Five years ago, a Saudi couple was forced to get a divorce because the wife’s brothers did not approve of her husband’s lineage. But recently they were granted the right to reunite their marriage, according to Reuters.

The couple had initially married in 2003 after her father approved of the union. And before Fatima Azazz and Mansour al-Timani could marry, the bride’s family checked the lineage or background of her future husband, al-Timani.

It is custom in Islamic culture to determine if the future husband comes from a good tribe before their families join in matrimony.

When the family initially checked his background, they found that al-Timani’s lineage was from a good family. He was from the town of Jouf and belonged to the Shammar Tribe.

The marriage was allowed to proceed, but things changed shortly after Azazz’s father passed away. Her half brothers said they no longer approved of her husband’s lineage and wanted the marriage annulled.

Reuters reported that in 2006 her half brothers claimed al-Timani lied to the family about this lineage and that his lineage was beneath their family.
They petitioned a court in Jouf, Saudi Arabia, to annul the marriage on grounds of tribal incompatibility. The court ruled in their favor and forced al-Timani and Azazz to separate.

After the divorce, they could no longer live together. Azazz went to live in a state run orphanage in Dammam where she gave birth to their second child, and al-Timani lived in an apartment with their 6 year old daughter.

Al-Timani stated that the courts never asked their side of the story and that he never lied to the half-brothers about his lineage.

Al-Timani also said that his wife’s brothers petitioned for the divorce because of a financial dispute over money after their father died.

Ahmad K al-Sudairi, the couple’s attorney, prepared a 20 page document to present King Abdullah in hopes to reverse the ruling. The King in turn had the cessation court review the divorce case.

The court ruled that the couple could be reunited, but that it could take awhile before the ruling takes effect.

The Austin-American Statesman is reporting that Angelique Naylor and Sabina Daly were married in 2004 in Massachusetts, taking advantage of that state’s law legalizing gay marriage. After they were married, they returned to their home in Austin, where they adopted a child and carried on with their life.

The couple was separated almost a year ago, however, and now they have found themselves in court to determine the terms of their divorce. Whether or not they can even get a divorce, however, is under dispute from some Texas lawmakers.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott intervened in the case, in which, according to the couple’s lawyer, a judge had agreed to grant the couple a divorce and ordered that they put that agreement in writing for the court to sign later. This ruling was the culmination of a two-day hearing to determine custody of their child and separation of property.

After the judge granted the divorce, Abbott filed a petition to intervene. He notes his opinion that rather than granting the divorce, the judge should instead declare that the marriage is void. A spokesman for the Attorney General said in a statement that the State maintains that the Court has no legal authority to grant this divorce, and as a result, the State must intervene in this case to defend the Texas Constitution.

In essence, Abbott’s position is that the case could be resolved sufficiently by voiding the marriage, rather than granting a divorce. Or as his representation put it, the parties can achieve a legal termination of their Massachusetts marriage, through an enforceable judgment.

We never asked them to grant us a same-sex marriage, said Naylor in response to the intervention. We only asked them to legally recognize that we needed a divorce.

Abbott has intervened in such cases before, as in the case of two men who wanted a divorce in Dallas County. The judge in that case determined that the prohibition on same sex marriage violated the right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. Abbott appealed that ruling, and the case is still pending.

The judge in the current case brought up the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that a valid judgment from one state be enforced in other states regardless of the laws or public policy of the other states. Abbott argued that this clause would not come into play in the case.

Texas is among the states that passed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as being only between a man and a woman. In 2005, the Texas legislature passed it with a majority of 76 percent.

Massachusetts passed the law allowing same-sex couples to marry in November of 2003, in a decision by the highest court in the state.

Werner Lippe had married his wife Faith in 1990. According to an Associated Press article, Werner and Faith began to argue tremendously during the later years of their marriage.

Lippe allegedly had their 15-year-old son tape arguments he had with Faith in order to use them against her in the divorce proceedings.

Faith eventually served her husband with divorce papers. The two scheduled a meeting between them and their attorneys to hammer out the details of child custody and alimony. Both were issues that neither agreed upon.

But before they could have their meeting about the divorce proceedings, Faith went missing.

On October 3rd, Faith had missed several of her appointments. Werner later said the he saw her drive away in a SUV but he could not tell who was driving the vehicle.

Faith never came back home that evening and Werner became concerned. He visited a friend the next day and asked about the proper amount of time before a missing person’s report can be filed.

Later that day he called 911 and advised the police that Faith was missing. The police searched the Lippe household, but found no evidence of foul play.

It wasn’t until later that Werner confessed to his wife’s murder. He was speaking with his friend, James Learnihan, when he said he burned his wife’s body in a barrel he kept at his home.

But Learnihan was wired and police got a taped confession from Lippe.
Once the police confronted Lipped about the tape, he confessed again.
Shortly after his arrest, he changed his story. Lippe said that the he was scared of his friend and thought he was being framed. He only confessed again to the police because they were not listening to his pleas of innocence.

If convicted, Lippe faces 25 years in prison. Lippe had two previous marriages that both ended in divorce and neither lasted over two years.

However, living apart often means a couple’s expenses double. With the tough economy, some couples are unable to fill the separation requirement.

Now, some legislators are starting to take a different look at this required separation. They want to determine if there are less expensive ways to fulfill the current legislation without breaking the bank.

According to the Baltimore Sun, Maryland legislator and attorney Luiz Simmons recently proposed a law that would allow couples seeking divorce to live in the same residence for a year.

That catch is that while the couple lives in the same home, they cannot engage in sexual relations with one another.

Current Maryland law states that any couple filing an uncontested divorce must go through a one year separation before the divorce can be finalized. During the separation, the couple must split and live in separate households.

Simmons said that when both members are forced to live a part for a year, they can become more financially stressed. And if children are involved, then the expenses could significantly increase.

But if the couple is allowed to remain in the same household and refrain from sex, then they will have the emotional separation without the added stress of making additional payments.

Skeptics of the proposed legislation raise the concern how the courts will determine that the couple abstained from sex for a full year.

But that would be an issue even if the couple lived apart for a whole year and some say that will be up to the courts to decide.

U.S officials said that as parents of different nationalities divorce, issues arise when one parent decides to take their children out of their natural born country and back to the parent’s native country.

In September, 2009, U.S citizen Christopher Savoie was arrested in Japan when he attempted to take his children back to the United States without his ex-wife’s consent.

The Japanese government did not charge Savoie with child abduction. They let him return back his home town in Tennessee, but his children remained in Japan.

Prior to Savoie’s retrieval attempt, a court hearing in the U.S. determined that he would get full child custody of the couple’s children.

But after the decision was made, his ex-wife took their children back to her country of Japan. This was a violation of the U.S. court’s child custody decision.

In Japanese law, only one of the parents is allowed to have full child custody after a divorce. In most cases, it is the mother who receives custody.

The fathers then have little if any access to their children until they are adults.

Since the Savoie situation, the U.S. has been determined to work out an agreement on child custody with Japan.

They believe that if an agreement could be reached, then both parties would benefit and all the parents’ rights would be protected. It would also stop parents from taking action on their own to take their children back.

U.S. officials recently met with a Japanese Foreign Ministry team in attempts to resolve the issue. They requested that Japan sign a treaty from the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.

The treaty states that child custody decisions made by the country where the children were born should remain intact. It also protects the rights of both parents in child custody issues.

Japan has not yet signed the treaty. They argued that the treaty does not protect the rights of Japanese mothers in cases where they might flee from an abusive relationship with their foreign ex–husbands.

At this point, it appears no agreements have been reached but U.S. officials hope to come to a positive conclusion.

Take Europe for example—a continent rich with different cultures and countries right next door to each other. Many feel international divorce is an important issue to tackle.

According to an Associated Foreign Press article, the European Union (EU) wants to create a law to govern such international divorces.

The EU was developed to create standardized laws for different countries who joined the union. It now consists of 27 member nations across the continent.

Of these 27 member nations, there are over 350,000 international marriages in a year—170,000 of those ends in divorce.

Only 10 member nations agreed to set up a unified divorce law among the organization. So the group intends to use their concept of “enhanced cooperation” in order to pass a law into the EU’s legislation.

This concept of “enhanced cooperation” was created by the EU’s 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam. This allows eight of the member states to apply EU laws to it members of the organization and to proceed without the opposition’s consent. This occurs if the group at large cannot unanimously agree on the legislation.

The 10 states that are in favor of the law include: Austria, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Spain and Romania.

Some of the countries that oppose are Britain, Finland and Sweden.
Those who oppose have said they might be open to the idea of common divorce laws amongst the organization. But their main issue was the group of 10 invoking the “enhanced cooperation.” Some feel that it should only be used sparingly and for very important issues.

Supporters hope a common divorce law will create less confusion with divorce proceedings as EU members have inconsistent marriage and divorce laws. They hope to determine which nations’ laws should be applied when citizens of two different member states want to get a divorce. They also said it will help settle important issues such as division of assets and child custody.

Supporters said that their goal is not to divide the EU, but to have all members join together to determine a common divorce law.

Reuters reported that a new study of almost 1 million couples shows that there is no evidence to support the myth that a sick child puts enough strain on a marriage to lead to divorce.

The study, headed up by Dr. Astri Syse of the Cancer Registry of Norway in Oslo, should be encouraging to families that have the burden of a sick child, Syse said.

She added, though, that the study was conducted in Norway – a country with extensive health and welfare support. Results from the study may not necessarily carry over to other countries where medical bills and finances may cause more stress.

The couple married at a young age back in 2002. Rimes was 20 years old, and Sheremet was only two years older when they tied the knot.

For the most part, Rimes and Sheremet kept their relationship private and stayed out of the press and gossip columns. Most thought they were a happy, married couple.

But rumors began to spread when Rimes was seen attending Hollywood events with Eddie Ciberian.

Fans alleged there might be trouble in paradise, and that Rimes was having an affair with her Lifetime network movie costar.

And then last September Rimes posted on her Web site that she was filing for divorce, but no paper work was ever filed.

According to a CNN article, many people’s perceptions changed about the famous country star and her alleged affair with Ciberian.

Most fans liked Rimes’ good wholesome girl image. When the rumors spread, many were upset that her divorce was not yet final and she was seen with another man.

Fans were not shocked that Sheremet decided to file for divorce. He cited irreconcilable differences in the divorce court papers.

With the divorce Sheremet is requesting that his attorney fees are covered and that his soon to be ex-wife pays him spousal support or alimony.

Sheremet’s attorney also requested that he would not have to pay alimony to Rimes.

Another CNN article reported that Ciberian was in the beginning of his divorce when the rumors started.

He filed for divorce from his wife Brandi Glanville in August 2009. He filed, also citing irreconcilable differences.

Ciberian and Glanville have two children together and are in the midst of a custody hearing.

As for Ciberian, he stated earlier that he wanted to keep his divorce proceedings private.

He stated, “From the outset I have made a conscious decision to try and keep this matter private and not discuss it in the press. While my wife and I are dissolving our marriage, we will work together to parent out two children.”

Before, divorce and relationships were never widely talked about in public –  each was considered a private matter – but now it is becoming a hot topic to talk about in the media.

Egypt is and always has been a patriarchal society where men have more rights than woman. The country is ruled by Islamic law, which is based on the Islam religion Shari’a.

This law dictates practices for both marriage and divorce. Rights are unequal for men and women.

Under the Islamic Shari’a, men can divorce their wives at any time, any place and for any reason by saying, “I divorce you” three times consecutively. Women can only get a divorce through legal court action.

But times, they are a-changing…

In 2000, Egypt amended their laws allowing woman to initiate “no fault” divorces called Khula. Even though this seems to be a breakthrough, women who seek Khula must surrender all claims to alimony and their dowries.

As barriers break down and talking about divorce in public becomes more popular, more women are filing for divorce and more are seeking counseling for their marriages.

The number of divorces in Egypt is constantly increasing. According to CNN, the divorce rate in 2008 jumped 8.4 percent, and now nearly 40 percent of marriages in the country end in divorce. This is the highest rate for any Arab country, and it’s one of the few that publicly discusses the topic of divorce.

One woman – Mahasen Saber – regularly discusses the topic on her radio show called Divorce Radio. She uses her program to help break stigmas and talk openly about divorce and relationship issues.

Saber stated, “The main perception of a woman who is divorced in Egypt, or in any Arab country, is that she is evil or something is not right… that she has done something wrong. I started Divorce Radio to change that view.”

Women’s rights have changed and continue to change over the years in Egypt. Women are gaining momentum with access to education and opportunities for employment. They now have the opportunity for economic independence.

With this increase in divorce, it’s only natural for people to speak out about the topic. Women are the most affected and the main group discussing it, as it’s changing the way they think and live their lives.

In a CNN article, Sears calls out the faults of the modern institution of marriage, saying that with the inception of no-fault divorce 40 years ago in California, marriage ideals began to unravel.

Ward said that in her years on the bench, she saw countless couples who were dealing with issues that she believe stemmed from an growing irreverence for marriage in the U.S.

In her experience, people who choose to be single parents or who have suffered a bad divorce have a harder time relating to their children.

Her main point is this: “Many Americans are failing their children because they have already failed themselves,” meaning that many of the parents she saw in her courtroom were unprepared for parenthood.

Ward suggests six things that could help revitalize the American institution of marriage:

1. Stop glorifying single parenthood – it’s all over the media with single or unmarried celebrity parents, but that doesn’t mean it will work for everyone. It’s not easy – despite appearances.
2. To all single mothers by choice - consider the emotional deprivation of your child who will grow up without a father.
3. Teach Generation Y about parenting – Having a baby doesn’t mean it’s someone to love you unconditionally. Think about how you treated your parents growing up. Not always the most pleasant thing, right?
4. Give more props to men – Husbands and fathers that do their jobs well are not commended enough. Raising children with two people is wonderful, make sure the men know how needed they are.
5. Fewer broken homes now could mean more productive people later – There are kids who come out of single-parent homes and are incredibly successful, but the statistics speak otherwise. Most don’t have the same educational success and social skills as kids who grow up living with married parents.
6. Revisit no-fault divorce laws in state legislatures – Some of these laws allow one party to opt out of a marriage too easily. Working through problems can often make a relationship stronger. Don’t give couples such an easy option of just giving up.

See Judge Sears’ article: Stay married if you want kids