Divorce Law

What colossal gall Assemblyman George Runner displays in proposing to intrude the government into the private matter of divorce, through his 90-day “cooling-off period.” Cynically he claims that his proposal stems from concern for children. Citing research (unspecified), he points to a myriad of problems that children of divorced parents supposedly face, ranging from reduced parental income to lower self-esteem. Now, if he can just cite the research showing that coercing couples into staying together against their wishes is good for their children, then we might have the basis for a debate.

Let’s think of all the other private decisions that might impact children negatively, where we can propose new regulations. How about a 90-day cooling-off period before a family is allowed to move to a new city? Before the husband or wife changes jobs? Before they are allowed to produce additional siblings?

Does he really think any couple just gets up one morning and decides, “Hey, let’s get divorced?” Doesn’t he imagine that they have already gone through their own cooling-off periods before reaching that point? Does he really imagine that they don’t think about the children before making such a decision?

It seems pretty obvious to me that Runner’s alleged concern for child welfare is just an excuse. Take a look at this telltale line: “Current divorce laws cannot be left as they are. Assembly Bill 913 is a good first step.” What is the second step, I wonder? And the ultimate destination?

I am the child of divorced parents, and the last thing any of our family would have wanted would have been the government’s sticking its nose into family business during a difficult time.

PAUL HART

Glendale