If we were Canadian or had a more progressive health insurance company, we would be living together (in SIN!) for the beginning of our ninth year...

Let me get this straight: the party in the contract who is in the least capable position to support the kids in the event of a divorce should get the kids because it's "fair compensation"? The logic, it boggles.

If you don't want to have children, why marry? You can do up a partnership document so you can visit each other in the hospital, etc. My boyfriend and I have been together for almost seven years, and we have no intention of marrying or living together -- which is probably why we're still so happy together (although I don't value relationship tenure for tenure's sake the way many do). The bottom line: I don't need a relationship contract and neither does he. He's a lot of fun, and a great person, so I keep seeing him, and apparently, he sees something in me, too.

@mzs: One other reason people may hold off on divorcing when the economy is weaker: if the couple has a house to sell and the market is down, they might wait until they can sell it at least for more than they owe on it, if not for a profit.

Sure, some divorces such as yours are justified to happen quickly, but there are definitely way too many people who just would rather skip the effort and end it.

@The-Lone-Gunman: Nice in theory. But when one spouse gives up their career to support the family at home, because they both agree at the time that is what's best for their family, then that person has given up years of career advancement and education and may not be able to support themselves and possibly their children if the marriage ends.

@tedyc03: Most people think of marriage the same way they think of objects: dump the old model and get the newer, better looking model.

Without delving too deeply into the psychology of relationships, if people were looking for a friend as a spouse rather than judging by looks, romance, sex or money, most divorces wouldn't happen. Arranged marriages last too because the people in those cultures accept that they have to work through their problems.

It may not be as initially exciting, but people would be more willing to resolve their differences if the marriage is based on mutual respect, rather than, "What am I getting out of being with him/her?"

A real life incident that has entered common folklore proves my point:

[www.reuters.com]

There's a difference between "If you are occasionally faintly unhappy in your marriage or you're thinking about that really hot blonde down the hall, here's how to save money on the divorce that you should run right out and get without giving it a second thought" and "If you have weighed your options and decided on divorce, here's how to save money."

And, although this is not the norm, "having been in love at one point" is not always enough to justify even making the effort. I was definitely in love with my husband when we married. Fast forward 47 months: At the time I filed for divorce, there was a requirement that anyone seeking a divorce where children were involved had to attend a mandatory three-month "last ditch" series of marriage classes/counseling before filing the divorce petition. I absolutely refused, and fortunately I had an attorney who was well-known and respected enough to be able to explain my situation to the judge and request an exemption. When the judge confirmed the police reports and the records of my individual counseling, the requirement was waived.

Sometimes mandatory counseling is a good and prudent thing; in other cases, it requires a victim of physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse to try to "work things out" with his/her abuser/rapist.

@coren: You misunderstand. Klearly she has joined the growing movement to remove 'c' from the English language, just as I have. Down with redundant konsonants! Viva la K!!

I learned the hard way, after my divorce, that "community property" refers to ANYTHING acquired during the marriage, be it an asset or a debt. My ex-husband had debt - credit cards and loans - that I had no idea even EXISTED, much less had ever co-signed on. When he stopped paying them, the collectors started calling me. I was outraged that they'd try something so obviously illegal as telling me I was responsible for his bills - then I checked with my attorney, and then with a bankruptcy attorney, and I learned that because he opened them during the course of our marriage, I WAS liable for them, exactly the same as if I'd signed for them.

There isn't really anything you can DO about it if they have bills you didn't know about - a creditor doesn't care what a divorce judge says, and if they can come after you they will. But, if you have it as part of the divorce decree that "he'll pay these bills and she'll pay those" and then s/he doesn't, and you wind up having to pay to protect your credit rating, there is at least the *possibility* that you can have him/her found in contempt of court and that s/he will be ordered to pay you back.

And I second what Econobiker said - most of the time, especially if it's child support, you're going to have to go to court to have the modification made official. If you can work out the terms of the modification beforehand, yes, you can save money because you're not having to pay lawyers to duke it out - and if you're savvy enough you can even do the forms and go in and represent yourself, so that you'll only pay the filing fee and court costs but no attorney's fees. But, if you want any kind of legal protection behind it the change, it has to be court-ordered.

All these tips are great... if there isn't massive venom in the divorce proceedings.

Good luck trying to work this out with an immature couple, or a man/woman scorned who wants to hurt the other partner as much as possible.

"Also try to get a provision in a divorce agreement that allows you to revisit child or spousal support later on without having to file a new lawsuit, she says -- which will save time and money."

Excellent idea to save some money but expect that you still will have to go to court to prove less/more support issues...

Marriage is an at-will contract. Either party should be allowed to leave at any time for any reason, or no reason at all...and have to support themselves 100% afterwards, without regard to gender.

The mutual property of offspring division should be considered as a separate issue entirely.

It's one of those benefits people forget they have.

So... basically, don't be an ass?

I'm not some religious nut or someone with pie-in-the-sky aspirations either. My parents divorced and I think it was the right decision. But I think sometimes it's the first option, not the last one, and that scares me.

@coren:

Yeah, I'd hate to see what it looked like when she piked him.

As usual, blanket information that doesn't necessarily work for every state. Maryland, for example, requires that during a divorce process that both sides live at different residences for a full year before separation and then divorce can be granted.

So the article is saying be flexible and friendly? Just going to go out on a limb here, but if the couples were flexible and friendly to begin with, odds are they wouldn't be going through the divorce.