Download Alter A case notable for the fact that the Court of Appeal held that recurring gifts of a mother to her son to pay expenses could be included as income for the purpose of calculating child support. Presumably after the decision when the mother stops giving her son he can go back and bring a modifcation application.
This from Richard Gould Saltman's Family law Blog - The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has reversed a Federal trial court and denied an petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for return of the child to Mexico, pending an actual custody determination. Meaning that the custody must be determined in the US before the child is returned to Mexico.
Sheik Gamal Qutb, former head of Egypt's top religious institution, the Fatwa Committee at al-Azhar, said Sunday during a meeting at the Egyptian Press Syndicate that his fatwa states that neighbors and family members can file for a couple's divorce if the pair's differences appear irreconcilable, al-Arabiya reported Friday.
Qutb said community members should first attempt to help solve a couple's marriage problems, but should then present evidence of the marriage's failings to a court if the husbandand wife cannot live together in peace.
"If the evidence the neighbors present is verified, the court has the right to divorce the couple," Qutb said.
Recently we've been following posts from around the world. Another one from UPI
This from UPI March 18th 2009. What to say.....
The woman, who is in her 50s, told the court they had done it twice recently and she would be happy to provide the gory details to prove it.
"If you want I can describe him (graphically)," she told the magistrate in the northern town of Bindura.
The New Zimbabwean said Tuesday that Magistrate Miriam Banda took the woman's word for it and rejected the divorce application filed by Obert Manjengwa. Manjengwa had sought to dissolve the marriage because he hadn't had relations with his wife for seven years and was getting too old to waste time trying to convince her to accommodate him.
A Saudi court has rejected a plea to divorce an eight-year-old girl married off by her father to a man who is 58, saying the case should wait until the girl reaches puberty.
The divorce plea was filed in August by the girl's divorced mother with a court at Unayzah, 135 miles north of Riyadh just after the marriage contract was signed by the father and the groom.
Lawyer Abdullar Jtili said:"The judge has dismissed the plea, filed by the mother, because she does not have the right to file such a case, and ordered that the plea should be filed by the girl herself when she reaches puberty."
Grooms take part in a mass wedding ceremony in Riyadh in June. Governor of Riyadh Prince Salman and a local group organized a mass wedding for about 1600 couples to help people unable to afford expensive ceremonies
"She doesn't know yet that she has been married," Jtili said then of the girl who was about to begin her fourth year at primary school.
Relatives who did not wish to be named said that the marriage had not yet been consummated, and that the girl continued to live with her mother.
They said that the father had set a verbal condition by which the marriage is not consummated for another 10 years, when the girl turns 18.
The father had agreed to marry off his daughter for an advance dowry of £5,000, as he was apparently facing financial problems, they said.
The father was in court and he remained adamant in favour of the marriage, they added.
Mr Jtili said he was going to appeal the verdict at the court of cassation, the supreme court in the ultra-conservative kingdom which applies Islamic Sharia law in its courts.
Arranged marriages involving pre-adolescents are occasionally reported in the
Arabian Peninsula, including in Saudi Arabia where the strict conservative Wahabi version of Sunni Islam holds sway and polygamy is common.
In Yemen in April, another girl aged eight was granted a divorce after her unemployed father forced her to marry a man of 28.
Our current president, Barack Obama, is the second president (after Gerald Ford) to have experienced the divorce of his parents. It is possible, as this Huffington Post article points out, that Obama learned from this experience how to navigate difficult situations with grace:
Indeed, most divorces require negotiation, compromise and agreeing to disagree. You learn the importance of being reserved and reflective vs. being rash. And why perhaps he likes being No Drama Obama.
During the times that Obama was growing up, divorce - and bi-racial children - were not the norm. Yet Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, handled these "problems" with grace and dignity. She was a positive person who taught her children how to navigate difficult waters without becoming overwhelmed. Instead of focusing on past wrongs or current difficulties, Obama's mother chose to focus on a brighter future.
The qualities that Obama learned from his mother are reflected in how he has run his life and - most recently - how quickly he was able to overcome differences with Hillary Clinton to select her as Secretary for the Department of State.
A great leader is someone who can think long term and put petty personal issues aside. These are the same qualities that parents going through a divorce can teach their children.
Conclusion: Divorce is incredibly difficult and painful for everyone involved. However, if handled properly, divorce can teach children the necessary skills for a successful future.
Thank you Judith MIddleton for bringing this to my attention. She is an English family law lawyer and her blog at http://judithsdivorceblog.blogspot.com/ is well worth a visit
Feb 5th 2009
From The Economist print edition
MARRIAGES that thrive on money may wither with thrift. That is a depressing lesson from the world economic crisis, which has brought a surge in business for divorce lawyers in former boomtowns such as London and New York. When one or both spouses is from a foreign country, divorce is not just sad but complicated too—especially when most assets may be in a third country, a pension in a fourth, and offspring in a fifth.
Globalisation has made binational marriages, once exotic, much more common among high-earning, highly mobile families. When they stop being high-earning, life gets tricky. Louise Spitz of Manches, a London law firm, has observed an “exceptional” period since September. “With the redundancies in the City there has been a concomitant wave of marital upheaval,” she says. “Families used to living on huge bonus income are unable to continue with the commitments they have taken on—housing and school fees and the cost of living the high life.” Manches has taken on eight more divorce lawyers to cope with the extra work. A high proportion, Ms Spitz and other lawyers reckon, of the once-rich couples now breaking up include at least one foreign spouse.
So who sues whom for divorce and where? How much money will be awarded to whom? Will it be collected? And how? The answers are far trickier than most non-lawyers would imagine. Take, for example, this lightly disguised but real-life example: a wealthy philandering Texan banker with a French wife. Formerly resident in New York, with a recently-lost good job and rented house in London, he now plans to move back to Texas. His wife, newly suspicious and with no money of her own, wants to take the children home to France. She needs her family, she says. What she actually needs is urgent, specialist legal advice.
A London divorce settlement might give her many millions: a house, school fees and maintenance until the children are adults, or even indefinitely. An English court may well disregard a prenuptial agreement, particularly if one of the parties did not have independent legal advice. And it will tend to care more about immediate needs than about whether assets were acquired during the course of the marriage, or predate it, or are the result of an inheritance. All assets are likely to be divided. If the wife is lucky, she may even be able to collect her share.
In the wife’s native France, things will look very different. In her favour is that conduct counts—so adulterous spouses will be penalised. In most other Western countries, divorce courts have given up attributing blame. Even domestic violence is often ignored, though it still counts heavily in some jurisdictions, such as Florida.
But in the typical French divorce, any alimony (also called maintenance) will be less and for eight years at most; any prenuptial agreement will be binding. Only assets acquired during the marriage are up for grabs. If, in our example, the American husband moves to France, he will be expected to play an equal part in bringing up the children—a requirement that would delight some fathers, but by no means all.
If the errant husband has the divorce filed in Texas, the tables are turned even more dramatically. The wife risks being left penniless. In Texas state law, alimony is usually minimal and temporary—though child support, thankfully, is a federal matter. In America, the law varies hugely between states. Most exclude from the settlement assets acquired before the marriage (but some don't). Most exclude inherited property (but Massachusetts does not). In most states, judges will enforce prenuptial agreements (but not everywhere).
If the Texan husband decides to file in New York, however, he may find the outcome startlingly expensive. As in some English court rulings, New York courts may award one party a share of a spouse’s future earnings—assuming that they are based on a qualification, such as an MBA or medical degree, that was earned thanks to a joint effort in happier times. Yet New York law has one big catch: unless the parties have signed a formal separation agreement it requires proof of cruelty, adultery or abandonment, whereas other states allow “irreconcilable differences” as grounds for a divorce. So binational couples in New York who want to end their marriage may find themselves unable to do it there, and squabbling about alternatives. Rules differ, too, on what constitutes residency in a particular jurisdiction. In hedonistic Las Vegas, six weeks is enough.
According to Jeremy Morley, an international divorce lawyer based in New York, hiding assets from a spouse is also much easier in some countries than in others. California, at one extreme, requires complete disclosure of assets. At the other extreme, Austria, Japan and many other countries require very little disclosure. A California court recently ordered a husband to pay $390,000 in costs and penalties to his wife because he did not disclose some significant financial information. In another jurisdiction, the assets could have stayed hidden.
Cash and kids may pull in different directions. Countries that are “man-friendly” (shorthand for favouring the richer, usually male, partner) when it comes to money may be “mum-friendly” when it comes to custody. Japan, for example, is quick and cheap for a rich man—unless he wants to keep seeing his children. English courts are ferocious in dividing up assets, even when they have been cunningly squirrelled away offshore. But compared with other jurisdictions, they are keen to keep both divorced parents in touch with the children.
The children’s fate, even more than family finances, can be the source of the hottest legal tussles. The American State Department unit dealing with child abduction has seen its caseload swell from an average in recent years of 1,100 open cases to 1,500 now. In Britain, the figures rose from 157 in 2006 to 183 in 2007, according to Nigel Lowe of Cardiff Law School.
Of the cases reported worldwide, mothers are the main abductors when a marriage breaks down. They are cited in 68% of cases. Ann Thomas, a partner with the International Family Law Group, a London law firm, says child abduction has increased “dramatically” in the past three years or so. A big reason is freedom of movement within the European Union, which has enabled millions of people from the new member states to live and work legally in the richer part of the continent. That inevitably leads to a boom in binational relationships, and in turn more children of mixed marriages. Ms Thomas notes that when a relationship between a foreign mother and an English father breaks down, the mother often assumes that she can automatically return to her homeland without the father’s permission. That may be a costly legal mistake.
Most advanced industrialised countries, plus most of Latin America and a sprinkling of others, are signatories to the 1980 Hague Convention, a treaty which requires countries to send abducted children back to the jurisdiction where they have been living previously. That is fine in theory: it means that legal battles have to be fought first, before a child is moved. It is a great deal better than a fait accompli which leaves one parent in possession, while the other is trying to fight a lengthy and expensive legal battle in a faraway country.
But in practice things are very different. Views on the desirability of children being brought up by “foreigners” vary hugely by country; so do traditions about the relative roles of fathers and mothers in bringing up their children after divorce. In most Muslim countries, for example, the assumption is that children over seven will be brought up by the father, not the mother, though that is trumped by a preference for a local Muslim parent. So the chances of a foreign mother recovering abducted children from a Muslim father are slim. Apart from secular Turkey and Bosnia, no Muslim countries have signed the Hague Convention, though a handful have struck bilateral deals, such as Pakistan with Britain, and Egypt and Lebanon with America.
Japan has not signed it either—the only member of the rich-country G7 not to have done so. Canada and America are leading an international effort to change that. Foreign fathers, in particular, find the Japanese court system highly resistant to attempts even to establish regular contact with abducted and unlawfully retained children, let alone to dealing with requests for their return. Such requests are met with incomprehension by Japanese courts, complains an American official dealing with the issue. “They ask, ‘Why would a father care that much?’” Countries edging towards signing the Hague Convention include India, Russia and mainland China. But parents whose ex-spouses have taken children to Japan should not hold their breath: as Ms Thomas notes, even if Japan eventually adopts the Hague Convention, it will not apply it retrospectively.
Moreover, even signatory countries may be bad at abiding by the convention, especially when it means enforcing the return of children to a parent alleged to have been abusive. The annual State Department report to Congress on observance of the Hague Convention lists Honduras as “non-compliant” and nine other countries (Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Ecuador, Germany, Greece, Mexico, Poland and Venezuela) as showing “patterns of non-compliance”. Anyone in a wobbly marriage with a citizen of these countries might bear that in mind before agreeing to let the children go on holiday there.
But America is not blameless either, particularly if parents try to recover their children through state rather than federal courts, where judges may be unaware of the Hague Convention’s requirements. “Except in Florida, New York, California and Texas, a judge may only hear one Hague case in his career,” says a State Department official. Judges who get it wrong can be overruled on appeal, but it takes time and money: the Hague Convention aims to make proceedings quick and cheap, thus making abduction less likely. Whereas Britain offers automatic legal aid to the foreign parent trying to recover the children, in America they must rely on their own resources or a pro bono lawyer.
Making wily choices about possible jurisdictions is often criticised as “forum shopping”. But the stakes are high: ending up in the wrong legal system, or with the wrong approach, may mean not just poverty but misery. Mr Morley says the differences between one divorce jurisdiction and another are far more than, say, playing a sporting fixture at home or away. As the table shows, totally different rules apply.
So it is understandable that a disillusioned spouse, and his or her lawyer, will try hard to get the most favourable jurisdiction. Yet that can all too easily lead to each party starting, or even finishing, a divorce in a different country. Sorting out these cross-border legal wrangles can be colossally expensive. A tussle between jurisdictions usually starts in six figures, in dollars, euros or pounds; when all four legal bills, of both sides’ costs in both countries, are totted up, it easily shoots into seven figures. And it is hugely time-consuming. The children involved may reach adulthood before the final verdicts are given.
International attempts to tidy up the law have made some things better, but not all. The European Union (where 875,000 divorces take place each year, a fifth of them binational) introduced a reform in 2001 called Brussels II. This has largely stopped “forum shopping”, with a rule that the first court to be approached decides the divorce.
The problem with this rule is that it encourages those in troubled marriages to end them, not mend them. Even if a marriage is doomed, the trend in family law is to resolve the dispute out of court, typically through mediation. A race to issue proceedings makes it much more likely that matters will get nasty, as well as lengthy and costly. David Hodson, an international family law specialist, notes sadly that “This law works against reconciliations and resolutions out of court. Cases can be won and lost by one spouse issuing a divorce a matter of minutes before the other spouse. That must be wrong.”
Brussels II also encourages some less scrupulous lawyers to behave badly, urging their clients to act fast and dirtily. A London divorce lawyer recalls a case where a husband from an overseas country had acquired his wife’s European nationality by marriage, living briefly in her continental home country before moving to London. Five years and two children later, the marriage was on the rocks, with the husband away working in East Asia. Without his wife’s knowledge, he filed for divorce in her country, one of the stingiest jurisdictions in Europe (from her point of view). His only connection with it was his marriage to the wife he was trying to dump cheaply. Had the case been heard in London, where both parties had much stronger links and had owned a home for years, she would have done far better.
To avoid such cases, a further EU measure, Rome III, tried to stipulate that a marriage should be ended only by the law that has governed it originally. That works fine in similar countries where divorce rules are highly codified, precedents do not matter and judges’ discretion is limited. It already applies in some northern European countries, so that Dutch courts, for example, will apply French law when dealing with a French couple whose marriage has ended during a posting in The Hague.
But such a rule works much less well when other systems are involved. English law is much more complex, and is based on intricate precedents and judges’ discretion that cannot simply be looked up and applied. Even greater difficulties arise when couples come from more distant countries. Would a Swedish court want to apply sharia law to a divorcing couple recently arrived from Saudi Arabia? Many Swedes flinched at that. Mr Hodson complains that it would mean that “the essence of a country’s community life found in its family laws is removed and replaced by the laws of another country.” In the United Kingdom, he says, it would be “entirely against [national] law and policy.”
Now that Rome III has been stymied, a group of nine countries, led by Spain and France, is going ahead under a provision in EU law known as “enhanced co-operation”. This allows like-minded countries to work together, leaving the unwilling behind. And still more international tidying-up operations are in the works. Another Hague Convention tries to harmonise arrangements on cross-border child-support payments—an area that tends to be a bit less contentious than divorce, where views of what is fair differ wildly.
Perhaps the biggest weakness of the system is the advantage that it gives to the richer partner when an international marriage breaks up. Experienced lawyers can operate, if necessary, with high speed to help the poorer spouse—for example, by putting the first hefty legal bill on the husband’s credit card before he is aware of what his wife is up to. In England, that may be followed by a swift move to initiate divorce proceedings, and then an emergency maintenance application that includes provision for legal costs. When the richer party has assets in that jurisdiction, a fair fight is possible. But Kerstin Beyer, a German-British divorce lawyer at the International Family Law Chambers in London, says the tables are often stacked against the poorer (and usually less knowledgable) spouse. Some husbands file for divorce abroad and simply fail to turn up at the English court, hoping that the cost and delay of enforcing the judgment abroad will lead their ex-wife to give up. A client of hers trying to gain the assets she had been awarded in Colorado was faced with a demand for a $15,000 upfront payment from a lawyer there: an impossible expense for someone of her means. Another has been pursuing, expensively and so far fruitlessly, assets in Luxembourg and Germany awarded by a London court. Pensions are particularly tricky. Some countries split them between divorcing couples as a matter of course; others regard such requests from foreign courts coldly.
More fundamentally, divorce arrangements in countries with English-style common law are still liable to be influenced by highly atypical fights between the super-rich, who can afford to take cases to the highest courts. In most marriages there is barely enough money to support one family in one country, notes Ms Spitz. Spreading that between two sides is a stretch, even without an expensive legal fight. As house prices plunge and savings shrivel, divorcing couples are fighting over a shrinking cake.
The Top Ten Myths of Marriage
1. Marriage benefits men much more than women.
Contrary to earlier and widely publicized reports, recent research finds men and women to benefit about equally from marriage, although in different ways. Both men and women live longer, happier, healthier and wealthier lives when they are married. Husbands typically gain greater health benefits while wives gain greater financial advantages.1 [Source]
2. Having children typically brings a married couple closer together and increases marital happiness.
Many studies have shown that the arrival of the first baby commonly has the effect of pushing the mother and father farther apart, and bringing stress to the marriage. However, couples with children have a slightly lower rate of divorce than childless couples.2 [Sources]
3. The keys to long-term marital success are good luck and romantic love.
Rather than luck and love, the most common reasons couples give for their long-term marital success are commitment and companionship. They define their marriage as a creation that has taken hard work, dedication and commitment (to each other and to the institution of marriage). The happiest couples are friends who share lives and are compatible in interests and values.3 [Sources]
4. The more educated a woman becomes, the lower are her chances of getting married.
A recent study based on marriage rates in the mid-1990s concluded that today’s women college graduates are more likely to marry than their non-college peers, despite their older age at first marriage. This is a change from the past, when women with more education were less likely to marry.4 [Sources]
5. Couples who live together before marriage, and are thus able to test how well suited they are for each other, have more satisfying and longer-lasting marriages than couples who do not.
Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have less satisfying marriages and a considerably higher chance of eventually breaking up. One reason is that people who cohabit may be more skittish of commitment and more likely to call it quits when problems arise. But in addition, the very act of living together may lead to attitudes that make happy marriages more difficult. The findings of one recent study, for example, suggest "there may be less motivation for cohabiting partners to develop their conflict resolution and support skills." (One important exception: cohabiting couples who are already planning to marry each other in the near future have just as good a chance at staying together as couples who don’t live together before marriage).5 [Sources]
6. People can’t be expected to stay in a marriage for a lifetime as they did in the past because we live so much longer today.
Unless our comparison goes back a hundred years, there is no basis for this belief. The enormous increase in longevity is due mainly to a steep reduction in infant mortality. And while adults today can expect to live a little longer than their grandparents, they also marry at a later age. The life span of a typical, divorce-free marriage, therefore, has not changed much in the past fifty years. Also, many couples call it quits long before they get to a significant anniversary: half of all divorces take place by the seventh year of a marriage. 6 [Sources]
7. Marrying puts a woman at greater risk of domestic violence than if she remains single.
Contrary to the proposition that for men "a marriage license is a hitting license," a large body of research shows that being unmarried—and especially living with a man outside of marriage—is associated with a considerably higher risk of domestic violence for women. One reason for this finding is that married women may significantly underreport domestic violence. Further, women are less likely to marry and more likely to divorce a man who is violent. Yet it is probably also the case that married men are less likely to commit domestic violence because they are more invested in their wives’ wellbeing, and more integrated into the extended family and community. These social forces seem to help check men’s violent behavior.7 [Sources]
8. Married people have less satisfying sex lives, and less sex, than single people.
According to a large-scale national study, married people have both more and better sex than do their unmarried counterparts. Not only do they have sex more often but they enjoy it more, both physically and emotionally.8 [Sources]
9. Cohabitation is just like marriage, but without "the piece of paper."
Cohabitation typically does not bring the benefits—in physical health, wealth, and emotional wellbeing—that marriage does. In terms of these benefits cohabitants in the United States more closely resemble singles than married couples. This is due, in part, to the fact that cohabitants tend not to be as committed as married couples, and they are more oriented toward their own personal autonomy and less to the wellbeing of their partner.9 [Sources]
10. Because of the high divorce rate, which weeds out the unhappy marriages, people who stay married have happier marriages than people did in the past when everyone stuck it out, no matter how bad the marriage.
According to what people have reported in several large national surveys, the general level of happiness in marriages has not increased and probably has declined slightly. Some studies have found in recent marriages, compared to those of twenty or thirty years ago, significantly more work-related stress, more marital conflict and less marital interaction.10 [Sources]
1 The research on this topic is reviewed in Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (New York: Doubleday, 2000): Ch. 12 [back to text]
2 Carolyn Pape Cowan and Philip A. Cowan, When Partners Become Parents: The Big Life Change for Couples (New York: Basic Books, 1992); Jay Belsky and John Kelly, The Transition to Parenthood (NewYork: Dell, 1994); Tim B. Heaton, "Marital Stability Throughout the Child-rearing Years" Demography 27 (1990):55-63; Linda Waite and Lee A. Lillard, "Children and Marital Disruption" American Journal of Sociology 96 (1991):930-953 [back to text]
3 Finnegan Alford-Cooper, For Keeps: Marriages the Last a Lifetime (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1998); Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee. The Good Marriage (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1995); Robert Lauer and Jeanette Lauer, "Factors in Long-Term Marriage" Journal of Family Issues 7:4 (1986): 382-390 [back to text]
4 Joshua R. Goldstein and Catherine T. Kenney, "Marriage Delayed or Marriage Forgone? New Cohort Forecasts of First Marriage for U. S. Women" American Sociological Review 66 (2001):506-519 [back to text]
5 Alfred DeMaris and K. Vaninadha Rao, "Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Instability in the United States: A Reassessment" Journal of Marriage and the Family 54 (1992):178-190; Pamela J. Smock, "Cohabitation in the United States" Annual Review of Sociology 26 (2000); William G. Axinn and Jennifer S. Barber, "Living Arrangements and Family Formation Attitudes in Early Adulthood" Journal of Marriage and the Family 59 (1997):595-611; Susan L. Brown, "The Effect of Union Type on Psychological Well-Being: Depression Among Cohabitors Versus Marrieds" Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41 (2000):241-55; Catherine L. Cohan and Stacey Kleinbaum, "Toward a Greater Understanding of the Cohabitation Effect: Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Communication" Journal of Marriage and the Family 64 (2002): 180-192 [back to text]
6 Norval D. Glenn, "A Critique of Twenty Family and Marriage and Family Textbooks" Family Relations 46-3 (1997):197-208 [back to text]
7 Jan E. Stets, "Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation" Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991):669-680; Richard J. Gelles, Intimate Violence in Families, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: 1997); Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (New York: Doubleday, 2000): Ch. 11 [back to text]
8 Linda J. Waite and Kara Joyner, "Emotional and Physical Satisfaction with Sex in Married, Cohabiting, and Dating Sexual Unions: Do Men and Women Differ?" Pp. 239-269 in E. O. Laumann and R. T. Michael, eds., Sex, Love, and Health in America (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001); Edward O. Laumann, J. H. Gagnon, R. T. Michael and S. Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994) [back to text]
9 Stephen L. Nock, "A Comparison of Marriages and Cohabiting Relationships" Journal of Family Issues 16-1 (1995): 53-76; Amy Mehraban Pienta, et. al., "Health Consequences of Marriage for the Retirement Years" Journal of Family Issues 21-5 (2000):559-586; Susan L. Brown, "The Effect of Union Type on Psychological Well-Being: Depression Among Cohabitors versus Marrieds" Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41(2000):241-255; Susan L. Brown and Alan Booth, "Cohabitation Versus Marriage: A Comparison of Relationship Quality" Journal of Marriage and the Family 58 (1996):668-678. [back to text]
10 Norval D. Glenn, "Values, Attitudes, and the State of American Marriage" Pp. 15-33 in David Popenoe, D. Blankenhorn and J. B. Elshtain (eds.) Promises to Keep: Decline and Renewal of Marriage in America (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996); Stacy J. Rogers and Paul R. Amato, "Is Marital Quality Declining: The Evidence from Two Generations" Social Forces 75 (1997); Stacy J. Rogers and Paul R. Amato, "Have Changes in Gender Relations Affected Marital Quality?" Social Forces 79 (2000):731-753; General Social Survey, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago. [back to text]