March 5, 2002

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

It is an honor to present before you today what may be the most important bill of this legislative session. In many ways, it is similar to the bill I introduced last year, which I refer to as the Children of Divorce Protection Act.

I would hope the committee would try to look at this bill in a fresh manner, and not with any pre-conceived thoughts stemming from last year's attempt at this issue.

Before I discuss the actual bill, I feel it is important to help the committee understand the following:

• why I chose to address the subject of divorce involving children,
• why I feel so passionately about it, and
• why I feel there is so much misunderstanding about this issue.

Approximately 33 years ago, in the late 60's, our society began what at that time was a liberal experiment called "no-fault divorce." Today, a third of a century later, our society is experiencing considerable negative fallout from the way we approach divorceespecially when children are involved. And the problems continue to worsen each year at a slow but constant pace, not unlike the "frog in the pot". We've been in this "pot", if you will, for nearly a third of a century. As I have studied this issue over the past 2 years, I am convinced more than ever that the linkage between divorce with children and the resulting costs on the taxpayer is strong and undeniable.

As I've sat on the HEWI committee each week, it has become very evident that a common thread weaves through a high percentage of the problems that come before that committee: That thread is the impact of divorce on families and children. That same thread can no doubt be seen in the issues that come before other committees as well, such as Criminal Justice and Education.

Unfortunately, few if any legislators have made the connection with divorce, and those who have often see this as a politically dangerous issue to tackle. We tell our constituents that we are empathetic with their issues, yet true compassion should show itself not only by fixing the fallout of problems, but also by attempts to fix the sources of them as well.

I hope to convince you today of the reality of this crisis and of its impact on both the children and on the taxpayers of Colorado. I also hope to convince you that this bill is a viable and initial step for us to take in addressing this growing problemand one that is necessary for us to begin "turning the burners down." The pot is beginning to boil.

You each have been given a set of charts that we are going to display on the screen. Please follow along with me as I go through them with you.

First, let me call your attention to Chart 1 in your package.

This chart shows the average GPA for American teenagers by family background in 1995, according to a National Institutes of Health study. I'd like you to specifically note the negative effect that a divorce has on the average child's performance. The statistics are compelling. If we truly want to improve the performance of our schools, the first major point which I would suggest to you is this: reducing divorce will improve the performance of our children in school and of our schools in general.

Please take a look at Chart 2 in your package.

This chart shows a snapshot of the effect of divorce on a couple's pocketbook. You will notice that, again, the financial effect of divorce is severe. According to these statistics, the average family with children has its income reduced by 42% when divorce happens.

Now consider Chart 3.

Since the mother receives custody of any children in 75% of divorce cases, a high percentage of mothers with children are forced into poverty by divorce. You will see from this chart that nearly 50% of divorced families with children live in povertyfive times the percentage of intact families in poverty. In the words of book author Maggie Gallagher, whose support for my bill you have in writing before you, "The financial effects of divorce are cumulative and long-lasting." The second major point, then, I wish to suggest to you, is this: major portions of our public welfare and Medicaid expenditures go for the support of these families. While we as legislators have considerable concern with the rising Medicaid costs, there is no better way to reduce our public welfare and healthcare expenditures than to reduce divorce.

Chart 4 addresses a major objection which we heard last year to this bill, and which, I am sure, you will hear again today. It is the idea that reducing divorce will trap women and children in abusive relationships. That will probably be told to you by the Domestic Violence lobby; however, nothing could be further from the truth. Reducing divorce will reduce domestic violence. Let me say it again. Reducing divorce will reduce domestic violence.

You will note that this chart, which displays the results of a 6-year study done in Great Britain between 1982 and 1988, clearly shows that ALLALLpossible situations following a divorce result in a higher risk of child abuse, not a lower risk, as many have led us to believe. Consequently, I strongly believe that Colorado's legislature has a duty to the taxpayers of Colorado to be doing everything it can to reduce the incidence of divorce when there are children, instead of taking a negative or even neutral stance.

For example, as you can specifically see from this chart,

If Mom remarries, the risk of abuse to her children with the stepfather is 6 times greater than if she had stayed married to the biological father.

If she lives alone with the child, the risk to the child is 14 times greater, presumably from visiting boyfriends.

If the father receives custody after the divorce and lives alone with the child, the risk is 20 times greater.

If the mother lives with the child and with a boyfriend, the risk is 33 times greater.

Though the study captured in this chart applies only to children, other studies show similar results for women. Divorced women are much more likely to be battered and abused than married women. Thus, the third major point to which I call your attention is this: reducing divorce will measurably reduce domestic violence, because these statistics show that the least violence occurs in homes where biological parents are married to each other.

Now let's look at Chart 4a (an extra chart that has been placed in your packet).

A recent review of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence web site showed statistics that clearly substantiate the fact that divorced women are 8 times more likely than married women still living with their husbands to be the victims of domestic violence.

Yet the domestic violence lobby today will probably argue that somehow divorce prevents domestic violence. By opposing this bill, they seem to be actually working to increase domestic violence against women and children.

It seems quite clear from this chart that reducing divorce will reduce domestic violence.

Please turn now to Chart 5,

From this chart you'll notice that divorce has a severe negative effect on a wide range of child behaviors, many of which become costs to the state (such as stealing or damaging school property) and thus the taxpayers again bear the cost. This chart decisively explodes another myth we often hearthat "divorce is better for a child than a bad marriage." This may be true in isolated cases; however, in the aggregate, nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, the "intact marriage" category in this chart includes all those marriages where Mom and Dad have "fallen out of love," but have remained married. As far as the children are concerned, this situation is far better than a divorce.

A professor at the school of Social Welfare at the University of California, Judith Wallerstein, recently wrote a book entitled The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, where she compares the lives of children of divorce with children of intact, "bad" marriages. Her study found the same result.

While on the subject of "bad" marriages, you have before you the written testimony of Michael J. McManus, president and founder of MarriageSavers, which is a well-respected, national organization devoted to preparing, strengthening, and restoring marriages. Mr. McManus has been closely involved with the recent marriage initiatives being prepared by the Bush Administration. Using his program, the cities of Modesto, CA, and Kansas City, KS. have reduced their divorce rates by over 40%.

But the point is this: it is possible to save a "bad" marriage.

In his report to you, Mr. McManus cites two faith-based organizations, one Catholic and one Episcopalian, which are seeing success rates of over 80% in saving troubled marriages. And this is using lay couples as counselors who have no professional training. So not only is it a myth that the idea that "divorce is better for a child than a "bad marriage", but it is a myth for the adults as well. Certainly, almost all marriages have rough times, but those rough times do not always have to translate into the devastation of divorce.

Now allow me to call your attention to Chart 6

his chart shows significant juvenile incarceration rates among children of single-parent families, another major taxpayer expense. You will see by comparing columns 1 and 3 that a study in Wisconsin showed that juvenile incarceration rates of children from divorced, single-parent families were 12 times higher than those of children of intact families. Also note that children of divorce are almost 3 times more likely to be incarcerated than children of married parents who are separatedi.e., parents who currently have a "bad" marriage. So, to say it simply, "If such parents divorce, the incarceration risk to their child triples."

Unfortunately, data such as that shown here for Wisconsin is not available in Colorado, but what we do have for Colorado's DYC is shown in Chart 7.

The key factor to note in this chart is that only 13% of Colorado youth commitments in FY 99-00 were from intact families. Thus, the fourth major point which I then suggest to you is this: there is no better way to reduce incarceration rates, both juvenile and adult, than to reduce divorce.

Chart 8, should dispel the final major myth that I have heard on a regular basis in opposition to this billthe idea that divorce is "none of the government's business." To that I say, "Marriage is and always has been a legal institution in which the state has great interest. This chart shows that the seven states in the union with the lowest divorce rates have an average waiting period for divorce of a year and a half. Colorado, by comparison, has what I would term "cheap marriage." In Colorado, a marriage can be dissolved in only 90 days, no questions asked, even if one partner objects.

Specifically, the bill before you deals with several key changes.

First, it will increase the minimum length of a divorce from 90-days to 1 year only for couples with children.

This is already required by several other states in the country for all couples. This is not government interference. Rather, it is government doing its job of protecting our most important legal contract. Many of us would say we have a high view of marriage, but a legal standard of 90 days is simply not consistent with that claim. 90 days is cheap marriage, and it's easier to get out of a Colorado marriage than to get out of a Tupperware contract.

Note again from Chart 8 that a longer waiting period, though not the only causal factor, is clearly related to lower rates of divorce. With a longer waiting period, Colorado stands to gain substantially by increasing its waiting period for divorce for couples with children.

A second key point of this bill: It creates a minimal requirement that parents spend 6 hours specifically studying the impact of divorce on children, much like we've done today. With such study, we can anticipate that many parents will not want to risk these effects on their children, and will rethink their plans. The 9/11 tragedy showed us that when faced with the realization of tragedy, many couples planning divorce changed their minds.

Thirdly, in order to avoid keeping children or parents in difficult arrangements, the bill addresses many exceptions, among which are:

Psychological and physical abuse
Drug abuse
Child abuse, etc.
Incarceration of one of the parents
Adultery (provided the injured party agrees)

Fourthly, for those parents that fall within the financial parameters of the Colorado Works Program, the bill allows discretion for the couple to receive financial assistance from the County's Diversion 1 funds.

Finally, the bill requires the state to collect such data related to divorce that will enable the General Assembly to evaluate the effectiveness of the changes in divorce brought about by this bill, so as to determine whether or not to continue with the program

All this is to be done within the framework of a 6-year pilot program.

As I wrap up, I would like to comment on one further line of opposition that you heard today, and it came from attorneys. The honorable profession of the lawspecifically family law attorneys, as a group, continue to oppose this bill. According to the letter you have in your handouts from Dr. Katherine Spaht, of Lousiana State University, this group of attorneys has a clear conflict of interest. In it, Dr. Spaht explains clearly how "easy divorce" has become a lucrative industry for divorce attorneys, and why their opposition to my bill should be seen for what it is: a desire to preserve their high-income status quo.

Over the last 5 years, several important studies have been made on the subject of divorce with children. The divorce reform movement is definitely gaining momentum nationwide. It is only a matter of time before changes such as those I am proposing become mainstream thinking.

A current example of this is that President Bush and his Dept of Health and Human Services will soon unveil a $300 million block grant to states specifically targeted for development of programs that encourage marriage and discourage divorce. The bill you are hearing today is certainly consistent with that philosophy.

The time is right, Mr. Chairman, and I ask for the committee's support today for this critical change. I believe there can be no better gift we can give to the future of Colorado's children and to the taxpayers of Colorado. I ask this committee to support HB 1337.

Thank you.