When “Restoring Hope” Meant Losing Safety: Patricia’s Story and the Hidden Cost of Christian Marriage Therapy

by | Oct 11, 2025 | First-person stories, Focus on the Family, Hope Restored Marriage Intensive

When “Restoring Hope” Meant Losing Safety: Patricia’s Story and the Hidden Cost of Christian Marriage Therapy

Patricia went to Focus on the Family’s Hope Restored marriage intensive looking for help. Instead, she says the program sent her back into danger.

She and her husband attended three marriage intensives led by the same Hope Restored leadership team (Robert Paul, Mark Pyatt, Bob Burbee, and Brad Sparks), prior to the program changing its name to Hope Restored and becoming part of Focus on the Family. She said all three times they interacted with licensed therapist Robert “Bob” Burbee, who is considered one of their top counselors and was also an author of the 2023 book Restoring Hope, the official marriage therapy manual published by Focus on the Family.

Patricia is not her real name, but I’ve been given written permission to share her story. From the first intensive, Patricia says the counseling staff knew violence had occurred. She and her pastor had reported abuse and child-safety concerns. Staff had medical records from an attack that sent her to the hospital and knew a court had issued a restraining order.

Yet Patricia says the violence itself was never directly addressed. Instead, the intensives followed the program’s standard emphasis on communication, personal responsibility, respect, and reconciliation.

By the final day of the third intensive, Patricia says she told the counselors she feared for her life on the drive home and feared for her children once they returned. According to her account, no safety plan was created. Instead, the closing session — in the last 15 minutes — turned toward a spiritual breakthrough: counselors focused on her husband’s faith, he wept and repented, and the moment was treated as evidence that God had intervened.

Then they sent the couple home together.

Patricia says the violence resumed. After another year of escalating abuse, she filed for divorce to protect herself and her children. Today she is disabled, in part — she believes — due to the years of trauma and violence.

Her story raises a larger question about the Hope Restored model: What happens when restoring the marriage becomes more important than determining whether the marriage is safe?

This post is not mainly about whether one couple stayed married. It is about a counseling model. Patricia’s experience, together with accounts from other former participants (especially more recent ones), suggests that abuse can be reframed as a communication problem, forgiveness can replace accountability, and emotionally powerful spiritual moments can be mistaken for evidence of lasting change.

What follows examines six recurring patterns in participant accounts and in the program’s own published model.

Research Context: What Hope Restored Says About Its Own Model

Hope Restored and the Restoring Hope therapist manual present marriage restoration as both a therapeutic and spiritual process. Therapists are taught that God is the ultimate healer, and applicants to the intensive program are screened for openness to marital restoration.

One required question asks whether participants would accept a “miracle from God” in their marriage. The program’s own published description identifies this as part of its admission process.

They point to their research as evidence of their success, but the program’s 2011 research article was not an independent randomized clinical trial. It was an in-house description of the model accompanied by follow-up survey data from a small self-selected portion of former participants. The authors also acknowledged limitations in the amount of long-term follow-up data available, stating that a better survey needed to be conducted. As of Oct 2026, no scientifically valid study on their success rates has been published.

That context matters because Patricia’s story is not simply a complaint that the program failed to save her marriage. Her account challenges something more fundamental: whether a model built around reconciliation can adequately respond when the central problem is abuse rather than ordinary marital conflict.
All names of participants in these accounts have been anonymized to protect their identities. Quotations from other attendees come from their survey responses and describe their reported experiences.

Correction, Partial Retraction, and Apology — October 13, 2026: An earlier version contained quotations that I could not verify. I take full responsibility. Those quotations have been removed and replaced with quotations verified against original attendee survey responses. Accuracy matters, and I regret this serious error.

😞 Theme 1 — When Abuse and Betrayal Become Communication Problems

Patricia did not attend just one marriage intensive. She and her husband attended three, seeking help from the same marriage ministry over time. According to her account, counselors knew about serious physical violence, medical treatment following an attack, a restraining order, and concerns involving the children.

She says the abuse was never directly addressed.

What makes Patricia’s experience particularly troubling is the trust she placed in the ministry. She believed its Christian identity and association with Gary Smalley meant the counselors would understand abuse and respond appropriately.

Instead, she says the work continued to emphasize communication, personal responsibility, and relational restoration.

“They refused to even talk about, let alone deal, the physical abuse that had intensified to include the children. Each time we went, the counselors empowered him in his mindset to keep on abusing and manipulating. I am not against what they teach there – as long as there is no abuse. Abuse is a game changer. It has to be dealt with differently. Their counselors are not equipped, trained, or have even a basic knowledge of abuse dynamics and tactics. Yet back then, they advertised they were the 911 for marriages. They told us me, specifically, that they understood abuse. I trusted them to tell the truth because they were associated with Gary Smalley and because they were Christian.” — Patricia

Other Hope Restored attendees describe related concerns.

Rachel says she explicitly disclosed emotional and verbal abuse in her intake paperwork and during a telephone conversation before attending. She hoped counselors would help her husband recognize his controlling and abusive behavior. Instead, she reports that his actions leading up to the intensive were never discussed.

Elena reports that counselors told participants they would not focus on particular marital problems but would instead teach communication skills. She had attended hoping for help with her husband’s pornography use, inappropriate relationships with other women, and anger.

Sarah says that after the intensive, her husband used the communication techniques against her to prevent her from expressing concerns.

These accounts raise an important question: What happens when an abusive spouse’s conduct is treated primarily as a relational cycle or communication problem?

In ordinary marital disagreements, helping both spouses recognize their contributions to conflict can be constructive. But abuse and coercion are not necessarily mutual problems.

When one spouse is intimidating, controlling, or repeatedly deceiving the other, focusing on both partners’ emotional reactions risks obscuring the difference between the person causing harm and the person responding to it.

Examples: When Communication Takes Priority

Participant Her Words Why It Matters
Patricia “Abuse was never, ever worked on or brought up by anyone… they just go through their program doing their thing.” She says serious violence was known to counselors but was not addressed.
Rachel “I did list emotional and verbal abuse in my paperwork and mentioned it on the phone conversation.” She reports disclosing abuse before treatment began.
Rachel “Nothing was mentioned during the intensive about his actions leading up to that week.” She says the previously disclosed conduct was never addressed during the intensive.
Elena “We were told we weren’t going to focus on paticular issues, but we were going to learn how to communicate.” She describes communication training taking precedence over particular problems.
Sarah “After the intensive he used the tools against me to prevent communicating and hearing my feedback.” She reports that tools intended to improve communication were subsequently used to shut it down.

Quoted wording is preserved from the original survey responses, including spelling errors.

When the Injured Spouse Becomes the Problem

Patricia also described an experience that reveals another potential danger of treating abuse primarily through the lens of communication and emotional reactions.

She described herself as an obedient, quiet-spoken Christian woman. Yet during her final intensive, she says her fear became so overwhelming that she began screaming.

“My obedient, quiet-spoken Christian woman self started screaming.” — Patricia

This is an important part of her account. A woman who understood gentleness, obedience, and restraint as Christian virtues reached the point of expressing extreme distress while seeking protection.

Other respondents reported situations in which their own reactions or attempts to discuss misconduct became the focus.

Joanna attended hoping counselors would address her husband’s emotional and verbal abuse. She says his abusive patterns were not confronted. Instead, she reports being told to stop bringing up examples of abuse and that her supposed desire for punishment was damaging the marriage.

Dana attended while her husband was concealing important information about his sexual behavior. She says a therapist confronted her about yelling, while her husband’s deception was not recognized.

Examples: When the Injured Spouse Is Corrected

Participant Her Words Why It Matters
Patricia “My obedient, quiet-spoken Christian woman self started screaming.” Her description illustrates the intensity of the fear she says she experienced while seeking help.
Joanna “I was told to stop bringing up the examples of abuse and my ‘need for punishment’ was what was destroying my marriage!” She reports that discussing abusive incidents was treated as destructive to the marriage.
Dana “I was told that my yelling made my therapist feel unsafe and if I continued, she was leaving” She reports being confronted about her yelling while believing her husband’s deception remained unidentified.
Dana “No one questioned if my husband was lying and we were promised that the intensive would bring healing it didn’t” She says the dishonesty underlying the marital crisis was not adequately identified.

A therapist may have legitimate reasons to establish boundaries around yelling or other disruptive conduct. But correcting visible distress does not eliminate the need to investigate the circumstances producing that distress.

A spouse can express anger inappropriately and still be telling the truth about serious mistreatment.

The danger comes when the distressed person’s reaction becomes the primary problem while the conduct she is reacting to remains unaddressed.

✝️ Theme 2 — When Forgiveness Takes Priority Over Accountability

Forgiveness, repentance, grace, and personal responsibility are important Christian concepts. But forgiveness does not eliminate the need for accountability, and repentance is not proved merely by an apology or emotional display.

In marriages involving abuse, coercion, chronic deception, or repeated betrayal, the first questions should include what happened, who was harmed, whether the misconduct has stopped, and whether the injured spouse is safe.

Patricia says the counselors repeatedly knew of serious abuse, yet the work remained oriented toward relational and spiritual restoration.

Other former participants describe similar imbalances.

Elena says the counselors focused more on her forgiveness than on her husband’s immoral conduct.

Melissa attended while dealing with betrayal and addiction in her marriage. She reports feeling that she was expected to forgive while her husband was asked comparatively little.

Joanna described what she regarded as a forgive-and-forget approach, without adequate emphasis on consequences, repairing harm, or rebuilding trust.

Examples: Forgiveness Without Sufficient Accountability

Participant Her Words Why It Matters
Patricia “They were fully aware… and never addressed the abuse.” She says known violence did not receive the intervention she believed was necessary.
Elena “The counselors focused on me forgiving my husband more than they focused on his immoral behavior.” She explicitly describes forgiveness receiving more attention than her husband’s misconduct.
Melissa “The therapists did not seem to want to hear from me, it seemed that I was tasked with forgiving and he wasn’t asked much.” She describes an imbalance in what was expected of the betrayed spouse and the spouse whose behavior caused the injury.
Joanna “The Forgive And Forget narrative without any consequences or instructions on the importance of repairing the relationship or importance of restoring trust.” She criticizes an approach she experienced as emphasizing forgiveness without adequate accountability or trust repair.
Hannah “I still left feeling like I was doing all the work.” She describes feeling disproportionately responsible for improving the marriage despite her husband’s continued inappropriate relationships.

These accounts do not establish that every Hope Restored counselor minimizes misconduct. They do, however, show that several participants experienced an imbalance between the attention given to their reactions and forgiveness and the attention given to their spouses’ harmful behavior.

A victim can take responsibility for her own choices without accepting responsibility for another person’s abuse.

And an abusive spouse’s obligation to stop causing harm should not depend on whether the injured spouse has become calmer, more forgiving, or more understanding.

Forgiveness cannot substitute for demonstrated change, accountability, or safety.

🌅 Theme 3 — When Hope at the Intensive Doesn’t Last at Home

Hope Restored’s Christian framework makes room for prayer, repentance, forgiveness, and powerful spiritual experiences. These moments may be meaningful, but feelings of hope at the end of an intensive do not necessarily predict what happens after the couple returns home.

Someone may cry, apologize, confess wrongdoing, or promise to change. A couple may leave feeling emotionally connected and optimistic about their future.

But an emotional breakthrough is not the same thing as sustained behavioral change.

Patricia’s account makes this distinction especially important.

During the final minutes of her third intensive, she says the counselors focused on her husband’s spiritual condition. He knelt, wept, and expressed repentance. Patricia says the moment was treated as a spiritual breakthrough even though she had been expressing serious fears about returning home with him.

“In the last two minutes on the last day, my husband got down on his knees and wept.” — Patricia

According to Patricia, the violence resumed after they returned home.

Other former attendees have described the difference between their hopes during the intensive and the realities afterward, although their circumstances did not necessarily involve the same kind of spiritual intervention.

Hannah initially found the experience wonderful and life-changing. But she later reported that her husband continued communicating with other women.

Leah says her husband’s extreme jealousy returned before they had even completed their trip home.

Monica reports that her former husband made no changes after returning home.

Grace says her marriage eventually improved, but she attributes that progress to later specialized treatment and disclosure work rather than the Hope Restored intensive.

Examples: Hope During the Intensive, Disappointment Afterward

Participant Her Words Why It Matters
Patricia “In the last two minutes on the last day, my husband got down on his knees and wept.” She says this spiritual moment was followed by renewed violence after returning home.
Hannah “It felt life-changing and wonderful at the time. But then we came home and things didn’t stick, and we did not keep using the tools, and it really didn’t matter if we were using the tools or not because he was still communicating with other women.” She contrasts the positive experience of the intensive with continuing betrayal afterward.
Leah “My husband’s jealousy was back in full strength before we even left the state the day the intensive ended.” She reports that her husband’s troubling behavior returned almost immediately.
Monica “Ex made no changes upon coming home” She reports no lasting behavioral improvement in her former spouse.
Grace “Our marriage improved, but NOT due to the marriage intensive.” She attributes later improvement to specialized treatment obtained after the intensive.

Robert Paul has publicly described Hope Restored’s approach as deeply connected to participants’ relationships with God. The program regards spiritual intervention as an important part of its therapeutic model. But there’s another side to it: Robert Paul’s 2024 book Empowered to Love explains that the model repeatedly redirects the more invested spouse to focus on themselves—and categorizes them as as insufficiently motivated, unforgiving, or unwilling to persevere if they bring up their spouse’s marriage-destroying sin. This creates an endless hamster wheel of unfair guilt and self-blame, and continues to expose them and their children to danger.

Prayer and spiritual experiences are not themselves the problem.

The danger arises when remorse, tears, or a powerful religious moment is treated as adequate evidence that serious misconduct has ended.

In a marriage involving abuse, coercive control, or chronic deception, the relevant questions must extend beyond a moving conversation or tearful apology.

Has the harmful behavior stopped? Is the offending spouse taking responsibility without blaming the injured spouse? Is change continuing over time? Can the injured spouse make decisions freely, without intimidation or retaliation?

Hope can motivate change. But hope is not proof that change has occurred.

🛑 Theme 4 — When Heart Talk Vulnerability Becomes a Safety Risk

The Restoring Hope manual repeatedly emphasizes safety and security. Its approach encourages couples to recognize emotional wounds, identify reactive cycles, disclose vulnerable feelings, and develop emotional connection.

These techniques may be valuable when both spouses can safely share personal information.

But emotional openness is not interchangeable with protection from abuse.

Indeed, Restoring Hope itself acknowledges that failing to recognize abusive dynamics can have devastating consequences. The book discusses how couples therapy can intensify abuse when those dynamics are not properly identified.

That makes it especially important to compare the program’s stated safety principles with participants’ experiences.

Patricia says she told counselors she feared for her life during the drive home from her final intensive and feared for the children once they returned.

“I told them I might not make it home alive… and they sent me home with him.” — Patricia

According to her account, no adequate safety plan was developed. Instead, the final intervention focused on her husband’s spiritual condition, and the couple left together.

Patricia reports that the violence resumed.

Sarah describes a different kind of vulnerability. She says sensitive personal information was shared with a spouse she considered unsafe and was subsequently used against her.

Rachel, who had disclosed emotional and verbal abuse during intake, says she was frightened even before arriving at the intensive. She reports being terrified of traveling with her husband and says the counseling did not address his conduct leading up to their visit.

Lydia describes a less individualized experience. She believed the program offered more general teaching than therapy tailored to the couple’s specific circumstances.

Examples: Emotional Vulnerability Versus Actual Protection

Participant Her Words Why It Matters
Patricia “I told them I might not make it home alive… and they sent me home with him.” She reports an immediate safety concern without what she considered an adequate protective response.
Sarah “It was too surface and did not dig deep, sensitive information was shared with my unsafe spouse and used against me later” She reports that sensitive disclosures created additional vulnerability after the intensive.
Rachel “I was terrified to get in a car and drive with him 6 hours to get there.” She describes significant fear despite having disclosed emotional and verbal abuse before the intensive.
Lydia “I wish I had saved my money and not gone. There was almost no therapy done that was specific to one couple. It was more teaching than therapy.” She questions whether generalized instruction adequately addressed individual circumstances.

These reports do not mean that every Hope Restored counselor fails to assess abuse or that all participants experience the program as unsafe.

Some attendees have reported positive experiences, including counselors who respected their decisions or recognized that not every marriage should continue.

Nevertheless, the reports above raise important questions about how consistently safety procedures are implemented.

What happens when abuse is reported during intake? Are additional private safety assessments conducted before a marriage intensive begins? How do counselors distinguish ordinary marital conflict from coercive control? When is conjoint therapy discontinued? What happens if someone fears violence during the journey home?

And what safeguards prevent sensitive information shared during counseling from becoming another tool of abuse?

A spouse may understand her partner’s childhood wounds, communicate respectfully, and disclose her deepest feelings while still being subjected to intimidation or violence.

Emotional connection cannot substitute for physical protection.

That is why identifying abuse and establishing safety must precede interventions that encourage greater marital vulnerability.

Why Patricia’s Story Matters

Patricia’s experience raises questions about much more than whether Hope Restored successfully preserved one marriage.

It also raises questions about how the marriage ministry’s model was applied by experienced professionals.

According to Patricia, this was not a case of seeking help from an inexperienced counselor unfamiliar with the ministry’s therapeutic approach. She believed she was receiving care from professionals who understood and helped develop the model.

She trusted that they understood abuse, particularly because of their Christian identity and connection to Gary Smalley’s marriage ministry.

That trust is part of what makes her account so consequential.

She says counselors knew about a violent assault requiring medical treatment, a restraining order, and safety concerns involving her children. Yet she reports that the actual violence was never adequately addressed.

By the end of the third intensive, Patricia says she was terrified of returning home with her husband.

Instead of a concrete safety intervention, she describes a closing session focused on her husband’s spiritual condition and emotional repentance.

She says they left together and that the violence resumed.

After further abuse, Patricia eventually divorced in an effort to protect herself and her children. Today, she reports living with disabilities that she believes are partly attributable to the years of trauma and violence.

Her experience also illustrates an important limitation of marriage outcome statistics.

Follow-up surveys can tell researchers whether respondents remain married and how they rate their relationships. But remaining married does not establish that abuse has stopped, that coercion has ended, or that both partners are safe.

Likewise, hope at the conclusion of an intensive cannot by itself establish whether harmful behavior will resume afterward.

Patricia’s account raises serious questions that deserve careful investigation.

The Restoring Hope manual itself warns that, “The importance of recognizing patterns of abuse in marital relationships could not be overemphasized or more critical.” And “Failure to recognize and respond appropriately to these dynamics can have devastating consequences.” p. 271)

That makes the central question particularly important: Are the safeguards described in the book consistently applied in actual marriage intensives, including those conducted by experienced therapists? Or is there double-speak in the manual that can erase or minimize dangerous behavior?

One of the most troubling passages in Restoring Hope appears in its discussion of abuse and separation. The manual says that when one spouse is “accused or identified as more unsafe than the other,” the accused spouse may believe the other person’s “perception of abuse or lack of safety is invalid or unjust,” and then adds that “each spouse’s experience and voice must be acknowledged and attended to.” It specifically applies this framing to reports of “controlling, emotionally abusive behavior.” (p. 190 RH)

Of course an accused spouse should be heard fairly. But abuse assessment cannot stop at validating two competing experiences. A report such as “he blocked the doorway, controlled the money, threatened me, or grabbed me hard enough to bruise me” is a claim about conduct; “I think it is unfair to call that abuse” is the accused person’s interpretation of that conduct. Those are not equivalent kinds of evidence. The therapist’s first task should be to determine what actually happened and whether coercion, intimidation, restraint, threats, monitoring, or violence occurred. Otherwise, concrete harm can be reframed as a disagreement about perception, while the larger FMT framework continues to point toward restoration rather than dissolution. That concern is heightened by the surrounding text, which speaks of ending a separation and returning to a shared household and states that divorce assistance is outside FMT’s therapeutic focus. (p. 190 RH)

Conclusion: Restoration Cannot Come Before Safety

Across Patricia’s account and the other participants’ survey responses, five concerns emerge:

  • Serious misconduct may be overshadowed by communication training. Some attendees report that counselors concentrated on communication techniques when they wanted abuse, deception, or betrayal addressed directly.
  • Forgiveness may receive more attention than accountability. Several participants explicitly describe being encouraged to forgive while believing their spouses’ harmful behavior remained insufficiently addressed.
  • Abuse may be reframed as two competing perceptions of safety. The Restoring Hope manual itself says that an accused spouse may view the other spouse’s “perception of abuse or lack of safety” as invalid or unjust and emphasizes attending to both spouses’ experiences. Fairly hearing both spouses is important, but abuse assessment must also determine what actually happened and whether coercion, intimidation, threats, restraint, monitoring, or violence occurred. Otherwise, concrete conduct can disappear into a dispute over perceptions. (p. 190 RH)
  • Hope at the intensive may not translate into lasting change. Participants describe feeling hopeful or emotionally moved during the program, followed by continued betrayal, controlling behavior, or other harmful conduct afterward.
  • Telling people to be vulnerable can create additional risks when abuse is present. Some attendees report that sensitive disclosures or communication techniques were subsequently used against them.

These reports do not prove that every Hope Restored therapist practices unsafely or that every couple receives inadequate counseling. Some participants report positive experiences, and the published model contains explicit warnings about abuse.

But written warnings are not the same as demonstrated safeguards. (And dozens of people have told me that Hope Restored’s failure to identify abuse had devastating consequences.)

Nor does a counselor’s good intention guarantee that a vulnerable spouse will be protected.

Patricia did what Christian marriage ministries often encourage struggling spouses to do. She sought professional help. She returned for additional paid counseling. She remained open to reconciliation. And she trusted Christian professionals to recognize the danger and guide her toward something better.

Eventually, she says, hope meant something different.

It meant leaving, divorcing, and pursuing safety for herself and her children.

Reclaiming Real Hope

Real hope requires more than reconciliation, communication skills, tears, prayer, or promises.

It requires truth, accountability, and safety.

It means recognizing when a marriage is not merely distressed but dangerous. It means distinguishing ordinary conflict from coercive control and abuse. And it means refusing to treat emotional or spiritual breakthroughs as proof that harmful behavior has ended.

For Patricia, restoration did not mean preserving the marriage.

It meant finding a way to protect herself and her children.

Why Patricia’s Story Matters

Patricia’s experience puts a human face on the limitations of Hope Restored’s published outcome data.

Short-term satisfaction surveys can tell us whether participants felt hopeful after an intensive. They cannot, by themselves, tell us whether coercion stopped, whether violence resumed, or whether a participant later concluded that leaving was necessary for survival.

Stories like Patricia’s therefore matter not because one anecdote proves what happens in every intensive, but because they identify harms that broad program-success statistics may fail to measure.

Conclusion: Restoration Cannot Come Before Safety

Across these accounts, three concerns recur:

  • Abuse can be reframed as mutual conflict.
  • Forgiveness and repentance can be emphasized before accountability is established.
  • Spiritual hope can be treated as evidence of change before safety has been demonstrated.

Patricia’s story is especially important because she did exactly what Christian marriage ministries routinely tell desperate spouses to do: she sought help, returned for more counseling, remained open to reconciliation, and kept hoping things would change.

Eventually, she says, hope meant something different.

It meant leaving, divorcing, and finally getting to a higher level of safety and finding relief.

Reclaiming Real Hope

Real hope requires more than reconciliation, communication skills, tears, prayer, or promises.

It requires truth, accountability, and safety.

It means naming abuse for what it is, distinguishing ordinary marital conflict from coercive control and violence, and refusing to treat a spiritual breakthrough as proof that dangerous behavior has ended.

For survivors like Patricia, restoration did not mean preserving the marriage. It meant reaching the point where she and her children could finally be safe.

Critiques of Focus on the Family and Hope Restored

A collection of articles, videos, participant accounts, and analyses examining Focus on the Family and Hope Restored’s teachings, outcome claims, marriage counseling model, and treatment of abuse.

 

Are you going through a life-saving divorce? I’d like to invite you to my private Facebook group, “Life-Saving Divorce for Separated or Divorced Christians.” Just click the link and ANSWER the 3 QUESTIONS. This is a group for women and men of faith who have walked this path, or are considering it. Allies and people helpers are also welcome.  I’ve also written a book about spiritual abuse and divorce for Christians. You may also sign up for my email list below.

50 MOST POPULAR BLOG POSTS

Start Here

Physical and Emotional Abuse & Infidelity

God Allows Divorce to Protect Victims

 

Does God Hate Divorce? No, Most English Bible Translations Don’t Say That


How to Find a Good Supportive Church

 

What If My Pastor Says It Would Be Wrong to Get Divorced for
Abuse?

Divorce Saves Lives: The Surprising (Wonderful!) Truth About Divorce Nobody
Told You

Will I Ever Find Love Again? Dating After Divorce: Good News

Common Myths

FOLLOW

Get the Life-Saving Divorce Book

The Life-Saving Divorce is about divorces for very serious reasons: a pattern of sexual immorality, physical abuse, chronic emotional abuse, life-altering addictions, abandonment, or severe neglect. This book will give you hope for your future, and optimism about your children. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Ways to purchase the book

Order in paperback or KINDLE on   :

Order on   :

Buy PDF Buy ePub

Sign up for the email list for find out about helpful new blog posts, videos, and FREE Kindle book giveaways