Header graphic for print

South Carolina Family Law Blog

Information and Insight On Family Law Issues In South Carolina

Study Reveals Arguing Parents Can Harm Children’s Development

By J. Benjamin Stevens on Posted in Children, Divorce, Psychological Issues, Relationships, Research & Investigation, Separation

A new study confirmed what many parents facing a South Carolina divorce have long feared – fighting between mom and dad can have a negative impact on the children. Specifically, the study found that arguments between parents could alter the way children respond to stress, eventually even hampering the way some children develop problem-solving skills.

The study, which was published in the journal Child Development, focused on a group of second and third-graders who were followed by researchers for three years. The researchers spent time interviewing the children and asking them about their parents’ fights and measuring how that correlated with the kids’ ability to handle stress.

The study’s authors used an elaborate array of diagnostic systems that could monitor physical changes in the children, such as increased heart rate, pupil dilation and other signs that they were undergoing stress. The children would come into a lab and answer questions about their parents’ fighting while scientists would monitor the children for signs of stress and then track how they performed on a series of cognitive exams.

The study found that children who already had a low tolerance for stress were especially vulnerable to being placed in a stressful home environment. The results showed that children with a tendency to become stressed actually had their stress systems worn out by combative parents, while those with a greater natural tolerance for stress appeared to suffer less burnout.

The study’s appeared compared the children’s stress systems to overworked muscles. The author said that while working out some is good for everyone because it strengthens muscles and improves health, if people were forced to run on a treadmill 24 hours a day it would eventually destroy the muscles from overuse – much like the kids’ stress response systems were being overused and thus harmed.

Beyond damaging their stress response system, the children with the highest degrees of burnout from argumentative homes also suffered in cognitive areas such as a decreased ability to solve problems. These children were found to lag their peers in problem-solving skills over the three-year span of the research. Researchers said they believe this shows that stress has a way of getting under your skin and impacting other areas of your life that you may not have anticipated.

Rather than continue to stay in a combative relationship, if you are unhappy it might be time to talk to a South Carolina family law attorney. Our firm has the necessary experience to guide you through the sometimes rocky process of a divorce or separation, and we can help answer questions about divorce laws in South Carolina, asset division and child custody disputes. 

Source: “How Mom & Dad’s Fights Can Stunt Kids’ Brains,” by Stephanie Pappas, published at Yahoo.com.

How To Watch Costs In A South Carolina Divorce

By J. Benjamin Stevens on Posted in Assets and Debts, Attorney-Client Relationship, Child Custody, Dispute Resolution, Divorce, Financial Issues, Practice Tips, Trial of Cases

Everyone knows how expensive a South Carolina divorce can be. Lawyers fees and court costs can be expensive enough, but complex, complicated cases involving child custody or complicated finances can see those balloon. If accountants, psychologists, custody evaluators, or mediators are required, you’re talking about serious cost. In your spouse has engaged in especially bad behavior or is unusually difficult, your divorce case will likely be more difficult, but those cases should be the exception not the rule.

The following are some tips to keep costs under control in your South Carolina divorce or child custody dispute. First, create a budget and stick to it. Sitting down before hand and drawing up a limit is a good way to take the emotion out of the process. Coming up with a legal action plan where you work with your attorney to estimate costs in advance is also a good idea. Rather than reacting in anger and insisting on yet another lengthy and unnecessary deposition, a legal case map that was done prior to the start of the process can help you keep your focus on what’s really important, keep costs in check, and keep your case on track.

Another critical way of keeping costs low is to avoid having a contested final hearing if reasonably possible. Resolving your case through negotiation with your spouse is by far the least expensive way to end a marriage. Mediation is another helpful method to consider so that you can avoid having your case decided by a judge. Litigation is a very expensive process, and your South Carolina family law attorney must spend a considerable amount of time preparing for each court appearance, which translates into increased costs for you. Acting in good faith and trying to reach a fair, reasonable agreement sooner rather than later can make a significant difference in lowering the cost of your divorce.

Another important strategy to keep your costs under control is to be reasonable when dividing your financial assets and debts. While in the midst of a South Carolina family law case, it can be hard to resist the urge to fight over ever last cup and saucer. Resist the temptation to argue for argument’s sake, and ask yourself if it’s worth it to spend thousands of dollars fighting over a couch that only cost a couple hundred. 

The biggest source of conflict in most divorces in South Carolina is child custody. Try and be reasonable, take a step back, and don’t view your children as yet another “asset” to argue about with your soon-to-be ex-spouse. Try to keep the children’s best interests front and center in your divorce. Although one parent may have done most of the child-rearing during the marriage, a more equitable child sharing approach might make sense if that person now has to work after the divorce. Stop and really think about what you want and what you are realistically able to give your children before rejecting a custody proposal by your spouse. 

Source: “How to Make Your Divorce Cheaper,” by Andrea Murad, published at FoxBusiness.com.

Nine Common Myths of Parenting Time and Shared Residential Custody (Part 4 of 4)

By J. Benjamin Stevens on Posted in Child Custody, Children, Psychological Issues, Relationships, Research & Investigation

This is the part four in our series written from Dr. Linda Nielsen, which examine ten common myths of parenting time and shared residential custody. We express our sincere thanks to Dr. Nielsen for allowing us to share her research with our readers. 

The amount of conflict should be a primary factor when deciding how to allocate the parenting time. Unless there is a history of physical abuse or violence, for the reasons just presented, high verbal conflict should not be used as a reason to limit parenting time. Not only can much of this conflict be reduced through parenting programs, but the conflict generally declines by the end of the first year or so after separation. Especially during custody negotiations, conflict is not a reliable predictor of future conflict. Moreover, verbal conflict is associated with fewer negative outcomes for children than having too little fathering time.

Both parents have to mutually agree to share the residential parenting, otherwise these families will fail. Shared parenting agreements fail if they result from mediation, litigation or legal negotiations. It only succeeds for a small, self-selected group who are very cooperative and have little or no conflict. In the studies that have examined how parents arrived at their shared residential parenting plan, from 20% – 85% of the parents had not initially wanted to share. For many families where the children were successfully living in two homes, the shared parenting plan was a compromise brought about through mediation, litigation, or lawyers’ negotiations.

Most shared residential families fail. The children end up living with one parent anyway. Measured anywhere from 2 to 4 years after divorce, 65%-90% of these families were still sharing the residential custody.

The quality of children’s relationships with their fathers is not related to how much time they spend together after the divorce. Fathering time, especially time that is not limited mainly to weekends or to other small parcels of time, is closely associated with the quality and the endurance of the father- children relationship. This kind of fathering time is highly correlated with positive outcomes for children of divorce.

In considering the large body of recent empirical research that refutes these ten myths, it is worth remembering that people can always find some study that will support each of these beliefs. Some may be based on very old data. Others are methodologically unsound. Sometimes differences that are not statistically significant are reported as “a trend”, or “a difference” or “suggestive of”. To be sure, all studies have certain limitations, including those cited in this review. But by using the social science search engines at university libraries to find the recent peer reviewed articles in academic journals, we maximize our chances of finding the general consensus among the most respected researchers. By sharing more of this research with legislators, mental health workers, judges and lawyers, children and their divorced parents will be better served.

About the Author: This article was written by Dr. Linda Nielsen, who has been a Professor of Adolescent & Educational Psychology at Wake Forest University in Winston Salem, NC for 36 years. She is the author of five books and dozens of peer reviewed journal articles. Her areas of expertise are shared residential parenting for children of divorce and father-daughter relationships. This article is based on 64 articles published in peer reviewed journals. You are welcome to email Dr. Nielsen (nielsen@wfu.edu) for the complete list of references.

Nine Common Myths of Parenting Time and Shared Residential Custody (Part 3 of 4)

By J. Benjamin Stevens on Posted in Child Custody, Children, Psychological Issues, Relationships, Research & Investigation

This is the third installment of our four part series from Dr. Linda Nielsen examining ten common myths of parenting time and shared residential custody:

Most infants and toddlers become more irritable or show other signs of maladjustment when they spend overnight time with their fathers. Given this, there should be little or no overnighting for infants and toddlers. There are only seven studies that have assessed overnighting and non-overnighting infants and preschoolers. None of them found statistically significant differences in irritability or other measures of maladjustment related to overnighting per se. Given the confusion and debate on this issue, it is worth providing more details of these studies.

Four studies were conducted 15 to 21 years ago. The first assessed 25 one to five year olds who lived half time with each parent. At the end of one year, those children whose behavior and developmental progress had gotten worse were the ones who had violent, alcoholic, inattentive, or otherwise very dysfunctional parents. The researchers also noted: “The most surprising find was that children below the age of three were able to handle the many transitions in their overnight joint custody arrangements.” The second study included 25 children under the age of two and 120 ages two to five when their parents separated. Four years later, those who had lived 30% time with their fathers were better off on all measures of emotional, psychological and behavioral well-being. Moreover 40% of those who had not spent overnight time before the age of three with their fathers no longer had any contact with him – a loss that occurred for only 1.5% of the overnighting children. The third study compared infants 12 to 20 months old: those who spent any overnight time with their fathers, those who spent none, and those who lived with married parents. The infants were classified as having a secure, avoidant, ambivalent or disorganized attachment to their mother. A year later 85% of them were assessed again. Regardless of family type, the less securely attached infants had mothers who were unresponsive to their needs. And there were no significant differences in attachment classifications between those who overnighted and those who did not. The fourth study included 18 three to five year olds. At the end of two years, those who had lived with their fathers ten days a month were more well adjusted emotionally and no different on social or behavioral adjustment. Moreover, the number living this often with their fathers increased from 25% to 38% over the two years.

Two studies have been conducted more recently. Interestingly, the one that was not peer reviewed or published in an academic journal before being released by the Australian government has generated considerable attention among mental health practitioners, the legal profession and policy makers. Indeed, it is widely cited as evidence that overnighting is bad for young children. The limitations of this report have been enumerated by a number of internationally renowned researchers. For example, the sample sizes in several groups were very small and the vast majority of parents had never been married to each other. Leaving aside its limitations, for children from infancy to age five, there were very few differences between those who never overnighted and those who overnighted. The mean scores were similar on measures of irritability, global health, monitoring their mother, negative response to strangers, developmental concerns, behavioral problems, emotional functioning and persistence. The four to five years olds who overnighted more than nine nights a month had more attention deficit disorders according the their mothers. But this may very well be linked more to gender than to overnighting. That is, boys were more likely than girls to be overnighting frequently – and boys in the general population are more likely than girls to have attention deficit disorders.

The most methodologically sound study at Yale University is part of an ongoing project. This study assessed 132 children ages two to six whose divorced and never married parents had separated. Of these, 31% spent one overnight a week with their fathers, 44% more than one and 25% none. For the two to four years olds, the overnighters were no different from non- overnighters in respect to sleep problems, anxiety, aggression or social withdrawal. They were, however, less persistent in completing tasks. According to their fathers, but not their mothers, the overnighters were more irritable. Overall then, the differences were small. For the four to six year olds, however, the overnighters had fewer problems than the other children – especially the girls. As the researchers conclude “Overnights did not benefit or cause distress to the toddlers and benefited the 4 to 6 year olds” (p. 135).

The final study assessed 24 children ages one to six who overnighted an average of eight nights a month. Almost 55% were classified as having an insecure attachment to their mother, which is higher than the average of 33% in the general population. Age when the overnights began and parent conflict were not related to the classifications, but mothers’ attentiveness or inattentiveness were. Taken together, these seven studies do not support the assertion that overnighting has a negative impact on infants or preschoolers.

About the Author: This article was written by Dr. Linda Nielsen, who has been a Professor of Adolescent & Educational Psychology at Wake Forest University in Winston Salem, NC for 36 years. She is the author of five books and dozens of peer reviewed journal articles. Her areas of expertise are shared residential parenting for children of divorce and father-daughter relationships. This article is based on 64 articles published in peer reviewed journals. You are welcome to email Dr. Nielsen (nielsen@wfu.edu) for the complete list of references.

Nine Common Myths of Parenting Time and Shared Residential Custody (Part 2 of 4)

By J. Benjamin Stevens on Posted in Child Custody, Children, Psychological Issues, Relationships, Research & Investigation

This is part two in our series of four posts written by Dr. Linda Nielsen to examine some common myths about parenting time and shared residential custody:

It is better for the children if parenting time is allocated according to the amount of time each parent spent in childcare during the marriage. Since most married mothers do at least 80% of the childcare, the parenting time should be allocated accordingly. This perspective, referred to as the approximation rule, is not based on empirical research. This is a debatable opinion – a controversial point of view that has been widely discussed in peer reviewed journals. A full discussion of this debate is provided in Richard Warshak’s article in the Baltimore Law Review. Several facts must be kept in regard to the approximation proposal. First, most married couples are more equally sharing the parenting time. Employed fathers spend roughly 60 minutes on weekdays with the children while employed moms spend 90 minutes. This would be the equivalent of 120 overnights with a father after divorce. Fathers under the age of 30 do only 45 minutes less childcare on workdays than mothers do. In two national surveys with 2000 parents, dads spent 33 hours a week with the children and mothers spent 50. Children under the age of 6 require 3 times as much parenting time as older children. And whichever parent gets home from work first or works the fewest hours generally does more of the childcare. The more time the mother works outside the home, the more time the father spends with the children. But the mothers who are most likely to stay home full time with preschoolers are the most poorly educated women who could not earn enough, if working, to pay for child care. Second, married parents’ arrangements for their young children are temporary – they are not intended, as are custody orders, to remain in place until the children turn 18. Third, childcare hours are not synonymous with parenting. The fact that one parent spends more time with the children does not mean that the other parent is doing less parenting or that his or her daily presence is any less beneficial and essential.

Infants and toddlers have one primary “attachment figure” to whom they bond more strongly and at an earlier age than they do with their other parent. Given this, they should not be separated from their primary parent for long periods of time –especially not to spend overnight time with their father, except on rare occasion for short periods of time. The prevailing view among most contemporary attachment researchers and child development experts is that there is not one “primary” attachment figure. Instead, infants form strong attachments to both parents and at roughly the same time. Whatever initial preferences infants might have for one parent disappears by 18 months of age. This is not to say that all researchers agree on this point. Nevertheless, recent empirical research is undermining the traditional beliefs about primary and secondary parents – the belief that an infant’s relationship with the mother is more vital than with the fathers.

When there is high verbal conflict between the parents, children do better when their time with their father is limited. Because more time with their father increases parents’ conflicts, children in shared residential custody are more often caught in the middle of conflicts.With the exception of an ongoing pattern of physical conflict or violence, the vast majority of studies do not support these beliefs. In married and in divorced families, parent conflict is generally related to worse outcomes for the children. However, in regard to custody and conflict, three findings stand out. First, conflict generally remains higher in sole than in shared custody families – especially if the residential parenting time is not shared. Second, most children are not exposed to more conflict or put in the middle more often in shared parenting families. Third, most children in shared residential custody and those who see their fathers frequently are better off on measures of well-being even when their parents have ongoing conflict. In other words, maintaining strong relationships with both parents helps diminish the negative impact of the parents’ conflicts.

About the Author: This article was written by Dr. Linda Nielsen, who has been a Professor of Adolescent & Educational Psychology at Wake Forest University in Winston Salem, NC for 36 years. She is the author of five books and dozens of peer reviewed journal articles. Her areas of expertise are shared residential parenting for children of divorce and father-daughter relationships. This article is based on 64 articles published in peer reviewed journals. You are welcome to email Dr. Nielsen (nielsen@wfu.edu) for the complete list of references.

Nine Common Myths of Parenting Time and Shared Residential Custody (Part 1 of 4)

By J. Benjamin Stevens on Posted in Child Custody, Children, Psychological Issues, Relationships, Research & Investigation

This is the first of a series of four posts written by and published with the permission of Dr. Linda Nielsen, which examine nine common myths of parenting time and shared residential custody. We sincerely appreciate Dr. Nielsen’s willingness to share her research with our readers, and we hope that you find this information helpful. Here’s part one:

What is the best parenting plan for most children of divorce? Should infants and toddlers spend overnight time with their nonresidential parent? If not, why not? If so, how much time? Is shared residential custody better for children than living with one parent and varying amounts of time living with their other parent – mainly on weekends? Isn’t shared residential custody only successful for a small group of well educated, higher income parents who have very cooperative, conflict free relationships – and who mutually agree to share without mediation, litigation or lawyers’ negotiations? Since most married mothers do 80% of the childcare, after a divorce shouldn’t the children live that same proportion of time with her?

Questions such as these generate a great deal of debate among the judiciary, policy makers and mental health professionals. Unfortunately they also generate myths and misconceptions that are frequently presented as “the research” at conferences and seminars, on the web, or in non-academic articles. At best, these myths far over-reach and exaggerate the findings from only a few of the existing studies. At worst, they have virtually no grounding whatsoever in current research. Either way, misconceptions that are not grounded on a broad spectrum of recent, methodologically sound, statistically significant empirical data have an impact on custody decisions and custody laws. By empirical data I mean research studies where quantitative data has been statistically analyzed and published in peer reviewed academic journals – in contrast to articles where opinions or theories are being presented, often without benefit of peer review. Regrettably we social scientists have done a poor job sharing the empirical research with other professionals or with divorcing parents. As a result, a handful of studies – often outdated or seriously flawed methodologically – are widely disseminated as “the research”. In that spirit, this series of four blog posts will provide an overview of recent research that refutes ten of the most common beliefs related to child custody.

Most children want to live with only one parent and to have only one home. Shared residential parenting is not worth the hassle, according to most children. The vast majority of children who lived with their mothers after their parents’ divorce disliked having so little time with their fathers. In contrast, the vast majority who have lived in shared residential parenting families say the inconvenience of living in two homes was worth it – primarily because they were able to maintain strong relationships with both parents.

About the Author: Dr. Linda Nielsen has been a Professor of Adolescent & Educational Psychology at Wake Forest University in Winston Salem, NC for 36 years. She is the author of five books and dozens of peer reviewed journal articles. Her areas of expertise are shared residential parenting for children of divorce and father-daughter relationships. This article is based on 64 articles published in peer reviewed journals. You are welcome to email Dr. Nielsen (nielsen@wfu.edu) for the complete list of references.

How to Help Children Handle Peer Pressure

By J. Benjamin Stevens on Posted in Children, Communication, Psychological Issues, Relationships

Peer pressure is one of those challenges that children must face when growing up.  Parents can control a child’s environment inside the home to a certain degree, but no parent can completely control all of the things that children encounter in the “real world.” What can parents do to help their children handle peer pressure? US News & World Report suggests the following:

“Bank time with them,” says Patti Kelley Criswell, a clinical social worker, instructor of social work at Western Michigan University and author of numerous American Girl books about friendship and self-esteem. According to Criswell, “talking in paragraphs” is the benchmark for good communication. If you and your child are only exchanging one-liners, it’s important to deepen the connection.

Source: “How to Help Your Kids Handle Peer Pressure” by Rachel Pomerance, published at US News & World Report.

Millionaires Fight Over $50,000 A Month Child Support Payments

By J. Benjamin Stevens on Posted in Assets and Debts, Child Support, Discovery, Financial Issues, Jurisdiction, Research & Investigation, Tax Issues

A recent New York Times article discussed an especially scandalous story involving hedge fund millionaires, a love child and a potential gold-digging, Mount Everest-climbing socialite. 

The story begins in Aspen, Colorado, a city full of wealthy jetsetters looking to mingle. It was there that Warren Lichtenstein, a Wall Street financier, met Annabelle Bond, a British socialite and mountain climber who once summited Mt. Everest. The two quickly began a relationship and, five years ago, had a child together. Though they got engaged, they never married and broke up soon after their daughter was born.

Ms. Bond, not one to stay alone for long, soon found herself in Aspen meeting yet another Wall Street tycoon, Andrew Cader, a former Goldman Sachs executive and partial owner of the Tampa Bay Rays. The two began a new relationship right as Ms. Bond and Mr. Lichtenstein started a courtroom dispute over child support for their daughter.

Ms. Bond decided to leave America and return to Hong Kong (where she is a citizen), and she filed suit there against Mr. Lichtenstein. After a prolonged legal battle, the Hong Kong court ordered Mr. Lichtenstein to pay Ms. Bond $41,800 per month in child support, as well additional money for school expenses, tutoring, medical bills and travel funds. The child support award is one of the largest ever issued by a Hong Kong judge.

While the original child support dispute is over and done, Mr. Lichtenstein recently caught wind of potential financial fraud perpetrated by Ms. Bond, something that he says should justify a sharp reduction in the amount he owes in child support. According to Mr. Lichtenstein, Ms. Bond left him and immediately took up with Mr. Cader, something in his legal complaint he refers to as Ms. Bond’s tendency to move “from one millionaire lover to another.” Mr. Lichtenstein claims that Cader has conspired with Bond to hide her true financial condition and life of privilege, by disguising substantial monetary gifts as loans.

For example, Mr. Lichtenstein recently learned that Ms. Bond and their daughter have moved into a home in an upscale section of Hong Kong that is being rented by Mr. Cader for $26,000 per month. However, Mr. Cader has structured this lease as a “loan” rather than a “gift”. Additionally, Cader has supposedly given Ms. Bond more than $3.5 million in cash that has also been designated as a “loan”. Mr. Lichtenstein argues that this money represents gifts to a lover and not a loan and that the two have conspired to lie about Ms. Bond’s financial situation to extract more money in child support and also to avoid Mr. Cader having to pay gift taxes on the money.

The case is currently before the Federal District Court in Manhattan who will now have the pleasure of unraveling this web of international intrigue.

Source: “Millionaires Clash Over Socialite’s Child Support Claims,” by Peter Lattman, published at NYTimes.com.

New Jersey Follows Florida’s Lead Toward Ending Permanent Alimony

By J. Benjamin Stevens on Posted in Alimony, Divorce, Financial Issues

As we recently discussed, Florida’s legislature took up a measure that would end permanent alimony in that state. Following hot on its heels, the New Jersey legislature recently began considering a bill that would make a major change to its state divorce law. Some states, including South Carolina, still permit “permanent” alimony, meaning after a divorce one spouse can end up paying money to the other spouse for the rest of their lives.

Under New Jersey’s current law, the court may award four types of alimony: permanent, limited duration, rehabilitative, and reimbursement. The new proposed measure would end the permanent alimony option, to hopefully ensure that some alimony-paying spouses are not forced to spend the rest of their lives writing checks to their ex’s. Though many people make the “’til death do us part” vow, most don’t expect to be held to it after they’ve chosen to divorce.

The new proposal would eliminate permanent alimony awards and instead establish guidelines that would limit the duration of alimony based on the length of the marriage. For instance, if a marriage lasts five years or less, then the maximum alimony term is one-half of the number of the marriage. For those marriages that last less than 10 years but more than five years, then the length of alimony is capped at 60 percent of the number of months of the marriage. Marriages that last between 10 and 15 years could see alimony capped at 70 percent of the months of the marriage. Couples who were together between 15 and 20 years will have the duration of their alimony capped at 80 percent the length of their marriage. Finally, couples who were married for longer than 20 years can receive alimony for an indefinite amount of time.

Beyond capping the length of the alimony, the New Jersey proposal aims to cap the amount of money one spouse would have to pay. The law says that the limited duration alimony should not exceed the recipient’s need or 30 to 35 percent of the difference in the two spouses’ incomes. A judge could only deviate from this rule if he or she issues a written finding explaining why a deviation is required.

As expected, opponents have come out against the measure, claiming it unfairly targets women who rely on alimony income to survive. Advocates of the change say reform is badly needed so that divorce laws can keep pace with changes in society. The fact is more and more women are working and earning as much or more than their husbands, and it may be time to revisit alimony laws to determine if they are outdated.

Source: “Alimony Reforms: NJ May End Permanent Payments,” published at WNYC.org.

Five Relationship Tips to Help Save Your Marriage

By J. Benjamin Stevens on Posted in Communication, Dispute Resolution, Marriage, Psychological Issues, Relationships

Yes, our firm handles a lot of divorce cases in Spartanburg, Greenville, and the surrounding area. However, contrary to popular belief, we are not pro-divorce by any means. As I said in an interview with a local television station several years ago, I believe divorce lawyers are a “necessary evil” in today’s society. If a marriage can be saved and made healthy again, that’s always a better outcome than divorce. While many marriages are simply not salvageable, we sincerely hope the following tips might help save a few of them:

  • Find the Right Ways to Communicate :: Realize if you are having trouble speaking on the same wavelength. If so, figure out how to talk to one another. Know when to be quiet and just listen when you need to, respect each other, and dedicate time to actually talk about things that matter (and things that don’t).
  • Learn (and Address) Different Attachment Styles :: How do you handle emotional attachment? Are you an emotionally giving person who shows affection outwardly or you’re more reserved? Couples need to tell each other what they need and be specific.
  • Priority Changes Matter More Than You Might Think :: Priorities typically change over time in relationships. Discuss how the changes impact each of you separately and how they impact your relationship. Then, either work toward a compromise or accept your differences.
  • Ruts Don’t Go Away on Their Own :: If your relationship seems stale, boring, or mundane, then mix things up and engage in new activities together. Doing so involves cooperation and provides a shared experience that can bring you closer together. These don’t have to be extravagant. You merely need to make the effort to get out of the rut.
  • Relationship Counselors Can Usually Only Help When Problems Start :: Don’t let fixable problems get to the point where they weren’t reversible. When you begin to sense that your relationship is in trouble, be proactive and deal with whatever issues you are having. Counselors can’t fix problems, but they can walk you through the process of fixing them yourselves. 

Source: “Relationship Advice I Wish I’d Heard Before Getting Divorced” by Thorin Klosowski, published at Lifehacker.com.