News broke today that reality starlet Kim Kardashian is filing for divorce from her husband Kris Humphries after only 72 days of marriage. Celebrity gossip site TMZ broke the news, which was confirmed via Twitter by Ryan Seacrest, who produces Kim’s high-rated E! reality show.

Despite the short length of the marriage, Kardashian is reportedly not seeking an annulment. Kardashian’s divorce petition cited irreconcilable difference. The petition requests that each parties pays for their own divorce attorney fees, and asks the court to reject any claims by Humphries for spousal support.

Kardashian and Humphries were married August 20 of this year in a lavish ceremony that reportedly cost $10 million, including a reported $2 million engagement ring.

According to TMZ, one cause for the split may be due to Humphries’ desire to move back to his home state of Minnesota, a proposal that Hollywood darling Kardashian adamantly opposed. A preview for the upcoming season of “Kourtney & Kim Take New York”, which features the short-lived marriage, highlights this dispute with Kim asking her husband how she can maintain her celebrity status while living in Minnesota. His response: “By the time you have kids and they’re in school, nobody will probably care about you.”

Prior to becoming tabloid fodder, Humphries was best-known for his seven-year career with the NBA, most recently playing with the New Jersey Nets, where he averaged double-digits points and rebounds. At the end of the 2010-2011 season, he became an unrestricted free agent, but has been unable to play due to the lockout between NBA players and the league.

Kardashian is best known for starring in a string of reality TV shows for the E! channel.

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

Disputes over child custody can be the most emotionally challenging part of a divorce. These disputes, however, are usually settled in the safety and comfort of a courtroom, or at a negotiating table with divorce professionals.

And, while the non-custodial parent often feels a sense of loss and disappointment, child custody disputes rarely lead to physical altercations. Recently, though, one deeply troubled California man allegedly exercised his frustrations over a child custody dispute in a tragic manner.

Last week, according to the Orange County Register, Scott Dekraai allegedly entered a hair salon in Seal Beach, California and started shooting employees and customers alike.

Sources close to the Dekraai family claim that Scott was targeting his former wife, who was a hair stylist. Dekraai’s ex-wife, Michelle Fournier, was killed in the mass shooting. Seven other people also died during the senseless rampage.

The shooting occurred at mid-day in an otherwise quiet coastal town, and reports after the incident indicate that Dekraai and Fournier had had a strained relationship after their divorce in late 2007.

According to the divorce documents, Dekraai had alleged that Fournier was making harassing and threatening phone calls to him and his parents. In her defense, Fournier alleged that Dekraai physically abused her during their four-year marriage.

Dekraai responded to Fournier’s allegations of abuse by claiming that she called him repeatedly after their divorce, allegedly making harassing statements. Dekraai’s psychologist said these calls stressed Dekraai, who had post-traumatic stress syndrome after a 2007 incident in which a co-worker lost his life.

Due to these conflicts, in 2008, a judge ordered Fournier to limit her contact with Dekraai to text messages and emails. The order allowed one ten-minute phone call per week, but she was only to discuss their son during the call.

The former couple also spent the next three years arguing bitterly over the custody of their son, as Dekraai tried to obtain full legal custody.

The father alleged that Fournier drank excessive amounts of alcohol, which limited her ability to make sound decisions for their child. He unsuccessfully requested the right to have the “final decision” over all major decisions related to their child’s welfare.

Sadly, the couple had a custody hearing schedule this December, but this will obviously be altered as a result of the Dekraai’s alleged actions.

This case offers an extreme example of the emotional difficulties that can accompany divorce. Obviously, though, Dekraai had deep psychological issues that transcended whatever troubles the divorce had caused.

The tragic incident does, however, offer a valuable lesson to couples seeking a divorce. While the separation may create vast amounts of negative emotions, careful planning and sound guidance can help couples cope with the emotional challenges of divorce.

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

The extension of the right to marry to same-sex couples has been met with considerable joy by gays, lesbians, and their supporters.

With the right to marry, same-sex couples are now able to enjoy both the emotional and practical benefits of marriage, including visitation rights, tax advantages, and health insurance benefits.

The elation over the introduction of same-sex marriage in several states, however, has been tempered by the collective realization that obtaining a same-sex divorce remains much more complicated than getting a divorce in more traditional marriages.

A recent article in the San Diego Gay & Lesbian News highlights the troubles same-sex couples have discovered when trying to obtain a divorce.

As only a minority of states currently allow gay marriage, and same-sex marriages are not recognized by the federal government, many gay and lesbian couples have to travel to another state to get their marriage license.

At the beginning of the marriage, this tactic makes sense for, say, a couple who lives in Maine but has to travel to Massachusetts in order to obtain a valid same-sex marriage. However, when this couple later seeks a divorce, their options are much more limited.

If, for example, the Maine couple wants to get a divorce, they cannot get divorce in Maine because it does not recognize same-sex marriages.

The couple’s only option is to return to Massachusetts for a divorce, but out-of-state couples cannot get a divorce in this state unless they have been residents for more than a year.

Some couples may be able to obtain a “divorce” from a gay-friendly judge, but this decree is not legally enforceable. And, because the divorce is not enforceable, the members of the couple cannot seek a new marriage, even in states that allow it.

Thus, couples like the hypothetical newlyweds in Maine become stuck in their marriage, without the legal right to nullify their contract.

Another potential challenge to same-sex divorce occurs in states like California, which allowed gay marriages for a brief period of time, but later reneged on the offer.

Now, in California, people who were married in the brief window of time when marriage was allowed are able to seek a divorce, but others who were married outside this window are out of luck.

Because of these unique challenges, same-sex couples who are looking for a divorce often have to get creative. Mediation, negotiation, and clever use of existing property laws are common strategies for same-sex couples who are trying to separate.

As these various strategies require a certain degree of legal knowledge, many couples seek further information from a local divorce lawyer.

This bizarre loophole in the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples is likely a temporary hurdle, but it will remain a challenge for gay and lesbian couples as long as some states, and the federal government, refuse to recognize gay marriage.

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

In a divorce settlement, former couples usually divvy up assets like cars, homes, and jewelry. Beyond these physical items, they may also determine which parent will have primary custody over the couple’s children.

Rarely, though, does the ownership of a professional sports team hinge on the outcome of a divorce agreement. Such a high-stakes decision, however, was recently made in a divorce involving the owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team.

Frank and Jamie McCourt, who bought the Dodgers in 2004 and ushered in a brief period of success for the franchise, recently settled a bitter divorce that had provided juicy fodder for local media outlets for several months.

According to the Los Angeles Times, under the terms of the divorce agreement, Jamie McCourt will receive an alimony payment of roughly $130 million, but she will agree to relinquish all of her control over the Dodgers.

Observers claim that the divorce was the most expensive separation in California history, with both sides accruing more than $20 million in legal fees alone. Sources estimate that a protracted battle over ownership of the Dodgers would have added more than $14 million in legal costs.

By retaining ownership of the team, Frank McCourt may be able to prevent a U.S. bankruptcy court from selling his franchise to someone else.

The Dodgers have spent the past year in a highly publicized dispute in bankruptcy court over the rightful ownership of the team. Bud Selig, the commissioner of Major League Baseball, is fighting for the court to sell the team to new ownership.

Before their newly minted settlement, Frank and Jamie McCourt had disagreed over the future of the franchise, with Jamie arguing that the team should be sold to pay off the couple’s various debts.

Now that Jamie McCourt no longer has a say in the team’s activities, Frank McCourt believes that he may be able to convince the bankruptcy court to allow him to keep the team.

In court documents, Jamie publicly aired details of the McCourts’ lavish lifestyles, which were partially funded by Dodgers fans.

She claimed that the couple had a combined salary of more than $7 million a year, and had used earnings from the team to buy two homes worth $46 million in Malibu, and two homes near the infamous Playboy Mansion worth $27 million.

The couple also bought properties in Colorado, Montana, Massachusetts, and Mexico, took private jets on international flights, and received house calls from hairdressers and makeup artists.

These massive expenses have outraged Dodgers fans, who believed that the owners were neglecting their duties to invest the team’s profits in baseball players and facilities.

Despite the embarrassing publicity surrounding the divorce, and the loss of her stake in the team, Jamie McCourt will likely be comforted by the $130 million settlement she received after the divorce.

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

Getting a divorce can be emotionally challenging for the separating couple, but it can be especially difficult for children, who may not fully understand why their parents need to divorce.

A recent article in the Huffington Post argues that parents need to be more mindful of their children’s well-being during a divorce, and that our culture should allow families experiencing divorce more time to adequately “grieve” the loss of their past life.

In divorce, without proper planning, children may be ignored, treated like property, or even used as pawns in the parents’ disputes over child custody.

The potential for poor treatment of children in divorces is particularly troubling in light of the fact that, each year, more than one million children under the age of 18 see their parents divorce.

And, while a divorce court can distribute the possessions and financial assets of a divorcing couple, it has little power to help care for their children. This is where parents must take responsibility for their actions.

In the Huffington Post article, a therapist offers tips for parents who are looking to ensure the emotional health of their children during and after their divorce.

First, the author advises parents to seek some form of counseling for their children, even if it is only a single visit to a therapist. If you are unsure about where to find a counselor, you may ask your divorce attorney if he or she knows of any helpful post-divorce resources.

Next, parents should explain the divorce to their children, and ensure them that both parents still love them as much as they did when they were married. Also, parents should explain that the children can still love both parents, and will not be expected to pick sides.

With this tip in mind, parents must be careful not to convince children of one parent’s superiority over the other. Even if parents have valid disputes with their ex-spouses, children should not be used as advocates in a battle between former spouses.

A healthy divorce transition also requires the parents to let go of potential hatred or desires for revenge that emerged out of their separation.

Not only can children easily identify such negative emotions, they may also mimic attitudes of hatred and the need for retaliation. Avoid exposing children to violent thoughts or hostile feelings by trying to come to peace with your former spouse.

Above all, remember that recovering from divorce can be a long process. Divorce can be a very healthy change for children whose parents can no longer live together, but its positive effects do not necessarily occur overnight.

By listening to your children’s concerns, and reminding them that divorce doesn’t have to change their relationship with each parent, you may help create a more positive post-divorce environment for a divorce’s most vulnerable participants.

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

While divorcing couples often argue about several aspects of their separation, perhaps the most emotionally-charged aspect of a divorce is determining child custody.

Typically, divorcing parents will agree to share custody of their children, with one parent also paying child support on a monthly basis.

Some divorces, however, are a bit more bizarre and feature emotional disputes over the custody of other possessions, or even pets.

A recent divorce case in New York highlights just how odd some divorce disputes can be. According to the New York Daily News, the divorce between James O’Hanlon and Susan McCarthy, owners of a popular Greenwich Village restaurant, has stalled due to a dispute over the family pet.

When the couple started their divorce proceedings in 2009, they gave their dog, a “goldendoodle” named Lucy, to O’Hanlon’s sister for safekeeping.

The sister, Margaret Healy, eventually claimed ownership of the dog, but McCarthy alleges that the dog still belongs to her, and is demanding to receive custody after the divorce.

To make matters more complicated, McCarthy’s niece claims that she is in fact Lucy’s rightful owner. The niece claims that the dog was given to her as a gift, and that a chip bearing the niece’s name that was implanted in Lucy proves her ownership of the dog.

While this seems to give McCarthy and her niece a strong claim to the dog, Healy contends that the two relinquished ownership of Lucy by giving Healy the dog for more than two years.

Healy also alleges that McCarthy and her niece attempted to kidnap the dog from Healy’s apartment, and has filed a restraining order against both parties.

According to sources, McCarthy’s actions may be motivated by the fact that Healy’s husband is representing O’Hanlon in the divorce action.

McCarthy’s niece alleges that she has been banned from visiting Lucy because Healy’s husband is representing McCarthy’s husband in the divorce dispute, and that Healy has taken advantage of this ban to steal her dog.

The head-spinning nature of the facts of this dispute show just how complicated divorce can be. The unfortunate dispute also reveals the seemingly petty nature of disputes than can derail an otherwise viable divorce.

To avoid such emotional squabbles, many people seeking a divorce take steps to plan ahead and consult with a divorce lawyer about issues that could pose a challenge to the divorce.

By identifying potentially contentious issues at the beginning of a divorce, couples who are looking for a fresh start may be better equipped to negotiate mutually beneficial solutions to their most pressing problems.

Planning ahead can also help prevent minor disputes from turning into major fiascos later in the divorce process. As the story shows, even family pets can play an important role in finalizing a divorce.

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

As the realities of modern family life continue to change, states are increasingly making wholesale changes to their divorce laws, particularly the laws dealing with child custody.

These changes are occurring across the country, but a recent modernization of child custody laws in Pennsylvania helps illustrate the changes in our cultural attitudes towards parenting after divorce.

This year, according to the Centre Daily News, Pennsylvania made three major changes to its child custody laws.

The first change involves the criminal history of prospective custodial parents. Under the new law, judges in divorce court must check whether parents seeking custody of children have been convicted of certain crimes.

The law lists several specific crimes that judges are supposed to check, including common ones such as DUI arrests and possession of a controlled substance.

If a judge finds that a potential custodial parent has committed one of these specific crimes, the judge must then determine whether the parent remains fit to take care of the children.

While the presence of one of these crimes on a parent’s record does not automatically defeat his or her ability to take care of children, it does pose a potential roadblock on the path to gaining custody.

In many other states, judges also have a great deal of discretion in gauging whether a parent is fit to raise a child. As a result, divorcing parents with criminal records who are seeking custody should fully disclose their past to their divorce lawyer, in order to prepare for potential courtroom questions.

Second, the new Pennsylvania laws dictate that judges should not give custody preference to parents of a certain gender.

In the past, when all other things were equal, women tended to be awarded custody more often than men. However, most states have now embraced the modern trend that requires judges to ignore gender when issuing custody judgments.

Today, as shown by the new Pennsylvania regulations, judges are more concerned with parents’ incomes and fitness to serve as a guardian, rather than their status as a mother or father.

Finally, the new laws in the Keystone State allow couples who are still living together to obtain a custody order from a judge before they separate. Once one parent moves out of the house, the custody order would become effective.

This change recognizes that, in today’s bleak economic environment, many couples who would otherwise divorce are still living together due to financial necessity.

By obtaining a custody order before the parents separate, they will minimize the stress on themselves and their children, because there would be no uncertainty as to who would eventually have the children.

By making these adjustments to the state’s child custody laws, Pennsylvania legislators helped move the state’s treatment of divorce into the 21st century.

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

In a move that has riled religious leaders, a legislator in Mexico recently proposed a bill that would make it much easier for Mexican couples to get a divorce after two years of marriage.

According to CNN, Leonel Luna, a Mexico City legislator from the left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution, proposed a bill that would allow married couples to sign a contract agreeing to only two years of marriage.

If, at the end of the two years, the couple wished to stay together, they could simply renew the contract for as long as they liked.

However, if the couple desires a split, the contract would specify which spouse receives which pieces of property, and it would also determine who gets custody of the couple’s children, and what sum each spouse pays for child support.

While members of the community have railed against the perceived immorality of such an arrangement, Luna claims that the bill simply reflects the realities of modern marriages.

According to Luna, almost 50 percent of married couples in Mexico City eventually get divorced. Recent statistics show that of the 33,000 couples who were married in Mexico City in the last two years, 16,000 later filed for divorce.

In light of these eye-opening divorce figures, Luna claims that his bill is aimed at “acknowledging reality and creating a mechanism that will allow couples to end their marriage without going through the additional pain and suffering of a legal battle.”

Luna also says the bill would cut costs for divorcing couples, as the typical divorce in Mexico City usually costs a married couple around $3,500.

If the bill is approved, it would only apply to couples in Mexico City, not the country as a whole.

Of course, the bill has attracted many critics. Some observers argue that most divorces in Mexico are achieved through informal separations, not formal divorces. These informal separations, the argument goes, are much less costly than divorces.

Perhaps the strongest criticism comes from church leaders. Mexico has the second largest population of Catholics in the world, trailing only Brazil, which explains why so many Mexicans believe that marriage is a permanent vow, not a temporary contract.

In the words of Revered Jose de Jesus Aguilar, a spokesman for the Mexican Conference of Catholic Bishops, “I think that instead of creating all kinds of comfortable rules for political purposes, legislators should focus in promoting strong marriages and family values.”

Despite these reservations, Luna believes his bill has a strong chance of becoming a law. Of the 66 members in the Mexico City Assembly, 34 belong to Luna’s party, and he believes that most his party members will vote in his favor.

If the bill does become a law, other Western countries will surely track the progress of the new marriage initiative. If the idea works, temporary marriages could soon be coming to a country near you.

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

Divorce can cause plenty of headaches, even when experienced attorneys are involved. Debates over child custody, alimony, and child support payments can dominate divorce proceedings, leaving both parties exhausted.

One element that seems to add to the stress of divorce is the presence of a judge and the setting of a courtroom. For some, these formal features may make the divorce seem more contentious, and less amiable.

There is, however, an alternative to getting a divorce in court. Today, many couples choose instead to settle their divorce outside of court, through negotiation between themselves, rather than with divorce attorneys.

Of course, while this setting may seem much less contentious than a divorce in court, there are still some snags couples might hit along the way.

To help couples navigate their way through a divorce settlement, the Huffington Post recently published some tips for divorcing spouses who opt to settle their differences outside of a courtroom.

The first suggestion offers advice on how to respond when your spouse insists on an answer to a particular issue.

In this scenario, the spouse who is being pressed for an immediate answer to a sensitive question can neutralize the situation by setting it aside for a later conversation, and move on to a more easily answered issue.

If the couple can begin agreeing on simple issues first, they may be better equipped to handle more sensitive problems later. Once several topics of the divorce have been accepted, the couple has a stronger incentive to work through stickier issues.

The next common problem occurs when one spouse asks the other for a “ballpark” figure of the amount of money he or she expects from the divorce. Both parties are often reluctant to be the first to offer their expected sum.

It is wise to be reluctant to throw out the first figure, though, as setting a ballpark number immediately establishes a ceiling for what that spouse may get in the divorce.

So, instead of throwing out an expected settlement amount, the Huffington Post article advises people seeking a divorce to evade the question by saying they need more time to think about.

Third, the article addresses how couples can respond to ultimatums. These are common utterances in divorce negotiations, and usually involve a threat that the divorce won’t be settled unless one spouse agrees to a certain term.

Ultimatums, though, are often given in the heat of the moment, and may not always be as firm as they first seem.

In order to avoid heightening the tension, the spouse who receives the ultimatum might respond by asking for more time to come up with their own solution that would give the other spouse just as good a deal.

Or, the responding spouse might say the deal appears to be pretty fair, but then ask for a few key concessions. Both these methods may diffuse a tense situation, and allow the other spouse to back away from the ultimatum while maintaining some dignity.

While these tips may provide some help, many people prefer to seek legal information from a local divorce lawyer familiar with the state laws, and each party’s rights, before heading to the negotiating table.

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

As the struggling economy continues to eat at the wallets of hard-working Americans, state legislators are looking under every nook and cranny to find increased savings for their constituents.

One fad that has recently struck several states is the limitation of alimony payments in divorces. Traditionally, alimony could be instituted as a series of lifelong payments. However, new laws challenge the permanent role alimony has long held.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Massachusetts recently became the latest state to pass a law limiting alimony payments.

Under the terms of the new law, alimony payments will now end when the recipient reaches retirement age or when the recipient starts living with a new romantic partner.

The new law also creates a strict formula for determining alimony payments in a divorce. The formula also limits the number of years alimony may be collected according to the relative length of the marriage.

Thus, in a couple who breaks up after 15 years of marriage, the spouse that receives alimony payments will only be eligible for alimony for roughly 10 years after the divorce.

Despite the law, judges still have the discretion to allow long-term alimony payments for lengthy marriages.

Traditionally, alimony was established by divorce courts as an indefinite payment for the non-bread-winning spouse. This tactic, however, has increasingly grown less popular.

Modern economic realities, including the increasing likelihood that both partners in a marriage work full-time, have led legislators to tweak archaic laws.

The modern alimony system was created at a time when few women worked, and a divorce could mean financial ruin for wives who had not worked outside the household for a number of years.

Now, however, spouses tend to be more financially independent, and the new alimony laws reflect this shifting cultural tide.

The new Massachusetts divorce law, however, is not without its critics. Some observers argue that alimony payments are especially important for low-income women, who often do household tasks such as raising children instead of joining the workforce.

When marriages end, these women are left without up-to-date job skills, and no income to support their children.

In defense of the new law, however, proponents claim that the new alimony laws do not undercut traditional child support responsibilities, which require the non-custodial parent to make payments each month for much of the children’s expenses.

This, however, does not help non-working partners who do not have children, or whose children are now adults.

While Massachusetts critics of the law may be disappointed, they may be heartened by their state’s relatively soft stance on a judge’s discretion to allow long-term alimony in some circumstances.

In contrast, Florida requires a judge to find “clear and convincing evidence” that one partner needs permanent alimony, which establishes a much higher bar than judges must prove in Massachusetts.

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