California Divorce and Family Law

Evangelicals shift toward acceptance on divorce

When Pentecostal power couple Randy and Paula White recently announced they were headed to divorce court, the most remarkable part of the reaction was that there wasn't much reaction at all.

For increasing numbers of clergy, a divorce no longer generates the kind of career-killing hue and cry of decades ago, in part because plenty of people in the pews have experienced divorce themselves.

The shifting views on divorced clergy reflect a growing concession among rank-and-file conservative Christians that a failed marriage is no longer an unforgivable sin.

For many evangelical Christians, the line seems to have shifted from a single acceptable reason for divorce — adultery — to a wider range of reasons that some say can be biblically justified.

"I am probably one of those evangelicals who would say it would be three A's for me," said Chris Bounds, a theologian at Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion, Ind. "Abuse, abandonment and adultery."

With the Whites' breakup, Randy White now leads the Without Walls International Church in Tampa, and Paula White remains prominent in Christian broadcasting. Not long after they announced their divorce, Atlanta evangelist Juanita Bynum filed for divorce from her husband, Bishop Thomas Weeks III, after he allegedly assaulted her in a hotel parking lot.

Beyond the church, polls by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press indicate the divorce records of GOP presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain have not hindered their popularity among white evangelical voters.

Christianity Today, a magazine that often serves as a barometer of evangelical culture, published an October cover story called "When to Separate What God Has Joined," in which David Instone-Brewer, a senior research fellow at Tyndale House in Cambridge, England, concluded that adultery, physical and emotional neglect, abuse and abandonment are all biblically justified reasons for divorce.

Mark Galli, the magazine's managing editor, said there is a simultaneous rejection of divorce in principle but acceptance in practice, in part because almost everyone knows someone who's been there.

"I think conservative Christians are becoming more liberalized in the sense of, I guess, making more room for the acceptance of divorce and remarriage," he said. "You'll see a lot of churches that plunge right in and have divorce ministries. ... Marriage is a really difficult thing in our culture right now."

But the reaction to Instone-Brewer's article reflected a lingering discomfort with divorce; Galli estimated that 60% of responding readers had a negative reaction. Prominent author John Piper responded that he found Instone-Brewer's reasoning "tragic" and an "astonishing extension of the divorce license."

Statistics bear out that divorce affects conservative Christians just as much as anyone else. A study this year by The Barna Group, a California research firm, showed that 27% of "born-again"

Christians have been divorced, compared to 25% of non-born-again Americans. In 2005, Phoenix-based Ellison Research found that 14% of clergy have been divorced; the vast majority have remarried.

Paula White, in a recent interview, declined to go into detail about her divorce, but stood by statements in her new book "You're All That!"

that God can mend any relationship "if both persons are willing to come into alignment with his principles." She added that no other person's love can be completely fulfilling.

"In fact, I say a healthy relationship is, 'I am free to be me, you are free to be you, and together, we're us,'" she said. "So no one in life can complete you. Nothing can complete you. Only God can absolutely complete you."

Last month, Bynum said her recent marital strife may actually expand her ministry's outreach.

"I believe it will absolutely, positively broaden my ability to reach people that probably would not ever have come to a church," she said at an appearance in Birmingham, Ala. "I'm able to teach on the subject of suffering with experience behind it."

J. Lee Grady, the editor of charismatic and Pentecostal magazine Charisma, said Bynum may have generated a "sympathy factor" because of the alleged abuse, but the Whites are more unusual because there has been no clear biblical reason given for their split.

That leads to a concern by some in charismatic and Pentecostal circles that people can "just flippantly get divorced like you go get a haircut," he said.

The Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination, recently changed its rules to say that a marriage crisis should not permanently disqualify someone from ministry. The church voted this summer to permit remarried ministers if their divorce occurred because their spouse was unfaithful or was an unbeliever who abandoned them.

Still, the church does not allow divorced ministers to serve under all circumstances. "We have not permitted credentialing for those who simply do not get along with one another," said the Rev. George O. Wood, general superintendent of the Assemblies of God. "We feel that would be a scriptural violation."

Bishop Noel Jones, a divorced Pentecostal pastor in Gardena, Calif., who counts the Whites, Bynum and Weeks as friends, said judgment should be withheld from both high-profile clergy and everyday worshippers going through a divorce.

"I think that in Christian circles, people are more relaxed about the reasons," said Jones, a spokesman for FaithMate, an online Christian dating service. "I still think that divorce is pretty much a difficult subject for anybody — and rightfully so, but ... we allow more rules, more worldly concepts to prevail."

From USA Today.

Man 'torched £350,000 home to stop his wife getting it in divorce'

A furious husband burnt down his £350,000 home to stop his wife receiving it in a divorce settlement, a court heard.

Gary Hooley, a builder, had previously threatened to "knock the house down brick by brick" during one of many heated rows with his wife Michelle.

With the short marriage heading for divorce, he set fire to the house they shared in a callous act of retribution committed while drunk, Sheffield Crown Court was told.

The detached dormer bungalow, which 50-year-old Hooley had extensively renovated inside, was largely gutted and almost all possessions were destroyed in the arson attack in February this year.

No one was inside at the time of the late-night blaze.

Mrs Hooley owned the home, which was hers from a previous marriage and was in her name. She insured it and was paying the mortgage. Her contents insurance included expensive jewellery and 70 pairs of shoes.

Iain Hillis, prosecuting, said: "It may be he realised his marriage was over and wanted to destroy the house."

Police arrested Hooley nearby, sleeping in the front seat of his van.

Hooley, who denies arson, drank eight or nine pints of beer that night. He told police he had nothing to do with the fire and someone else must have started it.

The couple, who had known each other since school, had been going out for two years before getting married.

But it was far from wedded bliss and they agreed on a trial separation last July. After four months apart they agreed to try again, but it did not work.

Asked in court about the state of the marriage at the time of the fire, Mrs Hooley, 49, said: "I think it was just about on its last legs."

Mr Hillis asked her if she wanted to stay married to Hooley. She replied: "No."

The fire happened after the couple had gone to a 50th birthday party for a female friend of Mrs Hooley's in a pub near their home in Barnsley.

Mrs Hooley said her husband had been in a bad mood all evening and they argued when he ignored her request to watch her handbag when she went for a dance.

Although he calmed down when they danced together, he remained "very offhand" and "snappy".

When she told him she could do no right in his eyes, he pushed over a table of drinks and said: "I'm out of here." He told his wife: 'I'm going to have you brick by brick."

She did not feel like going home and stayed with a friend - only to be awoken by a call from the police in the early hours saying her house was on fire.

Mrs Hooley, an adviser for an energy company, said all her clothes and sentimental items were destroyed.

The marital bed and bedroom were burned to a cinder.

Her daughter from a previous relationship, Lauren Hooson, and Lauren's boyfriend, who both lived in the upstairs half of the house, were out at the time. Two dogs were rescued from the blaze.

Under cross-examination by Ian Storey, defending, Mrs Hooley said the marriage had been "full of quarrels". In one earlier row Hooley allegedly told her: "I will bulldoze the house down brick by brick."

And the court heard that when Hooley temporarily moved out in July last year he had asked for his property and she refused to hand it over.

Mrs Hooley admitted her husband's personal belongings had gone up in smoke in the blaze as well as hers, but she denied a defence claim that Hooley had made £50,000 of improvements to the house.

Asked if she was convinced he had started the fire, she said: "I am, yes."

Her father, Trevor Carr, told the court the police rang him to say the house was on fire. He rang Hooley and said: "Do you know your house is on fire?"

Hooley allegedly replied: "So what. It's nothing to do with me." Asked where he was, Hooley said: "I can't tell you that."

The trial continues.

This story from This London.

Evaluators in Child-Custody Cases Scrutinized

Psychologists and other mental health professionals are increasingly playing a role in child custody disputes.                         

Using a battery of psychological tests and expert judgment, psychologists make recommendations about which parent should have custody.                        

Those decisions are accepted by judges more than 90 percent of the time, but critics say the tests are flawed and the decisions are often more personal than professional.

Listen to this NPR All Things Considered on Evaluators in Child Custody Cases.

Prenuptial agreements prevent much pain

Ever wonder if Paul McCartney wishes he had negotiated a prenuptial agreement before he walked down the aisle with his soon-to-be ex-wife Heather Mills?

I think we all have a good idea what the ex-Beatle would say: Yeah,  yeah, yeah.

Sir Paul, one of the world's wealthiest entertainers, will likely part with the equivalent of $235 million after only a few years of marriage.

The way Judith Charny sees it, McCartney was the ideal candidate for a prenup. He had money in the bank, his own business and children from a previous marriage.

"If you're in a second or subsequent marriage, you want to protect  your kids and you want to protect your assets," she says.

The acrimonious, high-stakes split has put the spotlight on prenups. Even business mogul Donald Trump weighed in, saying McCartney should have known better. (The Donald, who has had prenups for all three of his marriages, shed an estimated $30 million in payments along with his first two wives.) When Charny got married -- 25 years ago in June -- she didn't know what a prenup was.

Today she's a partner at Charny Charny & Karpousis in Mount Laurel, where she helps prospective brides and grooms to negotiate agreements as to how their assets will be divided should the marriage end.

It's a process that should begin long before the wedding invitations  are mailed.

First, working out an equitable agreement takes time.

Second, and most important, a rushed prenup might not stand up in court because one spouse was under pressure. (Ask director Stephen Spielberg. He was ordered to pay ex-wife Amy Irving $100 million when a judge ruled that their prenup, scrawled on a cocktail napkin, was invalid because Irving didn't have legal representation.) "A prenup isn't cumbersome or expensive to set up," Charny says. "But it does take time because everything must be carefully evaluated."

Full disclosure of all assets is essential. If one spouse tries to hide money -- or debts -- from the other, it could negate the deal.

People who are contemplating whether they need a prenup should  evaluate both their financial assets and family obligations.

"If all you have are a couple of 401(k) accounts, you don't need a prenup because those are premarital assets," Charny says. "If you have your own business or property you want to go to your kids, you really should have a serious talk about it."

So why didn't McCartney insist on a prenup? Mills says she offered to sign one but her beau declined on the grounds they were madly in love.

That's the primary reason prospective spouses give in opting  not to go for a prenup, Charny says.

"People think a prenup takes the romance out," she says. "The  truth is it takes the pressure off."

From the Courier Post.

Celebs Play Hardball During Divorce, Custody Battles

High-Profile Couples Will Do Anything to Come Out on Top, Lawyers Say

Celebrities know how to play hardball — especially when it comes to divorce and custody battles. From Alec Baldwin's bitter divorce from Kim Basinger, to Britney Spears and Kevin Federline's courtroom drama, Hollywood is no stranger to the marital woes of the rich and famous.

And the latest high-profile split to splash headlines — that of former Beatle Paul McCartney and his ex-wife Heather Mills — is, so far, proving to be just as nasty, just as manipulative and just as newsworthy as its predecessors.

Mills, who did the rounds on British and American talk shows earlier this month, told "Good Morning America's" Diane Sawyer that she has considered suicide because of the negative media attention — she said she has been called a "whore" — and that she fears for her safety.

Mills is asking McCartney for his U.K. estate, because, she says, the home's extra security will protect her and the couple's 4-year-old daughter, Beatrice.

But according to the U.K.'s News of the World, McCartney isn't going down without a fight.

He told the publication that if Mills fears so much for her life — as she has told the press several times — Beatrice will be safer with him. McCartney now seeks full custody of his daughter.

While several divorce lawyers told ABCNEWS.com that divorce proceedings can get ugly, whether you're famous or not, many agreed that the games celebrities play, when money and children are at stake, are truly eye-opening.

Nanny Becomes Character Witness

"Celebrity divorces are uglier, in the sense that the whole world is looking at them," said Raoul Felder, a New York-based celebrity divorce lawyer. "They have money to indulge in terms of paying lawyers and getting experts to come in. Celebrities are bottomless pits of money, combined oftentimes with limited IQs."

Embarrassing their one-time significant other, Felder told ABCNEWS.com, is a commonly used tactic by celebrities during their divorce proceedings.

More at ABC News.

Dating after divorce: When to reveal your past

After his 10-year marriage ended in 2004, New Yorker Phil Lee, 42, found himself tagged with the modern-day scarlet letter: "D" -- divorced. He wondered how that (not to mention his three children, ages 19, 11 and 9) would affect his future dating life.

The fitness-business owner says it hasn't been much of a hindrance. In fact, his children are usually an icebreaker.

"At my age, a lot of the women I meet have children themselves, so it's generally a back-and-forth over each other's children," says Lee. He jokes, "Women that don't have children and don't want to have children don't really talk to me."

Although the divorce rate is the lowest it's been since 1970 (3.6 per 1,000 people), about 40 to 45 percent of all marriages will end in divorce, according to an Associated Press estimate.

A Dutch study this year showed that divorce reduces one's chances of having a new, successful relationship -- slightly more for women than for men. Children reduced the chances further. It's no wonder newly dating divorcees may be hesitant to mention the details.

"Many people hide these truths because they don't want to scare off a potential date, but hiding such information will make your date feel tricked," says Christie Hartman, a Denver psychologist and author of "Dating the Divorced Man: Sort Through the Baggage to Decide If He's Right for You."

Here's how to reveal your previous marriage to your potential future spouse.

Broaching the subject

When is it time to delve into the facts of your past? Right away, Hartman says. She advises:

• If you are going through a divorce, tell the person you are dating pronto. Don't beat around the bush, and don't say you are already divorced if you are still in the process of it, as did one man Hartman dated. "I suspected that this man wasn't over his marriage, which made sense -- after all, he wasn't even divorced yet," she says.

• More personal information, such as why the marriage failed and the nature of your relationship with your ex, should be saved for a later date when the two of you are more comfortable with each other. As Hartman puts it, "Your date wants to know about you, not your former marriage."

• Don't go into too much detail. Focus on what you learned and how it made you a better person. "This decreases the chances of overwhelming your partner," she says.

• Be neutral when speaking about your past partner. If you criticize your ex, you risk sounding petty and emotionally involved. If you heap on praise, you sound as though you still have romantic feelings for your ex.

• Know what you want out of the relationship and what you're capable of. "Be honest with yourself first, then with potential partners," Hartman says.

After you've come clean

Congratulations. You've revealed your relationship status to your date, and he's not choking on his shrimp scampi. However, it's important to understand your date's perspective.

"The overarching fear is that your 'baggage' will bring unhappiness into his or her life," says Hartman.

So, make sure you really are ready to look to the future. Get your ex, kids and finances under control. Show that you've learned lessons from your previous marriage and moved on. Assure your new partner that she or he is a priority and provides what you want and need now.

In general, anger is an uncommon reaction, unless you haven't been forthright to begin with. If your partner is angry, apologize and work to win back that trust.

If you have kids

Always reveal up front that you have kids. Not only does your love life have to factor in your kids' schedules and lives, but some people prefer to date those without kids. It's in both of your interests to know right away if this is a deal-breaker.

Lee agrees. "If I meet somebody, the first things that I talk about are my children and my previous wife. If you don't do that, you come across as being dishonest."

But take it more slowly when it comes to telling the kids. Before making introductions, tell your kids about the person you're dating, and why they'll like him or her. If your divorce was finalized within the past six months, wait longer and go slower with introductions, as the children are still grieving, Hartman says.

"Listen to their opinion about your partner, but don't give them the power to influence your decision," she says. "Kids need to know that you're in charge."

However, if your new lover doesn't warm up to your kids after a while, you may have to end the relationship. "Ultimately, your partner needs to like your kids," says Hartman. "It's better for everyone involved."

From CNN.

Heather Mills Is Dumped by Divorce Lawyers

Heather Mills has been dumped by the lawyers representing her in her high-profile divorce to Sir Paul McCartney. 

The former model, 39, was told by lawyers at Mishcon de Reya they could no longer represent her in her battle with the former Beatle following a string of print and television interviews mentioning the divorce.

A spokesman for law firm says, "We are not representing her any more."

According to reports, the firm acted because Mills defied a gag on talking about the couple's daughter Beatrice, 4. 

A source tells Britain's The Sun, "She was warned against going on TV and talking about Paul, their marriage and anything about her daughter. But she just refused to listen."

Via SFGate.

End joint finances in divorce

Question: My ex got the house in our divorce settlement. I was told that he was not required to refinance, so of course the loan is still in my name as well. He makes late payments with depressing regularity. This is reflected on my credit score. Do I have any recourse?

Answer:Sadly, not much. As long as your name is on the loan, the late payments will show up on your credit reports and affect your credit scores. That will remain true until he sells the house, refinances the loan or -- heaven forbid -- loses the house to foreclosure.

The late payments and other black marks remain for seven years from the time they land on your credit reports. So if he keeps this loan for an additional 20 years or so and continually pays late, your credit could be affected for the next 27 years.

And as you probably know, late payments send your credit scores reeling. Someone with great credit can lose 100 points from a single payment that's 30 days overdue.

Sorry to depress you. But your situation shows why it's so important to close joint accounts and refinance jointly held loans before the divorce is final. Now, your only hope is to persuade him to refinance, which will be an uphill battle with his presumably awful scores. Or perhaps he'll meet a nice, financially responsible lady and she'll take over the payments. Got any friends you can introduce to him?

More Q&A from LA Times.

No Prenup? Take These Steps

Turn up the lights, turn down the music and forget about romance.

It's time to face the business side of marriage.

Cold as that may sound, the Census Bureau recently released data that should make even the most blissfully married couples forget pheromones and focus on finances.

According to the Bureau, the length of first marriages has been getting steadily shorter since it started collecting such data in 1955. Of couples married back then, about 70% made it to their 25-year anniversary. Now, fewer than half of couples who were to celebrate their silver anniversary sometime after 2000 actually ended up doing so. The majority of marriages ended, due to divorce, separation or death.

"Even the most optimistic people have to ask themselves, 'What financial shape would I be in if my marriage ended?'" says Marilyn Capelli, a financial adviser in Bloomfield Hills, Mich.

The most effective way for couples to button down their finances is through a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement. But many people are reluctant to even raise the possibility of drafting one because it seems so, well, out of sync with that bit about "till death do us part."

Short of one of those contracts, there are some moves that may help you land on solid financial ground, no matter what happens.

Protect Your Inheritance

If you receive a large gift or inheritance before or during your marriage, keep the assets in your own name. If you deposit them into an account you share with your spouse, they may be divvied up in a divorce. If they remain in your name, you keep them.

Don't Get Tangled in Debt

Spouses with different spending habits should hold credit cards in their own names. That way, any massive debt accumulated by one spouse won't end up being a shared responsibility in a divorce.

Plan Ahead With Care

Couples wealthy enough to worry about estate taxes are typically advised to title assets so that each spouse has an amount equal to the estate tax exemption in his or her name (the exemption is now $2 million per person). Here's why: When kids inherit assets, they can potentially benefit from each parent's exemption and inherit $4 million free of estate taxes. But if one spouse dies with no assets in his or her name, that spouse's exemption may be lost.

But be cautious. "If you came into the marriage with money and you title some of it to your spouse, you lose control over it," says Lisa Osofsky, a planner and accountant at Weiser LLP in New York.

There is a way to avoid this and still preserve the estate-tax exemptions: Create an irrevocable inter-vivos (meaning it goes into effect during your lifetime) QTIP trust. Fund it with the assets you would have titled to your spouse. Name your kids as beneficiaries, and they will inherit the assets upon the death of your spouse. They will be able to apply your spouse's $2 million estate tax exemption to the assets inherited through the trust.

Whether you remain married or not, your spouse will be entitled to income from the trust, "but you still protect the principal," Osofsky says.

Stay Connected

In traditional arrangements, where the husband brings in a paycheck and the wife stays home raising the kids, "it's critical that the woman be involved in the finances, maintain a credit record and stay as updated as possible on whatever career skills she has," Capelli says. "While being committed to our families, people need to keep our awareness alive and the doors open."

From The Street.

FEDERLINE HEARD ABOUT DIVORCE ON RADIO

KEVIN FEDERLINE was unaware his ex-wife Britney Spears had filed for divorce until he heard the news on the radio.

According to the dancer's new girlfriend Nicole Narain, Spears failed to tell Federline when she filed for divorce from Federline citing irreconcilable differences last year (06). Narain tells Britain's Closer magazine, "Kevin didn't even know she'd filed the divorce papers until he heard it on the radio."

From Pr-Inside.