California Divorce and Family Law

Marriages pay a price in faltering economy

Our newest advice expert on relationships answers questions about dissolving marriages and troubled families.

When the economy turns sour, so too can marriages.

Financial woes are the second-most common cause for divorce, according to a survey on the Web site divorce360.com, behind only abuse.

So until the home mortgage crisis is over and our 401Ks have bounced back, we expect some of you couples could use some advice.

Mary O'Connor, the founder of Family Assessment, Counseling and Education Services, is the Register's newest advice expert. She'll answer questions from you about marriages that are dissolving, about families that are trying to stay together, and about issues that face parents and children after divorce.

O'Connor led thousands of mediation cases with the Orange County Superior Court before starting the nonprofit FACES 20 years ago. The organization offers parenting classes, monitors visits between estranged parents and children, and provides counseling and mental heath services. O'Connor also runs a private practice.

Q:  Cultural acceptance of divorce obviously changed a great deal in the 1960s and 1970s. What has changed in the past two decades?

A:  Where religion used to be a deterrent for divorce, it's no longer. Where certain cultures didn't get divorced, those cultures are now getting divorced. Where people used to get married, they no longer get married. So there are more children of non-married relationships than ever.

Also, when I started in the '80s, there were as many men leaving women as women leaving men; then, it was mostly women doing the separating. Now, I think it's come full circle, half-and-half.

Q:  Are divorces less combative now?

A:  When there are no children involved, it doesn't seem to be as hard of a breakup. But when there are children involved, there is such passion and time spent. The shift is that fathers are taking more part in the parenting than they ever did before. So when they separate, they're seen as much as a custodial parent as the other parent.

And, financially, if mother is making as much as father, she's able to afford as much legal representation as father. Many years ago, mother didn't even have the resources to be represented by an attorney.

Q:  Is the cultural momentum away from marriage going to continue? Will my grandkids even get married?

A: I do think people like commitment, stability, and that traditional feeling of having a partner. But I think serial monogamy might be more common.

Your grandkids will get married, but for different reasons than we do now. Years ago, the going theory was a woman needs to be taken care of and a man needs to protect. Obviously, we've changed all that. Both of them are out hunting and fishing; both are nurturing the children.

So why are people getting married now? Companionship. Laughter. And to guarantee a single lovemaker on a regular basis. That's got to be one of the reasons, right?

Q:  Is your counseling approach different for non-married parents?

A: The only difference we have is it's two last names. Getting the relationship better is still the issue. We've got to keep reminding them the kid needs both of them. They're not the same, but the child needs to learn who they are as a human being from the mother and the father.

That's what we're trying to stress. Yes, the other person does things wrong that you didn't like, and that's why you want to get rid of them, but the child likes that parent no matter what. The child has unconditional love.

Q:  In cases without abuse, do you think parents staying together is nearly always healthy for the child?

A: Academically, yes. Yes, yes, yes. The phenomenon of their parents splitting up causes abandonment issues, depression, anger, causes resentments, causes the child to be feeling like a ping pong ball. It causes new families to be created, and for that child to feel like they don't belong to any family.

The repercussions of divorce, compared to being married, it's like 90/10 to me.

Q:  Aren't there similar repercussions to having parents in a loveless marriage?

A: Yes. When kids see dysfunction in their relationship, they act it out. But there are still more folks around to love them. These kids with an absent parent have a yearning. In other words: Mom and Dad may not have that great a relationship, but they could both have a great relationship with the kid. So think about that!

Q:  What should parents do if they have a seed of dissatisfaction in the relationship?

A: Go right away to counseling. Nip it in the bud. Start making a gratitude list for what you already have. Get your repair work going. Fix that dike before it grows.

Q:  Are adults really capable of making major changes so late in life?

A: We've really seen people in the parenting classes dazed and amazed. Like, "I don't have to scream and yell at my child across the room! I can walk over to the child and get down on my knees and ask them questions. I can do something different than my parents did." That's where social change starts coming. These small ways of relating are just different.

Of course some people fall back on their old habits. Not everybody is going to pick it up and keep it forever. But once you learn something new, it's there.

From the OC Register.

Study: Impact of divorce on kids less damaging

For years, social scientists have believed that children of divorce have had more behavior problems than kids growing up in two-parent homes.

But the impact may not be as damaging as previously believed, according to new research to be released Friday.

Instead of comparing these youngsters to those with intact families - the usual methodology - a more accurate assessment would be to evaluate them before and after the marital dissolution, argues Alan Li of the RAND Corp.

Many of the problems could be a result of pre-existing personal characteristics that would be a factor in emotional and behavioral issues even if their parents had managed to remain married, said Li, who will present his findings this weekend at the annual conference of the Council on Contemporary Families, or CCF, at the University of Illinois Chicago.

"Many studies end up comparing apples and oranges," Li explained. "Personality, parenting strategies and detailed aspects of a person's biography all affect children, but researchers haven't been able to measure many of these constructs."

In addition, the report said, many earlier studies failed to take into account differences between families, such as parents' socioeconomic status and education, which can affect a youngster's well-being, whether a couple stays together or not.

When these variables are added to the mix, the psychological fallout is negligible, said Li, associate director of the Population Research Center for the Santa Monica, Calif.-based nonprofit.

He drew upon a national sample of about 6,330 children between the ages of 4 and 15, whose mothers were surveyed repeatedly between 1979 and 2002.

Mothers filled out a 28-item checklist on whether their children engaged in conduct such as cheating, crying, arguing and breaking things. On average, less than half showed a one-item increase after divorce, which is not statistically significant.

Stephanie Coontz, a historian who has written extensively on marriage, called the findings provocative, adding that they could reframe the national debate on divorce.

To increase the odds of long and happy unions, states such as Oklahoma are funding marriage education programs, while others want to make divorce tougher. In Louisiana, for example, the waiting period for couples with children doubled from six months to one year.

However, these findings suggest that staying together at all costs may not be the best way to intervene, said Coontz, CCF's director of research.

Robert E. Emery, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, takes issue with the conclusion. While Li may not have found increased negative behavior, less quantifiable is the hurt that can reverberate across a lifespan, he explained.

"For example, graduation and weddings can be turned into anxiety-ridden events for children whose parents are divorced . . ." Emery wrote in a response to Li's findings.

Closer to home, most experts agreed that it isn't the split but the discord attached to it that is so harmful.

In eight years as a mediator in the domestic relations division of Cook County, Ill., Circuit Court, Jeff Ginsburg has seen it all. "It never ceases to amaze me when divorcing parents cannot get past their anger with each other to decide what is in the best interest of their children."

Two periods of conflict surround dissolution, said Ginsburg, who is both a social worker and an attorney.

More about this in the Bradenton Herald.

The McGreeveys are talking settlement

James E. McGreevey and his estranged wife spent this morning in settlement talks, making a last minute attempt to resolve their bitter breakup on the day the divorce trial was to scheduled to begin, court officials said.

The settlement talks began at 9:30 a.m., broke for lunch at 1 p.m. and focused on the contentious issues fueling the very public feud between Dina Matos McGreevey and the former governor, said Sandra Thaler-Gerber, spokeswoman for the state Superior Court in Union County. The talks were scheduled to resume at 2 p.m.

"We are trying to see if there will be a settlement," Thaler-Gerber said.

The former governor was scheduled to testify today as part of the trial's custody phase, which is not open to the public.

But the settlement talks have superseded the start of the trial, Thaler-Gerber said.

"Everybody is hopeful. You want there to be a settlement," Thaler-Gerber said.

McGreevey is seeking to have 50-50 custody of Jacqueline, asking the judge to have the girl alternate weeks living with him in Plainfield and her mother in Springfield. Matos McGreevey has asked to continue the couple's current arrangement: She gets custody while he gets liberal visitation rights, including alternating weekends and some holidays.

In addition to the custody issue, Matos McGreevey wants alimony and support. McGreevey is paying $2,500 a month in support, but Matos McGreevey wants any permanent amount to be higher. McGreevey claims he has very little money, makes $50,000 a year, and is unlikely to make more because he is a seminary student aiming to be a priest.

Matos McGreevey is a fundraiser for Columbus Hospital Foundation and earns $82,000 a year.

Matos McGreevey also sued McGreevey for fraud for not revealing to her that he was gay before they married. Matos McGreevey wants $600,000 in damages for the year she did not live in the governor's mansion.

The McGreeveys married in October 2000. They publicly separated in November 2004 -- three months after McGreevey resigned as governor and announced to the world that he is gay and that he had an affair with a male aide.

McGreevey, 50, filed for divorce in February 2007 after a settlement agreement fell apart. Matos McGreevey, 41, lives in Springfield. McGreevey lives in Plainfield with his partner, Mark O'Donnell.

From the Newark Star Ledger.

Married Browsers Beware: Top Divorce Lawyers Note Soaring Use of Internet and Spyware Evidence

An overwhelming 79% of the nation's top divorce attorneys reported an increase in the frequency of Internet browser histories being used as evidence in divorce cases during the past five years, according to a recent survey of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) members.  In addition, 44% of the respondents also cited a noticeable increase in evidence taken from Spyware programs.

"Many spouses will use the Internet in order to act anonymously, but in many ways it's the most public thing someone can do," said James Hennenhoefer, president of the AAML.  "Internet activity can provide valuable glimpses into the kinds of hidden activities that a husband or wife might be trying to conceal and Spyware programs can help to make this kind of monitoring extremely easy to conduct."

While 79% of AAML members who responded said Internet browser histories were a main source of information in divorce cases throughout the past five years, none of the respondents reported a decline in this information being used.  Additionally, 21% saw no change in how often a spouse used these records for evidence during this time period.

Internet tracking through software was also noted as an increasingly popular means of gathering evidence.  In all, 44% of AAML attorneys said that Spyware was used more often than not in divorces over the last five years. Only 2% of AAML members noticed it had been used less frequently than in previous years.

More at The Earth Times.

Divorce, pet style - ‘We Can’t Stay Together for the Dogs’

With Florida having one of the nation’s highest divorce rates, it’s not surprising that pets are part of custody battles all over the place.

Who gets the dog? How do you decide, and what issues should you take into consideration?

A lot of us have known friends going through this situation and sometimes the result has been that the pet loses its home. And that’s not good.

Luckily, if you’re going through that problem now (my heart goes out to you - it’s rotten for everyone), there’s some good advice by someone who’s been there, author Jennifer Keene, writing in “We Can’t Stay Together for the Dogs.”

Just out by TFH books ($22.95), which only publishes books about animals, it’s a well-researched and written book with info on custody issues/arrangements and how to live single again with a dog.

Keene is a Certified Pet Dog Trainer and owns Pup-A-Razzi, a training business in Beaverton, OR. She lives with two dogs and has visitation rights for a third.

“As you decide who your dog will live with, level of commitment to the dog (and his special needs) must factor in significantly,” says Keene in her book.

Think about safe handling, commitment to training (would one of you do that, the other one isn’t interested?) and patience, among other things.

Keene talks about the reaction from family and friends and how to handle it. I don’t think she’s left much out in this book.

It would be a great gift for someone in this touchy situation. And there is good advice for those who think they need to stay together for the dogs. Don’t do that — nobody wins that way — but read this book as you go down that path.

From the Palm Beach Post.

DEAR ABBY: Cheated-on wife’s divorce ring deserved, even if meaning fuzzy

LITTLE ROCK — DEAR ABBY: I am a 45-year old woman with two daughters, ages 20 and 23. I married my high school sweetheart, “Cooper.” I had heard rumors that Cooper had strayed from time to time, but had no evidence to back it up, and, of course, he denied it.

I went by my husband’s office one day to surprise him, and his new secretary informed me that Cooper had just taken his wife to lunch at a local bistro! I went right over there and found them whispering, kissing and feeding each other. I did not make a scene. When Cooper arrived home that evening, I confronted him. He tried to deny it. I called him a liar and he slapped me! (A first.) He moved out that night, and I filed for divorce.

I pawned my wedding band and engagement ring. The clerk asked if I was going to buy a divorce ring. I had never heard of one. I searched online, found a nice one, ordered it and wear it proudly.

Cooper and his parents are livid! They say I am poking fun at him and accuse me of “promoting divorce.” My friends and oldest daughter think it’s cool. Some of my divorced friends have ordered rings, too. The ring is different in design, beautiful, makes me feel good and shows my independence. Should I feel guilty for wearing an identity ring like this?

- Divorcing and Loving it North Carolina

DEAR DIVORCING AND LOVING IT: No, you should not. The next time Cooper and his parents accuse you of “promoting divorce,” remind them that it was Cooper who promoted divorce by openly cheating on you. If the ring brings you pleasure - and comfort - then enjoy it.

However, please be aware that many people will not understand its significance - and if you wear it on the third finger of your left hand, they may think you are still married and unavailable.

Read it all at Arkansas Online.

Ready for a Divorce? Your House Isn't

The Housing Slump Is a Stumbling Block in More and More Divorces

David and Tipheny DelPrado divorced in 2006. But the legal battle between the two didn't begin to wind down until this month, and the housing slump may be partly to blame.

Under their 2005 separation agreement, Tipheny DelPrado was supposed to assume the mortgage on the couple's three-bedroom Virginia home. For her, that meant either refinancing the mortgage or selling the house.

Tipheny DelPrado argued that the poor housing market was keeping her from making a sale, but that didn't stop a judge from threatening to put her in jail on a charge of contempt of court, said J.B. Thomas, the lawyer for David DelPrado.

The couple reached an agreement earlier this month that kept Tipheny DelPrado out of jail: If she fails to sell or refinance the home by mid-July, she'll have to give it to her ex-husband.

Tipheny DelPrado did not respond to requests for an interview.

"If she really wanted to sell the house, she would have to do anything it took to sell it," Thomas said. "She might not get the price she wants, she may not even get near the price she wanted had she sold it two or three years ago."

The DelPrados may represent an extreme case, but they're far from the only divorcing couple coping with housing woes. Divorce lawyers and real estate agents say that more and more of their clients have found their divorces snarled by the struggles they face in selling their homes.

Last month, median house prices saw their largest annual decline in nearly a decade, while sales for single-family homes nationwide dropped 2 percent, according to the National Association of Realtors. As shrinking home values, slow home sales and the credit crunch take their toll on American homeowners, splitting couples seeking to sell property might find themselves in a tougher spot than most.

"It's always complicated when people own a house, live in a house together and they need to get a divorce," said Lee Borden, a divorce lawyer in Birmingham, Ala. "It's getting more complicated now because they both know going into … a divorce that it's going to be harder to sell the house, in many cases it's going to sell more slowly."

Read it all at ABC News.

Woman's Divorce-By-YouTube Is 'Scary New Step'

Woman Makes Claims About Intimate Life, Family

A New York woman involved in a divorce battle spilled secrets about her husband, his family and their intimate life in a "scary, new step" in user generated content, attorneys said.

Tricia Walsh-Smith can be watched on YouTube lashing out at her husband, Broadway executive Philip Smith, in a teary and furious clip that has been viewed more than 150,000 times.

Local 6 reported that lawyers can't think of another case like Smith's and are calling it a "scary, new step."

During the video, Walsh-Smith goes through their wedding album on camera, accuses her husband of trying to evict her out of their apartment, and even makes embarrassing claims about their intimate life.

Her lawyer said she acted out of passion and is a "victim who is holding her head up," though he wasn't representing her when she made the video.

Her husband's lawyers say they're "kind of appalled."

Other divorce experts said the video will likely come back to haunt her.

They said the clip probably won't help her in front of a judge.

Read more at Local 6.

Handling Debt After a Divorce

My former husband has lived in our old house since our divorce in 2004. Problem is, we never refinanced the house in his name only. Now he is five months behind on the mortgage. Can I get any of this delinquency off my credit report? Our divorce decree gave him full financial responsibility for the house, but it is still affecting me. I want to purchase a house this summer, and I am scared this is going to hurt me. Help!

Everyone I talked with about your question answered with the same two words: "Oh no."

Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about the harm that was already done to your credit report. A divorce decree is an agreement between the divorcing couple, but "it does nothing to separate their assets, accounts or financial obligations," says Maxine Sweet, vice-president of consumer education for Experian.

Despite the decree, your name is still on the loan, so you're liable for all the payments, and the mortgage company is unlikely to remove the delinquency from your report.

You need to take action immediately, before the situation gets worse. Because your ex is more than 90 days late on the mortgage payments, your credit score has likely taken a major nose dive. If the bank forecloses on the house, you probably won't be able to buy a house for at least a few years, says Emily Davidson, of Credit.com.

All divorced couples should take note before they end up in a similar situation. "If you're relying on an ex-spouse to pay a debt that's in your name, you need to do something," says John Ventura, author of Divorce for Dummies and the director of the Texas Consumer Complaint Center at the University of Houston Law School. "It's a ticking timebomb."

You could help him with the mortgage payments until he gets back on track. But it's better to get out of the situation. Tell the lender about the divorce and ask if you can be taken off the mortgage. "Several of my clients have had luck getting this done without refinancing," says Chris Smith, president of Capstone Mortgage, a mortgage broker in Lexington, Mass.

If that doesn't work, try to refinance the house in his name only. But that might be difficult to do because of his late payments. "Most lenders will not lend to anyone with more than one 30-day late mortgage payment on their credit report in the past 12 months," says Smith.

Another option is to go back to court and ask the judge to order your former spouse to sell the property before it goes into foreclosure, says Ventura. Or perhaps your ex-husband would be willing to give the house to you and have you make the payments. You could rent it out until it's sold. "There is no easy solution to this problem," he says.

Divorcing couples should never rely on one spouse to pay a joint debt. Tackle the issue upfront by agreeing, for example, to have one spouse refinance within a certain time period or sell the house.

The answer is by Kimberly Langford in Kiplinger.com.

Strahan divorce lawyer tells appeal court divorce ruling was "absurd"

Giants defensive end Michael Strahan has taken his messy divorce to a new venue.

He's asking a state appeals court to reduce the $14 million that a lower court ordered him to pay his ex-wife.

Michael Strahan's lawyer, Angelo Genova, argued that it was "absurd" for a court to award his ex-wife so much.

A prenuptial agreement called for her to receive half their joint assets and 20 percent of his earnings if they divorced. But Genova says Strahan should not be penalized because he did not set aside that amount.

The judges in Morristown questioned Jean Strahan's lawyers about whether her ex is paying too much.

Strahan was not in court Wednesday's appeal hearing, but his ex was.

More in Newsday.

Ex-millionaire's maneuvers bring poverty: Plan to hide assets from ex-wife unraveled, authorities say

Ronald Miserendino, 72, showed up in divorce court with the visage of a broken man. The former multimillionaire was clad in a jail-issued orange jumpsuit, his wrists and ankles shackled.

He sobbed as he begged his ex-wife for money.

"When I get out of jail, this will leave me at age 72 with no money except my Social Security check, no home to live in and with no clothing except what the jail puts on my back," Miserendino, once worth an estimated $10 million, told Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Michael Guolee last week as he dabbed his eyes with a tissue.

His ex-wife, Cynthia Son, said nothing and did not turn to look at the man she had married in 1979. Her lawyer, Dennis Milbrath, spoke for her.

"Any money she would give him would be subject to government liens," Milbrath said. "We have to decline his request."

Miserendino has been in the Milwaukee County Jail since November 2005, facing 10 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion and money laundering. With two marriages ending in divorce, he now stands accused of trying to hide millions of dollars that otherwise would be part of a divorce settlement.

Miserendino's saga reads as if it were from Hollywood. The elements of love, money and larceny are all there.

The story began in 1979 when Miserendino, then 43, advertised for a housekeeper and cook. Son, 26 at the time, had been a flight attendant looking for a new career. She got the job, and six months later she and Miserendino married. The couple had three daughters in four years.

It was Miserendino's second marriage. He left his first wife and their six children on the East Coast when he came to Milwaukee.

Miserendino said he came to Milwaukee because of a job transfer and he began dabbling in real estate. Over the years that he was married to Cynthia Son, he built up his company, the Trace Corp., a real estate management and development company.

Son filed for divorce in January 2001. Miserendino refused to accept service of the divorce papers and went on the lam. It was then that his problems began.

According to court records, within a month of the divorce filing, Miserendino secretly set out to liquidate his company's assets and go underground. The divorce court judge, John DiMotto, had ordered that all the company assets be frozen until the divorce was final.

Miserendino enlisted the aid of his son from his first marriage, Mark, whom he had made a vice president of Trace. Son, who had been Trace's secretary, was removed from the company roster.

The effort involved taking out a bank loan for $5 million, a $500,000 advance on the company's line of credit, and cashing in Treasury bonds worth more than $10 million, according to court records. Miserendino gave the $5 million from the bank loan to his son. Mark got smaller cashier's checks and sent them to his father, who was secretly in Hawaii, where Trace owned a house and two lots.

The divorce was granted, and the court awarded Cynthia Son $5 million plus the family home in River Hills. But the money was gone -- much of it to taxes and penalties. But Miserendino also had converted nearly $5 million to cash and had stashed it in safe deposit boxes in Australia and in several states, according to court records.

Milwaukee lawyer Robert Steuer was appointed to sort out Trace's financial mess. That led to the foreclosure sale of Estabrook Homes, a 220-unit apartment complex in Shorewood, and other assets.

Miserendino, still on the lam, was charged in October 2005 by federal authorities. His son, Mark, was charged with income tax evasion.

In November 2005, after living with a girlfriend secretly in Hawaii and failing in an attempt at bankruptcy, Ronald Miserendino moved back to the mainland, where his luck ran out. An Oregon police officer stopped Miserendino for driving with his brights on. The federal warrant for Miserendino's arrested showed up when the officer checked his driver's license.

Miserendino said he has had few visitors while in jail, and none from any of his nine children.

"Their mothers poisoned them against me," he told a reporter.

Miserendino denied the allegations contained in the federal plea agreement in which he admitted to liquidating his company assets and evading taxes. He blames it all on his son, Mark, who is awaiting sentencing on tax evasion charges.

"I tried to send the money back to him so he could do it the right way and pay the taxes," Miserendino said. "I told him to pay her (Cynthia Son) and take care of the bills."

During the interview, he accused his son of hiding money that federal officials believe is still squirreled away somewhere.

Lawyers familiar with the case say the money has been accounted for.

Miserendino was supposed to be sentenced last week, but he refused to agree to the plea agreement just minutes before he was to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman. Matthew Jacobs, the assistant U.S. attorney handling the case, was going to recommend a four-year sentence that would mean Miserendino would get out sometime next year.

As part of the agreement, Miserendino was required to give his ex-wife $750,000 from the $2.9 million that he had hidden in Australian safe deposit boxes. In divorce court, he agreed to the payment, thanking her profusely for relinquishing any claim to his $1,236 monthly Social Security check. But he also begged her to give him half of the $750,000 so he "wouldn't have to spend my old age in poverty."

In the divorce court, Miserendino said earlier that he thought he could keep the rest of the $2.9 million. Now he understands that the IRS is bringing a civil action to collect back taxes and penalties, and he would have nothing.

"I owe more than they have already taken from me," Miserendino said.

Miserendino's new sentencing date is April 21.

From Trading Markets.

Breaking up is harder to do

The housing bust's influence on divorce

Back in the days of the housing boom I knew a couple whose marriage went sour, but who continued to live together for years after their divorce went through. Turned out that the holy grail of stability wasn't their affection for one another, but a rent-controlled apartment. They simply couldn't afford to move on.

I wrote then about the way the white-hot real estate market was burning families going through divorces. Ironically, the sharp downturn in the market is taking a similarly painful toll on couples who are breaking up. But now it's not that they can't afford their next home, but that they can't get rid of the old one. A couple of friends are even trying to make splitting up their marital home more fair by taking turns living in their flat.

According to divorce lawyers, the quickly shifting real estate landscape is making breaking up harder to do than ever.

"The housing market is having a major impact on divorce cases," said Stephen Ruben, a certified family law specialist in San Francisco. "If a house doesn't sell, it has a major impact on cash flow for child support, on where people live, on future taxes."

Post-marital cohabitation

Indeed, the mortgage crisis and moribund market have made for some strange bedfellows.

"There is a whole new aspect of divorce that most couples never had to face," explained Janell Weinstein, a partner in the law firm of Federbusch & Weinstein in New Jersey. "Many couples are forced to live under the same roof because they can't afford to move on until their home gets sold. This can go on for months or even years as the real estate market across the United States slows down tremendously. Homes that used to sell in weeks are now not moving at all."

This month Weinstein  wrote about the growing phenomenon of cohabitation after divorce for the Web site Firstwivesworld.com.

She told me that for most couples, living with your ex is a choice of last resort. "If you have a substantial amount of assets, then one person moves out. Some people are moving in with family members," she said. "But for some people, all their savings are in their homes and with the house not selling, they have no other choice."

The clients she's seen most affected by this trend are mostly seniors on fixed incomes who no longer have family living in the area. But other lawyers I spoke to suggested it also was affecting families with young children. "Kids add to the cost of everything," said San Francisco divorce lawyer Tilden Moschetti. "One person may feel like they can't just move into a studio because it's too small to house their kids."

Whatever the life stage of the couple, Weinstein said living together after divorce presents some difficult, potentially dangerous situations: "What if there's domestic violence going on? It can be very hard. We try to come up with creative solutions, but the fact is that it's not an easy issue for most couples."

Upside down

Moschetti has seen an equally challenging conundrum created by the meltdown: owners who owe more on their homes than they're worth.

"The biggest problem is that a lot of my clients have houses that are upside down," he said. "It's really challenging. Do you do a deed in lieu of foreclosure? Do you try a short sale? What if one person wants to keep living in the house? Who eats the cost?"

In places such as Contra Costa County, where homes are just sitting on the market, it's especially difficult. "It becomes so untenable," said Moschetti. "Something needs to change — someone needs to find a way to live in a studio, to make a change." But Moschetti imagines that his clientele are hardly among the hardest hit: "I'm seeing people who can afford to pay me. For others the situation is much more strained."

New face of divorce

Although selling the house has always been a central part of the divorce process, the new housing decline has changed the face of divorce. "A few years ago it took only a couple of weeks to sell the house, but now we have to write agreements carefully because we just don't know," Weinstein explained. "I've been practicing law since 1991 and this is the first time I've seen a situation like this."

Moschetti echoes Weinstein's frustration. "In the past, the hardest thing was picking a Realtor," he said. "There was always an argument about that — but other than that it was straightforward."

Some have noticed a trend away from selling the marital home and toward one person buying the other out. But what if neither person can afford that? Then a common conflict arises: One person wants to sell at all cost and the other wants to hold the house until the real estate market rebounds. Such arguments have put judges in the bizarre position of acting like real estate analysts.

"Courts are not ordering properties for sale because of the market," explained Ruben, who said that judges now routinely bring in real estate experts and analyze housing forecasts to decide whether to side with the spouse who wants to sell now, or the one who wants to wait for the market to improve. "We're seeing judges decide to wait, based on the assumption that the market will improve in the summer or fall. It's having a major impact on resolution of these cases."

Indeed, all the attorneys I spoke to bemoan the complexity that the new housing market has brought to new divorces.

In economic terms, divorces are a dividing of the couples' jointly held assets. Now, many divorces are finalized before the couple sell their home. That triggers a host of other potential points of contention: Who gets to live there in the meantime? Who pays the mortgage? Does paying the mortgage increase the payer's equity? Who gets the mortgage interest deduction? Who is responsible for a major repair that comes up in the meantime?

In the long run, judges seem to be assuming that the market will rebound. But what if it doesn't? For all the divorced couples who have put their lives on hold, continuing to share real estate based on predictions that just don't pan out, the phrase "a house divided" may assume a new meaning.

This prospect has left some lawyers wondering how much more complicated, stressful and time-consuming divorces will become. "It's going to be very interesting" said Weinstein. "I don't know what's going to happen."

From San Francisco Chronicle.

Bill addresses controversy in custody cases

A state bill that would set guidelines for child custody cases has highlighted a nearly 20-year-old dispute over a theory used by psychological evaluators.

Assembly Bill 612, which failed to pass into law in 2007, targeted the controversial theory, called Parental Alienation Syndrome. The syndrome describes behavior in which one parent turns a child against the other, convincing the child the parent has treated him or her badly, even when they have not.

Dr. Philip Stahl, a California evaluator and member of the state's Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, says evaluators are split in their beliefs about whether children can be alienated.

"You have evaluators who really don't understand alienation, and people who want to apply it in every case," Stahl said.    

Evaluators are not the only one with differing views on the issue: There are stalwart advocates who believe that hundreds of people have suffered because of parental alienation, and those who believe just as many have suffered from false charges of the syndrome.

Women's advocates say the theory has been used by courts to place children with abusive fathers.    

"It's junk science used to target women and take their custody rights away," said Karen Anderson, a spokesperson for the California Protective Parents Association. "It's a problem in courts all over the country."

Julia Cotton, a mother from Los Angeles County, said that a custody evaluation in her divorce case accused her of alienation and led to her young daughter being placed with her husband full-time.    

"Her recommendation led to me only getting my daughter for supervised visits," Cotton said. "When I saw her she acted traumatized, and seemed totally out of it."

Cotton said she suspected that her ex-husband was abusing her daughter in some way but didn't know what to do about it.    

"I knew that the more I tried to do something about it, the more I would be accused of alienation."    

While women's groups tout Cotton's story as a typical one throughout California, father's- rights groups have the opposite view of custody courts and alienation.

"Ninety-eight percent of the time that you see abuse charges that have not been verified by police, those allegations are coached," said J. Michael Kelly, a lawyer and a member of the United Fathers of California law group.

One father in the middle of a custody battle who asked to be called Norm said his two teenage daughters say they don't want to have anything to do with him, and he can't figure out why.

"They call me a violent man, they say I am aggravating," said Norm. "I had a bad custody evaluator, and now I barely see them."    

Norm said he believes his wife is genuinely convinced that he does not treat their children well.    

"I don't think she is trying to be vindictive," he said. "I just think in her mind there is some deeper mental problem that is convincing her I'd be bad for the kids."

The text of the 2007 version of A.B. 612 was drafted by the CPPA and explicitly banned the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome, or just the term alienation from use in evaluations. It also aimed to minimize the use of custody evaluations.

The family law section of the State Bar and the several psychologists groups banded together to oppose the bill.     

The 2008 version of the bill is much vaguer than its predecessor, stating evaluators will be forced to conform to "standards generally accepted by the medical, psychiatric, legal, and psychological communities." The bill does not specifically mention Parental Alienation Syndrome.

"The thinking was that if you mentioned specific syndromes or disorders, people who would use them in evaluations would just start calling them by a different name," said Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City, who introduced the bill.

But Karen Anderson, who helped draft the original bill, said the new version, A.B. 2587, is not strong enough.    

"It's not an unusual process for a bill," said Anderson. "It starts out strong, and then it gets watered down, and a lot of the great stuff gets thrown out."

Stahl said that although the bill provides more guidelines for judges in what to expect from evaluators, the judges themselves still bring their own expectations about alienation into the courtroom.

"Courts are ruling in favor of people unfairly accused of alienation, and they are ruling against people who have been alienated," Stahl said. "Problems described by advocates on both sides on the issue are happening."

An additional problem, evaluators say, is that even with the right training, it is not always possible for them to tell when talking to a child, whether the abuse the child describes is really happening.

"There are real cases of abuse and false allegations," said Dr. Mitch Eisen, a Cal State Los Angeles psychologist and professional evaluator. "Both happen, and it is often impossible to differentiate between the two."

Stahl says that in some cases, the children themselves aren't even sure if what they are saying is true.    

"You've got kids who don't know what to believe," said Stahl. "It's hard to tell what is and isn't real."

From the San Bernardino Sun.

Men Receiving Alimony Want A Little Respect

Modern Males Say  Living Off the Ex-Wife  Is No Cause for Shame

As a Hollywood actor, John David Castellanos is protective of his image. He stays in phenomenal shape and looks much younger than his 50 years.

But he admits to a fact that might be considered unflattering: He receives alimony from his former wife. To be exact, $9,000 a month.

"The law provides" for it, says Mr. Castellanos, who for years starred in the soap opera "The Young and the Restless." "More women are paying alimony, or maintenance checks, to their ex-husbands as they make inroads in the workplace. Jacqueline W. Silbermann, deputy chief administrative judge for matrimonial matters in New York, discusses the trend.")

More women are paying alimony, or maintenance checks, to their ex-husbands as they make inroads in the workplace. Jacqueline W. Silbermann, deputy chief administrative judge for matrimonial matters in New York, discusses the trend.

In the nearly 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against gender discrimination in alimony, few male beneficiaries have stepped forward to talk about it. Those who did typically went by pseudonyms or the golden rule of 12-step recovery: first names only.

Little wonder, considering the attention that has come to some former husbands of alimony-paying celebrities. "Why the courts don't tell a husband, who has been living off his wife, to go out and get a job is beyond my comprehension," Joan Lunden, the television personality, said in 1992 when a court ordered her to pay her ex-husband $18,000 a month.

But today's men are shaking off the stigma of being supported by their ex-wives. Several agreed to talk on the record for this article, in part because they say the popular image of the male alimony recipient is unfair: He's not always a slacker.

Mr. Castellanos says he has acted in or produced five movies since the breakup of his marriage, including a couple of projects that he says are nearing completion. If any of these projects strike gold, he says he would gladly forgo alimony. Even Ms. Lunden has had a change of heart. Through a former publicist, she now says of her 1992 comment: "That was a statement made in haste many years ago. I regret having said it."

Divorce experts say that fewer and fewer men are rejecting outright any talk of seeking alimony. The percentage of alimony recipients who are male rose to 3.6% during the five years ending in 2006, up from 2.4%, in the previous five-year period, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

That percentage is likely to rise as more and more marriages feature a primary earner who is female. In 2005 (the latest year for which data are available), wives outearned their husbands in 33% of all families, up from 28.2% a decade earlier.

Alimony -- a distinctly different category from child support -- is the money that higher-earning spouses hand to their lower-earning counterparts following the end of their marriage. Often it is court-ordered, years in duration and based on big discrepancies in spousal incomes.

Classic Reasons

Today, men in growing numbers are receiving alimony for the classic reasons that women traditionally did. A common argument is that they sacrificed their careers for the sake of their wives'.

"If it was not for the joint decision to support Marjorie's career advancement to the detriment of mine, I would be making considerably more money than I am currently," Christopher Bowen argued in a 2005 filing in Los Angeles Superior Court.

At the time of that request, Mr. Bowen was a Wachovia Securities executive receiving about $550,000 in annual pay, according to the court documents. But his wife, Marjorie Bowen, was expected in 2005 to earn $1.5 million as an executive at investment-banking boutique Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin, according to the court documents.

Mr. Bowen argued in the filing that when the couple moved back to Los Angeles because of her career opportunities, he took a cut in pay. "Based on my salary alone, I cannot maintain the marital standard of living," Mr. Bowen wrote in a petition filed in the Los Angeles court in August 2005.

Male alimony seekers are also touting sacrifices made on behalf of children. In the marriage of Joe and Diane Garnick, she logged 12-hour days as a global equity derivatives strategist for Merrill Lynch, earning several times what Mr. Garnick did as a top-performing toilet salesman. So in 2001, he quit that job to focus on raising their two girls, keeping the house clean and doing the shopping.

Following his 2002 divorce, he received alimony of $50,000 a year for four years from Ms. Garnick, now an investment strategist at Invesco Ltd.

As a stay-at-home dad, Mr. Garnick notes that he missed out on career opportunities that would have boosted his earning potential, particularly those involving travel. "I couldn't [travel] while I had a kid," Mr. Garnick says.

Mr. Garnick used the alimony to earn a mathematics degree from a community college. But he has returned to his old job selling toilets, where he earns only half what he did before quitting. "Society thinks that just because you are a man you can pick up a career after you have dropped it for 10 years and jump right back," he says. "That's just not the case."

Still, relatives of his former wife continue referring to Mr. Garnick as a "deadbeat," he says. And Ms. Garnick herself says, "In some instances, alimony has become akin to a social-welfare program provided by working women to their ex-husbands."

Some feminists say cases such as Mr. Garnick's show progress of a sort. "We can't assert rights for women and say that men aren't entitled to the same rights," says the famous feminist lawyer, Gloria Allred.

But the women who have to pay it are sounding a different chord. "I feel financially raped," says Rhonda Friedman, the former wife of Mr. Castellanos. So distasteful are the monthly payments she makes to him that after filling out the check she used to spit on it. Especially galling, she says, is that she was required to pay a substantial portion of the legal fees he racked up while securing a lucrative divorce agreement.

To be sure, some men don't want alimony, viewing it as an embarrassment. Others are just as high-powered as their wives. Yahoo President Susan Decker and her soon-to-be ex-husband have taken alimony off the table, according to court records. Meanwhile, Sara Lee Chief Executive Brenda Barnes is paying no alimony to her ex-husband, a former PepsiCo Inc. executive who now manages his own money. Until their youngest child recently turned 18, Ms. Barnes, who earned a total of $8.7 million in fiscal 2007, was receiving child-support payments from her former husband, according to court records.

Other men have learned that alimony is a powerful negotiating tactic, especially when their estranged wives clearly want to sever all ties. "For some people, it is truly offensive to write out a check each month to a spouse for support," says Sue Moss, a divorce lawyer at Chemtob Moss Forman & Talbert LLP in New York. "In those instances, if you can offer a financial package that is essentially the same as if maintenance was being paid, it is the preferable alternative."

Indeed, the increasingly common practice of trading alimony for a fatter slice of marital assets helps explain why the overall number of people reporting alimony income fell 17% during the decade ended in 2006, to a total of fewer than 400,000, the Census Bureau says.

In the case of Wachovia's Mr. Bowen, he ultimately waived his rights to spousal support. But the resulting settlement -- which neither party will publicly discuss -- suggests that Mr. Bowen received a generous division of assets. In addition to half of his wife's substantial private-equity investments, Mr. Bowen received a home in Manhattan Beach, Calif., a parcel in Utah and some properties in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Read more at the Wall Street Journal. (Subscription Required).

 

Robin Williams wife files for divorce: agent

Robin Williams' wife has filed for divorce from the Oscar-winning actor after a 19-year marriage, a spokeswoman for the actor confirmed on Wednesday.

Marsha Garces Williams filed for divorce petition at a court in San Francisco on March 21 citing irreconcilable differences, reports said.

Williams' representative, Mara Buxbaum, confirmed the divorce in an email to AFP.

Garces, 51, and Williams, 56, married in 1989, shortly after the actor's divorce from his previous wife. The couple have two children, an 18-year-old daughter and a 16-year-old son.

Garces has worked as a producer on several of Williams films including "Jakob the Liar", "Patch Adams," and "Mrs. Doubtfire."

Williams won a best supporting actor Oscar for his role in the 1997 film "Good Will Hunting" and has been nominated for an Academy Award for three other movies: "Good Morning Vietnam," "The Fisher King," and "Dead Poets Society."

Source: AFP.

Five Ways to Save Tax Money During a Divorce

Taxes are probably the last thing on the mind of someone going through a divorce. But maybe they shouldn't be. Here are some money-saving tax tips to consider if you're getting divorced

The first thing certified divorce practitioner Clay Caldwell tells his clients is to “reach agreements with each other.” It’s very important, he said, to talk with your spouse and straighten out money issues. It’s very easy to lose money if the separating couple isn't communicating.

Decide the best way to file your taxes

There are three options when filing for taxes. Filing as "Head of Household" saves you the most money and varies with income. In order to qualify under this label, you must pay more than half the cost of keeping up the home and a qualified person, such as a child, must be living with you.

The second option is to file jointly. If you have not filed for divorce before Dec. 31, filing jointly is more beneficial to you and your spouse, according to experts. Joint filing means you are both responsible for all taxes and are each entitled to a prorated share of any refunds. It also puts you in a better tax bracket. If there are additional taxes or penalties because of fraud or negligence on past returns, you could qualify as an "innocent spouse," according to Caldwell. 

Filing separately is the last way to file. This option usually means paying the most taxes. The good news, however, is that you are only responsible for your own taxes. 

Choose who will claim the children

Deciding who will claim the children depends on many things. Couples should figure out who has the higher income and who sits in the better tax bracket. The parent who establishes custody gets a dependency exemption, which could come to about $3,000 per child.

Child support is not tax deductible because it's considered something you'd pay whether or not you are divorced. However, alimony or “maintenance” is tax deductible.

Preserve assets 

State tax laws differ on divorce. Some states, such as Texas and California,are known as common law or community property states. These states treat all property owned by a married couple as a shared asset. “When you file for divorce everything is subject to division,” said Ken Raggio, a Dallas-based divorce lawyer.

California,for instance, splits community property 50/50.

Property transferred between spouses isn't subject to taxes. But selling stocks, homes and vacation homes as part of a divorce are taxed. A jointly-owned residence that one spouse has been granted the use of is tax deductible contingent upon agreements between the couple and IRS regulations. "If the non-residential spouse has agreed to pay the expenses, half the mortgage payment may be deducted as alimony, and the other half deductible as interest expenses,” said Caldwell.

Follow up on beneficiary forms after the divorce

The last tip, and perhaps the most complex divorce tax issue is retirement. “Retirement rules are so complicated, without a lawyer people can lose a lot of money,” said Lee Rosen, a North Carolina tax divorce lawyer.

All retirement benefits including qualified and unqualified plans, vested or unvested stock options, restricted stock or any other form of deferred compensation are divisible in a divorce. The transfer of retirement benefits is not taxable. Retirement benefits from an ex-spouse are taxable as ordinary income when withdrawn. You will also be taxed if you use the retirement benefits before age 59½ or don’t roll them over the right way.

When it comes to taxes in divorce, people are getting a lot smarter because they don’t want to lose money, experts said. “Time is money in divorce law,” said Caldwell. It's very unlikely you will figure out all the tax issues alone with your spouse. Keeping that in mind, any professional tax advice prior to your divorce is tax deductible, so it may be worth it to get some financial guidance.

From Fox Business. 

Forget silver anniversaries: Many couples grapple with 'gray divorce'

It's been nearly a year since Sherman Smith's 33-year marriage ended in a divorce that, he said, his ex-wife wanted after she realized she didn't love him in the same way anymore.

"A divorce is kind of like a death, but she's still there and I can't have her," said Smith, 55, of Elliottsburg, Pa. "I was really looking forward to retiring some day and spending more time with her."

Smith has spent 18 months in a divorce support group. "I'm not 100 percent, but I'm pretty doggone good," he said.

Annie, 69, of Enola, Pa., who didn't want her last name used, has been divorced since September after her husband of 47 years left her for an old high school flame.

Annie said she had considered their marriage a happy one. Divorce simply wasn't in the realm of possibilities for them.

"It hit me in the face like a two-ton truck," she said. "I hadn't a clue. It was the most absolutely horrible thing that ever happened to me. I'm still not over it. I'll never be over it."

Although the divorce rate is highest among men ages 30 to 34 and women ages 25 to 29, attorneys, marriage counselors and researchers say that increasingly, people in their 50s, 60s and 70s are grappling with what has come to be known as "gray divorce."

Higher incomes, advanced education and longer lives contribute to the trend, said Gordon Nelson, an associate professor of human development and family studies at Penn State.

"People might be becoming increasingly more independent," he said.

Mature people in long-term marriages often have multiple and complex reasons for calling it quits.

The '60s generation, more focused on happiness and personal fulfillment and less inhibited about divorce, is moving into its 60s, New Cumberland, Pa., psychologist and marriage and family therapist Sally Tice noted.

And as people live longer "there's more years to think of putting up" with unhappy marriages, she said.

Raising children can take a toll, too.

"It's very typical for couples to grow apart during the adolescent years of their children," Tice said. And if they haven't renewed their relationship, it can fall by the wayside.

Carlisle, Pa., divorce and family law attorney Carol Lindsay identified one age-old reason for gray divorce: the midlife crisis. This temporary emotional upheaval is seldom referred to as such by anyone in the midst of one, and it's typically a male phenomenon, she said.

"There's this vague longing. Mortality is calling," Lindsay said. "People throw over things they have. ... There's this sense that I missed something."

But it's not always true that older men find it easier to remarry, said Camp Hill attorney Corky Goldstein — whose oldest divorce client was 81 and "very, very unhappy" in a 44-year marriage.

"If you don't really have any money, a man in his 70s is not going to attract a younger woman," he said.

Yet, while divorce at midlife used to be more of a "male deal," increasingly women are initiating it, Lindsay said.

A 2004 AARP study of persons who had divorced between the ages of 40 and 70 confirmed Lindsay's observations: 66 percent of the women surveyed said they had asked for the divorce, compared with 41 percent of the men.

Lindsay believes a different kind of midlife event is often at work with women who, for years, cared for their husband and children.

"The hormone for taking care of people goes away and they're sick of it," she said. "They're just not in the nurturing mode any more."

Sometimes it has to do with women getting jobs and having the money to leave, coupled with a softening of the taboo against divorce, Lindsay said.

Gray divorces generally don't have the grueling, heart-rending custody issues common in younger couple's divorces, but they can be wrought with the complications of property ownership and division of assets.

In Smith's case, his ex-wife had her own pension plan, he said.

Annie, a retired teacher, also has her own pension and Social Security, but she resents how the divorce has changed her financial situation.

"When my husband and I were together we had enough money to do whatever we wanted and now I'm strapped," she said.

Some older couples show their maturity in the way they handle their divorce. "Sometimes there are graceful older people and you are so grateful for them as clients," Lindsay said. "I always think a long marriage deserves to be honored with a respectful divorce."

TIPS FOR SURVIVING DIVORCE IN LATER LIFE

• Join a support group.

• Develop same-sex friendships.

• Volunteer.

• Don't isolate yourself.

• Seek out the medical, mental health and spiritual resources.

• Give yourself time to grieve and heal.

• Consult an attorney and a financial adviser before signing any documents regarding marital assets. Choose an attorney who will advise you of your rights and represent your interests but who won't escalate matters beyond your comfort level. You both are going to want to attend the grandchildren's birthday parties.

From AJC.com.

Tax form can help in divorce

Question: I have been divorced for a few years. The divorce decree says I get to claim my daughter as a dependent and my ex is supposed to claim my son. The problem is that my ex beats me to the tax man every year and claims both children. What can I do to stop this?

Answer: You've learned that a divorce decree is typically binding only on the parties that agree to it -- and the Internal Revenue Service wasn't one of those parties.

The best way to protect your right to claim your daughter as a dependent is to have your ex-husband sign IRS Form 8332 waiving his right to claim her -- and you'll need to fill one out releasing your claim to your son. You need to fill out a separate form for each child.

Ideally, this would have been handled as part of your divorce.

"It really surprises me that divorce attorneys don't automatically include Form 8332 as one of the documents to be signed whenever child support comes into play," Rosenberg said.

If you can't get your ex-husband to cooperate, you're not out of options. If your daughter lived with you for more than half the year and you provided more than half her support for the year, and can prove both facts, Rosenberg recommends you "go ahead and file your tax return on paper, the old-fashioned way."

The IRS will challenge you, but if you can defend your position, you can prevail.

On the other hand, if you only provided support but your daughter did not sleep under your roof for at least 183 days (or otherwise met the "living with you" standard outlined in IRS Publication 501), you will lose the exemption.

"This is where getting that Form 8332 signed at the time of the divorce is so critical," Rosenberg said. "Without it, in a dispute, you lose. Sorry."

From the LA Times.

Divorce costs former Beatle McCartney $48.7 million

A British court ordered former Beatle Paul McCartney on Monday to pay his estranged wife Heather Mills 24.3 million pounds ($48.7 million) after an acrimonious divorce battle.

The settlement was only a fifth of the sum she had sought but she still ended up with the equivalent of about $34,000 for each day of her four-year marriage to the pop icon.

Speaking after the judge's ruling, Mills said: "I am so glad it is over. It is an incredible result in the end.

"We are very, very pleased," she added. "I am so, so happy with it." McCartney declined to comment.

McCartney, 65, married the former model and charity campaigner Mills, 40, in 2002 but they separated four years later, blaming media intrusion into their private lives. They have a daughter, Beatrice, aged four.

Following one of the most bitter divorce battles in show business history, the couple failed to reach an agreement after six days in court last month, leaving the judge to set the final figure.

Mills criticized McCartney's lawyer Fiona Shackleton, accusing her of handling the case badly.

She said Shackleton, who also represented heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles in his divorce from Princess Diana, "has called me many, many names before even meeting me, when I was in a wheelchair."

Mills, who sacked her lawyer and represented herself in court, urged would-be divorcees to do the same. "You can be a litigating person," she said. "You'd save yourself a fortune."

Justice Hugh Bennett, giving details of the settlement, said: "She sought an award of almost 125 million pounds. Sir Paul proposed the wife should exit the marriage with assets of 15.8 million pounds inclusive of any lump sum award.

"The judgment decided that the husband should pay the wife a lump sum of 16.5 million pounds, which together with her assets of 7.8 million pounds means that she exits her marriage with total assets of 24.3 million pounds."

DAUGHTER

The split was fought out under a remorseless media spotlight with McCartney, a founder of the world's most famous pop group, pitted against the outspoken Mills, target of lurid tales in the press about her colorful past.

The court ruled that the judgment be made public, but stayed publication pending Mills' appeal against it being made public.

Mills, speaking to a phalanx of reporters on the steps of London's High Court, said she was appealing "because the judgment involves private secure matters of my daughter."

Referring to what their daughter would receive, Mills said: "Beatrice only gets 35,000 pounds a year. So obviously she's meant to travel B Class while her father travels A class, but obviously I will pay for that."

Asked if she now planned to move abroad, Mills said: "I can't leave England. I always wanted to keep my daughter near her father. Believe me if I tried to go, he would have an injunction on me in a second."

Source: Reuters.

Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat

A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.

The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.

They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.

"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.

Mr Alifi, of Hai Malakal in Upper Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr Tombe with his goat.

"When I asked him: 'What are you doing there?', he fell off the back of the goat, so I captured and tied him up."

Mr Alifi then called elders to decide how to deal with the case.

"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife," Mr Alifi told the newspaper.

From the BBC.
                   

More couples hiding wealth from each other

Honesty may be the best policy for a successful marriage. But when it comes to divorce, couples are becoming increasingly devious in concealing their wealth from each other.

One fifth of couples who divorced last year tried to conceal their assets or income from their spouse - a figure which has doubled since 2006 - a report has found.

The study - by the accounting firm Grant Thornton, which surveyed 100 family lawyers - found that husbands were much more dishonest when a marriage crumbled.

In cases where assets had been hidden, 88 per cent involved men concealing wealth from their wives. Just two per cent involved women hiding assets. In the remainder of cases, both partners tried to conceal wealth from one another.

Family law experts say a spate of expensive, high-profile divorce cases, such as that of Sir Paul McCartney and his wife, Heather Mills McCartney, is spurring couples to hide their wealth from each other.

John Charman, the insurance magnate, was forced by the courts to pay his ex-wife a record £48 million settlement last year.

The property multi-millionaire Stuart Crossley was involved in a dispute with his wife Susan after she alleged during divorce proceedings that he had failed to tell her about millions in offshore accounts. She later dropped her claim for a financial settlement.

Andrea McLaren, the head of Grant Thornton's matrimonial practice, said: "The number of couples hiding assets from one another has increased by 100 per cent since last year, which is staggering.

"High-profile, big-money cases have scared individuals into trying to hide assets and there is now the perception that women are receiving more favourable settlements than men."

Vanessa Lloyd Platt, a specialist in divorce law, said she had seen a surge in the number of men trying to conceal wealth from their wives.

"Men are seeing these huge settlements and they are terrified," she said. "If they think a marriage might break down, more and more men are panicking and trying to put their capital into trusts and offshore accounts or buy assets in a third party's name so that they are hidden from their wives.

"It is not unheard of for women to lie but, in my experience, men are more likely to be dishonest when it comes to matrimonial disclosure."

The succession of high-profile divorce cases has also seen a surge in the number of couples drawing up pre-nuptial agreements. A survey of law firms found that 67 per cent reported taking on more pre-nuptial work in the past year.

From The Telegraph.

Military Divorce Rate Holding Steady

The divorce rate in the armed forces held steady last year at 3.3 percent, a surprising finding given the stress that marriages are under during persistent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some veterans questioned whether the figure, reported by the Pentagon, presents an accurate picture. But defense officials credited efforts in recent years to support couples enduring uncommonly long separations and other hardships because of those wars.

The divorce rate represented more than 25,000 failed marriages among the nearly 755,000 married active duty troops in all military branches between Oct. 1, 2006, and Oct. 1, 2007, according to statistics provided to The Associated Press.

The Defense Department data showed that the Army, the service with the largest number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, had a rate of 3.2 percent, unchanged from the previous year. That amounted to 8,748 divorces among the approximately 275,000 married soldiers.

Last year was the deadliest yet for U.S. troops in the wars. In addition, Army couples had to cope with extended separations because tours of duty lasted 15 months rather than 12 months.

Those longer deployments and multiple tours required of many troops have been widely blamed for unprecedented stresses on military couples. Spouses at home must manage families and households without their partner. The strain also has contributed to higher suicide rates and more mental health problems among troops.

"We all agree that there is stress on the families. It's just not manifesting itself in these numbers," a Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, said about the divorce statistics.

The biggest exception was a rise in divorce rates among military women. For years, their marriages have failed at twice the rate of men in service.

Though firm numbers were not available in the new data, Army divorces in 2007 appeared to occur in about 8 percent of service women's marriages and 2.6 percent of men's.

There is no comparable system for tracking civilian divorces.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the divorce rate for the general population was 3.6 per 1,000 people in 2005 - the most recent statistics available; that was the lowest rate since 1970.

The per capita divorce rate is different from a second method of calculation - the percentage of marriages that eventually will end in divorce or separation. The CDC said that year that 43 percent of all first marriages end in divorce within 10 years.

There is more about this topic at Forbes.

Marital status at the end of the year determines filing status

Q: My divorce was final in December 2007. How should I file my taxes? Can I file as single now or do my ex and I have to do one last joint return since we were married for the majority of 2007?

Answer from AICPA member Lisa R. Featherngill: Your filing status is determined on the last day of the year.

Thus, you can file single for 2007. If you have children, one of you may consider filing head-of-household to lower your tax rate.

For more information:     What is your Filing status? 

From USA Today.

In First, N.Y. Judge Allows Gay Divorce

Trial Court Ruling Appears to Be State's First Allowing Divorce From Same-Sex Marriage

In what appears to be the first ruling of its kind, a New York judge will allow a lesbian couple who married in Canada to sue for divorce.

Though New York does not allow same-sex marriages, a state trial court judge refused to dismiss a divorce and child custody suit brought by a woman, identified only as Beth R., against her former partner Donna M.

Donna M. had argued that her 2004 marriage should be invalid in New York because the state doesn't allow same-sex marriage, but Supreme Court Justice Laura Drager found that the out-of-state marriage could still be recognized under New York law. Her ruling appears to be the first divorce case in New York from a same-sex marriage.

"What we're seeing now is a judicial battle that's going to be waged in [the] next few months," said Arthur Leonard, who teaches a class on sexual orientation and the law at New York Law School. "People sometimes forget that divorce is part of marriage. People need a judicial process to untangle a relationship."

The state's highest court last year declined to create a constitutional right to same-sex marriages, saying it was an issue for the legislature to decide. That case did not address out-of-state same-sex marriages.

New York is one of the few states that does not address same-sex marriages. At least 41 states have laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures; those laws allow states to reject same-sex marriages from other states. In December, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that the state's family courts can't grant divorces to same-sex couples.

In her ruling Monday, Drager said New York will not recognize an out-of-state marriage only if it is prohibited by a state law or if it is "abhorrent to New York public policy." She said only polygamy and incest have been found to be abhorrent.

Beth R. and Donna M., described as in their 40s and working in the media industry, were married in Toronto in 2004. They have two daughters, both born to Donna M.

Read more at ABC News.

Minimize the impact of divorce on your credit

If you're planning to file for divorce this year or are already splitting your assets with your soon-to-be ex-spouse, your credit is likely to take a hit.

Many people don't realize that lenders do not honor court decrees that assign payment responsibilities for joint loans. The mistaken assumption that you're off the hook for financial obligations can result in a series of missed payments that may trash your credit score for years.

This needn't happen if you safeguard your credit before you file for divorce. Consider these tips from John Ulzheimer, author of "You're Nothing but a Number" and an expert at Credit.com, a consumer personal finance site.

If you have joint accounts with your spouse, do your best to turn them into individual accounts so that it will be easier for the divorce court to split up your financial responsibilities. To do that you will need your spouse's permission, which means you're going to have to let the cat out of the bag. But taking these steps now can save you years of credit woes later.

Begin by converting your credit card accounts. People most often miss payments on this type of debt, rather than the loans that keep a roof over their heads and wheels under their feet.

Next, work on refinancing your mortgage and your car loan. Granted, this is going to be more difficult, because the bank will want just one person to accept the loan in his or her name - which may not be possible if that person's salary isn't enough to qualify for the loan. In cases like these, it might be easier to sell the car or the house, split the money and move on. That way, you're guaranteed not to have credit damages caused by a vengeful ex-spouse.

"Remember that when you're getting divorced from your spouse, you're also divorcing yourself from emotional attachment to assets," Ulzheimer said.

You would also be wise to opt out of receiving pre-screened offers for credit or insurance. A spiteful ex-wife or ex-husband may be tempted to apply for a loan in your name just to ruin your credit. Go to the consumer credit reporting industry's official Web site for details: www.optoutprescreen.com/.

Finally, start planning for all this at least six months to a year before you file, or as early as possible before the divorce gets ugly. Once any problems begin, you and your embittered other half will have a hard time thinking logically. If this seems like a lot of work at the front end of your sep