No Such Thing as Amicable Divorce

Pamela Anderson and Rick Salomon finalized their divorce this week. I know you were all holding your breath on that one. It was her second marriage to Salomon, her third husband, but the third time they called it quits. One of those splits apparently was an annulment. If you can figure that out, please add a comment below.

The two “finalized” their divorce Wednesday – presumably, this means discussions concluded but no papers were signed, since Anderson only filed for divorce (her second from Salomon) on February 15 of this year. The two certainly could not have moved that quickly here in Pennsylvania, where divorce law has built-in waiting periods of up to four months. Whatever their legal status, the spouses seemed to be calling a ceasefire on public swipes at each other, releasing a statement apologizing for any hurt they caused.

“Public divorces can be harsh and cruel – we apologize to our families and friends for any hurt and embarrassment we have caused,” the joint statement to Us Weekly reads. “We have come to an amicable agreement and are moving on.”

It’s true, public divorces, and by this I mean any that find their way before a judge in a court of law, can be cruel. This is one of many reasons I now educate prospective clients about mediation or Collaborative Law Divorce, which I consider more dignified ways to divorce.

But there are several things wrong with this co-statement of Hollywood exes. The most obvious error is assuming that two sentences issued publicly somehow undo months or years of hateful words and accusations. And why should family and friends be drawn into such goings on, unless the two spouses chose not to protect people close to them in the first place? Ever heard the term “tried in the court of public opinion?” Celebrities like Anderson and Salomon are schooled in using the media to magnify what amounts to their positions in their dispute with each other.

But the most searing unreality of this reality divorce is the phrase “amicable agreement.” I see this word “amicable” bounced around on lawyers’ websites and marketing brochures all the time. Google has a category for “amicable divorce.” I submit – to the court of public opinion, if you will – that no divorce can be, by definition, amicable. Oxford English Dictionary defines amicable as “having a spirit of friendliness; without serious disagreement or rancor.”

I have seen kindly divorces. I have seen respectful divorces. I have seen sad, bittersweet divorces. But I have never seen one without serious disagreement, which often leads to rancor. If there was no serious disagreement, there would be no divorce, even if that disagreement is over differing ideas of what marriage should be in the first place. It is somewhat misleading to pretend to divorcing couples that the emotional distress they are feeling as they untie the knot can be made to be friendly.

It can, however, be trimmed of the verbal excesses that cause more pain, for both spouses and their family and friends. In Collaborative Law, both spouses sign an agreement that specifies how negotiations will take place and who will be included. In mediation, both spouses hire one mediator to meet with them in private to work out their settlement.

Either way seems to me better than going at each other full force, then having to issue a statement after the fact apologizing to a wide swath of people you hurt in the process. Social worker Lauren Howard contributed an article to the Huffington Post that I love to quote. She said: “Marriage at its best is about love. Divorce at its best is about business. And while one is a union and one is dissolution of a union, they are not opposites.”

I couldn’t say it better.