Divorce

Divorce or dissolution of marriage is the ending of a marriage before the death of either spouse.

In cases involving children, governments have a clear interest in ensuring that disputes between parents do not spill over into the family courts. One way of doing this is through the encouragement of a parenting plan. Every state now requires parents to file a parenting plan when they legally separate or divorce.

Divorce can be contrasted with an annulment, which is a declaration that a marriage is void, though the effects of marriage may be recognized in such unions, such as spousal support or alimony, child custody, child support, and distribution of property.

Divorce laws vary considerably around the world. It is banned in Malta and in the Philippines, but an annulment is permitted.

In some jurisdictions, a divorce must be certified by a court of law, as a legal action is needed to dissolve the prior legal act of marriage. The terms of the divorce are also determined by the court, though they may take into account prenuptial agreements or postnuptial agreements, or simply ratify terms that the spouses have agreed on privately. Often, however, the spouses disagree about the terms of the divorce, which can lead to stressful and expensive litigation. Less adversarial approaches to divorce settlements have recently emerged, such as mediation and collaborative divorce, which negotiate mutually acceptable resolution to conflicts. In some other countries, like Portugal, when the spouses agree to divorce and to the terms of the divorce, it can be certified by a non judiciary administrative entity, where also can be served an Electronic Divorce since March 2008.

The subject of divorce as a social phenomenon is an important research topic in sociology. In many developed countries, divorce rates increased markedly during the twentieth century. Among the nations in which divorce has become commonplace are the United States, Canada, and members of the European Union. Japan retains a markedly lower divorce rate, though it has increased in recent years.

Types of Divorce

The approach to divorce varies by jurisdiction. There are two basic approaches to divorce: fault based and no-fault based.

Fault divorce can affect the distribution of property, and will allow an immediate divorce, in states where there is a waiting period required for no-fault divorce.

Residency requirements vary from state to state, and a couple may separate, one spouse may move to a state with divorce laws of their choice, establish residency, and then apply for divorce. However, this typically does not change the state in which property and other issues are decided.

No fault divorce

Under a no-fault divorce system the dissolution of a marriage does not require an allegation or proof of fault of either party to be shown. No-fault divorce has been in operation in Australia since 1975 and the only thing the applicant needs to show is separation (or "deemed separation") for 12 months, and the divorce application can be made by either party or by both parties jointly.

Forty-nine states of the United States have adopted unilateral no-fault divorce laws. Common reasons for no-fault divorce include incompatibility, irreconcilable differences, and irremediable breakdown of the marriage. No-fault divorce can be a unilateral divorce action forced upon the non-initiating spouse by the initiator with the support of the court system. The non-initiating spouse may be divorced against his or her will, though "not at fault".

In England a to obtain a no fault divorce the time scales are 2 years if both parties agree and 5 years if one party does not agree.

At-fault divorce

Fault divorces used to be the only way to break a marriage, and people who had differences, but did not qualify as "at fault", only had the option to separate (and were prevented from legally remarrying).

In the United States, New York is the only state that still requires fault for a divorce.

However there are ways (defenses) to prevent a fault divorce:

• Condonation
• Connivance
• Provocation
• Collusion

A defense is expensive, and not usually practical as eventually most divorces are granted.

Comparative rectitude is a doctrine used to determine which spouse is more at fault when both spouses are guilty of breaches.

Summary divorce

A summary (or simple) divorce, available in some jurisdictions, is used when spouses meet certain eligibility requirements, or can agree on key issues beforehand.

Key factors:

• Short marriage (under 5 years)
• No children (or, in some states, they have resolved custody and set child support payments)
• Minimal or no real property (no mortgage)
• Marital property is under a threshold (around $35,000 not including vehicles)
• Each spouse's personal property is under a threshold (typically the same as marital property)

Uncontested divorce

It is estimated that upwards of 95% of divorces in the US are "uncontested," because the two parties are able to come to an agreement (either with or without lawyers/mediators/collaborative counsel) about the property, children and support issues. When the parties can agree and present the court with a fair and equitable agreement, approval of the divorce is almost guaranteed. If the two parties cannot come to an agreement, they may ask the court to decide how to split property, deal with the custody of their children.

Collaborative divorce

Collaborative divorce is becoming a popular method for divorcing couples to come to agreement on divorce issues. In a collaborative divorce, the parties negotiate an agreed resolution with the assistance of attorneys who are trained in the collaborative divorce process and in mediation, and often with the assistance of a neutral financial specialist and/or divorce coach(es). The parties are empowered to make their own decisions based on their own needs and interests, but with complete information and full professional support. Once the collaborative divorce starts, the lawyers are disqualified from representing the parties in a contested legal proceeding, should the collaborative law process end prematurely. Most attorneys who practice collaborative divorce claim that it can be substantially less expensive than other divorce methods (regular divorce or mediation). However, should the parties not reach any agreements, any documents or information exchanged during the collaborative process cannot later be used in further legal proceedings, as the collabrative process is confidential proceedings. Furthermore, there are no set enforceable timelines for completion of a divorce using collabrative divorce.

Mediated divorce

Divorce mediation is an alternative to traditional divorce litigation. [1] In a divorce mediation session, a mediator facilitates the discussion between the husband and wife by assisting with communication and providing information and suggestions to help resolve differences. At the end of the mediation process, the separating parties have typically developed a tailored divorce agreement that can be submitted to the court. Mediation sessions can include the party's attorneys or a neutral attorney or an attorney-mediator who can inform both parties of their legal rights, but does not provide advice to either, or can be conducted without attorneys. Divorce mediators may be attorneys who have experience in divorce cases. Divorce mediation can be significantly less expensive than litigation. [2]. The adherence rate to mediated agreements is much higher than that of adherence to court orders.

Read More......

The Kissing Cure

By Lois B. Morris

When in the throes of an allergy attack or a skin rash, it may help to pucker up. A Japanese study suggests that kissing reduces allergic responses. Among the 48 subjects, half suffered from eczema (a form of atopic dermatitis), and half had hay fever. All the volunteers kissed their lover or spouse for 30 minutes while listening to romantic music. Two weeks later, they listened to the same music and embraced their partner without kissing. Blood tests revealed that after the kissing phase only, the participants experienced a significant decrease in their levels of immunoglobulin E (IGE), an antibody that the immune system produces in response to allergens, thereby eliciting an allergic reaction. Allergist Hajime Kimata of Satou Hospital in Osaka also triggered skin rashes in people allergic to dust mites or latex and determined that after kissing, their IGE levels dropped significantly as well. Relaxation and stress relief from kissing may bring about this immune response, Kimata says.

Read More......

Secret to feeling sexy: It's all in the mind

By Meghan Daum

Sexiness, like love or nostalgia or sinus congestion on a pollen-free day, has a way of sneaking up on us at the most improbable moments.

How do we account, for example, for that ineluctable feeling of desirability that can come over us when we are traipsing home from the yoga studio in sweaty leggings and flip-flops that reveal more about our pedicure history than we'd like? And how, by the same token, do we explain the ease with which many of us can slip into our most reliably fabulous Balenciaga dress and Louboutin slides and still feel as sexy as a bag of carrots?

There are, of course, as many reasons for this cruel dichotomy as there are ways to feel bad about ourselves.

We can blame hormones, headaches, pimples, bloating, bad moods, bad hair, or bad lighting. We must also consider what it is we're staring into. Mirrors, as all women know, are highly politicized entities. For reasons that I am convinced are more complicated than national health care, it is entirely possible for me to look and feel reasonably hot in front of my own mirror and, less than an hour later, catch a reflection of myself that suggests some shapeless creature from Jim Henson's workshop has borrowed my outfit and copied my hairstyle, and is blithely chatting up my friends, all of whom are too polite to say anything.

There have, of course, been times when I have felt almost unbearably sexy for no apparent or justifiable reason: retrieving the newspaper in pajamas and clogs, standing over the kitchen sink washing dishes, pondering the produce selection at Whole Foods. None of these occasions led to or had anything to do with an actual sex act.

In other words, let's get one thing very clear: The phenomenon I'm discussing has to do with sexiness, not horniness. There is a sizable, if nuanced, distinction. If this were the analogy portion of the SAT, we might say that sexiness is to horniness as epicureanism is to hunger. Whereas lust tends to limit its reach to particular people or stretches of time (and, like hunger, can presumably be sated via fairly standard channels), sexiness is a state of mind. It is inextricably linked to sex as a concept but wholly separate from fornication. Despite our preoccupation with the sexiness of women, sexiness applies to both genders. Despite the youth-centric tyranny of our times, it transcends age. As much about posture and voice intonation as it is about cleavage or skirt length or the dimensions of our posteriors, feeling sexy is, at its root, about owning ourselves. It's being at home in our own skins. No wonder it is so damn elusive.

After all, pretty much anyone can have sex.

Capturing the essence of sex and customizing it to our own needs and tastes is more difficult. Hence, another analogy: Having sex is to being sexy what conceiving a child is to raising a child. The first, age and health permitting, is more or less a biological function. The second is an art: a complicated, ever-evolving process that no two people can possibly do the same way. And just as the parents who are most successful at child rearing are often those who pay the least attention to its fads (heated diaper wipes) and socially constructed paranoias (the idea that the child will suffer due to unheated diaper wipes), women who possess an innate eroticism tend to do the least amount of worrying about how they measure up to popular images of sexiness.

Read More......

Can’t quit your ex? How to say goodbye for good

By Dr. Laura Berman

The beginning of summer is always ripe with barbecues, graduations and weddings. Although these get-togethers often happily reunite us with family and friends, they also tend to unhappily reunite us with our exes of yesteryear. Indeed, even with all we have learned from painful breakups, some of us simply cannot resist the temptation of reconnecting with an old flame. And when that old flame is front row and center at a mutual friend’s wedding, the temptation becomes even more irresistible.

If this pattern of “making up and breaking up” sounds familiar to you, you might be part of a revolving-door relationship. Much like a revolving door, your relationship with your ex is never stagnant — he is always on the way into your heart or on the way out.

Your family and friends have heard the many dramas of your relationship with your ex more times than they would like to count, and although you know you sound like a broken record, something always pulls you back into the relationship. The revolving door whooshes again, and you are back in the middle of the broken (and breaking) relationship.

How can you stop this pattern once and for all, especially in the middle of summer social activities?

Change your pattern. When relationships get stuck in a revolving rut, it is generally because our lives are stuck in a revolving rut. By changing your routine, you can change your point of view and end a make-up and break-up cycle. How can you do this? Explore different activities, go to new restaurants, spend time with old friends, or even go on a much-needed vacation. Figure out what is keeping your life in stalemate (chances are that it isn’t just your relationship) and then make a change.

Figure out why you are relying on a broken relationship. You know that your ex isn’t good for you, and you know that you aren’t good for your ex. So why do you keep returning to each other? Don’t fool yourself into thinking that love alone is driving your revolving door, as there are generally a myriad of different emotions driving your decision process. Figuring out these emotions and deciphering what is truly driving you to be in a broken relationship will help you stop the destructive pattern.

Sit down and write down the emotions that come to your mind when you think about breaking up with your ex for good. Whether you are jealous at the thought of seeing your ex with someone new, nostalgic at the thought of losing a close friend, or terrified at the thought of being alone and dating again, you might be surprised to discover that your list isn’t built upon love alone. Of course, all of the above emotions are valid and sincere emotions — but that doesn’t mean that you can build a loving, lasting relationship upon them.

Talk about it with a professional. Breakups are often seen as something most people can make it through on their own. However, most people tend to assuage their broken hearts through self-medicating with destructive behaviors like drinking, one-night stands, angry late-night phone calls to their ex, etc. Losing someone you love through a breakup or a divorce is heartbreaking, and trying to go it alone can be overwhelming. This is why so many people get stuck in a revolving-door cycle, as being alone can be so painful that people would rather be in a bad relationship. A counselor can help you make smarter choices, and give you what you need the most: an unbiased listener.

Finally, it might be helpful to keep two lists on hand with you at all times — one list to remind you why the relationship can’t work (he doesn’t want kids, you don’t share similar life goals, etc.), and one list to remind you why you are content and complete as you are (you love the freedom to meet new people, you have a wonderful network of friends and family, etc.).

Rely on this network as you go through this difficult time, and allow yourself the freedom to be sad, mad, lonely and so on. As the emotions move through you, they will slowly lose their potency, and you will be ready to say goodbye to your ex and move on to a happy, healthy new relationship.

Dr. Laura Berman is the director of the Berman Center in Chicago, a specialized health care facility dedicated to helping women and couples find fulfilling sex lives and enriched relationships. She is also an assistant clinical professor of OB-GYN and psychiatry at the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University. She has been working as a sex educator, researcher and therapist for 18 years.

Read More......

Organist walks out on priest's anti-gay marriage appeal.

by Philocrites

Today's Boston Globe tells the story of a brave Roman Catholic cantor and church organist who lost their jobs for challenging an archdiocesan official's anti-gay marriage pulpit appeal. Maria Cramer reports:

At the pulpit of St. Gabriel Church in Brighton, an official from the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston was telling parishioners how to sign a petition to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

As he looked on, said Patrick Kilduff, the church's organist for 28 years, he grew angry that the archdiocese had chosen a Saturday Mass to make what he considered a political statement.

So before he was supposed to play the closing hymn of the Mass on Oct. 8 , Kilduff walked away from his organ in protest. His cantor, Colleen Bryant, stood in front of the congregation and told them that they did not have to sign the petition if they did not want to.

Moments later on that rainy Saturday afternoon, the church pastor fired Bryant, and Kilduff resigned in a fury.

In an interview yesterday, Kilduff recalled telling the priests of the parish: "'I'm done. I can't believe what you guys have done.'"

I'd be surprised if a few more church musicians don't discover that the church's campaign against gay rights creates an irreconcilable conflict for them on a personal level. After all, many talented and faithful church musicians are gay, and it would be hard to be a church musician who doesn't know, care about, and deeply respect gay colleagues.

Here's to Kilduff and Bryant's courage.

Read More......

Saying 'I do' to marriage

by Edwin Meese, III and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.

Some have cold feet. Others are indecisive. Many would rather avoid the issue.

Are we willing to amend the U.S. Constitution to preserve the institution of marriage? The question will come before the Senate this week when members debate and vote on whether to consider a constitutional amendment that protects marriage between a man and a woman.

It's not clear what several key senators will do. They say marriage should be between one man and one woman. But they're reluctant to amend the Constitution. They probably think the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is enough to protect marriage.

That argument made sense eight years ago. Judges in Hawaii declared the state's marriage statute was "sex discrimination" and violated the Hawaii constitution. That's when Congress overwhelmingly passed DOMA, signed by President Clinton, that defines marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of one man and one woman, and clarifies that the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution does not require that states be forced to recognize as a marriage any union other than that of one man and one woman.

But two U.S. Supreme Court cases changed all that. In Romer vs. Evans, the court declared a state constitutional amendment unconstitutional because it was "born of animosity" toward homosexuals and violated equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. And in Lawrence vs. Texas, the court declared that all individuals have a due process right to "seek autonomy" in their private relationships, including "personal decisions relating to marriage."

Last November, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ran with these ideas when it ruled traditional marriage "is rooted in persistent prejudices" and that homosexual couples are legally entitled to marriage under the state constitution. Massachusetts now has issued more than 2,500 "marriage" licenses to same-sex couples from 27 states and the District of Columbia, creating legal standing to challenge DOMA nationwide.

The effect of all these decisions, and the litigation strategy behind them, is now clear: establish same-sex "marriage" as a civil right the federal government will then have a constitutional obligation to secure nationwide.
Is it likely DOMA will withstand this judicial juggernaut? Under normal circumstances, the answer would be yes. Congress has the power under Article IV to prescribe the effect of the "full faith and credit" clause. But DOMA won't survive activist judges bent on using dubious interpretations of equal protection or due process to advance their policy objectives. "You'd have to be tone deaf," says Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe, "not to get the message from Lawrence that anything that invites people to give same-sex couples less than full respect is constitutionally suspect." Just read the latest issue of the prestigious Harvard Law Review, the journal of record in elite legal circles: "Now the time is ripe for a constitutional challenge to DOMA." Why? Allegedly DOMA was motivated by animus, violates equal protection principles and is incompatible with substantive due process. The first challenge to the constitutionality of DOMA has been filed in a Florida federal court, arguing DOMA not only abuses full faith and credit but, more importantly, violates the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution. In the face of this challenge, it's not only reasonable but obligatory that marriage be preferred and defended in the law — and protected in the Constitution. This doesn't mean marriage must be completely nationalized or regulated by the federal government. The Framers rightly left marriage policy with the states. But we can protect the states' liberty to regulate marriage, in accord with the principles of federalism, only by acting to prevent the institution itself from being redefined out of existence or abolished altogether. This is a time for choosing. One option is to allow a few radical judges to redefine marriage by legal fiat, according to their notions of social progress. By circumventing the legislative process and excluding the people from so fundamental a decision, these judges threaten our democracy and the rule of law. The other option – this week in the hands of the U.S. Senate – is to proceed with the democratic process of amending the Constitution to reflect the settled will of the people. Nothing less than the future of our society, and the course of constitutional government in the United States, are at stake.

Read More......