What About Men? Understanding "Value" Beyond the Pay Cheque

Our laws relating to alimony or spousal support have evolved greatly in the past 20 to 30 years - primarily, or rather, almost solely in response to a deeper understanding and appreciation for the rolls that women play in a marital relationship.  Women who are employed part-time, or who stay at home full-time to assist in raising children are now understood as making significant contributions to the marital partnership - albeit often not in a directly financial sense.  Beyond that contribution, we also have a much greater appreciation for the negative impact upon career paths often experienced by women as they subsume their career goals for the benefit of the marriage and the family - and this appreciation by society generally, and the courts in particular, has resulted in a heightened appreciation for the place that spousal support plays in the resolution of a family breakdown.

As it should.

However, it is perhaps time to stop to ask, "What about men?"

Often acting in a stereotypically stoic fashion, men enter into negotiation of family law issues unable or unwilling to express the impact of divorce and family breakdown upon them.

And this can lead to greater difficulty in resolving those issues, in particular, the issue of spousal support.

To be certain, more often than not, the career path of the male partner continues with only marginal impact related to marriage or birth of their children.  While men may have become more involved parents, maternity leave for men is rare, and extended full-time parenting by men is rarer still.

This often results in the courts and, yes, even collaborative professionals downplaying or even ignoring the underlying impact of a marital breakdown upon the male partner in a relationship.
We understand, now quite clearly, that it's not "just about the money" when discussing spousal support for women.  It's also about understanding and acknowledging the value and the commitment that they brought to the relationship.

So then, we must also take time to understand that, for men, it's also not "just about the money" when discussing their obligation to pay support.

Men are, typically, less likely to express their emotional connection to their earnings and their employment.

And, sadly, lawyers and judges are also less likely to understand and consider that emotional connection.

For if we acknowledge that to a great extent, a mother's value in the relationship was the rearing of the children and the tending of the home - we, implicitly, ascribe the primary value of the father to the financial contribution he makes to his family's well-being.

What does that mean, post-divorce?

Well, an effort to potentially equalize income, in whole or part, may suggest that his effort in achieving that income has little value.  Often we hear men talking of an impression by the court or their spouse that, "money grows on trees." This is not simply a desire, I would suggest, to conserve their income for themselves.  It is also a desire to have someone show respect and understanding for THEIR contribution to the marriage...  for the reality that their pay-cheque isn't just given to them, but takes effort and commitment just as significant as the effort and commitment that a full-time home-maker has to tending to the home and children. 

A man's career and income is connected, strongly, to their sense of self and their sense of value in their marriage and society.  And a simple parsing of that "value" without a discussion of the commitment to attain that value and the emotional and psychological connection of a man to his income and his employment will make negotiation of spousal support much more difficult.

As we often hear, "it's not just about the money".

And it's not.

So, to facilitate a fuller discussion of "values" and "interests", take some time to talk about and encourage recognition for the husband's connection with his income beyond the dollars and cents.  Encourage an understanding and respect that when he got out of bed every day and went to his jobs, that required a commitment to his employer and his family.  And that asking for that income to be shared is more than just asking him to share his pay cheque, it's asking him to continue to share "who he is".  An expression of understanding and appreciation for that fact will, I suggest, make it easier for him to continue that commitment to his family, post-divorce.

Collaborative Divorce: Moving Towards Greater Efficiency

Collaborative Divorce is not magic.

Collaborative Divorce is not a faith based process.

With the greatest of respect to all organized religions, Collaborative Divorce is not a religious movement.

Why make these statements?  Because I'm not completely certain that collaborative professionals and their clients understand this completely.

Collaborative Divorce requires commitment, and honesty, and openness, and it also requires an understanding that it can and often does fail.

And I make these statements not to weaken the process - but to strengthen it.  Because as professionals or as clients, we need to understand that the process itself will not succeed without our effort and our attention.  Too often, I fear, clients and professionals enter the process believing that if they just spend enough time and talk enough, answers and solutions will magically appear and an agreement will fall down from the heavens onto the table between them.

Sorry to burst your bubble - but it won't.

So.

Then.

We endure meeting after meeting - talking about interests and concerns, and the fees increase higher and higher, and before you know it - the dynamic in the room seriously changes.

Because now  there is suddenly a big gun to the head of the participants - in the form of tens of thousands of dollars in fees having been spent that, if the process is abandoned, will largely be wasted.

And if you're not paying attention, this creates leverage.  It creates the ability of one party - particularly if the costs haven't been shared, to use the leverage of wasted money to exert pressure for the other party to accommodate their "interests" disproportionately.

And we, as Collaborative Lawyers, do ourselves, our clients, and the collaborative process a great disservice if we don't recognize and work towards responding to this problem.

How?

Well, firstly, by making the process efficient and productive.

Assure your clients are doing the work required to provide information and disclosure in a timely fashion.  And if they are delaying or appear to be less than open and candid, having an honest conversation about your ability to withdraw from the process if they aren't showing a real commitment.

Assure you have candid and honest conversations with your fellow counsel if you feel THEIR client is doing the same - again, discussing with your own client that sometimes, ending the process is preferable to allowing it to be abused.

Assure that financial and child experts are likewise being used efficiently and properly. 

I recently encountered a file where disproportionate time and expense was incurred to educate the less knowledgeable party regarding finances - only to have yet another expert hired to "explain the explanation".   More fees, more delay - and no movement towards resolution.

The collaborative process is, indeed, a process which continues to serve the needs of thousands of parties in conflict - however, it is also showing it's cracks - and it is up to all of us who value the process to recognize those cracks and to apply our effort to repair them.

Or you could just cross your fingers and throw salt over your left shoulder.