For the last century of American life, traditional marriages have looked very similar across the cultural spectrum—one man married one woman and that was it. Today, though, marriage and divorce trends are dramatically changing.

Of course, the most notable modern alteration is the introduction of gay marriage in a handful of states. Other states, too, offer civil unions to gay and lesbian couples. While these unions are not exactly equivalent to marriage, they offer same-sex couples many of the benefits of traditional marriage.

Perhaps a more controversial trend, though, has begun to surface. According to a recent report from ABC News, polyamory—or, the love of many—has become more common in American households.

Polyamorous families come in many shapes and sizes, but they typically involve the addition of at least a third partner to a relationship. And many of these unique families are trying to tweak marriage and divorce laws so that they can all be united (and sometimes separated) in a single partnership.

One of the largest advocacy groups for the controversial practice of polyamory is called Loving More. This group is headquartered in Loveland, Colorado, and it publishes a magazine for practitioners of polyamory.

The group was founded in 1985, and it also holds retreats and conventions for people friendly to its cause. According to its own resources, the group has roughly 45,000 members, which shows that this practice may not be a passing fad.

A spokesperson from Loving More claims that polyamory is significantly more popular than most people estimate, but that the group has had a hard time gathering accurate statistics because the U.S. census does not ask about multiple relationships.

The cause also has some celebrity supporters, such as Oscar-winning actress Mo’Nique, who recently told an ABC interviewer that she and her husband have an open relationship that allows them to seek romantic partners outside their marriage.

Proponents of polyamory also defend spiritual and emotional value of the practice, and disagree with critics who claim that open marriages are simply an excuse to seek casual sex. They also claim that open marriages are not easy.

In fact, one woman who lives with two men claim that polyamory can be more challenging than traditional marriages because “finding three people to get along and commit is not easy.”

Despite the relative normalcy of many open marriages, some observers are concerned about the effect of the novel relationships on children.

Elisabeth Sheff, a sociologist at Georgia State University, studied the effects of polyamorous relationships on children, and believes that children can thrive in these non-traditional households, as long as the family is “stable and loving.”

The definition of “stable and loving,” though, seems to be a bit amorphous, and Sheff also cautions that children in these families may face inordinate amounts of teasing and criticism at school.

Nevertheless, these relationships may continue to grow more popular, and as they do, marriage laws may have to adjust to recognize the shifting trends.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

One of the most nerve-wracking portions of a divorce is the determination of which parent receives custody of the children.

In many divorces, the spouses share custody of the children, but other divorces often see custody of the kids given to just one parent, which is always a difficult arrangement to stomach for the noncustodial parent.

In order to help parents—particularly mothers—put up a better fight for child custody in their divorce, a recent article in the Huffington Post offered some of the most common reasons why mothers lose child custody battles.

First, more often than not, the primary caretaker of the children has the advantage when seeking custody of the kids. This means that the parent who does the bulk of the work taking care of the children—including activities like feeding, driving, and reading to the kids—will likely be seen as the most suitable custodial parent.

So, the author of the article advises parents who probably won’t qualify as a primary caretaker to take a more active role in their children’s lives. Courts simply do not care to give full custody of children to a parent who has not shown a willingness to be an active caretaker.

In addition, parents who do not know important information about their children, such as the names of their teachers and their weekly schedule of their events, may appear to be a secondary caretaker, and will likely have a difficult time obtaining custody of their children.

Next, the article observes that parents who have substance abuse problems will probably face a long battle in court if they try to obtain any custody of their children.

Family courts are very reluctant to hand children over to parents who have problems with drug or alcohol addiction, so parents who struggle with substance abuse must try to get sober before winning custody of their children.

Of course, in addition to substance abuse, another major red flag for family law judges is any evidence of past abuse. If a parent has abused the children, or the other spouse, courts will not give them the opportunity to abuse again.

The digital age has also created another hurdle for parents in divorce: voice and film recordings. If a parent has ever sent an angry voice mail, or a tirade via email, it’s likely that the other spouse will use this evidence in court.

So, parents should be very wary of leaving angry or thoughtless text messages, voice messages, emails, or any other form of communication that can be preserved indefinitely. These forms of technology can come back to haunt parents during divorce proceedings.

In addition to these trends, judges also are reluctant to grant custody to parents who disparage the other spouse in front of the children. This often shows a lack of leadership, and provides a poor example for impressionable children.

So, it is important for parents to remember that their behavior in front of their attorneys and the divorce judge may play a prominent role in the determination of their fitness to be a custodial parent.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

From the Department of Relatively Unsurprising News, Vanessa Bryant, the long-suffering wife of Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant, has filed for divorce from her husband of ten years.

According to a report this week from ESPN, Vanessa Bryant, who bravely stood by her husband when be faced sexual assault allegations in the spring of 2003, filed for divorce in Los Angeles, citing irreconcilable differences as the reason for the couple’s separation.

A divorce attorney representing one of the parties said that “[t]he Bryants have resolved all issues incident to their divorce privately with the assistance of counsel and a judgment dissolving their marital status will be entered in 2012.”

A statement released by the parties also asked for privacy, although, given the couple’s celebrity status and rocky marriage, this wish will likely not be granted by national media outlets.

In her filing, Vanessa Bryant asked for joint custody (both legal and physical) of the couple’s two children, Natalia and Gianna. In his response to his wife’s divorce petition, Kobe Bryant also asked for joint custody of the children.

Vanessa Bryan has also asked for spousal support from her husband, which could prove to be a substantial sum because the couple did not sign a prenuptial agreement limiting future alimony recovery when they were marred.

The absence of a prenuptial agreement is particularly striking in light of the popular trend for celebrities with deep pockets to require potential life partners to sign waivers limiting their rights to future money in the event of a divorce.

In particular, well-paid athletes often require their spouses to sign prenuptial agreements as a routine matter before getting married. However, Kobe and Vanessa married at a very young age, when Kobe was 21 and Vanessa was 19.

At the time, Kobe had very little career earnings and likely did not consider the potential financial advantages of a prenuptial agreement.

The couple, who quickly became NBA royalty, met each other in 1999 on the set of a music video shoot. The two married in April 2001.

Their marriage became a much-discussed topic in 2003, when Kobe Bryant was accused of sexually assaulting a maid at a hotel near Vail, Colorado.

During a press conference in which Kobe Bryant expressed his innocence, and also admitted to committing adultery, Vanessa Bryant sat patiently next to her husband, and vowed to stand next to her spouse in a statement released to the media.

In 2004, Colorado prosecutors eventually dropped the criminal charges after the alleged victim decided that she did not want to continue with the trial.

At the time, it appeared that the Bryants’ marriage might be saved, but recent reports of other alleged infidelities may have pushed Vanessa Bryant to finally end the couple’s marriage.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

While the holidays don’t seem like the best time to begin thinking about divorce, January is the month that typically sees the highest volume of divorce filings. And, if you’re considering seeking a divorce in January or at any time next year, it’s never too early to start planning.

In anticipation of a divorce, a recent article in Forbes magazine offered an end-of-the-year checklist for women who are considering the possibility of filing a divorce in 2012.

First, the article recommends that women begin gathering all their important financial documents, including bank statements (in paper or electronic form), mortgage documents, credit card bills, and the like.

In addition, Forbes advises women to do this discretely, particularly if they are keeping their plans secret. Women might want to conceal these documents in a safe or give them to a friend for temporary safekeeping.

Next, the author recommends obtaining a recent copy of your credit report. This will let you know the status of your own financial health, and will also reveal if your husband is using joint funds for illicit purposes.

Forbes also tells women to begin researching their options for professional help with the impending divorce. The holidays provide a golden opportunity for women to check local listings for a divorce lawyer in their area.

Because of the complexity of state divorce law, many women seek the aid of a divorce lawyer during the process. Remember, too, that both parties in a divorce are usually advised to obtain separate lawyers, because the representation of both spouses by one attorney usually raises a conflict of interest.

Perhaps most importantly, women who are mulling the possibility of divorce should prepare themselves by starting to create their own financial independence. An important step towards reaching this goal is to begin to open new accounts in your name only.

If you wish, you can remain discrete and open a personal account at a different bank from the one you and your husband currently use. In addition, women should consider opening a new credit card in their name, as well, in addition to the checking or savings account.

Finally, the Forbes article also suggests that women should remain vigilant. The article, on a bit of a pessimistic note, says that women considering divorce should be wary of their husbands’ use of joint accounts, particularly if they are using joint funds for unsavory purposes.

So, if you are unhappily married and looking for a fresh start, don’t treat the holidays as wasted time. Over the Christmas season, you can begin taking steps to free yourself financially and prepare for the major changes typically brought on by divorce.

And remember that you must advocate for yourself in order to leave divorce in the best possible financial shape. And good advocacy requires plenty of careful planning, even before divorce proceedings even begin.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

After a heartbreaking divorce that devastated a nation, Kim Kardashian and her former husband, New Jersey Nets basketball star Kris Humphries, have begun waging a public relations battle in an effort to win the latter stages of their divorce.

For his part, Humphries seems to be the more sympathetic of the two, as he (seemingly genuinely) claims he was blindsided by the divorce, or so he told viewers on a recent interview with Good Morning America.

According to ABC News, Humphries said, “I love my wife and am devastated to learn she filed for divorce.” It seems that Humphries was caught completely by surprise when Kardashian moved to eliminate their marriage after only 72 days of matrimonial bliss.

In his recent interview, Humphries claimed that focusing on the next basketball season, which will be played but was delayed by a long labor dispute between owners and players, has helped him start recovering emotionally from the surprising divorce.

In a bizarre twist on most divorces, this couple’s split has gained national attention because their entire relationship has been closely documented on “Keeping up With the Kardashians,” the Kardashian family’s televised cash cow.

In the current season of the reality show, tensions are raised when Humphries expresses his desire to return home to Minnesota to train for the upcoming basketball season, while Kardashian balks at having to live in the less-chic environs of central Minnesota.

When Humphries departs for Minnesota, Kardashian objects and claims that she wants to maintain her dual life in Los Angeles and New York.

Moreover, Humphries also planned to retire to his native Minnesota after his playing career ended, which may have put the final nail in the marital coffin, as far as Kardashian was concerned.

The couple’s divorce process, though, may be more interesting than their marriage. Sources indicate that Humphries recently filed paperwork to have the marriage annulled, rather than accept Kardashian’s offer of divorce.

Some observers claim that annulment would allow Humphries to move on with his life quicker than he could in the event of a divorce, but other sources claim that the annulment could be a savvy business decision for Humphries.

Apparently, Humphries signed a prenuptial agreement that included a clause preventing him from publicly discussing details of the couple’s relationship in the event of a divorce.

If, instead of a divorce, the marriage is simply annulled, that premarital agreement would probably not have a binding legal effect, and Humphries would be free to travel the television interview circuit, saying whatever he pleased about his former spouse.

For his part, Humphries also claims that he refuses to watch the Kardashians’ reality show, despite his prominent role on this season’s episodes. Humphries, it seems, simply wants an opportunity to tell his side of the story.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Ashlee Simpson and Pete Wentz, who were once considered a celebrity couple of moderate musical fame, recently finalized their divorce settlement after months of negotiations between their respective divorce attorneys.

Simpson and Wentz finalized their divorce proceedings a few weeks ago in Los Angeles County Superior Court, according to court documents viewed by the Los Angeles Times and other sources.

Interestingly, the couple kept the details of their split close to their (trendy) vests, as the court documents reveal that the pair have a secret 103-page divorce settlement that will only be filed with the court if they have a dispute about it in the coming years.

Thus, by keeping the divorce settlement out of official court records, which are usually open to the public, Simpson and Wentz were able to maintain a modicum of privacy in their divorce agreement.

Of course, with 103 pages of likely detailed divorce negotiations, the odds that the couple may have a future dispute seem relatively high. In this event, the couple would have to air their dirty laundry, since a court couldn’t enforce terms that weren’t visible to it.

The divorce brings an end to a relatively short romance, though it seemed fairly long-lasting by Hollywood standards, particularly because both parties gained fame at such early ages.

Simpson and Wentz were married in May 2008, and had their first son, Bronx Mowgli, six months later. Almost three months later, Simpson filed for divorce in February 2011.

When she announced the divorce, Simpson also released a statement addressing the couple’s split, saying, “[w}e remain friends and deeply committed and loving parents to our son Bronx, whose happiness and well-being remains our No. 1 priority.”

Thus far, it seems the couple has abided by this promise, as the quiet divorce settlement keeps information about their son and the former spouses’ child custody arrangements out of the public eye.

Of course, while the couple has handled the divorce with class, sources indicate that Ashlee Simpson sought to end the marriage because of Wentz’s allegedly “erratic behavior.” For his part, Wentz denied this allegation and initially tried to convince Simpson to remain in the marriage.

Despite this apparent discord, sources indicate that the ex-partners have maintained an amicable relationship since their divorce, as evidenced by their frequent public appearances together with their son.

In addition, the divorce does not seem to have cramped their respective romantic styles, as Ashlee Simpson has been rumored to be dating actor Vincent Piazza, who is currently starring in “Boardwalk Empire,” and Wentz has been tied to model Meagan Camper.

Simpson originally gained fame for her singing talent, as well as her status as the younger sister of Jessica Simpson, who, sources say, used to be a compelling celebrity. Wentz also won fame for his musicianship through his role as the bassist for the band Fall Out Boy.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Like death and taxes, alimony laws have remained a relatively unchanging part of divorce for several decades. New social trends, however, have led many state legislatures to reconsider archaic divorce laws and create new, more reasonable rules for the modern age.

Alimony, which is also sometimes referred to as spousal support, becomes a part of many divorce settlements, and it and usually forces one ex-spouse to make payments to the other for a set period of time after the divorce.

Usually, the former spouse who has a higher income than the other spouse is the one who is responsible for making alimony payments.

Traditionally, once alimony was settled, the higher-earning ex-spouse often had to make alimony payments to the other spouse until death, regardless of changing romantic circumstances or financial needs.

In addition, alimony was usually split along rigid gender lines, as males more often had to pay spousal support to their former wives. This reality, of course, was supported by the face that, a few decades ago, women were simply unable to earn as much as men in the workplace.

As dating trends for divorced couples have changed, and as women have gained more earning power in the past few decades, lawmakers have recognized the needs for adjusting modern alimony laws.

This modern divorce movement was recently exemplified in Massachusetts, which enacted sweeping changes to its divorce laws this fall. And many other states may soon be following its lead.

According to a recent report from ABC Action News, the new Massachusetts divorce laws change a few key elements of how state courts will treat alimony.

First, under the new laws, the state effectively abolished automatic lifetime alimony. Instead of the traditional system of endless alimony, Massachusetts courts will now cut off alimony payments for recipients who are past retirement age or are in another long-term romantic partnership.

The reasoning behind this change is simple. If an alimony recipient is receiving support from another partner, or is living off a pension or other retirement benefits, he or she may no longer have a need for alimony payments.

Thus, the shift in law recognizes that older adults are often more inclined to seek new relationships or regain financial independence in ways that weren’t often available in the days of yore.

In addition to this change, Massachusetts also adjusted its alimony laws by developing a payment formula that rewards couples who have been together for long periods of time.

Under this new plan, for example, a couple who was married for 15 years could expect to have alimony transactions for just 10 years.

This new system recognizes that couples who have only been married for a few years before they divorce should not be financially intertwined for life.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

For divorced parents who are stressed about making sure their children enjoy the holiday season, a recent article in the Poughkeepsie Journal offers an enlightening bit of perspective on preserving holiday cheer for children after a divorce.

First, the author advises parents to remember that the holidays should be focused on their children, rather than being centered on old grudges or misplaced animosity between the former spouses.

In order to avoid angry episodes between parents who simply cannot get along, some experts suggest that the parents should have family members or friends transport their children from one house to another, to avoid unnecessary face-to-fact contact with a hostile ex-spouse.

Even if this involves asking for a favor, or operating less efficiently, avoiding potential fights will help preserve your children’s enjoyment of the holidays.

Another method to help avoid potential disputes is to plan ahead. By setting a mutual timetable for when each child is with each parent over the holidays, parents may be able to avoid disputes about timing that can arise when plans aren’t made ahead of time.

There’s nothing worse than the surprise absence of a child from a family gathering, so planning for the holidays ahead of time could help preserve a lot of holiday sanity.

In addition, divorced parents of children should also discuss each other’s expectations regarding gifts. Some parents may treat the holidays as an opportunity to one-up their ex-spouse, but such actions are ultimately detrimental for children.

By agreeing on a certain price range for gifts, parents can avoid trying to outshine each other. Of course, if one parent is paying significantly more in child support each month, the effect of this financial obligation may also play a role in the financial discussion.

After you have decided on a reasonable range of gifts for your children, make sure that you and your ex-spouse discuss this decision with extended families. Your relatives may also try to compete with the other family, and this could undermine your efforts to treat your children as kids, not as pawns.

And, finally, parents may want to consider keeping their children together as they visit each parent, rather than splitting them up.

Some experts believe that children prefer to remain with their siblings over the holidays as they see each parent. By keeping the children together, they may have a stronger sense that their family remains intact, despite mom and dad’s separate living arrangements.

The holidays can be incredibly stressful times for parents who are not divorce. Adding marital separation and children to the equation only makes things more complicated.

By planning ahead, communicating with an ex-spouse, and keeping the children’s best interests in mind, parents may be able to save the holidays from becoming a disaster.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

After months of living apart, Vanessa Long has finally decided to file for divorce from her husband, Bishop Eddie Long, who recently settled several civil lawsuits that alleged he forced young men to have sex with him.

Several months ago, Eddie Long settled civil lawsuits with four young men who claimed that Long coerced them into having sex with him, according to a recent report from the International Business Times.

Long did not face criminal charges for the alleged sexual abuse because the age of sexual consent in his home state of Georgia is 16, and the boys who accused him of wrongful conduct were all 17 or 18 years old.

The scandal struck Long particularly hard because he has publicly held strongly anti-gay opinions for a number of years. Long is also an influential church leader, as his congregation has grown to roughly 20,000 people since he started New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Georgia, in 1987.

After the scandal first struck, Vanessa Long stayed in the background, and sources were not sure whether she would eventually leave her straying husband.

Despite her silence on the matter, Vanessa and Eddie have apparently been living in a “bona fide state of separation,” according to court documents filed last week in DeKalb Superior Court.

The decision, though, does not seem to have been simple for Vanessa. On Thursday, Vanessa Long officially filed her divorce petition with the court. By the next day, however, she seemed to have changed her tune.

On the day after filing for divorce, Vanessa Long released a curious statement through Eddie Long’s church that she had decided not to get a divorce, after all.

However, later that same day, Vanessa Long released another statement saying she had decided that “the dismissal of her divorce petition is not appropriate at this time.” This tangled phrase, of course, means that Vanessa Long has decided to proceed with the divorce.

The divorce may be particularly difficult because the couple have been together for more than two decades. Eddie and Vanessa Long married in 1990, just three years after he started his church.

Vanessa was Eddie’s second wife, as he had previously been married to Dabara Houson, who accused him in her 1985 divorce petition of beating her while she was pregnant. Again, though, Eddie Long did not face a criminal conviction for these accusations.

If all the allegations are true—including the sexual abuse claims and the alleged spousal abuse—Eddie Long seems to have more lives than the average American church leader.

Of course, despite all the claims, Eddie Long must retain a certain charm. Even in the wake of recent events, Vanessa Long recently saw fit to say, “I love my husband. I believe in him and admire his strength, and courage.”

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

In a novel move that some American companies would be well-advised to adopt, several British law firms have begun paying for their employees’ divorce filings in an effort to ease the difficult marital transition.

According to a recent report from the United Kingdom Press Association, the last five years have seen a “marked increase” in the willingness of small law firms to help fund some or all of their workers’ divorces.

The trend, though, does not seem to have struck larger firms or corporations, as smaller firms seem to feel the emotional pull of a divorce more strongly due to their more intimate environment.

Of course, paying for an employee’s divorce is not simply a matter of helping out a friend in need. On the contrary, these small firms are making a calculated economic decision.

Sources indicate that, in Britain, some divorces may last up to 18 months, which can have a heavy emotional and financial drain on employees. And, when employees are worried about child support or alimony, they have less energy to devote to their work.

So, by paying for some or all of a worker’s divorce expenses, these pioneering small firms believe that they will make that employee more productive, thereby saving the business money in the long run.

According to the Press Association Report, the “paternalistic” trend of employer-funded divorces was non-existent five years ago. The recent recession, however, changed many firms’ attitudes towards funding employee divorces.

As the recession took its toll on firms’ bottom lines, small companies faced stiffer competition for their most talented employees.
In an effort to keep gifted workers during the recession, smaller firms had to find creative ways to keep key talent. And bonuses, promises of lengthy tenures, and other perks only go so far.

So, to sweeten the pot for prized employees, businesses decided to give them a boost during divorce proceedings.

As a senior associate at one British firm put it, given the current economic climate, small businesses “can ill afford such distractions, especially if the individuals involved are senior and important to a business’s fortunes.”

Of course, the divorce payments are not unlimited. Most firms make a detailed list of the potential savings they will accrue from assisting an employee’s divorce, and spent that much money on the case.

And, as British firms show that this strategy can reap some rewards, American businesses may soon start helping out their employees who are looking to end their marriages.

In addition, American businesses may also offer legal aid for employees who are facing other disruptive life events, like civil lawsuits, medical emergencies, or family deaths.

Such aid, however, might be limited to small businesses, just as it is overseas. On average, smaller firms are more likely to see real benefits from offering legal assistance to their workers.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.