MANDATORY COUNSELING – THE LECTURE SERIES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY FAMILY COURT

• Published date: 01 December 1971
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.1971.tb00729.x
• Date: 01 December 1971

MANDATORY COUNSELING

-

THE LECTURE SERIES

OF

THE SALT LAKE CITY FAMILY

COURT

Editor’s Note:

The lecture series of the Salt Lake City

Family Court

is

published in this edition of the Review in

response to the many requests received following reference

to the series in the article

by

Ryser and Hodgson, “Manda-

tory

Counseling

-

One Approach,”

(Conciliation

Courts

Review,

Vol.

9,

No.

1,

September 1971.)

The Salt Lake County ,Family Court Act

(1969)

states

es-

sentially, that any couple in a divorce action with children

under age 17 shall be required to have counseling. Initially,

the Family Court conciliation staff attempted to interview

each referral but found that a great deal

of

time was being

spent with the hostile, resistive client at the expense

of

the motivated client genuinely seeking help.

Over a two and a half year period

of

trial and error, an

educationally oriented series of

four

lectures were devised.

Three of the lectures

-

Marital Relationships, Communi-

cation, and Children in Divorce

-

are given

by

counselors.

The fourth

-

Economic Aspects of Divorce

-

is

given by

the court commissioner, an attorney.

I

Economic Aspects

of

Divorce

I

am

the Family Court Commissioner.

I

am

an

attorney, rather that1

a

marriage counselor. My princi-

pal responsibility in the Conciliation Department

of

the Family Court

is

to

enforce the orders of the court

as

they relate

to

support for children. I

amsometimes

appointed

as

guardian

ad

litem

of children

to

protect

their interests in divorce actions.

I

am

particularly

concerned with the harsh

effect

which unhappiness in

the family has on the children.

You

are here tonight,

to

take an honest look

at

marriage counseling.

You

have

come

by

some

different

routes. Some

of

you are here because

you

filed

a

Petition for Conciliation, or because your spouse

filed such’a petition and you received

a

written request

signed by the Presiding Judge

to

come

to

these

lec-

tures and get the suggestions we can give you.

Some

of

you are here because you are involved

in

a

divorce proceeding.

You

were before the court on

an Order

to

Show

Cause

and the Judge had

a

chance

to

explore with you

the

possibility of success in mar-

riage counseling.

Because

he was chiefly concerned

about the well-being

of

your children he said,

“GO

to

marriage counseling,” and he stayed further proceed-

ings in your divorce.

What the Judge usually has in mind when he

sent you

to

counseling

is

that each of you

at

least

attend

the

4

lectures, which are only

a

part of mar-

riage counseling. The Judge and our counseIing staff

have the hope that

you

will be motivated by these

lectures

to

ask for private, confidential counseling

appointments.

True morrioge counseling

involves both

parties sitting down in such a private, confidential

meeting or

series

of meetings with the same counselor

and trying to work out their problems.

In that connection, let

us

distinguish between

‘‘Reconciliation’

’

and “Conciliation.” Reconciliation

means going back together. Many people resist our

help because they think we will try

to

force or over-

persuade them to go back together. But we

are

realis-

tic. There

are

some marriages which cannot be saved,

some which should not be saved, particularly because

of

the harsh effect the unhappiness in that marriage

has

on

the children.

On

the other hand, conciliation means trying

to

work out your problems in

a

friendly atmosphere.

We

are

called

the Conciliation Department, and the forms

you

fill

out, the meetings you attend and all the helps

we

offer

you are aimed

at

trying to help you work out

your problems in

a

friendly, conciliatory atmosphere.

If we cannot help both

of

you find

a

wholesome, har-

monious, mutually satisfying relationship in your mar-

riage, we will

be

the first

to

so

advise the court. But

we

do

not want

to

stop there. If you must have

a

divorce, the counselor will try

to

help you adjust

to

it

in

a

way which will soften

its

harsh

effects

upon the

children and perhaps help you avoid making the same

mistakes in a future marriage. If this little explanation

helps you to understand why you are here tonight, at

least this part of the evening has

some

value.

Since the main subject tonight

is

the Economic

Aspect

of

Divorce,

let

US

talk first about

a

problem

found in many homes, that

of

money, or the lack

of

it,

or fighting over how it

is

to be spent.

We

haveaphilos-

ophy, based upon

a

lot

of

experience, about family

assets

and earnings.

“Regardless

of

who earns the money, the hus-

band, the wife or both, such earnings

become

the

joint

property

of

the marriage partners. There should

be mutual trust that one

is

revealing

to

the other the

full amount of such earnings and

is

b:inging them into

the family funds for proper spending under an agreed

budget plan. That trust should not be abused or vio-

lated.

”

We

often

use

that term “partnership”

in

con-

nection with business. Any good businessman will

11

tell you he has to budget his income and its outflow

until they at least balance,

so

that he won’t go in the

red. The same thing

is

true in a home.

You

can’t keep

spending more money, by easy credit, than you make

in a year, and

not

end up in the Federal bankruptcy

court.

We

recently developed an 18-page booklet en-

titled “Guidelines to a Better Marriage.” Two of the

most

important sections in

it

deal with budgeting, --the

philosophy

of

sharing, and then

a

sample or outline

on how to budget. Although we won’t

be

able

to

make

up a budget for you,

we can give

you

some

guidelines

in budgeting.

I

will now talk about problems in connection

with the economics

of

a

divorce proceeding itself. I

have given this

a

heading called “the 90-day aspect.’’

I

use that because since

1957

the law has said that

you can’t have a divorce heard until the 90-day

cool-

ing

off

period

is

over. It

is

during that 90-day period

when these

costs

must be

met.

It will cost about

$30

in court costs

to

start the action, and then the woman,

assuming she’s the plaintiff, will be obligated to her

attorney,

if

the divorce

is

just by default and not

a

contest,

for

at least a $250 attorney’s

fee.

If

it

is

a

contest, the attorney

is

entitled to

$100

per day for

trial work. On the other side,

if

the defendant doesn’t

believe that the divorce should go through in the man-

ner in which she asks for it, he has to get an attorney.

It’s just common sense for people going to court to be

represented by a lawyer.

So

we’ll include in his ex-

penses the $250 to his attorney. Then, with it being

contested he’ll have the

same

situation she has, he

will pay $100

a

day to

be

represented in court. That

comes to

$730.

If you have been

on

a tight budget,

where’s that

$730

going

to come from?

We

will now look at the 18-year economic aspect

of

divorce. I’ve

so

designated it because

if

you have

a

small child and

it’s

a

girl, the father

is

going

to

be

obligated for

18

years to support her.

It

it’s

a

boy, he

could

be

obligated for 21 years. I’ve used for my illus-

tration

a

family consisting

of

a

husband,

a

wife, and three

children. Father’s income

is

$500

per month, take-

home pay. They have probably been paying $100 per

month for rent or in the purchase

of

a

home. She

still

has

to

make a home for herself and the children.

She’ll have

to

pay

$30

in utilities.He’l1 have

to

pay

about

$60

a

month for

a

room.

To

buy

food

for the four

people in her home will take $120 per month.

That’s

$30

each, or

a

dollar

a

day. You don’t

eat

very well

on

a

dollar

a

day, even

little

kids. Because the father’s

food doesn’t come out of the same grocery bag,

or

isn’t cooked on the

same

stove he’ll go

to

cafes

to

eat

most

of the

time

--

this will

cost

him at

least

$75

per month.

He probably retains the car because he needs

it

for transportation to get to work. His car payments

are likely to

be

$50

per month.

I

suggest he will need

at

least

$25 per month

for

collision and upset, and

12

public liability insurance. Let’s

say

that life insurance

for the children will come to

$10

per month. On his

life, it will cost

$20

per month. Conservatively, the

wife and children will need

$20

per month for clothing.

His clothing will probably be

$10

per month. For

medical expense

I

suggest $10 per month for the

children, and

$5

per month

for

him. He will need

transportation

to

arid

from work, or

$35

per month. Of

course, this doesn’t include new tires, just gas and

oil.

I

haven’t included anything for transportation

for

the wife and children.

I

have put down

$10

per month

entertainment for them, but he’s alone and doesn’t

have the old TV

set

to

look

at,

so

I suggest

$15

a

month for his entertainment needs. When you add that

all

up, the needs

of

mother and family will

come

to

$305 per month, and his

come

to

$295 per month.

18-Y

ear Aspect

(take-home pay

$500)

Wife,

3

children: Husband

Home

Utilities

Food

Car payments

Car insurance

Life insurance

Clothing

Medical

Transportation

Entertainment

$100

30

120

10

20

15

10

$305

-

$

60

75

50

25

20

10

5

35

15

$295

It’s my experience that when a divorce is grant-

ed under these circumstances, the judge will set the

support at $50 per child per month, and $100 per month

alimony. That makes $250. That leaves the other

half,

$250

for him. Well, she’s $55 short that first

month, and he’s

$45

short. That goes on

12

months a

year, up

to

18

years.

Family

Needs

$305

Decree:

Support

$150

100

Alimony

-

250

SHORT

$

55

Hushand Needs $295

What

is

left

250

SHORT

$

45

I

cite

these

figures and make this comparison,

and

do

it

as

graphically

as

I

can, not for the purpose

of

taking business away from my fellow attorneys, but

to

give you something to think about

so

you can

decide whether what you

may

get from a divorce

is

worth the price you, and particularly the children,

are

likely to have to pay for it. May

I

leave this thought,

which

I

found on the‘desk

of

one

of

the Judges, with

you:

“ALIMONY:

The

billing without the cooing.”