Source: http://www.mspoole.com/tag/pearl/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:43:38+00:00

Document:
Before I began my legal career in 2004 at Wilkins, Stephens, and Tipton, a large medical malpractice and pharmaceutical defense firm right here in Jackson, Mississippi, I was spared much of the knowledge and agony that regularly face domestic lawyers. Although the task of family attorneys can be very rewarding, it also presents the emotional rollercoaster that so many of us, lawyers included, seek to avoid on a daily basis. Practicing domestic law presents some certainties and a whole lot of grey area. A client’s ability to accept the human element and subjectivity that come along with family conflict are immeasurable to not only their own well-being, but that of their children.
There still exists a strong perception that mom has a significant advantage in a dispute with dad over the custody of children, particularly in the Southeast U.S.. We have time and again written on the Albright vs. Albright factors and their seminal importance in child custody litigation. They are extensively detailed in our prior blog posts. We began a series in January, 2018 that adequately outlines each of the factors that a court considers in child custody cases. The articles are written on an early college level so that readers are able to focus on substance over form and legalese.
I highly recommend to any litigant that they gain as much knowledge as possible to advance their cause. Knowledge IS power. Simply put, the Albright case outlines the criteria that a Chancery Court must consider in their deliberation as to the best interests of a minor child’s physical custody. Simple answers to child-custody cases do not exist, period. Years before I began practicing domestic law, Mississippi Chancery Courts were able to confer a modest legal advantage unto mom in child custody proceedings. Those times are essentially forgotten history.
The general rule of thumb prior to the Mississippi Supreme Court ruling in Albright was that a child was better served during their “tender years” by mom having physical custody. That is no longer the case. If I were advising a mother in a custody dispute, which I have hundreds of times, I would offer one simple tip: breastfeed as long as possible. Although breast-feeding alone is not an Albright factor, continuity of care is a factor, and Mississippi chancery court judges will always give great pause before even considering removing a child from the biological nurturing mom can provide. Score one for mom.
Do not believe the hype: Outside of the lone fact previously discussed, mom does not have any measurable advantage over dad in a custody proceeding. Partly due to the equal protection clause, a portion of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the changing dynamics in family structures, the law no longer favors a mother over dad in custody suits. It is crucial to any child-custody litigant to have recognition of the power vested in chancery judges. They not only interpret law, they find fact as in the role that a jury would in damages cases.
It is amazing that so many people with no legal training will continue to speak as if they are seasoned attorneys. They are not able to offer any appreciable wisdom to a custody litigant. It’s one more thing better left for the true experts such as myself. Ignore your friends attempts to be constitutional scholars, no matter how well-intended.
If you are going through a custody or visitation case, you already are aware of the stress and complexity they usually present. I am not only a single father, I have seen those battles from the front line likely as much as any single litigator around. I deeply understand the challenges that child custody cases present. We look forward to assisting you in your time of great need.
Matthew Poole is a seasoned Jackson, Mississippi domestic lawyer who has evaluated in excess of 6,000 domestic legal proceedings. His sole area of practice is family law.
Let me start by stating what is too often overlooked: there are not extremely obvious answers or simple solutions in child custody battles. In my experience having taken several hundred custody and visitation disputes to trial, I have learned a few things that could potentially help a litigant in these stressful cases.
My intention is simple today: to bring basic common sense into the murky water of domestic custody disputes. The myth is this: the worse I make the other parent/ex/spouse appear, the better I appear to the court. Not so fast, as we shall see.
Once upon a time I had a client who was probably, but not certainly, the better parent when compared to her husband, but she made a relatively simple custody victory elusive by getting in her own way….it often happens. When testifying about the parenting skills of her husband (who sought full physical and legal custody of a 6 year old little boy), she would instantly and consistently revert to name-calling and bashing the man she married years ago. Most of her testimony focused on his numerous affairs, not his skill in parenting. He was far more collected and even-tempered than she. He did in fact have several admitted extramarital affairs, and she clearly was not past any one of them. Her wounds were simply too fresh to focus on her child. To him, her insults were like water off of a duck’s back….and therein lies the rub.
Even though we did eventually secure a favorable result, our understandably angry client would likely have spent a fraction of her final invoice if she had bitten her tongue, if even every so often. She was clearly so upset with her husband that she lost all sight of the one thing the court cared about: what was best for her little boy. A case that could have been resolved in a couple of months instead required a couple of dozen hearings and far more too much wasted time.
Even though it is quite tempting to use a Chancery Court proceeding to tell the whole story about the downfall of a marriage/relationship, some things are much better left unsaid. Please realize that the court already knows you don’t have warm, fuzzy feelings about your ex/spouse, or you wouldn’t be there in the first place. It is already well-understood. Slinging mud at your ex often simply irritates the Chancellor hearing your case. Often the best thing to say in court is nothing at all, especially if it causes distraction.
The paradox lies in a simple misconception; that having more negative to say about your child’s other parent will score points, therefore you win. Not so fast; goodwill and maturity go a long way–Mississippi Chancellors appreciate calm reasoning and the desire to get along, particularly for the childrens’ benefit, if nothing less. Don’t ever think you are worse-off than the next custody litigant. Cooler heads most often, and likely should, prevail. Often the litigant who is emotionally-charged teters on the brink of appearing to alienate a child’s innocent affection of both mom and dad.
The attitude a child custody litigant brings with them to trial is overtly paramount to the success of their claim and the efficiency in obtaining a positive outcome. It is very easy to lose sight of what matters most to the court: the best interests of children. Emotionally-charged litigants often forget that their testimony will not only be judged on its believability, but on its responsibility and focus.
My best advice to anyone going through a custody fight (whether or not in a divorce or a custody/modification proceeding) is to remain calm and stay focused on your kids. Forget about the indiscretions, the lying, the cheating, or whatever else your ex did to bring you to disappointment UNLESS it has a direct bearing on your children. It’s usually water under the bridge. Don’t forget that Chancery Court judges are human too, and they hear bickering on a daily basis. It gets tiresome at the least. The myth is that mudslinging is effective; the truth is that it is not very productive.
If you are seeking an attorney who has a clear view of the big picture in a custody dispute, I will gladly lend my advice. Shaping your testimony and being in the right frame of mind are fundamental to winning child custody disputes. If you are prepared to consider viewing this type of litigation from a fresh, objective, and realistic perspective, give us a call.
Matthew Poole is a Jackson, Mississippi Family and Domestic Attorney with 14 years of focused experience in child custody litigation and divorce.
First, I would like to pay a short tribute to my Associate Attorney, Honorable Kenneth Davis, Esq., whom I have had the pleasure of mentoring for the past 3 years. He is moving on to a new venture today, and his steady hand and careful deliberation at the helm in the treacherous waters of domestic litigation will be deeply missed. We wish him great success and happiness and will always hold him in high regard. God bless, Attorney Davis.
Now, forward we move into a new era of life and law as a family attorney with a new addition to my staff, Ms. Linda Wilson, a 42 year veteran stenographer (court reporter) and former assistant to a retired Chancery Judge in Madison and Yazoo County, Mississippi. She is very knowledgeable and we look forward to her addition to my office.
But I digress, and feel compelled to relay a brief story about the vast importance of detail in custody related legal proceedings. And this particular tale is rooted in a basic mistake made by opposing counsel in a custody modification case. Buckle up, this story proves that truth really is stranger than fiction.
When I took the deposition of the father I asked him a question regarding whether or not he was under the influence of an illicit drug or alcohol during this scandalous escapade. When I asked the question, he said simply, “Well, I was–”, and his lawyer stopped him to interpose an objection of some sort….and this is where the details ended up sinking my opponents case in one fell swoop. (Not to break my arm patting myself on the back, but I appropriately moved along to another subject at that point altogether instead of arguing the merits of the lawyer’s objection).
Now, this is where it turned into a particularly lovely case for my client. When we got into Rankin County Chancery Court, I did what lawyers do-exploited any weakness of my opponent to the advantage of my client. Even though it is true that the case would have likely been won even without the interesting deposition testimony, I jumped on what appeared to be a terribly destructive admission by the donut-theiving daddy, and the judge ate it up.
If my opposing counsel had done is job correctly, he would have had the opportunity to correct that damaging apparent admission with follow-up questions however he neglected to do so. And so, as the saying goes, sometimes it’s the little things that kill. As you already guessed, my client got a very favorable result.
Citing my second favorite basketball player of all time (behind Michael Jordan, of course), Kareem Abdul-Jabar, it’s usually the smallest of things that make the difference between winning and losing. And win, we did.
If I can help you do the little things right in your divorce or custody case well and to pay attention to the detail, please give us a call.
Matthew Poole is a Jackson, Mississippi domestic relations attorney with 14 years of experience in family law. He was admitted to practice in 2004 and lives in North Jackson with his son, Lucas.
Can your child be taken away because of a simple spanking? When I was elementary school at a public institution in Rankin County, Mississippi, I had the misfortune of enduring the school principal’s penchant for enforcing rules by use of a very large paddle, equipped with golf-ball sized holes in order to increase the velocity of each collision. In the early 1990’s, it was standard fare to expect a good old-fashioned whipping from school administration for playground roughhousing or any other number of youthful misdeeds. Boy, how times have changed.
In today’s world of political correctness and fear of legal liability, it seems that those days are long gone, and will likely never return. Parents have often asked our office whether or not a Youth Court or Chancery Court has the authority to take their children from their physical custody wherein there has been significant corporal punishment. Gone are the days of schools bruising the rear-end of a miscreant child (usually boys, alas).
Desoto County, Mississippi recently dealt with an appeal revolving around the question of distinguishing between reasonable discipline versus child abuse, and the line is very thin and broadly within the discretion of the trial court in civil matters. In this particular instance, the appellate court had to consider the sufficiency of evidence utilized by the trial court in removing four children from their father’s custody. At hand was a simple query, at least at first glance.
The appellate court first, and a matter of proper judicial due course, considered the bare language of the applicable Mississippi statute, section 43-21-105(m). In pertinent part, said statute provides that an abused child is one “whose parent….has caused or allowed to be caused, upon the child… emotional abuse, mental injury, non-accidental physical injury or other maltreatment”. Wow, talk about a broad definition, allowing wide discretion for the judge. However, the statute on point also states that “physical discipline, including spanking, performed on a child by a parent, guardian or custodian in a reasonable manner shall not be deemed abuse under this section”. Thanks for the semi-clarification, right?
It seems to me that the question of whether or not corporal punish ment of a child is violative of Mississippi law comes down to good old-fashioned common sense. While the criminal statutes regarding abuse of minors are relatively easy to interpret, the civil law remains open to broad interpretation. It is my hunch that any physical punishment that is accompanied by bruising or other visible signature will likely run afoul of the statute on point, but the margin for interpretation is razor-thin. Foremost, always remember that the court will have wide leeway in drawing the line between abuse and reasonable corporal punishment. No two judges are the same and may see the same thing differently. Reasonable minds may, and will often, disagree.
If you are dealing with allegations of abuse or neglect and need guidance and effective legal counsel, we will gladly be of assistance. Always trust your better judgment and recognize that any child punishment of a child must not be done out of anger. In the words of the American author and Unitarian minister Robert Fulgham, “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten”. Well said.
Matthew Poole is a Jackson, Mississippi family lawyer focused on case evaluation and domestic conflict management. He was admitted to the Mississippi Bar in July, 2004.
My name is Kenneth Davis, and I have been working for Matthew for close to two years total now. When I first began working in domestic law, I fell victim to much of the overly optimistic enthusiasm that so many young lawyers encounter. Coming from a very close family that has never needed intervention to solve conflicts between us, I was rather naïve to just how petty people can be in litigation over family matters. Family is the most important thing in this world, and sadly that often gets lost in the maze that is a domestic lawsuit. I say this not to downplay people’s emotions or investments in their goals for their family, but rather to be up front with people on the things I see on a day-to-day basis.
Much like professional golf, a lawyer-client relationship is much more of a team than most people think. The client does not only sign a petition and then sit back and let the lawyer do the rest. Clients are their biggest advocate, and they know more about their case than anyone else. The lawyer’s job is to trigger the client’s mind for information they can use to prove their case, and to present that proof to the judge in an effective way. Like a golfer and their caddy, a client and their attorney must be on the same page every step of the way to achieve the best result possible.
When I tell people I practice domestic law, what follows is usually a form of “that must be dramatic.” It certainly is, as family law impacts people’s everyday lives and their relationships with their children. Most of the stories I tell are the really ridiculous ones, such as fighting over the most minor things. I then realized that while many litigants mean well with their lawsuit, sometimes they are mostly fueled by spite. That is most unfortunate, because often the client’s reasonable goals take a back seat to that anger toward the other party. That can add unnecessary baggage and stress to an already volatile situation, and it can put strain on the attorney-client relationship at the expense of the result.
Domestic law can be a challenging and stressful arena in which to practice, although for the most part it is satisfying. It brings me great pride to know that these clients have trusted me with their familial relationships, which are sacrosanct. As with any area of law, proper discipline and teamwork make a world of difference in the outcome of a domestic lawsuit. The most important thing in a domestic case is to never lose sight of what you are wanting to achieve. It can be easy to get lost in the trees and lose sight of the forest. This is truly the best advice I can give to anyone I meet, whether it be a litigant, another attorney, or anyone with a goal they want to achieve.
Our nation’s troops endure conditions that most of us can only imagine, although sadly they are not immune to the challenges that marriage present. The stress of a career in our nation’s military can have a huge impact on the ability of relationships to last and thrive. When a service member is heading for divorce, a huge question in that process is the distribution of military retirement. This is a valid concern, as the non-military spouse may not be working so as to provide childcare or for any other number of reasons.
When retiring with at least 20 years of active service, a service member receives a retirement pension for the rest of their lives. That means if a person becomes an active military service member right out of high school, they will qualify for that pension around age 40, which is not an uncommon age for someone going through a divorce. The Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act, passed in 1982, states that military pensions are to be treated as marital property when the time of marriage and service overlap. Under the USFSPA, the marriage must have lasted 10 years during which the military spouse performed 10 years of creditable service to be eligible for that retirement pension. This does not mean that the non-military spouse automatically receives half of the pension, rather it gives courts the authority to divide that pension in accordance with that court’s state property division laws. In Mississippi divorce cases, it has long been held that chancery courts have the authority to order a fair division of property acquired through the joint efforts of the parties. As aggravating as this may be for both litigants and advocates alike, chancellors in Mississippi are trained to make these decisions that are fair and equitable to both parties.
As with any divorce case, every military divorce case will be different in its own way, and there is no way to accurately guarantee a specific result. Even the courts say there is no formula! However, a military marriage is a two-way street of effort and sacrifice, and courts acknowledge that non-military spouses are as important to those marriage as our service members are to the military. Unfortunately, the stress of marriage and military life infiltrates military unions as easily as civilian ones. The most important part is finding an advocate that understands the plight at hand, and knows that courts will take steps to protect the service member’s interest in their hard-earned pension while attempting to ensure that the non-military spouse is adequately taken care of. If you or someone you know has a question about the role of a military pension in a divorce, call the Law Office of Matthew S. Poole. Our office holds the military in very high regard, and we will work to give you honest answers to any question you may have.
It’s an age-old joke that the more lawyers are involved, the more confusing (not to mention expensive) a situation tends to become. Whether well-founded or not, there are many situations that having lawyers involved is simply a foregone conclusion. One of the most prevalent of these examples is a case involving the well-being of a child. In many of those cases, a separate attorney will be added to the case to act as a guardian ad litem (“GAL”, literally guardian at law) to represent the best interests of the child or children involved. While of course many parents have the best interests of the child in mind during litigation over custody, such an emotional type of litigation can make it difficult for the child to remain at the forefront of concern.
If an individual convicted of felony child abuse wants visitation the child.
This is not an exhaustive list, and therefore it is evident that in almost any situation where the possibility of the child playing second fiddle to an issue in a case, Mississippi courts will appoint a GAL. This is an attempt to ensure that the child is treated fairly, and, above all, not taken advantage of or used as a pawn in litigation. Unfortunately, the nefarious use of a child’s presence in a case to get the upper hand is not evident at the outset of the case to either the lawyers, judges, or even the parties themselves.
Mississippi attorneys who serve as guardians ad litem must undergo training in juvenile justice provided or approved by the Mississippi Judicial College, and must renew that certification every year. The appointment of a GAL is an important step in litigation, and parties to suits in Mississippi should feel comforted in knowing that the attorneys serving in that role are required to refresh their memory of how to properly serve as a GAL. It can be intimidating to feel as though a party has one more person to impress or convince during litigation, on top of the judge, their lawyer, their friends and family, and their child or children. However, a GAL is involved in the case to represent the child, and their involvement should be welcomed and their input appropriately considered. Their work truly is selfless.
Child custody cases are some of the most time-consuming, expensive, and stressful cases that come through our office. It is our primary practice area. While many times the events during litigation seem petty and trite, the outcome is one that will shape the course of the relationship with the parties and the child(ren) for years. Therefore, the presence of a well-respected guardian ad litem is a large boost in the confidence that the best result will be reached for the child. While many times it is true that the mere presence of lawyers will breathe life into a conflict, suits impacting children are ones that a better result can be reached by having another attorney join the fray. If you or someone you know has a question about child custody litigation and the role that a guardian ad litem plays in litigation, call the Law Office of Matthew S. Poole. We have the experience and knowledge to answer almost any question you may have about this process, and the benefits that come along with the appointment of a GAL.
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines! According to the Defense Manpower Data Center (under the Office of the Secretary of Defense), the United States currently has approximately 200,000 active-duty troops deployed across 170 countries. It is no secret that many of these soldiers are battling the harshest mental, emotional, and physical conditions of their lives, journeying from their homes to the world’s most dangerous warzones in order to defend our freedom for months (or possibly even years) at a time. Much less frequently discussed, though, are the infinite difficulties faced by the loved ones that they leave behind. As the daughter and granddaughter of veterans, I fully understand how military families “serve with” their soldiers during deployment. However, I can only imagine how much more arduous these absences must be for the children of single-parent households or those whose parents are deployed simultaneously. Who takes care of them, and what happens when the deployment ends?
The Uniform Deployed Parents Custody and Visitation Act (UDPCVA) was designed to resolve child custody and visitation issues that military families may face during a soldier’s deployment, temporary duty, or mobilization. The UDPCVA is divided into five articles, with the first of these defining the foundational terms for the rest. Most importantly, Article 1 states that a parent’s “residence” is not changed during deployment and that deployment cannot be considered in deciding what is in “the best interest of the child.” Article 2 discourages litigation on child custody and visitation issues by outlining procedural protections for simple agreements between parties. This act also assists the UCCJEA* in preventing the issuance of competing orders via Article 3, which covers court procedures and includes the use of electronic testimony and the expedition of hearings. In addition, this article allows for the designation of visitation rights to a nonparent where the court finds that doing so would be in the best interest of the child and Article 4 explains the termination process for these rights following deployment. Finally, Article 5 summarizes the information within each article.
Mississippi Code § 93-5-34 states that “Custody and visitation procedure upon parental temporary duty, deployment, or mobilization” follows the guideline provisions of the UDPCVA on these issues and answers my earlier hypothetical question regarding who would take care of the children similarly to Article 3. It states that “(4) If the parent with visitation rights receives military temporary duty, deployment or mobilization orders that involve moving a substantial distance from the parent’s residence or otherwise have a material effect on the parent’s ability to exercise rights, the court otherwise may delegate the parent’s visitation rights, or a portion thereof, to a family member with a close and substantial relationship to the service member’s minor child for the duration of the parent’s absence, if delegating visitation rights is in the child’s best interest.” Our law also explains that the court will hold expedited hearings or submit electronic testimony when deployment, temporary duty, or mobilization may affect a soldier’s ability to appear in person at a scheduled hearing.
(b) The temporary duty, mobilization or deployment of the service member and the temporary disruption to the child’s schedule shall not be factors in a determination of change of circumstances if a motion is filed to transfer custody from the service member.
If you are a member of the United States military and would like to learn more about the UDPCVA then please contact the law office of Matthew S. Poole. We would be more than happy to assist with your child custody or visitation arrangements in lieu of deployment, temporary duty, mobilization, or for any other reason.
“Where are you from” is a fairly simple question, especially if you live and have lived in a certain state your whole life. If you have moved around, though, the answer may actually seem pretty complicated. In casual conversation, people commonly resort to phrases such as “I grew up in…” or “I’m originally from…” in order to distinguish their “home state” from a recent or current residence. When it comes to legal jurisdiction, however, a much more meticulous approach is required. Where you are truly “from” will determine which court has the authority to hear your case and ultimately control your future.
It should not be a surprise that child custody disputes exaggerate any confusion surrounding this question, particularly when a child moves with one parent to a different state from the other parent. Although there may be multiple states with the authority to rule on child custody matters, only one state will take jurisdiction. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) governs jurisdiction determinations for all child custody and modification of custody cases and prevents courts from issuing conflicting orders. This law has been adopted by 49 out of 50 states (including the District of Columbia, the US Virgin Islands, and Guam) and reconciles discrepancies between the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, which previously attempted to provide these jurisdictional guidelines.
Since the UCCJEA designates the home state as the best forum, that state will always have priority in custody matters. § 202 says that this exclusive jurisdiction will continue as long as the state maintains a significant connection with the parties and the substantial evidence is still in the state or until all of the parties have moved out of the state. If an emergency situation occurs (i.e. a child is being abused or was abandoned) then the state where the child is physically located may take temporary jurisdiction to secure his or her safety under § 204. The case will then be given to the home state, transferred to another state that has grounds for continuing jurisdiction, or possibly even kept by this state if the first two options are not available.
However, except as provided by §204 for emergency situations, no court can modify a child custody order made in another state “unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination” under § 201 (a) or (b) and (1) the other state decides it no longer has exclusive continuing jurisdiction or that a court of this state would be more convenient forum or (2) it has been determined that the parties do not presently reside in the other state.
This synopsis certainly does not include every detail of the UCCJEA, but Attorney Matthew S. Poole has handled a countless number of these complex cases. If you have any questions or would like to set up an appointment, please don’t hesitate to call us. We would be happy to explain how the UCCJEA applies to your unique situation.
Should a husband say: “this is my wife, Jessica” or “this is Jessica, my wife?” The debate over this question has largely become irrelevant, as it is now normal for people to say that they don’t want to get married or that they don’t know whether they do or not. In fact, studies from Pew Research Center show that one in four parents in the United States have kids outside of marriage. Considering the common knowledge that approximately 50% of marriages end in divorce, it is understandable that the thought of getting married would cause someone to fear a complicated and stressful separation in the future. Although the possible reasons are infinite, understanding why women initiate divorce more often than men may help to explain the recent avoidance of marriage in general.
According to a study conducted by Michael J. Rosenfeld, an associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, social scientists have proposed several theories to explain why women initiate divorce at a much higher rate than men. The primary theory is that women may be more attune to relationship difficulties and leave a partner when they believe the issues will require significant action to resolve. However, Rosenfeld argues this explanation is not sufficient according to his research as published by the American Sociological Association. Data taken from the national “How Couples Meet and Stay Together” survey from 2009 to 2015 shows that men and women initiate break-ups equally in non-marital relationships, but women initiate 69% of all divorces. Rosenfeld argues that if the sensitivity theory were true then studies would show women initiating break-ups in non-marital relationships as often as in marital relationships (being equally as dissatisfied), but his data proves this far from the case.
Another suggestion explaining why someone chooses to end a marital relationship is the power-differential theory, which states that the spouse with better prospects beyond the current relationship is more likely to file for divorce. This theory is actually counter-intuitive to the proven statistic that women initiate divorce more than men. Husbands are usually older and have traditionally higher incomes than their wives. Studies also show that single men become more attractive to others as they age, whereas single women decline in attractiveness to others as they age. Therefore, this theory suggests that men typically have the “power” in a marital relationship and better prospects following a divorce. If this theory were accurate, men should initiate the greater amount of divorces as time in a relationship passes. Some social scientists twist this theory to suggest that it is actually the lack of power to voice dissatisfaction with a marital relationship driving women to initiate more divorces. However, prior research on this failed to distinguish divorces initiated by the husband from those initiated by the wife. Although Rosenfeld does not believe the power-differential theory accurately describes why women initiate divorce at a higher rate than men, the lack of power suggestion is actually close to his proposition.
Rosenfeld advocates for the theory that the marital institution has been viewed by society as having incredibly asymmetric gender roles for so long that women now dislike the idea of marriage as a whole. The historic notion that a wife’s only purpose is to cook, clean, and take care of children may lead women to assume that their potential and value in a marital relationship is severely limited. Rosenfeld’s theory aligns with many feminists who suggest that these traditional roles still exist because heterosexual couples are especially likely to marry if the man has high earnings. Also, they call attention to the fact that women still adopt men’s surnames even though laws requiring this came to an end in the 1970’s. Regardless of your position on this controversial subject, it is not difficult to see the connection between women who believe that marriage is an oppressive institution and women who initiate divorce. This theory also helps to explain the general apprehension regarding marital commitments and the increased number of children born to unmarried couples.
These reasons women may initiate divorce much more often than men certainly do not account for every instance, but it definitely presents a challenging consideration regarding the fear of marriage. However, maintaining a healthy dose of caution when entering a marital commitment is probably smart in light of divorce statistics. It is also important to note that signing a “prenup” may help to alleviate some of the anxiety surrounding marriage. Although prenuptial agreements are often perceived to be “dooming” a marriage before it even begins, making this agreement may actually offset divorce fears and prevent stress from ruining your joyous occasion.
The Law Office of Matthew S. Poole is well-seasoned to handle divorce and other family law cases. If you have any questions or are in need of an attorney, please don’t hesitate to call us. We would love to help.

References: § 93
In casu
 § 202
 § 204
 §204
 § 201