Divorce court must keep up with times

In “CT divorce court's new system: Is it easier or one size fits all?” (Aug. 8), Ed Stannard reports on a small revision to the system designed to expedite uncontested divorces, finding it has had limited if any success.

After working with families in Connecticut for 30 years, I have seen the process from multiple angles, and have also experienced the process from the inside myself.

Connecticut divorce court is a disaster area. It is another DMV. Even simple cases can take two, three or four years to resolve and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The caseload is way too big relative to the court’s resources. While some judges are exemplary, others are incompetent in relevant subject matter, lack forensic or reasoning skills, or carry profound biases.

The divorce code is based on church doctrine from Colonial times — the witch trial era — and does not reflect the values of today’s diverse citizenry. It was designed by and for the wealthy and expresses only their values and interests, if anyone’s. Its destructive impact falls disproportionately on people with few resources, which in Connecticut means it further disadvantages specific racial and ethnic groups. A necessary court service turns into state expropriation of citizens’ lives, a massive overreach.

Instead of promoting comity and equity, the system encourages and extends conflict and rewards mendacity. Instead of protecting the downtrodden and abused, the court becomes another tool of abuse. The court uses a blunt instrument where fine surgery is needed. It turns a molehill of disagreement into a mountain of litigation.

This divorce system is one of the reasons so many nonwealthy people are not getting married. It is a barrier to interclass and interracial marriage, and a barrier to social mobility.

This deplorable condition is recognized by some of the judges and attorneys involved, who struggle to make the best of it. Other states do better. There are a few simple things that could be done to improve the speed and fairness of the system and reduce the cost to the litigants and to the state.

That, though, would require the Legislature to deal wisely with a subject no one wants to talk about.

Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen

New Haven