 |
|
Title: Your Divorce Advisor : A Lawyer and a Psychologist GuideYou Through the Legal and Emotional Landscape of Divorce
ISBN: 0684870681
Author:
Diana Mercer
Marsha Kline Pruett
Publicate Date: 2001-02
Publish: 2001-02
List Price: $15.00
Average Customer Rating: 4.5
Format: Paperback
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $4.39
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $0.01
Amazon Merchant Price: $12.15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: One Stop Resource
This is the single best, most complete divorce book on the market. It took me from start to finish and saved me from making some expensive mistakes. Because there's a psychologist who's writing, too, and not just a lawyer, the book tuned me in to some things I hadn't thought about, like how my kids feel if I say something bad about my wife in front of them, or why it's hard to get my financial records together (because it symbolizes that my marriage is actually really over). All in all, this was a super helpful book and a bargain.
|
2: Knowledgeable author
I know the author of this book and she is an expert. If you are contemplating a divorce or going through one, definitely get this book. It's written for you.
|
3: Practical divorce advice
Interesting book coming from both the perspective of the divorce lawyer and a psychologist. Some good, solid advice here. While going through a divorce you should gather as much information as possible and know how to protect yourself both emotionally and financially.
Seven Secrets to a Successful Divorce
|
4: Important book, along with...
Divorce is one of the most grueling experiences anyone can go through, and this book is a great guide for easing the challenges. The book is packed with information on the legal and emotional issues that are likely to arise -- and how to deal with them. The topics span the board, from making the initial decision, to preparing for trial, to how to talk with the kids about it all.
THe authors have a section on negotiating with your spouse, and I think that that is essential. They mention the work of Harvard's Roger Fisher, who just published a new book that you don't want to miss if you're dealing with divorce. The book is 'Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as you Negotiate.' (The chapters on autonomy and appreciation struck a chord with me and offered great advice.)
|
5: Very Informative, but deceptively biased
After reading many, many studies on the subject of divorce, support and custody, and also personally being a single father for 13 years with sole custody of 3 children and also being a non-custodial parent of one younger child I feel I can comment objectively on this book.
First off, it is clearly very well written, covers almost all aspects of its subject and uniquely combines views from an emotional point of view as well as legal point of view. It also strives to be unbiased and provide clear representation of both parents. I do recommend this book but do so with one caveat (hence my rating of 3 stars rather than 5).
The book is riddled with hidden biases in favor of Mom rather than Dad and the reader should be cognizant of that. Also, it is not clear that all aspects of studies are clearly represented. i.e., both sides. The tricky thing is that both sides are mentioned but even when there is a preponderance of studies favoring one side, it seems the authors may lean towards the other side. A fairer presentation of studies supporting both sides would be really beneficial (particularly on child custody, visitation, overnights, bonding, etc.). Many of the studies are represented in summary form and as such remove a lot of important context.
A good example of a hidden bias:
"The Paradox requires that parents take into careful consideration how well their children are able to tolerate separation from their mother, the child's temperament, and the strength of the father-child bond prior to divorce, and weigh all this against the likelihood of the father staying in the child's life...." Page 203 - determining custody arrangements.
This seems like a very objective statement but upon closer examination it is clear that the authors are concerned with whether the child(ren) can tolerate separation from mom but never question whether or not the child(ren) can handle the separation from dad or what that impact might be. In addition, it questions the father-child bond but never suggestions that the mother-child bond should be evaluated as well in such a determination. The phrase ends with us weighing all of this against whether or not it is likely that dad will stay in the picture - again, what about mom. Studies are increasingly showing that even when mom has full custody of her children she can be less than a model parent for a variety of reasons.
Here's another:
"The amount of time between father and child is important because it facilitates a closer parent child relationship. But time does not automatically equal closeness. The quality of time spent and the level of involvement .... are ... more important." Also Page 203 - determining custody arrangements.
Again - sounds objective enough but actually why is this represented only in terms of dad. Isn't this statement true for moms as well? Phrased as written there is an assumption that mother time does equal closeness and that it is automatically quality otherwise why point this out only for fathers during a discussion on custody which should be gender neutral. If the term was written with parent in place of father then it would be truly objective. As written it supports the notion that moms are custodial parents and dads are visitors - and not to worry about the amount of time dads spend - but worry about the quality of time they spend. So to be fair, don't worry about the time mom spends with the children, just the quality of time she spends - thereby freeing up large amounts of time for dad and children.
These are only 2 examples but please read this book with caution, such biases are sprinkled all through out the book (perhaps because the authors are both moms) and amongst a backdrop of authority, general objectivity and mastery of the subject matter which makes them all the more dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
