1959, WOMAN’S ALMANAC
DIVORCE
I do not want to write a short story, I do not want to write a sketch, I do not want to write a serial. I simply want to tell you an episode from my life, a happy episode, which I absolutely must share with you as well. That’s just how I am! When I am happy, I shout it out loud. So that the whole world knows. So that they rejoice with me. You see, there are some people who, when they have a great joy, sing. Others dance. Some get a terrible appetite and eat endlessly. Others, more emotional, can no longer sleep. Others, on the contrary, sleep more than usual. Perhaps after reading my story you will say that I belong to the category of those who sleep. Still, don’t leave me! I am happy, and I want you to take part in my happiness too.
And now, because it’s hard for me to risk putting you to sleep, I am in a bit of a problem.
Dear comrades, I will tell you bluntly: I’m in love. I love passionately, tenderly, I love like a teenager, like a mature man, like an old man, I love like all of them together. And what’s more beautiful, she loves me too. Isn’t that great? How can you not sing, not dance, not tell everyone? How can you not tell? And if you only knew whom I love! If you only knew who the woman is that I can’t wait to see when I am at the office and from whom I part with a pang in my heart when I leave in the morning! If you only knew… But you don’t! Let me tell you: my wife!
Now, please, don’t smile, because you don’t know what happened and therefore you have no right to mock me. Wait, and you’ll see! I bet many of you will blush when you hear my story! So, keep your ironies for later.
Here’s how it was: as you probably understood, I was married. If I say “was” it doesn’t mean I lost my mind. I still am! And I will be, I hope, until old age! Because without my wife I don’t know what I would do! I say this now, when I am as if married for the second time. Yes, comrades, I was ready, ready to separate from my wife. Do you know after how many years of living together? Do you know why?
Out of pride. Yes, yes, out of pride. And we’re not children. I am 33 years old, she is… has… well no, why give reasons for discussion. It’s enough: I am 33 years old.
After 5–6 years of marriage, you love your wife, so to speak, “in secret.” That is, you no longer feel the need to tell her, so she doesn’t know, doesn’t feel it. You’re sure you’ll find her at home the moment you get there. Her voice on the phone no longer gives you any thrill. Often, the scolding you got at work pours over her, threefold; well, after 5–6 years, you’ve forgotten you married out of love, you’ve forgotten the eagerness with which you waited for her to come out of classes during your student days, you’ve forgotten the happiness that overwhelmed you when you allowed her to squeeze your hand for the first time at the cinema (now when you go to the cinema you sit her in front with the child, and you sit at the back to see better).
In short, you’ve forgotten everything. And with what nostalgia you look at some friend who, of the same age as you, has still “escaped”! That’s because you’re a fool. Because you don’t know how to value your wife, your child, your home!
And so, after 5–6 years, when you’ve forgotten that you love your wife, you put above all these treasures your pride and ego. That’s what happened to me.
We got into an argument over a joke. Her mother (that was all!) stayed with us for a month. Until then I got along well with my mother-in-law. (We had never stayed together for more than three days.) Still, she’s a decent woman. But after she left, I made a remark. My wife answered back. I, a bit more touchy than her (thinking of my unmarried friend, the ideal husband and martyr model), said a few harsh words! And from there it began, and it ended badly! I said, “if I hadn’t married you, the devil wouldn’t have either,” she said she loves me and doesn’t deserve me, better I should be mute (she hadn’t noticed I wasn’t smiling). I said I’ve been alone since we couldn’t laugh together, if you can say such words! (I realized how much she would say it), she said “you’ve brought it on yourself.” I (stinging, proud, arrogant and narrow-minded): “I’m perfectly aware.” She: “Very well, noted!” And so, you can imagine, we both agreed on divorce. I, surprised she didn’t believe I’d forgive her, she still wanting to go through with it, finally, both ready for divorce.
In my head there was only one thought: how to make her suffer, to make her cry, to make her fall to her knees, to beg me. I found the way. I left her a letter in which I showed her all my vileness!… There’s no point in living together anymore, but don’t be shy to leave, here are the keys. I leave you with the house, with everything that’s yours, I have no claim. And on the way, I left for my mother’s!
I was sure I’d see her crying, and she’d complain to my mother, so I could pity her. I was sure she’d feel lonely at home, that she’d try to remind me of the old times (which she remembered more and more often). But she didn’t come.
After a week at my mother’s, I no longer slept, no longer ate, had no appetite for anything. I realized how much I loved her. I compared her to all my friends’ wives. None was like her. And I, the smart one, had left home! Maybe if I’d stayed, we would have made up. Now, it’s over! Soon we’d have our first hearing at the courthouse and then…
I was in bad shape. And I was sure she didn’t love me. Otherwise, wouldn’t she have come to make peace? But me, why didn’t I go? Pride! And mother didn’t know what to do to console me! Ah, comrades, mothers are wonderful, admirable, saints, everything you want. But they have a flaw: when you separate from your wife and return to them, they welcome you with sighs and tears of joy and open arms, as if you had slipped into an abyss and were clinging through some incomprehensible thorns! What do they know about the end of a love? They put you in the bed you slept in until you were 20, while you lived at home, they coddle you, take care of you, forgive all your whims. “Poor boy,” good thing “he got rid of that one” (though until now “that one” was the best daughter-in-law!) and they do everything so you lack nothing. Except you still lack your wife! When you love her, when she loves you, now you realize if she knew you loved her, when you left not because she couldn’t make soup.
Here I am after a month, at the courthouse, first hearing. I can’t believe I’m going to court to separate from my wife, whom I love, who has done me no wrong, and from whom I am to part! But… (here I felt a nail in my heart) probably she no longer loves me. Otherwise, wouldn’t she have called me?
There she is! She saw me too! Ah, what a cold look she gave me! So, that’s how it is! I’m here! Let me put on a stiffer face! She greets me, I open the newspaper and read. As if I see what I’m reading? I see her as she was six years ago. How much she loved me! And now… She seems like a stranger! She, at the same time, turns her back and reads a poster. How indifferent she is! Now she cares about posters. I sigh, and someone asks me sympathetically:
— And you too, at the death registry?
Worse, I answer in my mind. And over the newspaper, I glance at her. She hasn’t finished reading the poster yet! Ah, what women are like! How quickly they turn and forget! And how I still love her! Burn! And how beautiful she is! She’s never looked like this before, on the day of the divorce! And look, how elegant. Her best dress. Nylon stockings. Lipstick on her lips! What does she care about? (I forgot that I also put on the clothes that suit me best).
They call us. They call her! By my name! It feels strange! But I must admit, I like it!
We come before the bench. The clerk reads. We both want a divorce. The judge asks: “Why?” I am silent. She is silent. The judge wants to know the reasons. Doesn’t he already know them? Do you quarrel often? Not really.
— And now, what happened?
Finally, we look at each other. She is very emotional: pale. Me, I don’t know how I am. All I know is my knees are trembling. Finally, she tells the judge how it was. I am silent. That’s how it was. I confirm. The judge smiles: “And for this, to break up a family? Isn’t it a pity?”
In my words, I feel like kissing him. Brother, not judge. He thinks like me. Who would leave such a wife, with such qualities? If you only knew, comrade judge, how much I love her!… Don’t let me, comrade. Don’t let her leave me! But I’m silent. She’s silent too.
He insists: “And are you sure you can no longer live with your husband and wife?”
“Answer, comrades, are you sure you can no longer live together? From what you’ve told me you have no valid reasons for divorce.”
Comrade, dear to me comrade, that’s right! We stayed together. As I wanted and as the judge wanted (and I later found out, as she wanted too). There were no valid reasons for us to divorce! I wholeheartedly recommend this judge and his whole bench to all of you when you intend to divorce! He will save you! He won’t let you!
When we left the courthouse, we stopped on the sidewalk. Silent, side by side. I was dizzy with happiness and my heart was pounding like a hammer. She seemed less pale. We walked side by side for a few steps. Then we stopped.
— If you want… you… can still… appeal…
She didn’t answer me. We walked a few more minutes side by side. We reached the tram stop. Then I turned, timidly, and said something, something more intimate (listen, I’m bold!):
— How’s everything at home?
I didn’t say “you,” or “you, madam,” or her name…
— I don’t know! she answered.
I started, startled.
— How do you not know?
— I stayed too… at my mother’s…
I felt like jumping for joy. Because how could she bear to be alone in our little nest? She couldn’t either! So maybe she still loves me.
— Do you… still love me, a little?
She lifted toward me two big, moist eyes. Then she began to cry.
We hugged and… the policeman whistled at us. We were in the middle of the street.
— But you? she said.
— The policeman whistled again. And we started off arm in arm. We stopped in front of a movie theater.
— Shall we go in?
— Yes…
And just like six years ago, it was a wonderful film that, however, I have to see again. Because those who saw it say it’s good!
___________
1959, URZICA
At a divorce:
“My client, a man without experience of married life, did not know that he was obliged to contribute with his salary to the maintenance of the family.
The plaintiff, that is, his wife, can admit herself that she fell in love with her current husband, and not with his current salary, which she had never seen since the beginning of their marriage, both living on the wife’s salary.
But if the husband ate from the wife’s salary, he at least had the good sense to drink from his own salary.
He did this because the plaintiff, a good housewife, prepared copious meals which, of course, had to be washed down with equally fine drinks.
On the other hand, the husband, being of an altruistic nature, paid at restaurants for the drinks of his friends whom he had had since early childhood.
And I want to see, honorable Court, the man who considers sentimentality and friendship with childhood friends as reasons for divorce.”
____________
1967, RED FLAG
Castles Built on Sand
A wonderful day, with a playful sun that invites you to work and good cheer. In the waiting room of the Molnești District Court, there is a large crowd. Men and women between 20–27 years old look at each other with frowns, faces tense with anxiety. Recently married, recently separated, they are now united only by the formal bond of a document registered at the civil registry office, from which they fight fiercely to free themselves as quickly as possible.
In the president’s office, the thin case files wait quietly, between covers that hide the mistakes and thoughtlessness that brought them before the court. In the air floats the bitterness and disappointment of families broken before they could even take shape, leaving behind the stale taste of regrets and deceived hopes.
Who is to blame? … Him… Her… Others?
The story of a “correspondence marriage”
T.M., a student from Bucharest, comes by chance to Molnești where he meets T.V., who is in love and on the verge of marrying someone else. But that doesn’t matter. A flirt. An exchange of letters. He falls for her through letters (fragments taken from established authors). The moment arrives when T.V. is abandoned by her local lover. Her wounded pride demands immediate satisfaction and so she turns to a stand-in. T.M. comes on the first train and they get married.
Wedding night: T.V. confesses that she never loved him, cannot stand him, and accepted this marriage only to take revenge. Wasn’t the honor he did her enough? T.M. leaves on the first train, and the “family” ceases to exist!
The history of “lightning marriages”
“…They met at a ball and after one night of ‘eternal’ vows they went to the people’s council. After a week they were married. After 5 months they were separated. Now each lives in concubinage with someone else. She is an accountant, and he a worker, but he lied to her that he was an accountant. With how much outrage she says she was lied to, deceived! The lie about education and social status hurts — but is one night, one week enough to know a man with whom to bind your life, whom you make your husband and the father of your children?
Another file, another lightning marriage, another ball, another moonlight, another breakup after three weeks. Now they both live in concubinage with other people. They hurl ugly words at each other, words that reflect the regrets and revolt in the face of this hasty marriage, ended so quickly and so disastrously.
When you buy a dress you think more! And she is a teacher! (Can one speak to children about the significance and durability of a family?)
The same story is told by the files:
1494/1966, 2442/1966, 301/1967, 1024/1966 – chance encounters, immediate marriages, “lasting” cohabitations of up to 3 months maximum, and then the inevitable separations.
Here is also a marriage “through an intermediary”
S.S., after an unhappy marriage that ended in divorce, remarries after only three weeks through the help of a well-meaning intermediary. After 2 months he separates from this wife as well. He complains that he was deceived, that he did not know his wife’s behavior, because if he had known…
Who stopped him from knowing?
File 1758/1967
…reveals to us a “romantic” adventure. The heroine, a schoolgirl, ran away from school, got married, and after 2 months is abandoned by her husband in pursuit of other adventures. She cries into her fists…
★ The examples shown reflect the thoughtlessness, lightness, and lack of a sense of responsibility of some young people towards themselves and towards society.
They considered marriage as simply a means of entertainment, with a novel touch through appearing before the civil registry officer.
But here comes the moment when they must think about the importance of the act they have done, when they must try to know each other spiritually and analyze the possibilities of truly realizing the significance of our family based on love and friendship.
But why think “after”?
Why not think beforehand?
There is a need to introduce a thinking period of 2–3 months before the conclusion of marriage, in the period between submitting the documents and perfecting the marriage.
And this so that young people can wake up from the charm of a night at the ball, from the haze of drunkenness, from the imperative of a desire.
Those who know each other will know each other even better. Those who are and remain strangers will realize this and will give up entering into a false marriage.
But another issue arises:
That of concubinage.
These butterflies that fly from flower to flower, at the whim of the wind and of fantasy, are not stopped by a mention made in a register at the people’s council. After all, concubinage is free!
And so the flight continues, even if children are left behind.
Do these relationships, which strike at the family and at the same time encourage the frivolity and irresponsibility of those who do not understand their duties, not have the appearance of antisocial acts?
Wouldn’t it be normal to criminalize living in concubinage for those married or “not yet” married?
- Ruxandra
_____________
1968, NEW DAWN
Report – Inquiry: Beyond the Norms of Ethics
The essential acts of life involve mature reflection, a grave sense of responsibility and dignity.
Affection and respect for the one you have decided to live with, sharing equally the troubles and joys, constitute the very substance of the family bond. There is an elemental sincerity that underlies any lasting marriage, and a marriage thought of otherwise, unstable, made at random, does not in fact even deserve the name.
Isolated cases, when such phenomena arise, intrigue us, of course, they seem abnormal. You wonder how some people can play at life in an irresponsible, almost unbelievable way. To our surprise, and we are always surprised when we encounter such cases, we sometimes find false marriages, situated beyond the norms of ethics, beyond everything we understand by dignity and reason.
A false marriage is that of Gheorghe and Elena Chochian from the commune of Straja, a murky game of life, thought crookedly, almost incomprehensible to a normal mind.
The marriage was officiated on June 18, 1958. After ten years it was dissolved by a court decision.
What is astonishing here, like a downright bizarre story, is the woman’s statement:
“Together with my husband, Gheorghe Chochian, I did not live at all, not even for a day.”
And yet, officially, their marriage lasted ten years. But it was a marriage founded on a lie, one of those fragile and artificial unions, scattered like clouds.
Here is what Elena Chochian says:
“Our marriage consisted of presenting ourselves at the civil registry office, where we both signed in a register.”
The astonishing confession continues in the same tone. After the marriage and before the traditional wedding, the newlywed groom unexpectedly confides to his wife that he no longer likes her, that he cannot live with her.
“He found fault that I did not have enough dowry — says the woman after ten years — that the cow my parents gave me was not of breed.”
It is as if you were hearing a very old story, from centuries ago. The man calculated his accounts in detail and, seeing that they did not turn out as he had hoped, that the dowry was not up to his dreams, he quickly changed his plans. He no longer agreed with what was declared at the civil registry office. He no longer wanted to bring his bride into his home. Instead, he brought another woman, who had plenty of dowry.
Viorica Breabăn, the one with the better dowry, now says:
“I lived with Gheorghe Chochian for two and a half years. And we have two children.”
The bitter taste of an unwise existence now gives her words a certain weight. The woman continues:
“After he sold all my dowry, he beat me and drove me away. Now he lives with Ileana Apetri and has a child with her too.”
The woman admits, with the sincerity gained from a sad and personal experience:
“When we lived together, he told me that he only sought to get hold of Elena Chochian’s dowry. And he did not take her as his wife because she did not want to bring her dowry sooner.”
In all this murky and reprehensible game there is not a grain of humanity, of natural affection. In his petty stubbornness, the dowry-eater considered only the satisfaction of his own selfish interests.
“He’s filled the world with children — says an elderly female relative of his — and then cocked his hat on one ear and roams the country.”
After ten years, the abandoned wife, driven away a few hours after the marriage, trying to rebuild her life, to start a true family, files for divorce.
Surprisingly, the former husband, who did not live “not even a day” with his legal wife, now shows himself, after ten years, suddenly a peaceful and understanding man. He wants to reconcile. He admits that he “went down the wrong paths.” As for the children said to be his, that’s another problem. He has no knowledge of such a thing.
“I don’t recognize them. I don’t have any children at all.”
Free of any duties, defying the most basic norms of morality, Gheorghe Chochian roams freely, unburdened by any responsibility. He feels free of any obligation, a bachelor with an aged and stingy soul. And he apparently has at hand a whole range of arguments with which to justify his behavior.
But no argument can plead in favor of the lack of humanity, of the serious flaws in behavior, in favor of a sordid existence that has closed off any glimmer of light for itself.
George Sidorovici
__________
1970, EDUCATION ALMANAC
Shall We Divorce…?
by Lucian Belcea
In one of the daytime bars of the Capital, a man and a woman are sitting over coffee and cognac. The discussion, apparently calm and banal, revolves around a key problem. Will they divorce? What will they invoke, what accusations have they brought against each other in order to “win” the understanding and goodwill of the judge?
— You used to come home late at night, you drank a lot, you didn’t bring money into the house…
— Yes, but you didn’t take care of the household either, you neglected me…
The conventional accusations the spouses brought against each other were accepted with pleasure by the public:
— But the child? What do we do with him? Will you keep him?
— The child?… Me?… But why?
In the silence of a courtroom, the prosecutor’s words fall rarely, heavily, like hammer blows.
“… The minor… deprived of parental supervision… does not attend school… other pursuits… began stealing and wandering the streets since the age of 13.”
The prosecutor’s words are underlined, as if in a muffled tone, by the sobs, the restrained cries of a mother in the room, cries that create an atmosphere of sadness, of emotional tension for the entire audience. In the dock, a young man of 15–16, with his head bowed, wipes his eyes with a tear.
— I committed thefts, many of them. My mother, who was the first called to educate me, was not able to fulfill her duties.
The woman wrenches herself from the arms of the commission towards the son whose deeds have just been read aloud in the courtroom, too late now.
— They don’t help me with anything anymore!
Tears too late!!
I leaf through a stack of social inquiries:
— Minor S.B., investigated for theft. Comes from a broken family. The father comes home drunk, speaks loudly, disturbs the children’s peace, beats his wife.
— Minor T.A., investigated for vagrancy. Parents separated when he was five. He lived with a relative in the countryside, then with his father, with his mother, and again with his father — an endless pilgrimage, with intervals when he slept in attics, a torment, devoid of parental warmth and care. He became a vagabond.
— Minor S.F., aged 16, is seen in the company of various men. She frequents restaurants, bars, has abandoned school. Her parents, who appear to be a normal family, have neglected her upbringing and education; moreover, the girl’s mother approves of her relatively elegant clothing style and is glad her daughter “manages.”
The plaintiff husband strives to prove his wife’s “guilt” from the file. He is determined to divorce.
— She is a bad woman… negligent… She likes to drink… Look, here, in the photograph… she’s with a man… they’re embracing… it’s… it’s… the photograph!
The wife, a simple woman, looks around disoriented. She approaches the president of the panel, who hands her the photograph.
— What do you mean… drinking… who… the man… well… how, he is our friend… Fane… your dear husband was a witness too… The photograph was even taken by him, the husband… we were all at a christening…
Murmur in the hall. Great photograph. Those present from the audience guard, from the sacred railing of 20 — a life in each. In a corner, a young man of 18–20 stands up, raises two fingers like in school, then abruptly rises. His gaze is cloudy, diffuse, over everyone.
— Shame on you, father. How can you lie like that?
Divorce?
A legal institution within everyone’s reach, perhaps necessary at times. But with so many moral, social, and pedagogical implications. If those who venture down this road would think more, who knows…
_____________
1977, PARENTS’ ALMANAC
The protection of the family, the defense of the mother’s and child’s interest are certain proofs, but at the same time also the result of the care that our socialist order gives to the family, to its strengthening, the raising and educating of children. Marriage is based on the existence of friendship and affection between the spouses, who are obliged to give each other moral and material support. Nothing can be more beautiful than a united family, a family in which the spouses have feelings and understanding for each other, and together, love, care, and concern for the children.
And… nothing constitutes a stronger, more uplifting support for a child than the united, calm, and warm life within the family.
The law provides that the dissolution of marriage occurs through the death or judicial declaration of death of one of the spouses, or through divorce. Article 38 of the Family Code further provides that the dissolution of marriage through divorce is done by court decision, but only when, for well-founded reasons, the continuation of the marriage is no longer possible for the one requesting its dissolution.
The legislator had in mind, through this provision, situations when, obviously, one of the spouses, after marriage, for known or unknown reasons, manifests a clearly unbearable attitude, so that it becomes evident there is no affection or family care for the other spouse.
The court is the one that, based on the filed documents and the administered evidence, assesses whether or not the marriage should be dissolved. This is something that R.V. from Iași apparently did not know or did not want to know, as in a request addressed to the Ministry of Justice he declared — of his own accord — the marriage between him and A.A. dissolved.
Moreover, to be as convincing as possible, he wrote “annulled” on the original marriage certificate, forgetting that altering in any way an official document constitutes the crime of material forgery in official documents.
Passing, however, over the novelty of an isolated case, the study of some divorce case files confirms that sometimes some spouses shirk the freely accepted, desired duties — I would say — and do nothing but poison the life of their husband or wife.
Of course, in such cases the court’s sentence appears as a just, humane act, which brings peace to one, but which should, on the social level, go further, condemning unacceptable practices and manifestations of some spouses.
In a file of the Sector 2 Court in Bucharest, the plaintiff A.M. stated in her action:
“I married the defendant out of the desire to make a home. I immediately realized, after the marriage, the great mistake I had made. He came home drunk, made a scene, beat me. He was absent at night, stole things from the house, the firewood, the pig. The militia’s interventions were in vain, because… he would start all over again.”
In a file of the Sector 7 Court — Bucharest, it is seen how after 6 years of marriage, after the birth of two children, the husband G.I. lost his Bucharest identity card.
He suddenly desired affection and respect for his wife — if he ever had them.
Marriage was the only possibility. Three months after the marriage, the wife was hospitalized for 40 days.
The husband, the man who should be closest to you, never visited her, never asked what she needed, never gave her a moment of peace or comfort.
Care for the family, for the children — these were unknown concerns to G.I.
In other cases, the lack of moral conduct by one spouse is such as to prompt the filing of a divorce action and to largely justify the dissolution of the marriage.
S.C., from Ialomița County, caught his wife in the first two and a half months after marriage in compromising situations with one man and then with another. The wife told her husband they were old friends she could not abandon.
R.G. from Bucharest filed for divorce after 18 years. They had at the time two children, aged 18 and 14.
R.G. said: “From the beginning she was immoral, had relations with various men. I loved her too much and, having children, I overlooked these things, I hoped she would honor her commitments, at least be ashamed in front of the children. But in vain. The children grew up, it’s no longer possible…”
Of course, as I said, divorce is the legal solution, sometimes objectively necessary.
The examples given — some of the many cases seen — frequently highlight the exclusive fault of one of the spouses.
But, going beyond the first-glance aspects of these cases, you start to wonder whether perhaps the other spouse, the innocent one, does not also bear some blame.
And again, files and more files, from which it increasingly appears that indeed there is a specific fault common to innocent spouses, namely: insufficient knowledge of the person to whom they have tied their life.
This explains why, shortly after marriage, some spouses seem to change. No, they do not change, this is their true face, which they had carefully hidden, and the other future spouse did not try to know it, settling for appearances.
Marriage is a decisive, crucial step in people’s lives.
A long period of acquaintance, of discovering the true face of the future life partner, a period of profound and mature verification of the reciprocity of feelings, of the seriousness of the marriage decision, constitutes the guarantee of a successful marriage.
Perhaps the idea of a mandatory engagement period should be analyzed more thoroughly.
Other times, marriage, instead of being the result of feelings, hides petty interests.
From a file at the Sector 4 Court in Bucharest, it appears that M.M. married with the impression and hope that she enjoyed the affection and respect of M.T.
But he, the husband, loved something else entirely.
(…)
_______________
1994, YOUTH AND FAMILY LIFE MAGAZINE
Section: SHE and HE
Four years ago, I was transferred to the town of T.N. I regretted leaving my hometown, V., because my relatives, friends, and memories were staying there, but above all, I regretted leaving him, Marian, the boy I still loved. It is true, I was a naive teenager to sustain a great love, but something told me that this sentimental incident would mark my life.
In the four years that followed, I saw Him, the one who remained in my hometown V., only during vacations. We didn’t care about anything else but us. We ignored the world around us, with its evils. The whole sky and earth were ours, because he was, for me, my first love.
He would repeat to me each time that “I love only you.” He had opportunities to leave me, because of some jealous scenes I made for him. He proposed that we make love, but I answered:
— My first love will also be my future husband.
He didn’t insist anymore, nor did he get upset with me.
In the summer vacation of ’93, together again, he told me, friends, he promising me he would write. But he did not keep his word. He didn’t write, but I didn’t make an issue of it.
In the summer, arriving at his grandmother’s in the town of V., I learned with astonishment that he hadn’t been around much that summer. After a week, I went into town for some errands. There, on the boulevard, surprise! He was walking hand in hand with a girl. He didn’t see me, and I didn’t have the courage to call out to him. It seemed to me that it wasn’t really him, that it was a bad dream. My knees were trembling. I stayed there, frozen, watching them for a long time. All I wanted was to get home and cry, to cry…
It happened on a Wednesday. Saturday evening, at a party, hop, he shows up there too. I treated him all night with total indifference. But he seemed just like before. He tried to explain to me that the feelings he had for me hadn’t changed. Seeing me inflexible, he reminded me of our old agreement:
“In vacations, we are together, but during school we can fool around with others, but not too much.”
But the agreement had lost its validity, because we were now in… vacation.
Still, later, we talked like two good comrades, then the next day he had to leave. Then we talked for about two hours, during which my indifference toward him faded. I tried to get him to stay two more days. It wasn’t possible. At parting, he didn’t even kiss me. We just looked long into each other’s eyes. I felt like we were both suffering because of that break. But was it so?
Now, on clear nights, I sit alone and look at the sky. He is gone. Nor are our vows of eternal love. I could have other boys, but none have his fascination over me. I feel that, apart from him, I will never be truly happy again.
But, as I am still very young, surely it is possible that tomorrow there could be a change. If that happens, I would be content.
Whoever will read my story and wants to write to me for comfort or a kind word, can do so at the address:
Camelia Partene, Leghiu locality, postal code 5637, Pipirig commune, Neamț County.
______________________
1995, MODERN WOMAN
Legal Courier
■ MARIANA MOCAN — Ciucea, Cluj County.
The fact that you got married at only 15 years old is not necessarily bad, but the fact that you divorced after living together for only one year and six months is already quite unpleasant. We understand that your former husband has passed away, but instead of the inheritance going to his legitimate child, it was taken by his brothers or other relatives.
Although he is 17 years old, he has the legal right to the inheritance, and you must urgently address the Oradea Municipal Court, under whose jurisdiction the succession was opened, to cancel the succession granted to other relatives. Good luck!
■ MIHAELA RĂDULESCU — Tg. Jiu, Gorj County.
You write to us, showing that, although you have a court order for child support (for your two minor children), your former husband, with the rank of senior sergeant, has no legal deductions from his salary.
We do not believe that your husband can influence the financial authorities of the unit where he works, especially regarding child support.
We advise you to address the commander of the respective unit, who will take legal measures for you to receive these rights, even retroactively.
■ VIORICA JIU — Girișu de Criș commune, Bihor County.
The issue of granting support allowance after unemployment benefits are exhausted falls under the competence of the Bihor County Directorate of Labor and Social Protection, where we advise you to address yourself directly. If you do not find understanding there, write to the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection in Bucharest.
■ CĂLIN AURICA — Flămânzi, Botoșani County.
Your parents (father, aged 80, mother, aged 75) are entitled to a pension according to Law no. 80/1992, starting from January 1, 1994.
If you believe that their rights have not been calculated correctly, we advise you to address the Botoșani County Directorate of Labor and Social Protection, which will reanalyze the situation. If a mistake was made, it will be corrected.
■ ROBERT — Bucharest.
Although you ask us for a written answer, which we usually do not give, you do not indicate your full name or address.
Your problem regarding the living space to which you would be entitled, in case your mother, together with her husband who has not adopted you, wishes to sell the privately-owned apartment, can only be resolved through the court, where you will present your claims.
■ G.R. — Sibiu (another anonymous, although the question is of general interest).
If you bought the apartment legally through the State Notary (which had the obligation to check if the seller had legal ownership title), a subsequent will is no longer valid.
If you are sued, you will prove before the court your good faith and the documents that were the basis of the purchase deeds.
Vasile Brăiloiu – legal advisor
_________________
1997, MODERN WOMAN
Why Do Women Divorce?
LONELINESS… IN TWO
Sometimes, the reasons a woman wants a divorce are, apparently, misunderstood. Looking at things from the outside, one might consider her guilty: that the woman of these years, materially independent from the man, busy and concerned with professional issues, can no longer and does not seem willing to put up with tension and stress in her family.
When Mitroi, from Constanța, married Adrian Dascălu, she did it with a hesitant heart, because he was sometimes rather indifferent and perhaps somewhat selfish. But she loved him and trusted not so much him, as her ability to keep him close. So, for eight years, Cristina had only one concern – Adrian himself, always dissatisfied, busy and without any cheer. Adrian, who was liked by everyone because he was elegant, with his pants creased (by her), with white shirts like milk (washed by her!), smelling of fine perfumes (bought by her), with always-new sweaters (knitted by her)… and she would come home after many long, hard hours to find her husband’s clothes locked in the laundry basket, on the floor or on the radiator, and still there the next day, unchanged. The same with the newspapers, the towel, the dirty cups, and… none of it seemed hard to her. And she had nothing to say. She was silent, and that’s how she stayed in the house. Late at night, she remembered that she had been marked her whole life by so much silence. From which she no longer understood anything. He had nothing to say, nothing to ask. If his things were clean, if his car ran well, if his shampoo hadn’t run out – what could be missing from a family life?! Peace and satisfaction in the world… She finally left him when she grew tired of him and of her own hope. They separated without a quarrel, she with a sad but determined heart, he not understanding then what had happened, since he hadn’t hit her, hadn’t insulted her, hadn’t chased after women… What could she have possibly had against him?
DRINK – POISON OF THE SOUL
Another reason women divorce is alcohol, with all it entails. The numbing effect of drinking always brings with it quarrels and violence. And if, sometimes, old prejudices consider divorce an excluded solution, a shame, often the woman still has the strength to put an end to her torment at the hands of an alcoholic husband.
Ana Panas, from Arad County, married in great haste at 20 years old. “I was afraid I’d get pregnant before marriage, I wouldn’t have had the courage to appear before the people in the village.” So the wedding took place before Ana knew Marin too well. When, after two years, Costel, their child, was born, her husband had already shown his true colors and Ana would wake up with pangs of conscience that she had made a mistake. “But how could you, Marie, endure all this for 18 years?” I, who had been a good and beautiful girl, clean and trusting in my star, how could I, Lord, endure 18 years of life alongside such a man? How could I survive 18 years of insults, blows, mockery? Where did I find this enormous patience to endure everything for so long?”
MATERIAL SHORTAGES – AN ATTACK ON FAMILY STABILITY
Material problems, especially in this period of economic and social crisis, cannot be ignored. And, unfortunately, they sometimes manage to crush any trace of love. Even if things seem to be going smoothly, when shortages become acute, the door opens to nerves and hatred, to shouting and insult. Gradually, from the former family only crumbs remain, and nothing can be saved. Unemployment, salaries that do not ensure an acceptable standard of living, prices that exceed any limit of tolerance – all contribute to the dismantling of the institution called family.
“When I lived with my parents, everything was perfect,” says Ana Maria Ene from Bucharest. “But over time, that changed. Our daughter Ilona was born, and then our son, Cristi. My parents retired and no longer had money. We both worked, but it seemed to me that my salary as a teacher was a joke, and the money Ovidiu earned as a welder was not enough for food, utilities, and medicine… Slowly, the dissatisfaction began. He would tell me daily that I spent too much. On the other hand, I thought he let money slip through his fingers. Then he slapped me for the first time, and from there it wasn’t far. We quarreled more and more nastily. Now I can’t believe I could live like that. Maybe we were both to blame… who knows…”
“CONJUGAL TRIANGLE”
Equally numerous are cases where a third person, usually another woman, enters the couple’s life. It can be an accident, a joke, an escape. But it can also be something deep, a connection that comes to replace something missing in the existing couple.
Ioana Oprea had refused many boys until she met Andrei Ivar. She fell for him instantly. He had it all: money, car, house. Because here, the screams and beatings had become daily activities. Marin had made a habit of drinking himself into oblivion and beating his wife to a pulp. “I endured because I was ashamed to divorce and I didn’t have any money.” Marin hadn’t let her work – she had to stay at the stove, as “befits a woman.”
Later, Marin was fired from his job. Obviously, because of the alcohol, which poisoned his mind and soul. Ana tried to take him to rehab, but fat chance… he beat her worse than ever… The glass overflowed the day Marin lunged at the child… Ana put aside her fear of loneliness, the preconceived idea, sought a lawyer and filed for divorce, supported by her parents, who were also fed up with their son-in-law’s “adventures.”
MANUELA MIHAI
________________
1997, MODERN WOMAN
DIVORCE – consequence of erotic dissatisfaction?
– I find Daniela’s attitude, our new colleague, questionable. She confessed to us, even in the first days, a few of the intimacies of her family life. In her opinion, marriage is based exclusively on sexual pleasure and any inconvenience can be “resolved in bed.” Tensions related to this aspect, according to her own view, can only be remedied through divorce. Do you think this is a natural attitude?
– Fundamentally speaking, no. Erotic harmony rarely appears spontaneously. Most often, it is refined under the influence of the couple’s experience. No matter how well-intentioned a man is, he still has some failures, and then he will be intimidated by the idea that his relationship with his partner, girlfriend or wife, will depend exclusively on erotic performances!
– Daniela is beautiful, very sexy, and considers that life should be lived under the sign of carnal love. I, for one, don’t believe that a woman like her feels ready for a couple’s life in the true sense of the word. Am I not right?
– Of course you are right. Life as a couple is not limited only to erotic tenderness, not even when a woman is young and has sex appeal. There is also protest, the instinct of motherhood, the obligation to ensure the emotional and material balance of the home, which also take away from vital energy. Theoretically, Daniela thinks like a spoiled princess. I suspect she is not very happy with her husband. And neither is he with her.
She does not seem happy nor willing to “fix,” on the go, what has begun to limp in her relationship with her partner. Moreover, she makes problems – essentially inherent in any marriage – such as the man’s lack of libido when she is in the mood, or his hurried performance, most of the time – into subjects of discord. I consider it a lack of discretion to display your erotic dissatisfactions and unfulfillments in the workplace, on television, anywhere, just to justify part of your own frustrations. The secret of intimacy is something that touches the common sense of each of us.
– This is another problem, which we will discuss on the occasion of a future dialogue. What I can tell you, regarding the first issue you raised, is that Daniela, like many young women and men, rushed into marriage, confusing a pleasant intimate moment with real life as a couple. With its ups and downs, with self-knowledge and overcoming erotic shortcomings, with tolerance and wisdom that bring two beings closer and make them united, as they should be… in this tough and full-of-surprises existence.
MARIA ȘERBAN-PREDESCU, psychologist
_____________
1998, MODERN WOMAN
Among us, women / THE (ANTI)FEMINISM TRIBUNE
Are WOMEN meaner than MEN?
My ears have heard much more often women saying “I am an anti-feminist” than the opposite. Just as often I have heard advice like “women are mean and perverse. Stay away from them!” In a small tally of what I have heard over the years, I found that the harshest words, the wildest labels, the most horrifying examples I have heard from women’s mouths about women.
I don’t really know how men talk about us, when they are alone together, but from my humble experience I can say that they don’t seem to put so much passion into their voices, nor so much vehemence into their language. Generally, when someone pathetically tells you what terrible creatures women are, examples immediately follow to prove, to argue every word, to reinforce every accusation.
In an office where several women work, almost always, unnoticed, a quarrel makes its nest, giving them not a shred of peace. They gossip, they hate, they envy, they fear each other, each judging the others by her own measure.
In a house where there are several women (mother and daughter, mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law, sisters) peace is a rare bird. An unextinguished war, with moments of appeased armistice.
Everywhere, women tear each other apart: in the street, at work, at school.
And, to complete the picture, I recommend you watch on television, thanks to cable broadcasts, images of feminist demonstrations in the United States, where, it is said, the most emancipated women live. Personally, I have rarely seen anything more absurd, more pitiful and more ignoble in their belief than those demonstrations. Against whom do you think the few thousand feminists are fighting now? Against their fellow women, the prostitutes.
American feminism shouts at the top of its lungs: “Women want to become men!”
The Romanian space has been spared such excesses because women in Romania, despite the hard life they lead, have the detrimental feeling of inferiority.
That is why, perhaps, I have more often heard “I am not a feminist” when the “accused” felt she had indulged in feminist-type excesses.
Before women truly become the equals of their “legal” trouser-wearing peers, they will have to free themselves from their condition, assumed as natural, of inferiority.
The fact that Romanian women have not separated in attitude from men, at a time when society has fragmented on more or less founded criteria, says a lot about their lack of complexes.
As for the quarrels that appear among women, wherever they stay together, the reason might be the famous Romanian goat, after which we all run to kill.
Violeta Baur
MAXIM OF THE MONTH
“If you admit that a marriage is an association for a good life, it is shameful, of course, to protest when it is dissolved.” Camil Petrescu
THE 5 NECESSARY STAGES AFTER DIVORCE
Many marriages end in divorce. Most divorces are initiated by women. After, at first, the people involved only play with the idea of being free again, after the divorce is finalized comes a painful farewell and the chance to start over with someone else. Psychologists recommend that divorced people should not rush to rebuild their lives. They distinguish five main stages after divorce:
- Shock and doubt
The end. A single word, but hard to pronounce, to digest. It is not easy to end, to break with a person who initiated the divorce. Now you tell yourself: you are free, the other is gone. Although you had long planned this freedom, now you doubt whether you did the right thing.
Divorce causes, first of all, a shock. The first stage, in most cases, is harder for women to bear than for men. This is because now, for the first time in a long time, the woman has acted independently, can act according to her own will.
At this time, it is very important that the two spouses move out separately. Distance and quiet help overcome the initial shock. - Freedom and good mood
Everything reminds you of him/her: photos together, gifts received. It takes weeks for all these to leave you indifferent.
One morning, when you drink your coffee alone, you realize that you are independent again. You are a free person, at last you can do whatever you want. A great happiness overwhelms you.
You can wander through stores, change your hairstyle as you wish, go to the movie you like. You experiment, you discover new things. Being free, at first, gives the same feeling as when you fall in love. Unfortunately, this stage is very short. - Sadness and self-flagellation
The ex-husband/ex-wife calls more and more often, complains. You start to have pangs of conscience: “I only thought about my own good.” Instead of saving your family, you made everyone unhappy – the thought torments you. You feel sorry for the children, everyone is joyless. Even the one who wanted the divorce. - Habit and acceptance of the situation
You are a single person. Gradually, you get used to this state. Divorce does not mean only freedom and guilt. It is true, a very important stage of your life has ended. In its place, something new must come. Another life partner. No(!). It is preferable to engage in new activities. This way you will become an interesting person again. - Reconciliation – starting life again
After a long period, you are able to talk again with or about your ex-husband/ex-wife. Itis much easier now. Both of you understand what and where you went wrong. If you reach a good understanding, reconciliation may even come, without haste. But things will no longer be as they were in the past.
Divorce brings to the surface many problems that must be discussed, that must be solved. Sincerity can create the basis for a friendship.
Only after all this can life eventually be started, or restarted.
THE MOST COMMON REASONS FOR DIVORCE
Still in first place is the appearance of a new partner, it is about a new love.
In second place is the lack of interest and passion, the routine in marriage.
For example: the wife only cares about and focuses on the children, the husband has the impression that the wife is only interested in the money he brings home.
Constant disputes about money often lead to divorce. Especially if one of the spouses earns less, while the other can afford more things.
Another major problem is when the parents of both spouses interfere in their children’s marriage, when one of the partners allows themselves to be influenced.
Veronica Enescu
___________
2000, MODERN WOMAN
12000, MODERN WOMAN
LET’S TALK OPENLY – Why do ROMANIANS DIVORCE?
“Permissible love is not enough – declared the psychotherapist lady – for the stability of the couple over time. On the basis of love, something else is built: the relationship. Compared to the past, the number of divorces is still lower, because some are done very early – at six months, a year, two years. Something from the old tradition has been lost. Before, marriage was a serious alliance between families, priorities were set, each knew what they were getting into. And the two came at least somewhat suited, the one who came shared this understanding. Now it’s done randomly, with fantasies, with wrong expectations; and when these, unfortunately, are not met, conflict, reproaches, crises occur. People withdraw, no longer fight for the relationship. It’s very easy to say: you’re not the right person, I’m leaving. No investment is made in the relationship. The greatest effort is to learn to live with the other person. You make an effort to adapt to the other with trust. People invest in themselves and expect the worst to happen; in the meantime, events pile up suggesting that there were too many clouds at the beginning and, on both sides, the foundation of the relationship was unprotected, so that the other feels the need to prove themselves elsewhere – this being one of the sources of the extramarital affair.”
But the main problem of the couple, and therefore of divorce – states the psychotherapist’s advice – is that partners should know each other as much as possible, so that they know themselves better, that the need for intimacy is met within the couple, that the points of divergence are related to values and that dialogue is maintained. One must not be silenced so as not to tell the other, so as not to be strengthened in what we think about ourselves and about others, about the relationship. We must be informed. The more communication is reduced to administrative matters, the more is lost in discussions about feelings, about vices. A relationship must be built over time and must have as a basic element maturity. The maturity of the relationship. Many adults in Romania, it is said, have not passed the age of 12. The housewife goes to confession, exactly as it is said in church: you are a widow, it is for your mother to beat you, and she goes after the husband… There is a closing in on oneself, where each seeks to find strength, comfort, a parent in the other. Although the partner is not their child, they treat them as such, because they don’t know anything else. It is no longer a relationship between two adults. Marriage can no longer build its solid consequences and influences on the stability it produces now. The soul structures do not allow the two to remain children. They must or can, but the way in which they are brought to maturity is different between those who always feel this creates differences. And, of course, this emotional age does not mean maturity of age, childhood psychology being different from what follows later than usual.
Late childhood influences life expectations. “When I knew that divorce was inevitable, I was shocked by my husband’s reaction – said a lady on the verge of ‘separation’ – affected by this fact with minors representing 50.9% in 1999, compared to 53.4% in 1998. It also happens because partners stay together for the sake of the children. Although they no longer love each other, they sleep in separate rooms,” continues Dr. Podaru, “these parents do not think that a child can solve the problems that accumulate in a couple or unite them. The child is not supposed to, but is desired to be raised, but in fact, they will have to be taught, to be raised and to grow, and in fact, they will have to be taught again. They cannot grow outside the family. A child cannot solve what two adults have failed to do. From a psychological point of view, it can no longer be generalized. If a child sees that no effort was made, they lose from everything and everyone. If there are children, if there are women, due to the lack of separation alongside that woman. Maybe they were in a disharmonious life phase. But giving your child another chance in life is also a chance in your life. To suggest the risk of a few moments of reflection every day, to take these thoughts into account, can also be a form of treatment. When I try to understand my fear, anger, bitterness, if I identify and understand them, I begin to control them. If I have understood what should not be thought of as a conflict, I am already halfway to peace. It must be looked at from the outside, and not through the eyes of the one who is hurt. That does not mean it should not exist, happen; but precisely because it happens, reflection is necessary. We cannot move forward if we cannot understand what has been. Reflection can bring a conscious benefit. That’s the difference between war and peace. That can bring relationships closer. Let us be fair, professional parents, providential parents, and teach our children. We are allowed to make mistakes, it is good not to repeat the mistake, it is good to learn from the mistake and, if it happens, it is better to deal with them than to live with them.”
WHY DO ROMANIANS DIVORCE?
Marital infidelity, alcoholism, physical violence and lack of communication — the main reasons
Even if the number of divorces is decreasing – in 1999 there were 5,500 fewer than in 1998, their rate reaching 1.7‰ compared to 2.5‰ – the frequency remains high especially among young couples. In 1999, 15% of men had divorced before turning 25 and approximately one in three – aged 30-34 – were recorded as divorced. The most common causes of divorce cited by 95% of couples in this situation are: marital infidelity, alcoholism, physical violence and lack of communication. “The causes are multiple – declares Dr. Dana Podaru – but the most common are: infidelity, the desire of one of the partners to lead an independent life, poverty, violence, lack of prospects for a better life, lack of hope, trust, moral support, disagreements between parents and children, school dropout, as well as the deterioration of the standard of living in general. If we also add the intervention of parents in the couple’s life – 17.7% of husbands and 11.7% of wives have cited this – we already have a clear picture of the factors that lead to the breakdown of a marriage. The situation is not specific only to the urban environment – 15.2% of those in rural areas divorced at the age of 20-24 and 11.7% of those in urban areas. So these statistics do not lie. They say it all, and psychotherapists are increasingly called upon to provide answers to a question that politeness refuses: why do we divorce?”
Carmen Mușat Coman
______________
2007, NATIONAL JOURNAL
Dads, unite!
It happens that years go by and they cannot visit their child. Even though the court grants them the right, the other parent in whose custody the child is forbids it. Following the breakup of a family, most often men get the label of “divorced” and lose the one of “dad.” For those who are kept away from their own children against their will, the only association in Romania that fights “for the right to be a father” has been set up: “The National Association of Fathers in Romania.”
They look at each other like two strangers. It’s as if all the words have been spoken between them, as if neither the shouting nor the reproaches hurled at each other can cover the hatred, disgust or indifference that has crept between them. The time when they looked into each other’s eyes and swore eternal love has long turned into torment. From time to time, they barely calm their rebellious voices. Perhaps when, from behind the door, two eyes of a frightened child appear, or when they remember that their screaming in the middle of the night could wake the little angel they brought into the world and who, with a heart as small as a flea, might wonder between sobs: “Is mommy fighting with daddy again? What if they split up and I’m left alone?”
It seems like a story with a sad ending. But it is neither a film script nor a paragraph from a writer’s book. It is reality that happens in tens of thousands of families. According to the National Institute of Statistics, in the first nine months of this year alone over 25,000 divorces were recorded. Statistics show that this increase in the divorce rate is not just a national phenomenon, but a European one, with one in two marriages ending in court. Last year, over 32,600 married couples broke up, and the divorce rate was 1.51 per thousand inhabitants. In their wake, over 21,000 minor children suddenly found themselves without one of their parents alongside them.
UNIQUE IN ROMANIA. Constantin Jugurică is one of those forced to stay away from his child. For five years he has called himself a divorced man and for just as long, for his little girl, “dad” is a word she says too rarely. “The two times a month I can visit my daughter and the few days of vacation in the summer or holidays are not enough to strengthen the father-daughter relationship,” says the man, who for two years was forbidden by his ex-wife to see his child. “I wish things would change for the better, that so many negative transformations would not occur in a child’s life when parents decide to separate. I would like the one who pays child support to still be able to be a parent for his child,” says Constantin Jugurică.
It was no coincidence that he thought of setting up an association to deal with those in a situation similar to his. He gathered his friends, architect Constantin Meița and aviator Adrian Iovan, and together, in August this year, they set up the “National Association of Fathers in Romania,” registered in the Register of Associations and Foundations.
There were quite a few who raised their eyebrows as soon as they heard of such an oddity, since, well, there are hundreds of women’s associations with all kinds of quirky and colorful names. But not one, until now, for dads.
“INVESTIGATION ONLY ON PAPER.” “After a divorce, the ones who suffer the most are the children. Some, reaching adolescence, may take the wrong paths. It has been found that the majority of trafficked children come from broken families. But it is certain that they all need both mother and father, equally. What we want through this association is to unite our forces and make sure that the child does not feel that they have lost one of their parents.
One of the causes we are fighting for is to ask the court, as the guardianship authority, to carry out a proper social investigation. In 99% of cases, the child is entrusted to one of the parents either in the absence of such an investigation or because it is done only on paper. Most often, the child remains in the mother’s care, without really knowing if this is the best thing for them. I have encountered cases where the child was nothing more than a source of income for the parent in whose care they were,” lists the president of the association the reasons behind the decision to create an association.
Its motto is: “Dads, daddies (and possibly, mommies), unite!”, which means, as the initiator of the action specifies, that “anyone who is in the difficult situation of being far from their child and needs help from us is welcome.” ANTR aims to carry out its own investigations combined with the support of local authorities, to determine the living conditions of children left in the care of one parent, a process that should lead to the removal of parental rights when necessary.
“We want to make available to people private detectives, a psychologist, a lawyer. We need cars, drivers, but for all these we need funds. Our only source of income is sponsorships and the 20-euro membership fees of the few members of the association. I can’t tell you how many they are. Our great wish is for more and more dads to gather, because it is well known: Where there are many, strength grows.”
THE APPLE OF DISCORD. “Not all men who divorce are monsters. Not only men are to blame for the destruction of marriages! As long as you’re married, everything is OK. Each parent has ‘equal rights’; the moment divorce intervenes, already dad is the boogeyman, who is not allowed to get close to his own child more than two hours on weekends, two weekends a month. WHY??? The law says that the parent who has not been entrusted with the child retains the right to watch over their education. How many men are not allowed by their ex-wives to see their children unless they pay more money for child support? That is, as long as he is a family father and is supposed to bring all the money home, he has all the rights, but afterwards, nothing.”
Signed: alenicol. A message written under a pseudonym on a forum, the place where many speak their minds in the hope that the solution they seek will appear. Behind the outraged words, most often lies the story of a child once again placed in the middle, an “object of dispute” between mother and father. A child who, in the absence of an explanation, either awaits their parents’ reconciliation, or creates in their mind the most fantastic ideas about the causes of the divorce.
According to psychologist Marina Cavassi, the biggest mistake a separated couple can make is to denigrate each other’s image in front of the child. “The best thing is to let the child realize over time what kind of person their father or mother is; it is not good for a parent to sling mud at the image of the other. The child will be even more frustrated if told: ‘Your father is a scoundrel!’ They will automatically think they are the child of such a man, so they too could be like that!”
The father’s role is extremely important. He is associated with the idea of authority, security and trust. Therefore, the father must be a model of identification, he is the one who initiates the child into social life. It can happen that, due to the father’s absence, girls later have difficulties in a couple, in choosing a partner, because they have no model to guide them, and in the case of boys, the lack of a paternal figure fails to create in their minds, as it should, the model of a leader, of a man who protects and supports a family.
The fathers’ association has only been functioning for a few months. Any service offered through it is free. In this time, two people have benefited from financial help. The president of ANTR hopes that in the future “we will have millions of members, create mobile units in many county capitals and collaborate with the competent authorities, so that there will no longer be disagreements between parents.” Because, he says, “I believe that it is not a parent’s right to see their child that is taken away, but rather it is a child’s right to see their parent that is taken away.”
Carmen Preoteșoiu
____________
2009, EVENIMENTUL ZILEI
Compensation for abandoned fiancée and divorce at the civil registry
Amalia Derscariu
One of the most important provisions of the new Civil Code – which could come into force at the beginning of 2011 – refers to the “administrative divorce”, pronounced by the civil status officer.
Specifically, this type of divorce must meet two conditions: “both spouses must agree to the separation and must have no minor children”. According to the new Code, “the competence to resolve this type of divorce is given to the civil status officer or the public notary from the place of marriage or the last common residence of the spouses, who will issue a divorce certificate”.
At the same time, the law regulates the “maintenance obligation between former spouses”. More precisely, “the divorced spouse has the right to maintenance if they are in need due to a work incapacity that occurred before or during the marriage”. The “maintenance” of the ex could, however, cost the spouse obliged to pay at least a quarter of their income. Thus, “the maintenance owed is set at up to one quarter of the net income of the one obliged to pay (…), but no more than half”, states the Civil Code.
Without fiancé, but also without gifts
The “surprises” for couples do not stop here. A word of caution for the undecided: those who have not yet reached marriage, but suddenly decide to break off the engagement, can be legally obliged to return all gifts received from the former half. The reason: the engagement is regulated, for the first time, in the new Civil Code. More precisely, “in the case of breaking the engagement, gifts that the fiancés received in consideration of the engagement and during its entire duration, for the purpose of marriage, are subject to restitution, except for customary gifts”, says the law.
The problem of classifying gifts as customary or less customary “will be made by judges, depending on the financial capacity of each couple,” explained the specialists from the Commission for Drafting the Codes.
Moreover, according to the new Civil Code, “the one who abusively breaks the engagement may be obliged to pay compensation for expenses incurred or contracted for the marriage, as well as for any other damages caused”.
From the unusual category
In addition to European regulations, the new Civil Code also contains a series of articles included by specialists in the “unusual” category. Thus, on one hand, the new law expressly prohibits marriages between “the mentally ill and the mentally deficient”. On the other hand, from the chapter on the rights and duties of spouses, we learn that “spouses owe each other mutual respect, fidelity and moral support”, as well as the fact that “a spouse does not have the right to censor the other spouse’s correspondence, social relations, or choice of profession”.
In the “wonders of the Codes” category, posted on the “Stop the Codes!” Coalition’s website, there is also an article that prohibits the sale of “any element or product of the human body”. Specifically, “any acts having as their object the conferring of patrimonial value to the human body, its elements or products, are struck by absolute nullity”, states the law. In the opinion of the Coalition’s representatives, although “it is normal that the human body, in whole or in part, cannot be sold or bought, it is totally abnormal that those who make wigs from human hair should be condemned for this”. “Worse is the fact that it is hard to believe that a special law will be put in place to also provide such exceptions,” explained the specialists.
_____________
2021, CUVÂNTUL LIBER
WHY DO “LONG-STANDING” COUPLES DIVORCE?
In recent years, psychologists and sociologists have tried to find out why more and more people choose to divorce after many years of marriage, putting forward various hypotheses about the causes of this situation.
They are better off apart than together…
The news about Bill and Melinda Gates’ divorce, after 27 years of marriage, took the whole world by surprise. The couple seemed to be the image of marital stability and longevity. They raised three children together, built a fortune and a renowned humanitarian foundation.
Like them, there are more and more couples of less famous people who come to the conclusion that they will be better off apart than together.
Statistics show that more than one in four people who divorce in the United States are over 50, and more than half of these divorces happen after 20 years of living together.
In Romania, the average age of spouses at divorce last year (2020) was 43.6 years for men and 40 years for women, and conjugal life lasted, on average, 9.5 years.
The meaning of marriage has changed
Something is certainly happening among people in the second half of life and they end up reconsidering the choices they made in youth.
According to specialists, there are many factors that contribute to the reason why more older couples divorce more often now than in previous generations.
One reason could be that the meaning of marriage has changed.
People no longer primarily want financial security and mutual help, but a happy relationship that contributes to self-fulfillment.
Also, more women are financially independent, so they are no longer willing to stay in marriages that do not satisfy them.
Last but not least, divorce at older ages may be more common now than at any other time in history, for a simple reason: people live longer.
If you think that you might still have another 20–30 years of life, you realize that it is a long time to spend with someone you are no longer happy with, and you seek fulfillment elsewhere.
Also, fewer and fewer people are willing to work on a marriage that is creaking, thinking that changing the partner for another might be the most accessible solution.
Some postpone divorce
Sometimes, the couple has not been functioning well for a long time. Problems accumulate, but the partners still have advantages from this relationship and therefore do not give it up.
In some cases, partners have certain fears and anxieties about being alone or finding other partners. Maybe they simply consider that something bad but familiar is preferable to something unknown.
That’s why divorce happens after many years of living together.
Other times, couple problems accumulate over time, but the conflict breaks out suddenly, from a minor misunderstanding or from yet another major problem.
It doesn’t matter so much what triggers the desire to divorce, but rather what has really accumulated over time.
Many times, we see endless arguments that started from a small trigger, but the partners bring up unresolved conflicts from years ago, a sign that they are alive and present within them.
These have accumulated over years, sometimes decades, and will not be resolved in days or weeks.
Couple therapy
Psychologists specialized in couple problems say that, before taking the step towards divorce after many years of marriage, it would be useful for the partners to start couple therapy or any reparative process that includes personal development.
A higher level of understanding, acceptance, empathy and compassion would be useful to solve present problems. Very important is how motivated the partners are to try to resolve their conflicts and how aware they are of the need to make efforts and changes.
Couple therapy is not a guarantee that the spouses will stay together, but there will certainly be more chances than without it. In addition, the partners will be able to understand more about themselves, about the current relationship, about what they really want and about what is best for them.
Also, if they choose divorce, it can be as amicable as possible, without stress, bitterness and regrets.
(L.P.)
__________________
2021, CUVÂNTUL LIBER
An absurd medieval practice: the divorce duel
Page by GABRIEL TUDOR
Even today, the word “divorce” carries a certain stigma, but in the Middle Ages, it was downright a taboo subject. That is why, to avoid divorce at any cost, people invented strange methods of resolving marital disputes.
One of them was the divorce duel. This absurd practice originated in medieval Germany, from where it spread throughout Europe and even became a legal way of “dissolving” marriages.
If a couple could not resolve their marital disputes and no other method worked, a duel was organized.
To make the fight “fair”, the man was put into a pit, while the woman could move freely around him. Both wore tight-fitting clothes and had a hood on their head. Then, the woman received as a weapon several stones, while the man received three short, thick clubs.
The fight took place under the supervision of judges, who decided the winner. Although it is not clear how the winner of the duel was chosen, it is assumed that the victor was declared to be the one who showed more strength, knocking down or immobilizing the opponent.
No one truly knows if it was a fight to the death or if it ended once one of the parties surrendered. What can be noted from the numerous reports about the marital duel is that this duel was a dangerous method of resolving marital disputes.
The German fencing master Hans Talhoffer even wrote, in 1467, a manual about this bizarre custom, a manual entitled “The Fencing Book”.
In its pages, Talhoffer explained the rules of the divorce duel:
“According to the instructions, the husband was placed up to the waist in a pit three feet wide, dug in the ground, and had one hand tied behind his back.
The woman had to be armed with three stones, each weighing between 1 kilogram and 5 kilograms and wrapped in cloth. The man could not leave his pit, but the woman was free to run around its edge.
If the man touched the edge of the pit with his hand or arm, he had to give one of the clubs to the judges. If the woman hit him with a stone while he was doing this, she lost one of her stones.”
But the worst part of the whole story was that the loser had to die. If the woman won the duel, the man was executed in public. If the man won, the woman was buried alive, being considered guilty of the marital problems.
This atrocious practice gradually disappeared in the 16th century.