finally there is a finally

EDIT0 RIAL

FINALLY THERE IS A FINALLY

Twenty-four years ago, when I founded the Conciliation Courts Review I knew that one day I would be writing to my friends and colleagues to announce my retirement as editor. That day has arrived.

Finally there is a finally. As anticipated, I am filled with a jumble of glad and sad feelings. This issue of the Review is my last one. In order to ensure a smooth transition, the new editor and I will co-edit the June 1987 issue. The year 1987 will mark the 25th anniversary of this journal. In co-editing the next issue, I will have the personal plea- sure of being part of this significant anniversary.

The Review has always been a labor of love for me. As the official journal of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, co-founded by Judge Roger A. Pfaff and me in 1963, this journal has made numerous and significant contributions to spreading the pioneering idea of court- connected marriage and family counseling and, in recent years, divorce mediation. It has always had the unique distinction of being the only journal in the world dealing primarily with court-connected family conciliation and related matters affecting families in all stages of the divorce process, including the pre-divorce and post-divorce period.

In this editorial, when 1 refer to the concept “conciliation” in relation to family conciliation courts, I use it to denote an umbrella-type concept under which one places all court-connected counseling services. These conciliation services include marital and family counseling, reconciliation counseling, separation counseling, divorce counseling, divorce mediation and premarital evaluations for minors.

As an interprofessional and international advocate for change in family law, the Re- view has gained the increasing respect of both the law and the behavioral sciences.

As a rich mixture of idealism, inspiration and practicality, it has always aspired to be more than just another academic journal. Its articles, like sharp cuts of the machete, slashed away outmoded knowledge, as- sumptions, practices and attitudes. In so doing, new trails were cleared in the jun- gles of divorce, opening up paths that led many families of divorce out of darkness and despair into open areas where they could feel the sun, breath in hope and do their way into a new and better life. Addi- tionally, the Review not only served as a forum for the exchange of ideas but also contributed to the feeling of “family” which permeates A.F.C.C.

My editorial advisors, all persons of distinction and dedication, have been of in- valuable assistance to me and have played an important part in the development of our journal. As I write this, I find myself, in my mind and heart, embracing each of them with affection and friendship and thanking them for their generous gifts of time, effort and talent.

In moments of quietude, when the magic images of the mind enable me to reflect on the Conciliation Court Movement, I feel that future historians will record this revolution- ary movement as one of the most significant social movements of the Twentieth Century .

In 1955, when I was employed as a marriage counselor by Judge Louis H. Burke, presiding judge of the Los Angeles Concili- ation Court of the Superior Court, I had the scary distinction of being the first profes- sionally trained counselor employed by the first conciliation court in the world. In making the above stated prediction about the Conciliation Court Movement’s place in history, I do so as the only person alive who has been deeply and continually involved in the growth and development of this revo- lutionary movement from the very beginning until now.

V

CONCILIATION COURTS REVIEWNOLUME 24, NUMBER 2lDECEMBER 1986

What are the contributions that not only led us from a legal adversarial orientation to divorce to a non-adversarial, consensual method of resolving divorce-related interpersonal family conflicts but also contributed to change in the behavioral sciences? By sharing this material with you and giv- ing it a historical perspective, it may make it easier for me to let go and to be warmed by the pride and joy of creative accomplish- ment. This sharing will also help you find the roots of the divorce-related work you are doing.

When the law, concerned by a rapidly rising divorce rate, established conciliation courts, it laid the foundation for an interprofessional effort to help ailing and failing marriages. Recognizing that the legal profession was ill-equipped to deal with the epidemic of troubled families, the law at- tempted to go beyond its restrictive role of merely providing a cemetery for dead marriages. Throughout the ages, the law has enunciated the principle of preserving and strengthening families and marriages, the foundation of society. However, until the establishment of conciliation courts, the law was merely paying lip service to its responsibility to the institution of marriage. A person-oriented principle not supported by action is just lip service. Conciliation courts breathed life into this principle. Con- ciliation courts, with their crisis counseling orientation, were like emergency receiving hospitals staffed by trained marriage counselors who could take the pulse of a marriage to determine whether it was still alive and could provide treatment, thus avoiding the unnecessary divorce and the subse- quent burial of marriages that still had life in them.

Before conciliation courts, it is worth noting that the utilization of the behavioral scientist as an integral part of the judicial process was not new. Historically, he was utilized by various courts-juvenile, criminal, adoption, psychiatric and domestic relations. For the most part, however, his function was an investigative one. It is therefore significant that when the law established conciliation courts, for the first time

in the history of Western civilization, behavioral scientists were charged with the function of treatment-treating families. The cloth of the law now had a golden thread woven into it-treatment. And not only treatment of one person but of a family. Thus, the behavioral scientist was given the opportunity of bringing the group process into the courthouse. in the 1950’s, when conciliation courts emerged, marriage counseling was a method of help that had not yet made the leap from method to a profession. Also, there were many marriage counselors as well as psychologists who, because of their strong psychoanalytical orientation, believed that individual psychotherapy was the only way to help families with marriage problems. Conciliation courts affirmed the idea that troubled families were suffering from relationship problems and that the goal of marriage counseling was to treat the relationship and not to provide psychotherapy. We believed that divorcing and divorced families were not the result of sick, deviant partners in the marriage. We rejected the notion that the marriage partners had to be treated separately and that if the gains made in personal psychotherapy helped the marriage-fine, but i f i t did not-tough!

Guided by the relationship approach, we recognized the importance of interview- ing a husband and wife together after first seeing them individually. Thus, as far back as 1955, the Los Angeles Conciliation Court began to conduct what we called the “three way interview.” Years later, Don Jackson began to speak of the “conjoint interview.”

Conciliation courts have always been family-centered, recognizing that what affects one member of the family impacts on the family as a whole, often creating some disequilibrium as the family constantly strives to maintain its equilibrium. One can therefore say that conciliation courts were one of the precursors of the family therapy movement and systems theory as applied to families. The application (Petition for Conciliation) of conciliation courts, from the very beginning, authorized the court to involve in the counseling any person having a bearing on the controversy. This could

vi

be children, any member of the kinship the behavioral sciences and at least 5 years network, third-party paramours, in-laws and of post-degree clinical experience of a di- others. This was not done, however, with- verse nature. At one time, beginning in out the consent of both parties. 1959, the Los Angeles Conciliation Court

Conciliation courts made a significant required a Master’s Degree plus at least 10 contribution to the theory and practice of years of clinical experience. The reason for crisis marriage counseling and, in a gen- setting such high standards was to spike era1 way, to all crisis counseling as an ef- the guns of those professionals who were fective method of help. In the 1950’s, most quick to attack this unheard of and revolu- mental health professionals worshipped at tionary service and to gain their respect the shrine of psychoanalysis, which, by its and acceptance. very nature, meant long-term individual The concern of conciliation courts for PsYchotheraPY- One of the goals of Psycho- standards for marriage counselors, resulted analysis was to help the patient attain in- in California conciliation courts pressing sights which presumably would improve his for and succeeding in having passed the mental health and behavior. But as one first law in the United States to license therapist once said, “insights are a delight- marriage, family and child counselors-in ful set of delusions mutually shared by 1963. patient and therapist alike.” It is not my In 1970, in California, the first no-fault purpose here to explain the theory and prac- divorce law in the history of Western civili- tice Of crisis counseling. Suffice it to say zation went into effect. one is compelled that conciliation court counselors tried to to ask why in 1970? I am convinced that create a heightened awareness in the mar- between 1955 and 1970, California Concilia- riage partners as to what they were doing tion Courts played a significant part in mov- to each other. But we did not believe that to ing divorce law from an adversary to a improve a marriage it was necessary for non-adversary process. They did so because the partners to kl’low all the basic causes of the following historical development: of their problems-through insights and when courts in California established con- their roots in the UnCOnSCiOUS. Like others ciliation services in courthouses, this paved involved in Crisis COUnSeling in the 1950’s the way for daily contacts between lawyers, and thereafter, we demonstrated that crisis judges and conciliation counselors; lawyers counseling is an extremely effective way of saw that their clients were being success- helping people and that it can often be the fully helped, whether or not there was a method of choice. reconciliation, through marriage counseling,

Since conciliation courts engaged Only a non-adversarial method of help. Between in short-contact, here-and-now reality- 1955 and 1970, great gains made in

to have exceptional skills, diverse clinical

warm, empathetic personality, to quickly establish a good relationship with clients. Crisis counselors do not have the luxury of time to build bridges between themselves and their clients. ~ l ~ ~ , without a strong clinical base, they cannot be effective. At the beginning, crisis counseling was de- fined as 1 to 3 sessions of 1y2 to 2 hours each. Later on the range was 1 to 6 sessions.

The professional standards for court counselors, as established by A.F.C.C. is a minimum of a Master’s Degree in one of

oriented counseling, it was evident from the very beginning that the counselor had establishing a relationship of trust and re-

spect between lawyers, judges and court counselors^ From this emerged a kind of

history of the law and behavioral sciences with 75% of all clients seen in conciliation courts representing referrals by attorneys and judges in pre-divorce and divorce cases. Lawyers, judges and counselors began to form a powerful group for advocating a different way of helping divorcing families. They advocated a less destructive and more humane way to change the traditional way that had its roots in the ecclestical courts of the Middle Ages, was taken over by Eng-

experience and the ability, by virtue Of a interprofessional cooperation unique in the

vi i

lish common law and then by the American colonies. Conciliation court judges and counselors as well as numerous bar associ- ations began to articulate their unhappi- ness with current divorce law. This force finally persuaded the Governor of Califor- nia to create a Governor’s Commission on Family Law. This commission was charged with the task of studying the divorce process and making recommendations for change. Since conciliation court judges were regarded as the experts in divorce law, they, as well as the leading divorce attorneys in the state, were appointed to the commission. The result was the eventual passage of a no-fault divorce law. It is my firm belief that conciliation courts created a climate in California that enabled enlight- ened and concerned members of the interprofessional alliance of the law and the behavioral sciences to hasten the process of breaking the chains that had bound West- ern civilization to the antiquated and inappropriate divorce process that no longer fit the times. Once no-fault divorce was introduced in California, the idea spread quickly throughout the Western world.

No-fault divorce law was the first major breakthrough in family law since the Mid- dle Ages, in not only changing divorce law, but from it followed major changes in social attitudes and public policy regarding families of divorce. No-fault, by introducing a non-adversarial process, generated new swirls of wind in the corridors of history that began to pick up and blow away the need to punish divorced families, to isolate and stigmatize them, and to blame them for much of society’s problems. Stereo- types and myths began to crumble. Despite this cleansing process, much clutter still remains. We, in the Conciliation Court Movement, must continue the process of generating more swirls of change to facilitate the process of cleansing the clutter.

California Conciliation Court law and other States articulated the State’s concern for the rights of children of divorce. In the court-connected counseling services, family-centered counselors were always concerned about the impact of family con-

flict on the children. When, following conciliation counseling, a couple decided to file for divorce or to let the divorce continue, these counselors focused on the needs of the children, the need to be in contact with both parents and the importance of finding a common ground to meet on in order to continue to exercise their joint responsibili- ties to their children. To affirm the idea of the child’s right to have two parents, in 1973, I wrote a pamphlet entitled, “Parents Are Forever.” This pamphlet, which offered guidelines to divorced parents, to help them and their children, was mailed to all divorcing families in Los Angeles County, where minor children were involved. Subsequently, this pamphlet, with permission, and with a grant from the Los Angeles County Bar As- sociation was also published and sold by A.F.C.C. To date, about 250,000 pamphlets have been purchased by attorneys, courts, agencies, clergy, and mental health professionals in the United States, New Zealand, Australia and elsewhere. Each sale spread the idea that Parents Are Forever.

Shortly after the appearance of this pamphlet, I began to use the concept that “families are forever,” which, like parents are forever, has been embraced by the law and the behavioral sciences. Originally, my colleagues did not quite accept the idea that families are forever. They felt that once a family is divorced, the family ends.

When the concept parents are forever gained increasing acceptance, one can say that this notion helped pave the way to an acceptance by many that joint custody, when appropriate, was preferable to sole custody, a custody parenting approach that sacrificed the father on the alter of the “maternal instinct” and turned a father into a visitor.

Conciliation courts have made a very significant contribution to the constructive use of authority in the counseling process. Until 1955, there was hardly any evidence that mental health professionals were aware that specific authority techniques could be used to facilitate the counseling process. By 1955, the social work profession had already introduced the concept and prac-

vi i i

tice of “aggressive casework” and demonstrated that authority, always inherent in the professional role, could be used constructively in helping to contain chaos and treat troubled families.

Conciliation Court counselors, in the beginning, had to find some way to har- ness the authority vested in them by the court. Since they worked in a court setting and were aware that the setting in which counseling takes place affects the counseling and its outcome, they had to find ways to convert this powerful force into constructive techniques. Authority is always a dou- ble edged sword which can help or hurt. How to use the court’s authority as an en- abler and not a disabler was the dilemma originally faced by court counselors. Not only were they faced with the problem of how to use authority constructively but how to use it in marriage counseling in a setting never used before-in the courthouse itself. With one foot in the behavioral sciences and the other foot in the courthouse, both the judges and counselors found effective ways of blending the best traditions of both sides. We blended permissiveness and authority as the situation required. Clients often equate authority with strength, particularly those for whom authority has great meaning. The court became the strong fig- ure on which they could lean when the home situation was in a state of turmoil and crisis. Also, we found that it was easier for a male client to relate to a court setting which he perceived as a more masculine type of setting. The authority of the court enabled the counselor to surround a collapsing marriage with some external structure, much like the splint on a broken arm-to permit healing to take place. Through such external controls and structure, the parties were helped to reduce immobilizing feelings which then permitted the husband and wife and the counselor to engage in a search for the disruptive factors in the marriage relationship in an effort to determine whether new and workable solutions were possible. People in a crisis, more than at other times, need the comfort and security of a structured experience, since there is some re-

gression in a crisis and the need to hang on to something strong is great when one feels that the usual defenses are crumbling.

An example of the use of authority was the original appointment letter which was signed by the judge and which contained the sentence, “We trust that you will keep the appointment voluntarily and avoid the necessity of requiring the court to issue a subpoena.” A citation, requiring the respondent to appear at a stated time and place, was used only when there was evidence that such action might accomplish a constructive purpose for the welfare of the family, whether or not reconciliation appeared possible. It was not used simply for the purpose of harrassing, embarrassing or punishing the respondent or without the full consent of the petitioner. California Law permits the party filing a Petition for Concili- ation to name anyone having a bearing on the family controversy as a respondent. A citation was sometimes issued to third parties, and when necessary the judge issued a Court Order restraining them from interfering in the marriage. Parenthetically, i t is important to note that the citation was rarely issued. Counselors were very suc- cessful in telephone contacts to persuade the respondent to appear and to have the opportunity to talk to a third impartial counselor who would respect all decisions made by either party. Having appeared for the conciliation conference, the kind of counseling that took place was not really too different from what transpired in another setting. The principle of self-determination was central to the counseling process. The primary purpose of the use of authority, as we used it, was to insure the appearance of the respondent, for it takes two people for marriage counseling. Having achieved the goal of appearance, client self-determination prevailed.

Another symbol of the court’s authority is the Marriage Agreement developed by the Los Angeles Conciliation Court. In the course of the counseling sessions, i f the parties decided that they wanted to attempt reconciliation, they worked out a written reconciliation agreement. This Marriage

ix

Agreement was, in a sense, a renegotiation of the original marriage contract, tailored to meet the current needs of the family. The court felt that this agreement should be dignified by a formal court order which required the couple to comply with the prom- ises made to each other, until further order of court. Since the agreement was volun- tary either party could request its termination at any time. Upon termination, all prior divorce court orders (except attorney fees) which had been suspended were immedi- ately restored and the divorce could pro- ceed. It must be noted, as an example of resistance to new ideas by professionals, that when I originally spoke about the Mar- riage Agreement to mental health professionals, they expressed great skepticism and rejected the technique of a written marriage reconciliation contract. The Court’s experience from client feedback was that for many couples the Marriage Agreement was important to them. Among the advan- tages was their use of the agreement as their blueprint for reconstructuring the marriage. It was also a concrete, tangible symbol of their renewed commitment to each other and the desire to more effec- tively meet each others needs. Conciliation counseling gave great impetus to the concept of “contract” in the counseling process. This written agreement parallels the importance of the written mediation agreement which captures mutually agreed upon decisions and goals for the family.

Divorce mediation, a product of the 1970’s, was not a new idea to conciliation courts. Marital mediation techniques per- meated the marriage counseling and divorce counseling of conciliation courts as far back as 1955 when court-connected counseling, as we know it today, started in the Los Angeles Conciliation Court. In 1973, this court introduced post-divorce custodylvisi- tation counseling which was really post- divorce mediation, This 1973 program repre- sented the first divorce mediation service in the public sector in the United States. A.F.C.C. provided strong leadership in promoting divorce mediation and the Con- ciliation Courts Review featured divorce me-

diation articles before any other journal in the world.

Conciliation courts always had as a goal the amicable settlement of differences when reconciliation was not possible. I referred to this phase of our divorce counseling as “closing the book gently” to protect, among other things, the parenting function and the rights of children of divorce. The work of conciliation courts and their use of mediation can therefore be viewed as a precursor of divorce mediation and merely an ex- tens ion of cou rt-co n nect ed co nc i I iat ion services. When Jim Coogler introduced “structured mediation” in 1974, he also gave divorce mediation great impetus and added new dimensions to divorce mediation by not limiting mediation to only the issues of custody and access. It is also worth noting that divorce mediation also contributed in new ways to the interprofessional cooperation and communication between the law and the behavioral sciences in both the public and private sectors.

Conciliation courts have heightened society’s awareness about the potentially destructive impact of troubled families on children, before, during and after divorce. Children of divorce do not have a voice in our society. They are the unserved and underserved who, until recently, had no voice in what was happening to them as their parents and others in the divorce system made decisions that would affect them forever. Divorce courts and society, in a painfully slow way, are beginning to recog- nize that children have rights when parents divorce, particutarly the right to have ongo- ing and frequent contacts with both parents, the right to two parents, not one parent and a visitor. Children are part of the family system and as such have the right to provide appropriate input into any court and non-court process that tries to help the family decide the conditions of its future. Through A.F.C.C. conferences and the Conciliation Courts Review attention has been focused on the needs of children of divorce. In the past decade, there has been a tremendous increase in research dealing with the impact of divorce on children. Con-

X

ciliation courts have always articulated the idea that to help children of divorce it is necessary to help the parents, for the way the parents cope will significantly affect the way the children cope. Although the needs of children and their parents are different, the needs of both are interrelated and cannot be considered in isolation from each other.

One can assume that whatever matter concerns A.F.C.C. will eventually have an impact on society as a whole with eventual changes in divorce court practices and public policy. Based on this assumption, we can expect increasing attention being paid to the relationship of children to the kinship network when divorce comes and how they are being cut off from contact with such important people as grandparents and other relatives. This is now a concern of A.F.C.C. and is beginning to receive attention in its programs.

With our concern extending to grandparents of divorce and other kin, we have seen the focus of concern growing from the original focus of the Conciliation Court Move- ment on just the couple and their children and now on the kinship system. Additionally, our concern has always encompassed the community and nation as components of the overall system in which divorced families live. A.F.C.C. has continually held semi- nars for public education, at its annual and mid-winter meetings. We have, in recent years, held post-conference conferences in foreign countries, including New Zealand and England with plans underway to visit China in 1987. These journeys in other lands have enabled us to plant our United States and Canadian ideas on conciliation in their soil and for us to bring back bags of seeds to plant in our own country. We have, in this way, progressed from an interprofessional approach to divorce services to an international effort.

We are at the beginning of a better un- derstanding of stepfamilies and how to help them; we are slowly changing the language of family law so that the words we use do not reinforce the stereotypes about divorce or echo the language of criminal law; we

are also helping the legal profession to accept the idea that in the search for truth consideration must also be given to feeling facts in addition to objective facts; we have advanced the idea that, in divorce, the family should be the client; we have empha- sized that divorce is primarily a psycho- social problem and secondarily a legal problem and that each divorce represents not just the legal divorce but other divorces-social, economic and emotional; we have begun to look at the need for new divorce customs and rituals to facilitate the process of disconnection from the marriage and reconnection as a restructured family; we are paying more attention to the father of divorce and his right to be a father, not just a visitor.

Conciliation courts have always been concerned about the unnecessary divorce. Our crisis marriage and family counseling results have proved that a little professional help when families are really hurting can help troubled families make great gains to not only restore their marriages, but to make their marriages work the way they wanted them to, but just did not know how to go about doing so.

Those of us in the Conciliation Court Movement have a responsibility to move our society in the direction of accepting the urgent need to prevent family break- down. And how do we prevent unnecessary divorces? We do so by helping persons to learn the art of healthy interpersonal relationships. After all, marriage is just one of the numerous relationships we experience. If people are helped to learn how to relate, then marriages will have a greater chance to succeed. A healthy marriage involves more than how a husband and wife relate to each other; also involved are how they relate to their children, their friends and relatives and their community.

The human being is a relationship ani- mal whose joy and despair are rooted in relationships. We are not born with relationship skills; we learn them. Parents have a responsibility to teach these skills, but un- fortunately a great many parents are poor role models. It is therefore necessary for all

x i

our social institutions, particularly our schools, starting with kindergarten, to teach relationship skills. Learning to relate should involve more than “chit chat” relating. Ex- periential learning in relating on deeper lev- els should permeate the school’s curriculum and environment, be it elementary or high school. A one shot course in relationship skills is not the answer, and we do not even have that at this time.

No matter how much progress is made to prevent divorce, there will always be divorce. This means that couples will have to go to court to end their marriages. This being the case, it is my hope that divorce lawyers and judges will become part of the support and healing process rather than being part of the problem. A divorce court should not have the trappings of a criminal court. The divorce court’s atmosphere should be relaxed and supportive, not stiff, formal, rushed and intimidating. Caring and warmth should be built into the court process. Is the search for truth in a divorce court facilitated by an atmosphere that is cold, mechanical, and chillingly impersonal? Of course not! We need divorce court judges and attorneys who are specialists in divorce and who are able to create a court atmosphere that reflects their concern and commitment to easing pain as they adjudicate the matters at hand. Divorcing and divorced families need to feel these warm and caring feelings, not just from the mental health professional but from judges and attorneys as well. Family law has recognized that it is different from other law and that its effec- tiveness lies not in the adversarial process but in a non-adversarial approach to divorce that emphasizes family self-determination, reduces overdependency on lawyers and judges and increases the expectations of self-responsibility for divorcing and divorced families.

The Conciliation Court Movement has helped family law to redefine and broaden its area of responsibility to the post-divorce period. In the not so distant past, divorce courts viewed their responsibility to the divorced family as generally over once the final divorce decree was entered. When di-

vorce court judges and attorneys, with the help of mental health professionals, began to embrace the reality that parents and families are forever, and that the post-divorce period was fraught with coping problems for parents and children alike, the law began to strengthen and expand its services to divorced families. If the law was concerned about the strengthening of families, it could not cut off its concern with the final decree, because families are indeed forever as are parents. If the law was concerned about children’s rights and welfare, this concern could not stop with the final decree, for the way children of divorce cope is interrelated with the way parents cope.

In recent years when fathers began to assert their rights to greater access and joint custody, this led to more post-divorce involvement by courts. When the myth of the “maternal instinct” was laid to rest, the father’s request for equal legal parenting rights and frequent parenting time was legit imat ized.

The increasing use of cost-effective post- divorce mediation, as part of the court’s family conciliation services, should diffuse anger, diminish the power struggle between parents caught up in custodylaccess feuds and result in an increase in appropriate joint custody plans. Through an increase in shared parenting, both parents will reduce interpersonal stress with resu I t ing benefits to their children.

Let us strive for the use of court- connected mediation andlor counseling service as an option for dealing with the enormous problem of non-compliance with court-ordered child support payments. There is some evidence that when fathers do not feel disenfranchised because of joint custody orders, and when fathers have ongo- ing and frequent contacts with their children, child support problems are reduced or eliminated. It is time that we test the hypothesis that parental rage related to access problems increases the child support problem. If research can confirm that this assumption is valid, then it will be time to use the nonadversarial tools of the behavioral scientist and his consensual orienta-

xi i

tion more than the inappropriate tools of the law with its reliance on punishment and forced enforcement to resolve support problems.

The widening parameters of the court’s post-divorce responsi bi I i t ies now include grandparents. Until recently, they had no rights and could not go to a court to insure access to their grandchildren. There is an increasing public awareness of this problem as well as an increase in legislation to protect this need and right of both the grand- child and grandparent to maintain construc- t ive post-divorce relationships.

The Conciliation Court Movement has always attracted special people, change- oriented people, dedicated to humanizing the divorce process, easing the pain and helping families to use the divorce experience as an opportunity for growth rather than defeat. Those of you who are new to court-connected family conciliation services will also be regarded as pioneers in future years, because it is your task to strive for more constructive changes, not just in the courthouse but throughout your nation. The broad strokes of change that the early pioneers have painted on the canvas now need the fine shadings and details to complete the picture. This will be the legacy you will leave to future generations of divorcing families. It will not only be your task to forge the missing links in the divorce process but also to increase and consolidate the conciliation services already set in place.

Finally, I must express my amazement at the magnitude of the impact of the Con- ciliation Court Movement on the Western world. Most amazing of all is that these changes have been brought about by a very small group of caring, dedicated persons from the law and the behavioral sciences. Each, in their own way, have added new dimensions to the concept of court-connected conciliation services. As a group of pioneers, they have forever changed the process of divorce, social attitudes and public policy regarding families of divorce. Their work has affected millions of persons in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan and elsewhere. In the last 30 years family law has made more progress than in the hundreds of preceding years. However, we are only at the beginning of changing the divorce experience. And as we write new chapters of change, let us continue to record these changes with a pen that is dipped in the inkwell of humanism.

The last few sentences of this editorial are like the last embrace as one says “Goodbye.” The difficulty I am having in describing my feeling is perhaps captured in the words of Theodore Dreiser, whose words I will use as my embrace-“How true it is that words are but the vague shad- ows of the volumes we mean. Little inaudible links they are, chaining together great inaudible feelings and purposes.”

-Meyer Elkin

xiii

finally there is a finally

Documents