later consideration). THAT is what *I* am asking for. It is MY position that “one size fits all”…simply does not.

There are some couples in which BOTH parties want out quickly…they can’t wait to be done…”no fault” is ideal. More power to them, I suppose.

I’m simply asking for recourse. For a VOICE.
19 years deserves that.
Half my life deserves that.
My best friend deserves that.

Those who know think he is NUTS for leaving me.
I have NOT let myself go, in ANY way…I am better than I have EVER been…physically, mentally, emotionally, relationally, spiritually….I am a complete package.

My husband is addicted to the “high” he feels from the affair…he doesn’t realize or understand that he doesn’t really love this woman…it could have been ANYone…it’s just the FEELING he’s addicted to.

How can it be that, even in the throes of this addiction, he is apparently permitted to file for a “no fault” divorce? And it could be granted? I find this outrageous. Our therapist, as have many experts, characterizes this as a true “temporary insanity”.

My husband’s heart did not harden against me UNTIL he was in the throes of the affair…there is not room for 2 women in a man’s heart. If he had not met up with her, we could have gone to counseling and most likely successfully healed our communication gaps…he cannot–WILL not–acknowledge that now. We had some work to do, but it was DEFINITELY NOT “IRRECONCILABLE”…deep, abiding love can absolutely, successfully be resurrected. He perceives us as “irreconcilable” ONLY because of “the other woman”.

My life, as I know it, is about to be ruined, because of what I consider to be a judicial lack of respect for the institution of marriage. I have known and loved this man for HALF of my life…and he, me…he is my best FRIEND, my love. We have shared so much history…it’s hard to conjure memories that don’t include him.

And in a mere 6 months, he can eradicate me from his life, as if I never existed.

I do not appreciate or respect what he has done, in terms of the affair, and I am NOT a doormat. I am a woman of great strength and honor, and I still believe that we could overcome his infidelity. My husband is NOT a philanderer…he was always a steadfastly faithful man…until this crisis. But I do believe we could overcome this together, given time.

Unfortunately, with this brief 6-month timeframe–and zero recourse or rebuttal from ME–my options are limited, and my time is running out. Devastating to learn, because I am willing to fight for this marriage…I have been and I am willing to continue…but the key is to outlast the affair. (Statistically, affairs do NOT survive, but I can’t guess whether theirs will crumble before a divorce is decreed. The addiction is strong, despite the many dysfunctional strikes stacked against them.)

I believe that I should at least be allowed the OPPORTUNITY to provide additional evidence, pointing to the extenuating circumstance of our situation. Sadly, this is not the case. I have no case, in the eyes of “the law”.

I DO understand the situations for which the swift divorce is humane and necessary, but WHY can the courts not allow for DISCERNMENT??? What is with this “one size fits all” version of “pseudo-justice”?

It appears that Justice needs to be blind, so she can’t see all the pain and suffering she leaves lying in her wake. My life will never be the same.

I hope that those who complained about the “culture of divorce” (the present time always being the mother of all evils, as opposed to the “good old days”) have had the patience to read the above quote. But for the convolutions of archaic English, it is very beautiful and very persuasive. Translated into our own, plain lingo, it makes three points: (1) the primary purpose of marriage is to make the partners happy; (2) procreation is merely a secondary purpose of marriage; and (3) staying together in an unhappy union for its own sake defeats the purpose of marriage.

Who wrote this? A nun? An early feminist, perhaps? Alas, no. The author of this text is John Milton — a celebrated 17th century English poet, the author of “Paradise Lost”, and, probably, the first advocate of no-fault divorce. Milton was not a libertine or a radical, like later French poets. He was a religious, bookish man, and a devout Protestant — by choice rather than by accident of birth or upbringing. But he was also an unhappy man, married to an unhappy woman.

At 33, Milton married a 16-year-old girl. Several weeks later, she went to visit her mother and remained there indefinitely, without ever indicating, however, that she would not return. Now, Mrs. Milton did not abuse her husband — did not beat him, or threaten him. She didn’t steal from the family. She did not take lovers. She was not a criminal, did not have a mental illness, and was not an alcoholic. I suppose that her conduct could qualify as abandonment under New York’s present-day fault scheme, but it would not be a slam-dunk. She just found her serious, scholarly, brooding husband boring as hell and preferred to spend most of her time with others. He felt similarly about his vacuous, ignorant, and infantile wife. Milton never denied that the mistake was of his own making, but if ever there was an idea that Milton would find abhorrent, it’s one that an unhappy marriage should serve as a drawn-out lesson or punishment to those who make improvident decisions — and that this punishment should be perpetuated through the coercive power of the State.

So to all those who think that only violence and infidelity should serve as adequate bases for an escape from a marriage, reflect on why we get married in the first place. And, consider that perhaps the generations before us weren’t as pristinely “simple” and unpretentious as you believe.

Although, depending on the circumstances, you might be able to make a case that the NCP should have been aware of neglect or abuse even though s/he didn’t personally witness it.

A neighbor also has a duty of human decency (it isn’t actually a duty of citizenship, as the neighbor has the same duty if they are resident alien, or even an illegal immigrant, hell, even if they are just on a tourist visa), but Mythago was saying that the neighbor (citizen, immigrant, or tourist) does not have a legal obligation, while the NCP does. Of course, so does anyone else with a specific legal obligation of responsibility to the child, including, possibly, the neighbor if the neighbor regularly babysat the child (I think, depending on the state). Also, of course, an NCP who never bothers to show up for visitation has no legal liability for not having noticed the abuse, so the legal responsibility seems to go with the interaction, not with the relationship.

No, he or she would have the same obligation. But that’s not a particular obligation of the NCP; it’s a basic duty of citizenship.

So do you have any actual examples of legal duties owed to a child by an NCP, other than the ordinary duties of citizenship?

If you see your neighbor’s kids every other weekend, notice they are being abused, and do nothing, you have no legal liability. If an NCP on every-other-weekend visits notices that the CP is abusing the children, do you think that the NCP is no more obligated to do something about it than a stranger?

How?

Put limits on their ability to abandon their children. If we recognize that the CP can’t move three states away because it’s bad for the children, we can similarly limit the NCP. (As Chief describes the Missouri law, it doesn’t say “You can move as long as you don’t disrupt the existing visiting schedule”; it presumes that distance = bad.) We can make actual physical custody to some degree mandatory, and failure to exercise visitation or custodial rights met with increased child support.

No, I don’t think that any of this will have a real impact on an NCP who sees children as a kind of fine for past indiscretions, but if we’re going to pass laws that are supposedly in the interests of the children, that goes both way.

None that they can’t relatively easily walk away from, AFAIK. The duties to nurture and protect, etc., fall on the custodial parent in the case of a divorce. Nobody calls up the NCP living three states over and berates them that the kids aren’t getting to school; everyone recognizes that a NCP is relatively powerless over such things.

we can certainly impose a duty on them to care for their kids beyond “pay the other parent to do it”.

How?

No, we don’t. We (rightfully) force people to write checks. That isn’t 2% of the parent-child relationship, and you know it isn’t.

Here a statistic that says 90% of fathers have less than equal custody of their children, a statistic born out by the files on my shelves at work.

I have no doubt that statistic is more-or-less true (although it would be more meaningful if your cite said anything about how the statistic was calculated, using what data). But that statistic isn’t talking about contested custody cases; it’s talking about all custody arrangements. The overwhelming majority of custody arrangements are made by a mutual agreement between the mother and father, not by court order; that most divorcing fathers don’t want custody is not evidence of courtroom bias.

In a perfect society, I’d like to see a lot more fathers winding up with custody. But the change has to happen in marriages, pre-divorce. The reason so few fathers do primary childcare after divorce is that so few of them did it pre-divorce.

Amp, the reason a custodial parent shouldn’t be able to move a significant distance from a non-custodial parent is that doing so invalidates the custody/visitation agreement that does exist.

No, it doesn’t. Not unless the existing custody/visitation agreement includes an explicit “no move” clause.

A man may have a great, generous custody arrangement, on that allows him to see his children often, but it’s not going to mean much if Mom moves the kids three states away and Dad can’t afford a plane ticket that often.

So why can’t Dad move three states away, to be nearer his kids?

Got a good job offer or some new Shining Knight who’s going to make you happy in the way old what’s-his-name never did? Sorry, your fabulous new life doesn’t take precedence over the relationship yor children have with their father.

So never mind if the new job means that the kids will be able to afford much better colleges or a much better school system. Screw what’s good for the kids - their best interests are always what’s most convenient for Dad. And if Dad isn’t willing to move to be near his kids, then screw them.

I don’t really believe that, because it’s obviously extreme and cruel to write as if Dad’s interests — for instance, his legitimate interest in not moving away from his job and his life — aren’t relevant at all. But my point is to parody the way you’re writing; if you think Mom’s interests matter at all, it’s not apparent in what you’ve written here.

I don’t see why Dad’s interests in not moving to be closer to his kids should automatically outweigh Mom’s interests in moving for a better job, to be near the grandparents, etc.. If we must have a law about moving, then the law should take a look at the whole situation, and have the possibility of either ordering the NCP to move or ordering the CP to stay put. It should be an even-handed law, in other words, not one that automatically takes the NCP’s side.

You seem to think that Dad’s interests are so overwhelmingly more important than Moms that it should be written into law that Mom’s interests must never, ever take precedence, when it comes to move-away decisions. Why? Why is forcing a CP to stay impoverished in a one-horse town where she has no support system and a lousy job less of an imposition than asking the NCP to move to be closer to his kids?

The “relationship” in question is a parent-child relationship, and we certainly force people to have those relationships all the time. We can’t force NCPs to love their kids, but we certainly could state that it’s detrimental for a child to have their parent move out-of-state absent a showing by that parent. (There are all sorts of reasons other than visitation, anyway: emergency care, the jurisdiction of the state over enforcing custody and child support, for example.)

Using Chief’s notion of wage-earning being a credit towards child-care time, we could also make child support partially depending on the exercise of visitation rights. Parents have an obligation to be parents to their children; if Mom chooses to move halfway across the country because kids cramp her style, she can pay Dad more, since he not only has an increased intangible burden, but very likely increased financial and time costs as a result of shouldering more of the parenting burden.

Actually, your original point was that women shouldn’t marry. As for “getting credit”, that cuts both ways; if wage-earning is equivalent to childcare, then primary-custody Mom could argue that support payments are the same thing as visitation. I don’t think that’s quite what you meant.

As for the non-custodial parent not being able to move away either? I’d have no problem with that.

Then aren’t you outraged how one-sided the Missouri law is? If Dad doesn’t have primary custody, he can block Mom from moving out of state. But if he suddenly gets a swell job in Los Angeles, why, he can pack up and move, and screw the kids. If he only wants to see them once a year on Father’s Day, that his business and Mom can’t stop him; we only care about ‘detrimental to the non-custodial parent’s relationship’ when the detriment is created by the custodial parent.

As for the non-custodial parent not being able to move away either? I’d have no problem with that. I believe that both parents should stay geographically available to the child(ren).

Doesn’t that go both ways, Chief? If a man doesn’t like his fiancee thinking that she is going to be in charge of the kids, perhaps he shouldn’t marry her. But that said, you’re skipping past the actual point: which is that if one is A-OK with an unequal distribution of childcare during marriage, it’s a bit odd to suggest that after a divorce, one has suddenly seen the light of 50/50 hands-on parenting time. If Dad didn’t mind leaving pretty much everything to Mom during the marriage, why fuss after?

If we’re concerned about the children’s best interests, laws like Missouri’s should also require the non-custodial parent to prove that his or her moving out of state would not be detrimental to the best interests of the children. After all, does it really matter from the kids’ point of view why they can’t see Dad?