Husband Files for Divorce, Wife Cuts Off His Penis

HUSBAND FILES DIVORCE; WIFE CUTS OFF HIS PENIS

By DENISSE SALAZAR / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER



GARDEN GROVE – A woman is behind bars after police say she poisoned her husband, cut off his penis and threw it in the garbage disposal because he "deserved it."

At about 9 p.m. Monday, officers went to a condominium in the 1400 block of Flower Street after a woman called 911 and reported a medical emergency, Garden Grove police Lt. Jeff Nightengale said.

The woman, Catherine Kieu Becker, met officers at the door and told them her husband was in the bedroom, Nightengale said. Becker also told officers that he "deserved it," he said.

Officers found a 51-year-old man tied to the bed and bleeding profusely from his groin, he said. The man, who has not been identified, underwent emergency surgery at UCI Medical Center in Orange and was listed in serious condition.

Becker, 48, is accused of using an unknown poison or drug in her husband's food to make him sleepy, Nightengale said. She then tied him to the bed and, as he woke up, she cut off his penis with a 10-inch kitchen knife, Nightengale said.

"He woke up right before she cut off his penis," he said.

She tossed the penis in the garbage disposal and turned it on, Nightengale said, adding that pieces of penis were recovered and taken to UCI.

The victim told detectives that he believed there was something wrong with the food Becker prepared for him, Nightengale said, adding that detectives took the food to be tested.

The couple married on Dec. 29, 2009. The victim filed for divorce in May, citing "irreconcilable differences," according to court records. The couple have no children.

Nightengale said there is no record in Garden Grove of domestic violence between the couple.

Becker was arrested on suspicion of aggravated mayhem, false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, administering a drug with intent to commit a felony, poisoning and spousal abuse, Nightengale said. She is being held at the Orange County Jail in lieu of $1 million bail.

"We have not been able to interview him and she is not talking," Nightengale said. "The motive is unknown other than the divorce proceedings."

The investigation is ongoing.

Contact the writer: 714-704-3709 or desalazar@ocregister.com

Unemployment Down; Divorce Filings Up

DIVORCE FILINGS GET A BOOST FROM THE ECONOMY

By LYNEKA LITTLE
April 28, 2011








A recovering economy has provided a boost for, of all people, divorce attorneys. After the great recession, more and more couples are seeking to finalize divorces after months of hesitation.

"It's been driven primarily by finances," says John Slowiaczek, the vice president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "In Nebraska, where there is low unemployment, our practice was very healthy last year. Now we are finding we have a lot [more clients]."

From January to April 2011, Slowiaczek says his firm, Lieben, Whitted, Houghton, Slowiaczek, and Cavanagh, saw an increase of 25 percent over the same period last year.

"When the market was down it was a great time to file," says Slowiaczek. As the market began to pick up, more and and more clients are wishing they filed last year to decrease the size of settlements."

The recession created difficulties for couples on both financial and emotional levels, Linda Lea Viken, the president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, told ABC News.

Couples may have "assets that have gone down in value, they may have a home that is underwater, and the business value has gone down, making it very risky for one side or the other to get a divorce during a financial downturn," says Viken.

Viken says some couples may have had doubts or insecurities about divorcing because they worried about paying the bills, which were once divided in half, on their own.

In 2009, 57 percent of the attorneys in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers reported a decrease in divorce filings. The academy includes 1,600 attorneys.

"Forced to weigh damaged marriages against tight budgets and uncertain financial outlooks, many spouses seem more willing to try and wait out the recessionary storm," said Gary Nickelson, the president of the academy at the time.

Now there has been a turnaround.

"I'm seeing an increase in divorce filings and business," says Lewis Kapner, a lawyer in West Palm Beach, Florida. "With the recession there was a big slowdown. There's definitely an increase in the last few months."

But Kapner says he is unable to define the reason behind the recent traffic. "We've always had people that were money-short and they still would seek some sort of relief in terms of their marital problems."

With an improving economy,the surge in divorces means clients must take precautions to avoid losing out when a couple's assets are divided.

"There are a lot of things that you have to really be careful about in this kind of economy if you're moving forward," with a divorce, says Viken. "You have to be very sensitive to what's happening in the market so things don't come back to bite them."

Some couples are still stuck, though.

Gaye Markham, who lives near San Francisco, has a cautionary tale. In December, her husband said he no longer loved her. Soon after, he lost his job -- and could not afford to move out.

"We had to cash in his IRA and use his unemployment to live on now," says Markham. "There is no way we can have two households and pay."

Markham and her ex-husband-to-be have been forced to divide up their home. She now sleeps in the guest room and the two share meals together. They have four children; the youngest, a senior in high school, is caught in the middle.

Markham, who once worked in accounting, says she has applied for 120 to 150 jobs, but only received two invitations for interviews.

"I know that I want to be responsible for myself so not only am I interviewing to help the financial situation right now," says Markham, "I want to have a home my children can come home to and I want to help with their college expenses."

Split Ends: What Happens When the Rich Divorce

$plit ends By LINDA STASI Last Updated: 11:37 AM, March 29, 2011 Posted: 11:11 PM, March 28, 2011

The most shocking thing about tonight's quite interesting CNBC documentary, "Divorce Wars," is the discovery that for insanely greedy newly-rich people, a bad divorce will cost them even more than their out-of-control, million-dollar-plus weddings!

Correspondent Melissa Francis takes a look at some of the most repulsively fascinating -- and expensive -- divorces of recent times including the divorce of the guy who brought us PayPal, Elon Musk. According to divorce-attorney-to-the-rich Raoul Felder, now that we're in the age of no-fault community property splits, divorces are no longer about which spouses cheat -- but about how spouses try to cheat each other out of the shared assets. Take the Musks, for example. He and his future wife, Justine, met when they were in college. Shortly thereafter, they moved in together into a terrible college apartment with two roommates and three dogs. They got married after he struck it rich, and he had her sign a post-nup agreement. Eight years and five kids later, they split and then all hell broke loose. He was worth billions, and she had agreed to a $750,000 post-nup pay out. Fair? Wrong? Incredibly greedy? How much does one guy need?

Then, there's the infamous case of Margaret Spenlinhauer, the Connecticut housewife and mother of scores of kids whose very rich husband immediately seemed to suddenly be not very wealthy after they split up. It took 18 -- yes, 18 -- years for her to personally find the money he'd hidden. And his deception amounted to fraud -- a criminal offense. Another rich guy's wife snooped in his computer, opened his journal and discovered that he considered her an unfit mother. What did she do? Loaded up his computer with kiddie porn and then took it to her attorney. Millions of dollars and a federal investigation later revealed that she had loaded it all up during one week -- when he was out of town -- and then erased the memory so it couldn't be traced back to her. The result? It was so dastardly a deed that she even lost custody of her own kids.

But, seriously, what kind of idiot keeps a journal on his computer? A psycho, that's who.

As Felder says, "If you go into a marriage without a pre-nup, you don't need a lawyer, you need a psychiatrist."

Taking Sides in a Divorce, Chasing Profit

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Michelle Pont and her husband amassed millions of dollars in properties and investments from a freight-hauling business that they started with a single stake-bed truck in 1991. They bought a four-bedroom home, then a second home, a vacation home, a motor home and half a dozen cars.

Michelle Pont is one of the company’s clients.

But when Ms. Pont decided to seek a divorce last year, she quickly ran out of money. She had no job. Her husband controlled the family’s investments. A few months of legal bills maxed out her credit cards and drained her retirement account.

She wrestled with accepting a smaller settlement than she considered fair. Then a lawyer referred her to Balance Point Divorce Funding, a new Beverly Hills lender that offers to cover the cost of breaking up — paying a lawyer, searching for hidden assets, maintaining a lifestyle — in exchange for a share of the winnings.

In October, Balance Point agreed to invest more than $200,000 in Ms. Pont’s case.

“It’s given me hope,” Ms. Pont said. “I don’t view it as a loan; I view it as an investment in my future. They are helping me to get what is rightfully mine.”

With some in the financial world willing to bet on almost anything, it should be no surprise that a few would see the potential to profit from the often contentious and emotional process of ending a marriage.

So far, the number of companies investing in divorce is small — Balance Point is one of the few that do it exclusively. But other businesses are gearing up. A New York start-up, Churchill Divorce Finance, also is planning to enter the business. The company’s chief executive previously co-founded a publicly traded Australian company, ASK Funding, that has invested tens of millions in divorce cases there.

While this business is in its infancy, Balance Point is part of a bigger trend — the growing industry that invests in other people’s lawsuits, arming plaintiffs with money to help them win more money from defendants. Banks, hedge funds and boutique firms like Balance Point now have a total of $1 billion invested in lawsuits at any given time, industry participants estimate.

Lawsuit lenders initially focused on personal injury cases, but over time they have sought new frontiers, including securities fraud cases brought by disgruntled investors, whistleblower claims against corporations and property development disputes.

Stacey Napp, a lawyer by training who has spent her career in finance, founded Balance Point last year with money from her own divorce. Since then, she has provided more than $2 million to 10 women seeking divorces. She says she is helping to ensure both sides can defend their interests.

“Everybody knows somebody where at the end of the day, the divorce was not equitable,” she said. “We want to help those people, the underdog, to make sure they get their fair share.”

Divorce cases may be a promising niche for lenders because costs can mount quickly — some top lawyers in Los Angeles charge more than $500 an hour — and because state laws uniformly require plaintiffs to pay lawyers upfront, rather than promising them a contingency fee, or a share of any winnings, as is common in other civil cases.

The state laws were written to make people think twice before pursuing a divorce. But Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, a New Jersey lawyer who serves as a vice president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, which sets ethical standards for divorce lawyers, said she welcomed the use of divorce financing as a workaround because, in her view, society also has an interest in helping people who are determined to separate.

“It furthers the concept of putting both spouses on an equal playing field,” she said.

Ms. Napp developed the idea for Balance Point during an eight-year legal battle with her former husband, which she paid for with loans from family and friends. She filed to divorce David Napp in 2001 after 13 years of marriage. Mr. Napp, an investor in mobile home parks, agreed to pay $500,000 and allow her to keep the family home. But shortly after the deal was finalized, Ms. Napp was stunned to discover that Mr. Napp was about to sell his stake in the parks for $5.7 million. She asked the court to reopen the settlement, setting off a legal dispute that lasted until the spring of 2008, when an Arizona judge ruled in her favor.

“Somewhere along the way a light bulb went off,” Ms. Napp recalled. “I said, ‘I’m kind of a perfect storm. I know how to find assets, I understand litigation, I have resources — what happens to people who are missing even one of those elements?’ ”

She decided to seed a business with some of the money she had won in Los Angeles, the city of fleeting marriages. Balance Point has since raised additional money from private investors. Ms. Napp said she expected the first case to be resolved later this fall, providing her first profit.

Her customers fall into a pattern. They are women. They generally do not have jobs. They often are raising small children. And their husbands run their own businesses, making it tough to obtain financial information.

A stay-at-home mother with three children spent 16 months trying to compel her husband to produce current financial statements for his solo law practice. She was running out of money when Balance Point agreed in August to provide financing.

A woman who signed up in January has used the backing to build a case that she is entitled to share the value of 17 properties her husband put in a trust for the benefit of his children from a previous marriage. Both women declined to be identified.

Then there is Ms. Pont, who is battling her estranged husband, Jeffery D. Pont, over the value of their trucking company. The couple met in 1990. The next year, he bought his first truck with Ms. Pont’s tax refund of $2,300, she said. He started a small business carrying ink and printing supplies. Mr. Pont and his lawyer did not return calls for comment. By 1996, the couple had married and the company had rented an 1,100-square-foot warehouse. Ms. Pont said she answered the phones while nursing their first child.

By the late 1990s, there was enough money flowing in for Ms. Pont to stay home with the child. And the company has continued to prosper. The main warehouse is now 150,000 square feet.

But she moved out in the spring of 2009 and filed for divorce. The estranged couple has since spent several hundred thousand dollars on lawyers, accountants and investigators. The judge overseeing the case has warned that the total could exceed $1 million if the two sides cannot reach a compromise.

Ms. Pont said the money from Balance Point would allow her to sustain the case for as long as necessary. Balance Point does not charge interest; instead, clients pay the company a percentage of their winnings.

Lawyers who finance other civil cases generally keep at least a third of the winnings. Ms. Napp said Balance Point required a “substantially smaller” share from clients, though she declined to be more specific.

The company wants to focus on people with marital assets between $2 million and $15 million, a bracket Ms. Napp described as “the lower end of the high end.” She said that investing in smaller disputes was not worthwhile. Wealthier people, she said, seemed to resolve divorces more easily — perhaps because they still felt wealthy in the aftermath. “Anything south of $15 million, when you divide that in half and take out the legal fees, you’re not in the same house, you’re not taking the same trips — your life is different,” she said. “You can’t maintain that same quality of life that you’re used to.”

Ms. Napp says she urges clients to set aside emotions and negotiate a settlement. Indeed, she says she will not take clients who seem unwilling to compromise, fearing that their pursuit of justice will undermine Balance Point’s pursuit of profit. She cannot compel clients to settle.

But Ms. Napp concedes that clients are attracted to Balance Point in part because she did not settle her own case. Most lawsuit lenders avoid any role in the management of cases, seeking to disarm critics who worry that lenders seeking profits will corrupt the pursuit of justice. Ms. Napp, by contrast, sells the benefit of her own experience.

Ms. Napp said that as she decided to create Balance Point, she realized that she could not settle her own case. “I had to win,” she said. “Because I don’t know that, if you don’t have a happy ending, that people are going to think it’s such a fantastic idea.”

Eva Longoria Files For Divorce

Eva Longoria Parker has filed for divorce from her husband of three years, San Antonio Spurs point guard Tony Parker, UsMagazine.com has learned.

She filed Wednesday morning in Los Angeles Superior Court.

In the filing, she requested that her name be restored from Parker's name to Eva Jacqueline Longoria.

Documents also state that the couple had a prenuptial agreement. It was signed in 2007, the year they wed, and amended in 2009.

She is seeking spousal support.

She cited irreconcilable differences for the split.

The filing comes on the heels of the latest Us Weekly, which reports that Longoria Parker, 35, recently discovered that her husband, 28, has been exchanging personal texts with a mutual female friend for nearly a year -- hundreds in just one month.

"Eva is heartbroken by the betrayal," says one insider (Longoria Parker’s rep had no comment; Parker’s rep could not be reached).

The two met in November 2004.

They had a brief rough patch that year -- "We were going through growing pains," she explained to Cosmopolitan -- but they worked it out.

He popped the question in 2006. "It was more than I'd imagined," she told Cosmo of his proposal. "I was shocked, too. It was like two in the morning. He got down on one knee. He was so nervous, which is what I find so surprising and sweet. I said, 'Honey, you know how much I want to marry you!'"

They famously wed in a $1.5 million wedding at a 17th century castle in Paris in July 2007 -- in front of her Desperate Housewives co-stars, including Teri Hatcher and Felicity Huffman.

Baby rumors soon followed.

"Tony and I want ... as many as we can have. Three, four, five," she said in 2008. "We think about adopting too."

The same year, the 5-foot-2 star dodged pregnancy rumors when she packed on 7 lbs. for Housewives ("I'm just fat," she quipped).

The two appeared to be in fine shape this past summer as they celebrated his birthday and their third wedding anniversary.

"We're thinking about it. Pretty soon," he told Us in June when asked about starting a family. "She's got one more year with Desperate Housewives, so we'll see what happens."

With their time apart, he told Us, "Skype helps a lot. As long as you both make an effort, it works ... [but I miss] not being able to kiss her every day!"

Father and son fight over £5.1m divorce settlement

By Stephen Howard, PA

A father is fighting his son in court over a £5.1 million divorce settlement he made with his former wife two months before she died.


Fraser Richardson inherited his mother Harriet's estate and is resisting his father Eric's application to cut the settlement.


The father ran a hotel chain and flats business with his wife and faces a massive damages claim after a child was injured falling from one of the apartments.


His insurers have warned him they may not indemnify him and he wants the divorce settlement figure varied so that any damages award is shared with the estate of his late wife.


Sally Harrison QC, representing the son, told three judges at the Court of Appeal: "The relationship between Fraser Richardson and his father has broken down entirely and they could not work together in any way in the future."


The son says that when the divorce settlement was agreed, his father retained 52.5% of the couple's joint assets, close to £11 million, and in return agreed to take on all the risks of the business from which his mother had retired.


Nigel Dyer QC, representing the 71-year-old father, said any damages award should be a joint liability because the accident happened when his former wife was his business partner.


He said it was not foreseeable during the divorce proceedings that the insurers might repudiate liability under the insurance policy and refuse to indemnify the business.


"In these circumstances it is not fair or reasonable that the husband alone should be liable for the damages award; any damages award should still be a liability to be met by the husband and wife's estate."


He said the husband had been advised by solicitors that if the claim succeeded on liability, the damages could be in the region of £3 million with costs of £300,000.


"If the husband has to pay £3.3 million he will lose nearly 60% of the assets he retained under the order."


Mr Dyer said it would not affect the wife's estate by staying the settlement order until after the accident damages hearing.


"The wife is dead so she does not need the money," he said.


At the time of the divorce settlement hearing, both husband and wife were 70 and had been married for more than 40 years.


During their marriage they carried on a business as hoteliers, property investors and landlords.


Their assets comprised two hotels in the North West, five in Devon and Cornwall and nine blocks of flats in Manchester, worth a total of £40 million.


After deducting investment loans mainly taken out by Mr Richardson, the net assets were £10,906,734.


The accident in 2004 involved a two-year-old girl who fell from a window in one of the couple's blocks of flats.


Mr Dyer said that three and a half years after the accident, a personal injury claim was issued against Mr Richardson and the Richardson Group which he ran with his wife.


He said: "If the husband has to meet the damages claim with no contribution from the wife's estate, then Fraser will end up with a much greater share of his parents' wealth than his father will retain."


He said the settlement order should be set aside and a new lump sum order made to reflect the true value of the assets after any damages award had been taken into account.


Ms Harrison said Mr Richardson failed to act promptly in appealing against the order.


When the settlement was made, the judge had balanced the fact that the husband was retaining assets with far greater potential for growth against a lump sum paid to Mrs Richardson with the husband's acceptance of all the risk laden assets and any losses, she said.


Judgment was reserved in the case.

How To Be a Good Client

HOW TO BE A GOOD CLIENT

(And Save Yourself Money)

by Attorney Kelly Chang Rickert

1. DO YOUR JOB.

a. Tell me the truth. In order for me to be at my very best, I need you to tell me the whole truth about your legal matter, even if it is unpleasant, and even if you think it hurts you. Remember, our success depends on the accuracy of the information I receive.

b. Return my phone calls and emails and promptly comply with my requests. During the course of my representation, I may ask you to do some things to help me help you. At such times, please do your part and promptly comply with these requests. Remember, you are paying for my time, which includes "nag" time.

c. Tell me how you feel. I hope you will be satisfied with my work. If so, please tell me. And if for some reason, you are not satisfied, do not be afraid to tell me so that I may discuss the matter with you.

d. Ask questions. If at any time you do not understand something that is, or is not, happening, please ask questions.

e. Pay your bill timely. Remember, in order to represent you, I rely on services and staff, whom I have to pay. I have a business to run. If you do not pay your bills, my services will be terminated, no matter how much I like you. It’s not personal – it’s business.


2. LET ME DO MY JOB.

a. My commitment is to give you my best effort. I commit to give you all of my experience, training, and energy in my representation of you.

b. To promptly return your phone calls. I understand how important it is that your phone calls be promptly returned. I will make every effort to return your call the same day, and at the latest, within 24 hours.

c. To be honest with you. I will tell you the truth as I honestly see it.

d. To keep you informed. I am aware that your legal issues are very important to you. I do not take your trust for granted, and I plan to keep you fully advised about the progress of your legal matter.

e. To tell you what is going to happen step by step. I intend to tell you as best I can what to expect before it happens, so that you are not surprised or confused.

f. To treat you with respect. You are my client, and as such, you deserve the utmost respect from your attorney.

3. WHAT YOUR DIVORCE LAWYER CAN DO FOR YOU

a. Explain the law in California on issues of divorce, annulment, child custody and visitation, child support, spousal support, property division, and restraining orders. What is an annulment? What happens between filing and Judgment? What is an OSC? What is the date of separation? How much support can you expect to pay?

b. Explain procedure of the court. How long will this take? What will the Judge be like? What can you expect when you make this particular demand? Is it worth it to go to court?

c. Represent you in court. Your lawyer will be your voice. They will step into your shoes and tell your side of the story, convincingly and appropriately. They will speak the law language for you. They will pacify a grumpy Judge who doesn’t like excessive verbosity.

d. Represent you to opposing party and counsel. You are a good person. You have reasonable demands. Your lawyer will be on your side, arguing for your demands.

e. Protect your interests. You have rights defined by the law. You need to know your rights, and how to enforce them. Your lawyer is your protector.

f. Creatively argue the FACTS to best support the LAW. We can’t easily change the law, but lawyers are gifted at spinning FACTS which can get you the most you need under the law.

4. WHAT YOUR DIVORCE LAWYER CANNOT DO FOR YOU

a. Easily Change the Law. Times change. Laws change. But let’s be realistic, will the laws change during your divorce? Probably not. The 401k you acquired during the marriage, with no prenup? That is community property. We can’t change that. Your wife isn’t working and hasn’t worked for 10 years? You need to pay spousal support. Even if she cheated on you? That’s right. You have to pay spousal support. We can’t change that. You are a stay-at-home mom with a law degree with 2 school-aged children and you never want to work a day in your life, and want to collect support forever? You will eventually need to find a job. Child support terminates at age 18, or 19 if in high school. Spousal support – depends on many other factors. But unless you find another source of support, you WILL need to find a job. We can’t change that.

b. Make Your Personal Decisions For You. I can always give excellent advice and counsel on legal issues. For example, is $2500 a fair amount of support to pay, for 10 months? Is your parenting plan reasonable under the circumstance? Can you move to Hawaii? However, I can never tell you to get divorced.

c. Speed Up the Process. You can trust me to deliver prompt service. However, I cannot control the other side. Or their lawyers. It only takes one party to drag out a case. I promise you that unless it is due to strategy, I will not purposely prolong your case. Also, I do not control the courts. I promise that I will get you the earliest mediation and court appointment. However, I can never promise you’ll get a trial date by January 2011, or an OSC date by May 2012. I do not control the court calendar.

d. Predict the Outcome with Guarantee. I have a lot of experience with the court system, and family law. It is my job, and I do it well. However, I am not God. I do not have a crystal ball, and I don’t have sixth sense. I am human, and I err. So do NOT rely on me to tell you, to absolute perfection, what will happen if we go to court.

e. Finally, We Cannot Be Your Personal, On-Call, 24/7 Advisor. We understand that your case is important to you. And we honor that. You have our word that we do not take our clients’ trust for granted. Please understand – there are other clients in your similar situations. If I am in court on the day of your emergency, I simply cannot tend to you immediately. I am very fortunate to have very competent staff, who are always here to respond to your needs. However, if you need to talk to me, you will need to make an appointment. I will do my best to get to you ASAP.

f. Understand my role and do not take me for granted. I am your lawyer. Some of my clients – I even consider my “family”. But I am NOT an on-call robot, and barring true emergencies, I cannot respond to your calls after-hours, or on the weekends. I cannot give you my cell phone number. You have my email, and during work hours, you can expect a response, same day. There are times we may look at and answer your email over the weekend, but this is generally the exception and not to be relied upon by you that we are accessible on weekend.

Divorce: Why the big breakup in China?

By Jaime FlorCruz, CNN Beijing Bureau Chief

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Divorce in China was once frowned upon
  
• In today's China, some 4,500 couples split up every day
  
• Psychiatrist: Divorce on the rise because of social, economic changes
  
• Another reason for increase in divorce: Changes to regulations make it easier to split
  

"Jaime's China" is a weekly column about Chinese society and politics. Jaime FlorCruz has lived and worked in China since 1971. He studied Chinese history at Peking University (1977-81) and served as TIME Magazine's Beijing correspondent and bureau chief (1982-2000).

Beijing, China (CNN) -- There was hardly any confusion about marriage and family life in old China. Traditional Chinese culture frowned on divorce. An ancient proverb admonishes newlyweds: "You are married until your hair turns white."

In practice, of course, men played a more dominant role in Chinese families and got away with most things, including marital dalliances. It was shameful for women to marry more than once while it was easy for men to take one or more concubines.

But the times are changing in modern China. The economic miracle that followed the country's opening to the outside world after 1979 has dramatically changed social mores --- and getting divorced no longer carries the social stigma it once did.

In today's China, some 4,500 couples split up every day. More than 2.46 million couples divorced in the country last year -- nearly twice the number in 2001.

See more of CNN's special coverage of China

"The rise in divorce rate is expected because China over the years has been going through drastic social and economic changes," said Xu Haoyuan, a U.S.-trained psychiatrist who offers marital counseling on a Beijing radio hotline. "Views on sex and marriage have swung from one extreme to another -- from the extremely puritanical to the free-wheeling."

So, why are couples in China splitting up? Experts have many explanations, but a key reason was the revision in 2003 of the marriage registration regulation, making it easier to divorce.

Before the change, couples seeking a divorce were required to get letters from their work units or neighborhood committees that explained and endorsed their reasons for breaking up.

Those who did not want to be subjected to lectures, gossips and shame opted to stay miserably married. Under the new rules, if couples are not fighting over property rights or child custody, they can get their divorce in minutes.

Other reasons for the spike in divorce: increased social mobility, especially the relaxation of the "hukou," or household registration system, that has accelerated internal migration; the one-child policy, some negative effects of rapid economic growth on peoples' values, and the dramatic change in the status of women.

Ideologues blame it on fickleness that comes from social-climbing, gold-digging, unsatisfied sexual or romantic desire. Still others attribute it to indiscriminate adoption of Western values and "bourgeois ideas" of materialism and egotism.

Not surprisingly, marriage counselors find that a common cause of Chinese divorces is marital infidelity, euphemistically referred to as "di san zhe," or "a third party."

"Extra marital relations are quite common nowadays," said the psychiatrist Xu. "Almost every couple who call in say they have extramarital relations. People are confused about what is right and what is wrong."

For four years, one of my friends had carried on a long-distance marriage with his wife. He worked in Beijing as a producer of movies and TV programs, while his wife chose to stay in her native Shanghai, where she worked as a white-collar employee in a trading company.

Not long ago, my friend found a girlfriend -- a young Beijing native. When his wife learned about it, she demanded a divorce. They parted ways amicably.

In some regions in China, the reasons for divorce have nothing to do with the romantic relationship: some people, wanting to take advantage of government programs, have entered into fake divorces.

For example, many property-hungry couples in Shanghai were found forging divorce documents in early October in order to circumvent a new government regulation. To curb speculation and cool the red-hot Shanghai property market, the local government recently issued new rules limiting families to buying one additional home per family. By faking divorce, couples hoped to buy as many as four homes instead of two, according to the Chongqing Business Newspaper.

In the past, marriage in China was mainly an economic arrangement where women were dependent on husbands and relegated to the role of breeder and nurturer.

Chinese women are now achieving higher economic and social status. These changes transform marriage into a mutually satisfying partnership.

Many Chinese now put a premium on love, mutual affection, compatibility and sexual equality.

All things considered, I see rising divorce rates in China in a positive light.

Phases in Divorce

by Charles Jackson

Divorce is not only a legal technicality. Besides legal formalities, there are also emotional episodes to come through. Being sad when a marriage ends is natural. Although it's painful, grief is a healthy emotional response to the loss of an important relationship. We are hardwired to feel it, and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect otherwise. While sorrow and grief can be very hard to handle, most people do understand and accept the inevitability of these feelings.

Divorce can be expensive. Before you ever meet with an attorney, discuss the pros and cons and decide how to get divorced first. Take time to prepare relevant divorce information about protecting assets in divorce, clearing debts, matrimonial assets and ongoing financial obligations. Your attorney will need a number of documents before he or she can take action, but by collecting this information in advance you can reduce the time and expense of divorce. Among other things, you should bring current utility bills, documents relating to your mortgage, tax records, bank statements, vehicle titles, retirement documents and investment records.

Premarital asset protection includes prenuptial agreement. Prenuptial agreement is the agreement that speaks about the financial dealings when a couple is sure about their marriage separation. The divorce courts in states accepting prenuptial agreements will uphold the contract if the agreement is fair and includes all relevant information about assets. If the court believes that one party was forces to enter into the agreement under duress or coercion, the prenup will be thrown out. Prenuptial agreements may be challenged for a number of reasons, including concealment of assets, fraud and coercion. In some cases, the divorce court may presume that one spouse intentionally concealed assets if the prenuptial agreement is grossly disproportionate.

This documentation will allow your attorney to take immediate action in retaining assets and develop a broad outlook regarding the fair division of marital assets. Call your attorney's office to ask what specific documents they require and if they have any forms for you to complete prior to the meeting. Couples who have filed for divorce by mutual consent must wait for a minimum period of six months. This is called the Divorce waiting period. The divorce waiting period varies from state to state.

The postnuptial agreement comes into existence only when the couples have undergone serious changes in financial circumstances. This agreement typically includes debts, assets, income and expected monetary gain in the future.

About the Author
Books about divorce to identify and retain your hard earned assets when considering marriage or divorce, including strategies to help you achieve these goals

Divorce Lawyer FAQ (II)

A relationship next to my divorce advocate??
My husband and I are in the middle of a divorce. We have five children together and they are living full time near me in my parent's home. Yesterday, I asked a question roughly an 'incident', concerning my soon-to-be ex, Cooper, and another girl. I ended up calling my lawyer and discussing my dealing...

A smaller amount expensive advocate contained by knoxville for divorces so i can start acceptance some child support really soon?
need help near an attorney who is afforable and can help me start receiving child support for my son i really entail some help with this its be 8 years now with no give support to from absent parent "> Simply...

Acting as own advocate contained by divorce. can i?
If I am acting as my own lawyer, Can i contact my wifes lawyer? Is here any reason not to? etc? If she has a attorney, you should, too. That said, you CAN save a lot of money by convention paperwork, dividing assets, working out a parenting plan, etc. yourselves. I got...

Acting as own advocate within divorce. can i?
If I am acting as my own lawyer, Can i contact my wifes lawyer? Is here any reason not to? etc? There's no officially recognized reason why you can't, but be VERY careful. Anything you utter may count against you later on. Unless you are an attorney yourself, you are no match for...

After anyone divorced contained by ohio,found wife misrepresented her income 2 years subsequently, legal representative said be more than 1 y
can court overturn a divorce decree if misrepresentation was discovered after the statue of cut expired?i discovered that my ex-spouse has misrepresented her income and i discovered that 2 years after papers were signed. the result be that her spousal...

After dragging a divorce out for 3 years, can she drop her legal representative and step to legally recognized aid?
Will legal aid take on a crust just because she doesn't want to or have the money to money her lawyer anymore? We recently found out that documents be falsified so her, and possibly her lawyer, will owe us money.. so...

Alabama divorce attorney give a hand!?
Ordered papers online for divorce for my brother. Received various papers all are signed and notarized. His wife is surrounded by IL and she will be served by sheriff. What forms do I need to take when I database for him (he cant go he's in Alabama within a FedPrison) do I need to take...

Alimony request 9 years after divorce settlement? My husband of late recieved a reminder from his ex wife's legal representative
stating that now his obligations in connection with child support are over (his 2 children are over 18 and in college) she wants him to settle all the college expenses and to pay her alimony, she get over a million cash...

Am going through a divorce an my spouses attorney is delay the trial date,how do i find to speed up the trail?
i live in california the original date is for july 14 within california ,her lawyer wants to adjournment it until september because she lives in atlanta.i cant wait that long because my mom who lives within a different country...

An adorable elderly couple dance to a divorce Lawyer.?
and ask for divorce. - But, you're the kindest, most loving couple in town. What happened? Do you really want a divorce. - Yes, it's over, finished. We can't stand eachother. It's ...over. -Ok, okay....starts the procedure. "but I must ask, why? you've been married over 50 years... why do you want...

Any competent divorce lawyer or smart directive students?
Here's the situation. My dad is married and wants a divorce. He moved to another state while his wife stayed in another state. She is hiding from him. His attorney states that he has done all he can do to try to find her. My quiz is, how does someone try to serve...

Any competent divorce lawyer or smart ruling students?
Here's the situation. My dad is married and wants a divorce. He moved to another state while his wife stayed in another state. She is hiding from him. His advocate states that he has done all he can do to try to find her. My examine is, how does someone try to serve...

About the Author
Any Divorce Lawyers out at hand?
I need some advice. I hold been divorced for a year. During the divorce my ex-husband got the house. When we originally financed the house it be in both of our names. In our divorce papers it say that he has to refiance the house into his name contained by a "timely manner". What is...

Kelly Chang Rickert Explains "The Jude Law"

I had the privilege and pleasure of appearing on this fabulous TV show last night on Style Network.

In case you missed it - here is a piece of advice, straight from a divorce lawyer's mouth.

What is the difference between Divorce and Legal separation?

Divorce

v.

Legal Separation

and other FAQ's

by Certified Family Law Specialist Kelly Chang Rickert

Divorce with Lawyer Kelly Chang Rickert sound bite

The Long History of Difficult Divorce

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do
False confessions, graphic testimony, framed spouses and 'unknown blondes': a history of the difficulty in getting divorced, and how it could now change





Unhappy couples in New York have long gone to extremes to throw off the shackles of matrimony—in the worst cases, framing their spouses, producing graphic testimony about affairs, or even confessing to crimes they did not commit. All this will fade into the past if, as expected, Gov. David Paterson signs a bill making New York the last state in the country to adopt unilateral no-fault divorce.

Their counterparts in other states have had it much easier. California adopted the first no-fault divorce bill in 1970; by 1985, every other state in the nation—but one—had passed similar laws. In New York, the miserably married must still charge each other with cruel and inhuman treatment, adultery or abandonment—or wait one year after a mutually agreed legal separation—in order to divorce.

New York's first divorce law was passed in 1787, at the initiative of a cuckold named Isaac Gouverneur, who had the good fortune of securing Alexander Hamilton as his counsel. From then until the Divorce Reform Law of 1966, adultery was considered the only grounds sufficient for divorce. The woman whose husband fled West; the wife who was physically abused; even a man who discovered on his wedding night that his bride was of "doubtful sex" did not meet the criteria for a full divorce. If they were lucky, they might obtain a legal separation—or after 1829, an annulment.

The legal situation put many distressed couples in a quandary. Some devised adulterous situations. Those with money went out of the state to divorce—to places like Indiana in the 1800s, Nevada in the 1900s, or Mexico in the 1960s. (The cheap, fast Mexican divorce drew many celebrities too, including Marilyn Monroe during her split from Arthur Miller.) Still others remained bound to spouses they could not stand.

In the early 20th century, a number of young women hired themselves out as "correspondents" in divorce cases—essentially bait for philandering husbands. In 1934, the New York Mirror published an article titled, "I Was the 'Unknown Blonde' in 100 New York Divorces!"—featuring one Dorothy Jarvis, who earned as much as $100 a job. Ms. Jarvis had several tactics, beyond taking her date to a hotel room and awaiting ambush. There was the "push and raid" (where she would push herself into a man's room, dressed only in a fur coat, then whip off her outer garment), as well as the "shadow and shanghai" and the "dance and dope."

There never was a shortage of juicy testimony. In the case of Cock v. Cock of 1818, an eyewitness testified that when Mr. Cock was away, he came to the house before sunrise to find Mrs. Cock in bed with another man, "she being undressed and he having his breeches unbuttoned and down about his feet." Likewise, in the case against Aaron Burr, the infamous founding father, a servant deposed that she had seen "Jane McManus with her clothes all up & Coln Burr with his hands under them and his pantaloons down." (The divorce was granted the day Mr. Burr died.)

Then there were those who were desperate enough to fight the law, most without success. The extraordinary case of Eunice Chapman, which drew national attention, was a rare instance of triumph. When she met her husband in Durham, N.Y., in 1802, Eunice Hawley was a 24-year-old beauty headed toward spinsterhood, thanks to her family's financial failings. She was initially put off by the advances of James Chapman, a widower 15 years her senior, as she later wrote. However, he had a good business and promised her security, and after two years of his dogged pursuit, Ms. Hawley accepted his hand in matrimony.

Eight years and three children later, the marriage fell apart—according to her, because of his abuse, alcoholism and infidelity; according to him, because of her "abusive tongue." Finally James left Eunice and their children, ages 2, 5 and 6, with no plans to return.

This might have been the end of the story, had James not encountered a religious society called the Shakers. Now famed for their spare, modern-looking designs, the Shakers were a radical sect that, in following the teachings of their English-born leader, Ann Lee, required their followers to renounce their sexuality, all private property and personal family bonds for a larger spiritual union. To James, the Shakers' spiritual inspiration and orderly lifestyle were just what his family needed, and he hoped that his wife would agree. Eunice did not.

Real-estate heir Leonard Kip Rhinelander (above, at right) eloped with Alice Jones, below in October 1924—and then New York society discovered she was a descendant of West Indians. The following month, Mr. Rhinelander filed for an annulment, claiming she had deceived him about her race. After a well-publicized trial, the annulment was denied; in 1929, the couple finally agreed to a Nevada divorce.

..From there, the Chapmans became locked in a battle for the children who were, by the law and culture of the times, considered the rightful property of their father. Eventually James exercised his paternal prerogative: While Eunice was out, he seized the children and brought them to the Shakers near Albany, N.Y. Later, when Eunice came after them, he took the children into hiding among the Shakers in New Hampshire.

Eunice was now an abandoned woman, with no access to her children, and no secure way to rid herself of her husband—a situation made critical by the legal status of married women at the time. From the moment she wed, a woman like Eunice was considered "civilly dead" by law. She could not own property, earn her own wages, sue or be sued, make a will or sign any other contract by herself. She would remain in this state until her husband died or she managed to obtain a full divorce.

Years later, Eunice's opponents would complain that Eunice had plenty of recourse in the existing divorce laws, since she could charge her husband with adultery. Not only did she claim to have had "ocular demonstration" of his cheating, but she had an eyewitness who could testify that he had seen James lying in a back-room bed with another woman. The problem was that even with such proof there was no guarantee that a court would take Eunice's side. What scholar Hendrik Hartog has called a "guilty mind" was required, and Eunice would be hard pressed to present her husband as an incorrigible adulterer, in need of punishment, when he had joined a celibate sect.

So what was Eunice to do? An adultery trial would be expensive, as well as risky. And she would have to find James first, which could take years, if she could find him at all. One other legal option remained: She could petition the legislature for a special act of relief that would grant her a divorce as an exception to the existing laws. To do so, she would have to find a legislator willing to push her petition through the Capitol—no small task, since it would have to win favor not only with both houses, but also with the Council of Revision, which had veto power over the legislature. Legislative divorces were actually common practice in other states. But then, as now, New York was unusually conservative and had never issued one.

Going against the odds—and all expectation that she remain at home and accept the actions of her husband—Eunice fought a dazzling battle. She courted politicians, published tell-alls about Shaker "captivity" (which she distributed to legislators, and peddled everywhere), and made the most of what would now be called her phenomenal sex appeal. Her case drew crowds and even attracted the attention of Thomas Jefferson (who was outraged on behalf of the Shakers, not Eunice).

Some lawmakers argued that as badly as Mr. Chapman had treated his wife, the couple should not be allowed a divorce, since an end to the marriage would deprive the bad husband of the possibility of reform. Other legislators warned that permitting this divorce would ruin womankind. In an 1818 speech before the Assembly, Nathan Williams said: "By passing this bill we shall give boldness to the female character. Those who are now apparently amiable, encouraged by the success of Eunice Chapman, would become emboldened….They, like Eunice Chapman, would leave their retirement, and by familiarity with gentlemen would soon…be haunting the members—for divorces!"

Other arguments were not so different from those in circulation today. A main strike against Eunice's case was that relaxing the divorce laws would prevent couples from working things out, leading to more divorces. Some contemporary activists would agree: The spokesman for the New York State Catholic Conference, Dennis Poust, recently suggested that the proposed changes would make it "easier to get out of marriage than it is to get out of a cell phone contract."

After three years' battle, in 1818, Eunice Chapman clinched unprecedented rights to custody, as well as a legislative divorce. Her triumph did not secure her children's return—for that, mob action, a final face-off with James in New Hampshire, and yet another kidnapping would be required—but it paved the way. Others have not been so fortunate. Eunice's case goes down as the only divorce in New York history that was granted as a direct act of legislature.

Petitioners did lobby the legislature, and at least one got part way through. Jacob Scramling sought relief after his wife, who had been presumed drowned, was found and then refused to come home. He won approval in the Assembly in 1845, but lost in the Senate. One year later, legislative divorce was abolished, leaving divorcing New Yorkers with no option but to charge each other with adultery. Only in 1966, with the passage of the Divorce Reform Law, did New York catch up with other states by admitting additional grounds such as abandonment and cruelty.

It was only three years later, however, that no-fault divorce legislation passed in California. And for 25 years, New York has stood alone in its approach to no-fault divorce. On the cusp of a historic rewriting of the laws, some critics complain that the current no-fault divorce bill is bad for women. Others champion it as a step forward. Many other couples throughout history would surely have welcomed it.

—Ilyon Woo is author of "The Great Divorce."

Prop 8 Found Unconstitutional

Ruling against Prop. 8 could lead to federal precedent on gay marriage






Judge says the same-sex marriage ban was rooted in 'moral disapproval' and violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Opponents vow to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

August 4, 20106:38 p.m.

Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles — A federal judge declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, saying that no legitimate state interest justified treating gay and lesbian couples differently from others and that "moral disapproval" was not enough to save the voter-passed Proposition 8.

California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions," U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said in his 136-page ruling.

The ruling was the first in the country to strike down a marriage ban on federal constitutional grounds. Previous cases have cited state constitutions.

Lawyers on both sides expect the ruling to be appealed and ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court during the next few years.

It is unclear whether California will conduct any same-sex weddings during that time. Walker stayed his ruling at least until Friday, when he will hold another hearing.

In striking down Proposition 8, Walker said the ban violated the federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and of due process.

Previous court decisions have established that the ability to marry is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to people without a compelling rationale, Walker said. Proposition 8 violated that right and discriminated on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation in violation of the equal protection clause, he ruled.

The jurist, a Republican appointee who is gay, cited extensive evidence from the trial to support his finding that there was not a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. In particular, he rejected the argument advanced by supporters of Proposition 8 that children of opposite-sex couples fare better than children of same-sex couples, saying that expert testimony in the trial provided no support for that argument.

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the backers of the ballot measure, said he believed Walker would be overturned on appeal.

Walker's "invalidation of the votes of over 7 million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process," Pugno said.

He called it "disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop. 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop. 8."

At least some legal experts said his lengthy recitation of the testimony could bolster his ruling during the appeals to come. Higher courts generally defer to trial judges' rulings on factual questions that stem from a trial, although they still could determine that he was wrong on the law.

John Eastman, a conservative scholar who supported Proposition 8, said Walker's analysis and detailed references to trial evidence were likely to persuade U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a swing vote on the high court, to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

"I think Justice Kennedy is going to side with Judge Walker," said the former dean of Chapman University law school.

Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, said Walker's findings that homosexuality is a biological status instead of a voluntary choice, that children don't suffer harm when raised by same-sex couples and that Proposition 8 was based primarily on irrational fear of homosexuality "are going to make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling."

Edward E. (Ned) Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference, said he believed the judge's ruling was both legally and morally wrong.

"All public law and public policy is developed from some moral perspective, the morality that society judges is important," he said. To say that society shouldn't base its laws on moral views is "hard to even comprehend," he said.

In his decision, Walker said the evidence showed that "domestic partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriage" and that marriage is "culturally superior."

He called the exclusion of same-couples from marriage "an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and marriage."

"That time has passed," he wrote.

Although sexual orientation deserves the constitutional protection given to race and gender, Proposition 8 would be unconstitutional even if gays and lesbians were afforded a lesser status, Walker said. His ruling stressed that there was no rational justification for banning gays from marriage.

To win a permanent stay pending appeal, Proposition 8 proponents must show that they are likely to prevail in the long run and that there would be irreparable harm if the ban is not enforced.

Lawyers for the two couples who challenged Proposition 8 said they were confident that higher courts would uphold Walker's ruling.

"We will fight hard so that the constitutional rights vindicated by the 138-page, very careful, thoughtful, analytical opinion by this judge will be brought into fruition as soon as possible," pledged Ted Olson, one of the lawyers in the case.

Other gay rights lawyers predicted that the ruling would change the tenor of the legal debate in the courts.

"This is a tour de force — a grand slam on every count," said Shannon Price Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "This is without a doubt a game-changing ruling."

Wednesday's ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed last year by two homosexual couples who argued that the marriage ban violates their federal constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

The suit was the brainchild of a gay political strategist in Los Angeles who formed a nonprofit to finance the litigation.

The group hired two legal luminaries from opposite sides of the political spectrum to try to overturn the ballot measure. Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, a conservative icon, signed on with litigator David Boies, a liberal who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave George W. Bush the presidency in 2000.

Gay-rights groups had opposed the lawsuit, fearful that the U.S. Supreme Court might rule against marriage rights and create a precedent that could take decades to overturn.

But after the suit was filed, gay rights lawyers flocked to support it, filing friend-of-court arguments on why Proposition 8 should be overturned.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend the marriage ban, leaving the sponsors of the initiative to fill the vacuum. They hired a team of lawyers experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Proposition 8 passed with a 52.3% vote six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

At trial, the opponents of Prop. 8 presented witnesses who cited studies that showed children reared from birth by gay and lesbian couples do as well as children born into opposite-sex families. They also testified that the clamor for marriage in the gay community had given the institution of marriage greater esteem.

The trial appeared to be a lopsided show for the challengers, who called 16 witnesses, including researchers from the nation's top universities, and presented tearful testimony from gays and lesbians about why marriage mattered to them.

The backers of Proposition 8 called only two witnesses, and both made concessions under cross-examination that helped the other side.

The sponsors complained that Walker's pretrial rulings had been unfair and that some of their prospective witnesses decided not to testify out of fear for their safety.

When Walker ruled that he would broadcast portions of the trial on the Internet, Proposition 8 proponents fought him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won a 5-4 ruling barring cameras in the courtroom.

The trial nevertheless was widely covered, with some groups doing minute-by-minute blogging. Law professors brought their students to watch the top-notch legal theater.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

maura.dolan@latimes.com

carol.williams@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

Woman Finds Out Her Husband Is a Bigamist ... Via Facebook

CLEVELAND -- She knew her husband took a lot of business trips. Now she knows why.


"Megan" said she didn't suspect her husband of another marriage until the evidence was on her computer screen.

Her relatives pointed her to the other woman's Facebook page where Megan discovered multiple photos of her husband and the woman together.

A few weeks later, dozens of wedding photos also showed up on Facebook showing Megan's husband and his new bride.

"It's rubbing that salt into the wound of already finding out that my husband's having an affair," Megan said. "The pictures are out there for the world to see. It's not just that I have the knowledge, but I see the proof and everyone I know sees the proof and people I don't know see the proof."

Megan's wedding took place in Italy in 2005, and by 2008, the couple had two children and a home in a Cleveland suburb. As a businessman with his own plane, Megan's husband traveled a lot around the country and across the world.

Megan said she first became suspicious when her husband claimed to have been in China and even brought back gifts for the kids yet his passport had been at home the entire time.

To eventually learn on Facebook that her husband not only had another lover but now a second wife was devastating, Megan said.

"If they're going to have the affair, they're going to have the affair," she said. "But it's extra. It adds impact to the hurt, when they're posting the things they post about the affair. Pictures of the vacations they're taking with the other, the lover, the extra person. (Facebook posts) just cause a whole new hurt."

Common mistakes

Divorce attorneys are finding a staggering increase in evidence gathered through social media, according to CNN.

Andrew Zashin, a family law expert from Cleveland, said the artificial "celebrity" status that Facebook creates often clouds people's judgment of how those posts and others will come back to hurt them in court.

"If someone's having an illicit relationship, they don't know what the other side of that relationship is broadcasting to the world on Facebook," Zashin said. "Often times we'll see a man or woman denying an affair or a relationship. All of sudden, things start to unravel, not because they did something but because the other part of this illicit relationship did something (using social media)."

Body of Evidence

An attorney for Megan's husband told WTSP in Tampa, Florida that he doesn't believe he needs a divorce because he learned after the fact that the marriage paperwork was never filed correctly in Italy and therefor they were never married.

Megan claims everything with the marriage was done "by the book" and that a prenuptial agreement was signed. She plans to use pictures, posts, and other information from Facebook in her eventual divorce hearing.


© 2010 WKYC-TV

The Un-Divorced

The Un-Divorced

By PAMELA PAUL
Published: July 30, 2010

JOHN FROST and his wife had been unhappily married for much of their 25 years together when his company relocated him in 2000. So when he moved from Virginia to Knoxville, Tenn., he left her behind.

At first, it wasn’t clear what would happen next. Would she follow him? Or would they end up divorced?

The answer: neither. “After a few months,” Mr. Frost said, “we both realized we liked it this way.”

Technically, the two are married. They file joint tax returns; she’s covered by his insurance. But they see each other just several times a year. “Since separating we get along better than we ever have,” he said. “It’s kind of nice.”

And at 58, he sees no reason to divorce. Their children have grown and left home. He asked himself: Why bring in a bunch of lawyers? Why create rancor when there’s nowhere to go but down?

“To tie a bow around it would only make it uglier,” Mr. Frost said. “When people ask about my relationship status, I usually just say: ‘It’s complicated. I like my wife, I just can’t live with her.’ ”

The term “trial separation” conjures a swift purgatory, something ducked into regretfully and escaped from with due speed, even if into that most conclusive of relationships, divorce. We understand the expeditious voyage from separation to divorce, the desire for a clear-cut ending that makes way for a clear-cut beginning. We hardly look askance at the miserably married or the exes who hurl epithets in divorce court.

But couples who stubbornly remain separated, sometimes for years? That leaves us dumbfounded. “I see it all the time,” said Lynne Gold-Bikin, a divorce lawyer in Norristown, Pa., who is the chairman of the family law department at Weber Gallagher. She can cite a docket of cases of endless separation.

With one couple separated since 1989, the wife’s perspective was, “We still get invited as Mr. and Mrs., we go to functions together, he still sends me cards,” Ms. Gold-Bikin said. As for the husband, “He cared for her, he just didn’t want to live with her.”

But at his girlfriend’s urging, he finally initiated divorce proceedings. Then he became ill and she began taking over his finances — a bit too wifelike for him. “He said, enough of this, there’s no reason to get divorced,” Ms. Gold-Bikin recalled.

Among those who seem to have reached a similar conclusion is Warren Buffett, the wealthy chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. Mr. Buffett separated from his wife, Susan, in 1977 but remained married to her until her death in 2004. All the while, he lived with Astrid Menks; they married in 2006. The threesome remained close, even sending out holiday cards signed, “Warren, Susan and Astrid.”

Also in the ranks of the un-divorced: the artist Willem de Kooning had been separated from his wife for 34 years when she died in 1989. Jann and Jane Wenner separated in 1995 after 28 years but are still married, despite Mr. Wenner’s romantic relationship with a man.

Society is full of whispered scenarios in which spouses live apart, in different homes or in the same mega-apartment in order to silence gossip, avoid ugly divorce battles and maintain the status quo, however uneasy. In certain cases, the world assumes a couple is divorced and never learns otherwise until an obituary puts the record straight.

Separations are usually de facto, rarely pounded out in a contract, and family law is different state to state. But even long-estranged couples are irrefutably bound by contractual links on issues like taxes, pensions, Social Security and health care.

Divorce lawyers and marriage therapists say that for most couples, the motivation to remain married is financial. According to federal law, an ex qualifies for a share of a spouse’s Social Security payment if the marriage lasts a decade. In the case of more amicable divorces, financial advisers and lawyers may urge a couple who have been married eight years to wait until the dependent spouse qualifies.

For others, a separation agreement may be negotiated so that a spouse keeps the other’s insurance until he or she is old enough for Medicare. If one person has an existing condition, obtaining affordable health care coverage is often difficult or impossible. The recession, with its real estate lows and health care expense highs, adds incentives to separate indefinitely.

Four years ago, Peggy Sanchez, 50, a Midwest resident, parted amicably from her husband, who has fibromyalgia.

“He would not get medical treatment if he weren’t on my insurance,” she said, and giving him that is less expensive than paying alimony. “Besides, I care about him and want to make sure he gets the medical help he needs,” she said.

There are still sticky issues: Ms. Sanchez’s boyfriend is unaware that she’s still married. Her daughter from a previous marriage views her husband as a father figure. And he got custody of the family dog. But Ms. Sanchez plans to stay separated.

“I don’t have much desire to remarry so there’s no benefit to me from divorce,” she said. “I guess that sounds pretty jaded, but it’s just not as important as it used to be.”

Sharon O’Neill, a marriage therapist in Mount Kisco, N.Y., has seen four cases in the last two years in which couples separated but stayed in the same home. In a depressed market, couples may not want to sell a house they purchased at the market’s height, or one party can’t maintain the mortgage or the other can’t afford a new home.

“The financial collapse has made people say, ‘Let’s not rush into a divorce, let’s see if we can make something else work,’ ” Ms. O’Neill said.

The added value of marriage is also hard to kick.

“Many people I’ve worked with over time enjoy the benefits of being married: the financial perks, the tax breaks, the health care coverage,” said Toni Coleman, a couples therapist in McLean, Va. “They maintain a friendship, they co-parent their kids, they may do things socially together. Sometimes they’re part of a political couple in Washington or have prominent corporate positions. But they just feel they can’t live together.”

What Ms. Coleman finds surprising is that the primary consideration is practical and financial, not familial. The effect of endless separations on the children rarely seems a priority.

“People split up and have these God-awful joint custody arrangements, so you would think that they stay separated for the kids’ sake, but I’m not seeing that,” she said. “It usually comes down to money.”

Others believe separation is easier on the children than is divorce. A 48-year-old social worker from Brooklyn, separated eight years, traded places with her husband in the same home, so that their children would not have to shuttle from one home to the other. The couple had an apartment where each would live when not at the family home.

“In hindsight, it was probably more confusing for the kids,” she said. “But we did it with their best interests in mind.”

But long-term separation can create big problems. If a couple isn’t divorced, their lives are still legally and financially intertwined. If your estranged husband goes on a spending spree, you’re responsible for the ensuing credit card debt. If you win the lottery, that’s community property. Finances can swing wildly, creating an alimony boon or a bombshell should one partner eventually want a divorce.

“I just had a situation where after 15 years of separation, the wife wanted to remarry,” said Elizabeth Lindsey, an Atlanta divorce lawyer. “But over the years, his assets had completely dissipated.” The wife would have profited from divorcing earlier.

A separation can also go on longer than anyone anticipated, even until death, leaving a mess for survivors. In New York State, for example, a spouse, even if separated, is entitled to a third of the partner’s estate.

There’s also the risk that you could lose track of your erstwhile partner altogether. “We see cases, usually with foreign nationals, where the husband goes back to the Philippines, and the wife wants to marry James but she’s still married to Ted,” said Steve Mindel, a managing partner at the Los Angeles law firm Feinberg Mindel Brandt & Klein. Judges now often require that a professional be hired to locate the spouse, to facilitate the divorce.

BUT more often than not, a delayed divorce simply reflects inertia. Celeste Liversidge, a divorce lawyer in Los Angeles, most frequently sees people who are avoiding an unpleasant task.

“It’s often so ugly,” she said. “People get to a point where they can’t live with each other but going through the divorce process is too painful.” A six-month separation turns into years.

One woman, a 39-year-old mother of two from Brooklyn, who like many interviewed for this article wished to remain anonymous, has stayed separated for nearly two years at the suggestion of five lawyers.

“There’s no advantage to getting divorced,” she said. Both she and her husband are in new relationships. Most people assume they’ve officially split. But given the health insurance issue and the prospect of legal fees, she said, “I feel like we could just drift on like this for years.”

Not being divorced is also an excuse not to remarry.

“In my day, we’d refer to a man as a bon vivant, a gadabout who doesn’t want to worry about marrying anyone else because he’s already married,” said Sheila Riesel, a New York divorce lawyer for more than three decades.

In the end, some people just don’t want to divorce. Perhaps one spouse desires it and the other drags his or her feet. Sometimes, people are just confused; separation can be a wake-up call.

In other cases, initiating divorce ultimately serves that purpose. Last year, a 67-year-old professor in New York filed for divorce from the man she married in 1969 and separated from in 1988 after she had an affair with a woman.

“I had images of Vita Sackville-West, but it was very messy and the children suffered a lot,” she recalled. “My husband had been more attached to me than I thought.”

And she considered him a pal; they even took vacations together. “I think I liked that we were still married in some way,” she admitted. “But last year I met someone who minds that I’m still married to someone else.”

And thus, time to divorce. Call it an old-fashioned romance.


A version of this article appeared in print on August 1, 2010, on page ST1 of the New York edition.

Divorce Lawyers LOVE Facebook

Forgot to de-friend your wife on Facebook while posting vacation shots of your mistress? Her divorce lawyer will be thrilled.

Oversharing on social networks has led to an overabundance of evidence in divorce cases. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers says 81 percent of its members have used or faced evidence plucked from Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other social networking sites, including YouTube and LinkedIn, over the last five years.

"Oh, I've had some fun ones," said Linda Lea Viken, president-elect of the 1,600-member group. "It's very, very common in my new cases."

Facebook is the unrivaled leader for turning virtual reality into real-life divorce drama, Viken said. Sixty-six percent of the lawyers surveyed cited Facebook foibles as the source of online evidence, she said. MySpace followed with 15 percent, followed by Twitter at 5 percent.

About one in five adults uses Facebook for flirting, according to a 2008 report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. But it's not just kissy pix with the manstress or mistress that show up as evidence. Think of Dad forcing son to de-friend mom, bolstering her alienation of affection claim against him.

"This sort of evidence has gone from nothing to a large percentage of my cases coming in, and it's pretty darn easy," Viken said. "It's like, `Are you kidding me?'"

Neither Viken, in Rapid City, S.D., nor other divorce attorneys would besmirch the attorney-client privilege by revealing the identities of clients, but they spoke in broad terms about some of the goofs they've encountered:

_ Husband goes on Match.com and declares his single, childless status while seeking primary custody of said nonexistent children.

_ Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission."

_ Father seeks custody of the kids, claiming (among other things) that his ex-wife never attends the events of their young ones. Subpoenaed evidence from the gaming site World of Warcraft tracks her there with her boyfriend at the precise time she was supposed to be out with the children. Mom loves Facebook's Farmville, too, at all the wrong times.

_ Mom denies in court that she smokes marijuana but posts partying, pot-smoking photos of herself on Facebook.

The disconnect between real life and online is hardly unique to partners de-coupling in the United States. A DIY divorce site in the United Kingdom, Divorce-Online, reported the word "Facebook" appeared late last year in about one in five of the petitions it was handling. (The company's caseload now amounts to about 7,000.)

Divorce attorneys Ken and Leslie Matthews, a husband and wife team in Denver, Colo., don't see quite as many online gems. They estimated 1 in 10 of their cases involves such evidence, compared to a rare case or no cases at all in each of the last three years. Regardless, it's powerful evidence to plunk down before a judge, they said.

"You're finding information that you just never get in the normal discovery process — ever," Leslie Matthews said. "People are just blabbing things all over Facebook. People don't yet quite connect what they're saying in their divorce cases is completely different from what they're saying on Facebook. It doesn't even occur to them that they'd be found out."

Social networks are also ripe for divorce-related hate and smear campaigns among battling spousal camps, sometimes spawning legal cases of their own.

"It's all pretty good evidence," Viken said. "You can't really fake a page off of Facebook. The judges don't really have any problems letting it in."

The attorneys offer these tips for making sure your out-loud personal life online doesn't wind up in divorce court:

WHAT YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE HELD AGAINST YOU

If you plan on lying under oath, don't load up social networks with evidence to the contrary.

"We tell our clients when they come in, `I want to see your Facebook page. I want you to remember that the judge can read that stuff so never write anything you don't want the judge to hear,'" Viken said.

BEWARE YOUR FRENEMIES

Going through a divorce is about as emotional as it gets for many couples. The desire to talk trash is great, but so is the pull for friends to take sides.

"They think these people can help get them through it," said Marlene Eskind Moses, a family law expert in Nashville, Tenn., and current president of the elite academy of divorce attorneys. "It's the worst possible time to share your feelings online."

A PICTURE MAY BE WORTH ... BIG BUCKS

Grown-ups on a good day should know better than to post boozy, carousing or sexually explicit photos of themselves online, but in the middle of a contentious divorce? Ken Matthews recalls photos of a client's partially naked estranged wife alongside pictures of their kids on Facebook.

"He was hearing bizarre stories from his kids. Guys around the house all the time. Men running in and out. And there were these pictures," Matthews said.

PRIVACY, PRIVACY, PRIVACY

They're called privacy settings for a reason. Find them. Get to know them. Use them. Keep up when Facebook decides to change them.

Viken tells a familiar story: A client accused her spouse of adultery and he denied it in court. "The guy testified he didn't have a relationship with this woman. They were just friends. The girlfriend hadn't put security on her page and there they were. `Gee judge, who lied to you?'"

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Sandra's Divorce is Final

SANDRA BULLOCK OFFICIALLY DIVORCED

Sources tell TMZ both Sandra and Jesse signed the final documents last week. Sealed documents have been filed with the clerk's office in Travis County, Texas -- sources tell us they are the papers making the divorce final. Sandra filed for divorce back on April 23, saying the marriage "has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities."And sources say the divorce clears the way for Sandra to complete a single parent adoption.

How did it happen so fast?

The divorce is filed in Texas, which has a 60-day waiting period for divorce. Compare this to California's 6-month waiting period. Florida has a 20-day waiting period. New York does not have a waiting period.

Note that this "waiting period" in California is a cooling-off period, mandated by the Legislature. No divorce filed in California can be finalized (Judgment obtained) prior to six months from the date the other party was served.

Also note that the waiting period is a "minimum" period. Should the divorce be litigated (and many divorces are!), the issues can take many YEARS to resolve.

So here is another logical question - why doesn't everyone just file for divorce in a state that doesn't have a cooling off period?

Answer: You can only file in your chosen state if you fulfill residency requirements. In California, you may file here if you have resided in the state for 6 months, and the county in which you wish to file for 3 months. In Texas, same - 6 months. In Florida, same - 6 months. In New York, you can file if: 1) The parties were married in the state and either party is a resident thereof when the action is commenced and has been a resident for a continuous period of one year immediately preceding; 2) The parties have resided in this state as husband and wife and either party is a resident thereof when the action is commenced and has been a resident for a continuous period of one year immediately preceding; 3) The cause occurred in the state and either party has been a resident thereof for a continuous period of at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the action; or 4) The cause occurred in the state and both parties are residents thereof at the time of the commencement of the action; or 5) Either party as been a resident of the state for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the commencement of the action.

Moral of the story: You can get married anywhere. Divorce is a bit trickier.

Get a prenup.