Many people have learned that social media can be a devastating weapon in a divorce case. With the ability of a spouse to catch their significant other in a lie, or in compromising positions, it’s easy to see how websites like Facebook can open a flood gate of information.

But do these social media websites do more than make these once discrete action visible? According to a recent article in the Chicago Tribune, social media websites might actually make cheating easier.

The website FacebookCheating.com was created in response to this very problem. Ken Savage, founder of FacebookCheating.com, created the website after his wife used Facebook to rekindle a relationship with her ex-boyfriend.

Savage describes the purpose behind his website as, “to help others cope with someone cheating on them as well as shine light upon someone who is using Facebook to cheat.”

Facebook has become such common instrument in divorces that, according to a survey from Divorce-Online.com, approximately 20 percent of divorce cases mention Facebook. This is an especially shocking statistic when you take into account that Facebook has only been around for about six years.

Savage has stated that he doesn’t have a problem with Facebook, in fact he still uses and enjoys the website. Instead, Savage feels that Facebook is used as a tool to make affairs easier.

Facebook isn’t purported to be the cause of these divorces. Social media websites don’t make anyone cheat, nor do they encourage cheating. They do, however, give someone who would cheat the ability to reconnect with someone to participate.

However, there are some experts out there that believe that Facebook can actually influence people to cheat, where they would not if Facebook wasn’t at their disposal.

Stacy Kaiser, a psychotherapist and relationship expert, says about Facebook-started affairs, “It’s not your everyday affair… When it comes to something like Facebook, you are reconnecting with a long-lost love. All those teenage feelings, those college feelings come back again, you feel young again, and it drives you to do something you don’t normally do.”

In Kaiser’s quotation, she fails to note that not all affairs from Facebook are with long-lost loves. Many times Facebook is used to maintain a relationship with someone you have recently met. Or, you could have even met the person through Facebook, and have no actual contact before meeting him or her.

Just how much Facebook does “cause” divorce is debatable, yet nearly unprovable. For every illicit affair that starts due to a chance encounter on Facebook, someone can say that the cheater would have done it with someone else.

It’s important to understand that Facebook can start and end relationships, but it isn’t what should be blamed for spousal infidelity. People make decisions and actions, and personal accountability shouldn’t be lost on a website.

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

For the latest piece of evidence that the world is an increasingly cynical case, there’s now an insurance option for those who are not convinced that their vows will stick: divorce insurance.

The product, called WedLock, comes from SafeGuard Guaranty Corp., a company that claims to have created the first divorce insurance product that the world has ever seen, according to the New York Times.

The WedLock insurance policy will pay out its coverage in cash to cover legal fees and set-up for a new house in case of divorce. They sell these policies in monthly units of protection, and those who want to be covered pay a monthly installment of about $16. With each payment of $16 comes $1,250 in coverage, and the coverage accumulates with each payment that you make.

Also, as a bonus for those who continue to question the health of their marriage, SafeGuard will add $250 per year, per unit, to the coverage amount.

If you did get a divorce, you would simply send the company proof of divorce, and receive the amount that you are covered for in a lump sum.

The folks at SafeGuard have developed quite the strategy for preventing people from gaming the system and buying an insurance policy when they already know that they will be getting a divorce. One way is to make it so that a policy does not mature until 48 months after the policy’s effective date. There is, however, a premium for those who are especially jumpy and want to reduce the maturity period to 36 months.

Another rider available for purchase allows a policy holder to get their premiums back should they divorce before the allotted number of months has passed.

Another potential problem could be the high level of risk that SafeGuard could take on if a person or couple was particularly volatile in relationships, or had a family history of divorce. John A. Logan, the CEO of SafeGuard, assured the New York Times that the appropriate research had been done, and that even in a worst case scenario in which every policy holder got a divorce, the policies would not all pay out at the same time.

And why shouldn’t couples simply put the $16 per month into an investment that might create a bigger return than the insurance policy? Or what about the idea that some divorces aren’t expensive, but amicable?

Beware of an ex-spouse who could end up with that nest egg, says Logan.

“There is nothing to stop your spouse from raiding those investments and taking it all,” said the pessimistic Logan. “And then with all the money gone, you’re left with all the legal bills.”

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, Logan’s inspiration for the WedLock product sprung from his own personal experience with a divorce that presumably cost him dearly.

Logan is asking for couples to have more faith in his company than in their own marriages, too, as currently these policies aren’t covered by any state guaranty funds. So if SafeGuard goes bankrupt, and Logan finds himself divorced from his company, you are out of luck.

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

People are now traveling on vacations on their own more often than ever, as much as 25% of all Americans, according to a recent article in the Chicago Tribune.

For these solo travelers, some of the most frustrating words they can encounter while planning a vacation is ‘based on double occupancy’.

At least part of the reason for this trend is believed to be the marriage cycle. “People are getting married later… There are more divorces. It’s become more popular to travel as a single,” says Ann Thomas, director of Singles Travel Co.

So, if you’re one of the many individuals who wants to travel after a divorce, but who doesn’t have a partner to accompany you, what are your best options?

One of the pioneers in this is the Norwegian Cruise Line, which offers 128 ‘studio’ suites which are designed mainly for one person.

However, if you see a deal from a cruise company, be careful. Often times the advertisement will have language about traveling for half the price, but the fine print will note that this would mean sharing a room with a stranger—something most of us would like to avoid after our first year in a dorm room.

The poor performance by the economy has, however, been of some help to the solo traveler. With extra room available, singles on cruises, if they catch the right deal, have been able to get a double room for the price of a single traveler.

Something that is easy to forget if you’re planning a solo voyage, price isn’t everything. Spencer Brown of CruiseCritic.com, and an expert in the area, reinforces the point by telling you to “[a]sk yourself if you’re going to be happy as a solo voyager on a cruise ship” if not then perhaps you should “pick a ship that’s social,” stating that Crystal Cruises “really [goes] to a lot of trouble to match you with people you’d enjoy. And Holland America has great enrichment programs, which are good places to meet and make connections. If you’re young and single, Carnival’s great.”

You should also pick a destination that you would want to go. If you like warm and tropical, an Antarctic cruise might not be the best fit for you—even if you enjoy the atmosphere of the boat.

When you’re planning yourself a trip, be certain to ask questions. Try to see if you can get a deal as a single traveler, ask what the atmosphere is like. You should also know what answers you want to hear. If you’re looking for a fun-time party atmosphere, and you’re told the cruise a week-long of relaxation, then perhaps you should reconsider this as your trip.

As long as you do your research, and get as good a deal as you can, then you should have no problem finding a way to enjoy your single vacation.

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

There is plenty of precedent when it comes to custody battles over children of a divorce, but a new type of custody battle is on the horizon for many divorcing couples: pet custody.

Increasingly, the question is arising as to how to treat a pet when both sides of the couple have emotional attachments to that pet, and both have a stake in taking it with them. Should a dog or a cat be treated as a child would in a divorce case?

KATU in Maryland takes a look at this question, after a Maryland judge ordered shared custody of a dog in a divorce case.

Before this ruling, pets were treated as property, and therefore the pet either goes fully to one party or another, or it is sold and the proceeds are split down the middle. But more and more, people physically and emotionally treat their pets as a part of the family.

When it comes to pets in a divorce, the demands on divorce judges, therefore, are changing. The Maryland decision is one legitimate indicator of the shifting attitude.

Gail Myers is one divorcee who put custody of her dog ahead of most other property concerns when she decided to split from her partner.

“I don’t have any kids,” she told KATU, “so [her dog Lucky] is the closest that I am going to get to having a child. I have another dog as well. They are both like my kids.” When Myers decided to go through with the divorce, she did not take much with her, and had little regard for physical property. “My clothes, a few personal items, and the dog. That’s all I wanted,” she said.

The problem was that her ex-partner also wanted Lucky the dog. Therefore, contentions arose about who would be able to take the dog, or what the arrangements might be that would mirror a custody conflict over a child. The divorce that began as a no-contest separation was about to become what the article refers to as “a testy battle” over the fate of their pet dog.

In the state of Maryland, as in other states, a pet was considered on the same level as a car or a house, deemed by the law to be a piece of property. There wasn’t anything in the law about creating visitation rights that can be upheld when it came to a piece of property.

The issue, then, was whether to treat the dog as a piece of property, as a child, or somewhere in between.

Maryland Judge Graydon McKee opted to treat the pet as more of a child than a lawnmower.

He determined that it wouldn’t be fair to order the couple to sell the dog and split the proceeds. Instead, he ordered joint custody.

Lucky will go to one owner for six months, and the other for another six months.

While there are certainly details to be worked out, and limits that will likely be set, the decision could open more doors in the divorce process involving pets. The decision simultaneously acknowledges the emotional attachment that owners have with their pets, but it also could complicate proceedings.

“It would certainly complicate divorce litigation, clearly,” said Marlene Eskind Moses, of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “It would be a time-consuming proposition.”

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

When a couple feels it is time to get a divorce, there is often a difficult decision to be reached, either by the couple or a court, on how to split the custody of the children. Add in the fact that the children are curious experimental teenagers and business travel, and the parents can be left in a tough spot.

This difficult area was discussed recently in an article from the Wall Street Journal.

The article starts out by giving a powerful example of the destructive power of a teenager, and social networking. An 18 year old boy, while his parents where in Europe, used Facebook and text message to invite a large amount of friends over—about 100 showed up.

The party, described as a “rager”, ended up costing an estimated $45,000 in damage to the house.

The mother was at a loss at what to do. Her ex-husband travels often and leaves the house available to their son when he is gone on business.

The way for the children to be safe without villainizing one of the parents, according to the Journal, is for the former couple to work together in the best interest of the children. Adolescents are too impulsive and vulnerable to be left with the freedom of an unsupervised house.

A clinical psychologist and an expert on children and divorce, JoAnne Pedro-Carroll agrees, stating that, “it is very risky for teens to [be] unsupervised for long periods” of time. Teens need a limits, and surprisingly, according to Pedro-Carroll, they want limits.

Pedro-Carroll believes that the best way to handle the example of the teen throwing a “rager” is to readdress the agreement with the father. When teens have a single agreement from the parents on how to act and what their limits are, then they respond better. The difference in freedom from the parents in a divorce can be very detrimental to the teenagers when they are in such a fragile portion in their lives.

Working together can be difficult for the parents. After all, there is a reason they got divorced.

What kind of an example does it set for the children if the parents can’t find common ground on how to raise the children. When the parents have different views on how to raise the children and are unable to reconcile their views, the children are left unsure what is the correct way to act.

It may be a nightmare situation to come home to $45,000 worth of damage done by your teenage children, but if you and your ex cannot work out an agreement on your children’s boundaries, then it could become an unpleasant reality. And at least for the Massachusetts family that started the article, it is a nightmare that they cannot wake from.

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

Divorce, in the public perception, is rarely a friendly undertaking. Even on this blog we often follow stories of contentious celebrity divorces and separations that don’t end well, with the theme usually being that couples are rarely on their best behavior when it comes time for a divorce.

An article from USA Today, however, makes the claim that divorce is getting friendlier for a lot of couples.

The article offers a couple of quick examples of what it sees as a potentially growing trend of divorces that are less contentious than perhaps they have been in the past. One dad, John Jarvis, of Phoenix, stays in his ex-wife’s guest room when he visits their 13-year-old daughter. Another divorcé, Bob Murphy of Chandler, Arizona, offered his ex-wife a key to his house.

One possible explanation for this trend in nicer divorces could be that those who watched a generation of nasty divorces wanted to change the pattern and avoid falling into the same traps. These people either saw their own parents divorce, or saw the negative impact that it had on their friends.

Hence a new approach to divorce, with less fighting and more conflict resolution. This new model can place increasing emphasis on mediation, collaboration or even, USA Today, reports, do-it-yourself kits for divorce.

Friendlier divorces are even taking hold when there are children involved in the divorce. A more amicable divorce can be a lot easier on children who are caught in the middle.

Not to mention the fact that a friendly divorce can save couples a lot of money and emotional stress. The typical mediated divorce costs around $1,000, according to family lawyer John Zarzynski, who co-founded Agreement House. The typical traditional divorce, with lawyers and court appearances, financial negotiations and custody battles, can cost $15-25,000 and take years.

The traditional divorce is still the most prevalent form. Some say that the process inherently causes divorcing couples to feel that they must go into battle with their ex. Disagreements about custody, child support, property and finances can create a sense of opposition to an ex, rather than fostering cooperation for the sake of themselves or their children.

“It makes it almost impossible to have a civil relationship going forward,” said Zarzynski. “You don’t forget what it’s like to be cross-examined by your spouse’s lawyer. It sets them up for years and years of not being able to communicate well.”

Mediation is one option when it comes to the friendly divorce, and collaboration is another. With these options, the court is not directly involved. While there might be lawyers involved, so are subject experts, and all work together to come up with a solution that meets everybody’s needs. Supporters of these techniques argue that the newly shaped families start off on a more stable foot.

There aren’t solid numbers on how many mediation and collaboration divorces are out there, but anecdotally, Zarzynksi has seen the number of mediation and collaboration divorces he’s worked on per year rise from roughly a dozen to 75 in recent years.

Bob Murphy, having seen his brothers go through nasty divorces, wanted no part of that. Instead of a divorce that took years, his took hours.

And while John Jarvis said his arrangement to stay at his ex-wife’s house might sound a little odd, he gets to spend more time with his daughter, and the couple hasn’t had to cut ties with each other’s family and friends.

Divorce doesn’t often lead to friendships, but the trend in mediated and collaborated divorces could mean that break-ups have a slightly brighter future.

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

The economic downturn is placing major stresses on marriages today, and there is another side effect showing itself: when couples divorce but don’t have the economic resources to move out from their family home.

Couples are left to weather the emotional difficulty of living with a spouse that they’ve separated from, because a lack of resources and a tough housing market make it impossible to maintain two separate households.

It’s divorce without the separation.

ABC Primetime followed one of these couples, Chris and Shari, of Tempe, Arizona, who are in just that situation. They live in a million-dollar house in a nice neighborhood, but the dropping value of the house with the onset of the recession has severely limited their options. As the housing market plummeted, so did their 18-year marriage.

They gathered a family meeting with their three kids, where they broke the news about their separation.

“They kind of took turns telling us stuff,” said oldest daughter Carissa. “They always assured us, ‘we’re never going to do anything like this, that will never be us that gets divorced. We’re going to be the few that never do.”

Middle daughter Jessica said, “When I found out that this was going to happen, I think I was heartbroken.”

As a part of the arrangements in the wake of the divorce, Chris and Shari decided that they would both stay in the house until they could sell it. It was a temporary solution, with a defined endpoint—the sale of the house.

Shari was uncertain about how to place limitations on the arrangement, however. “I believe,” she said, “and have read and heard from the experts that it is much better for the children to live together for a while. I have never found in print how long that while is.”

Their plan was to divide the assets from the sale of the house. Then, the housing market in Phoenix collapsed, and their plan became less certain.

They weren’t idealists about the situation. “It’s not a better way to do it,” said Chris, an IT manager. “I think for a while, maybe, it’s a good thing. I think it was good for the kids for a while.”

ABC Primetime followed them for nine months, as they navigated the transitional period of their divorce without the separation. This included family therapy sessions, couple’s therapy, and meetings with lawyers.

Disagreements were common. They argued frequently while living under the same roof. The negative parts of their relationship continued, even if they weren’t technically together. They argued in front of their children. The plan that they had made was not coming together.

They grew distant, even in navigating daily life living in the same house. They passed in the hallways without making eye contact. “It’s a lot harder than I expected,” said Shari.
Shari now sleeps in a small guest room, while her husband works in his study just through a shared wall. “Too close for comfort,” she said.

Nobody would argue that their plan went well. In fact, it’s the opposite. But a recession forces people, including divorcing couples, to improvise in ways that they couldn’t imagine.

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

When you’re planning on entering into a life-long commitment, it can seem counter-intuitive to plan about what happens after. A prenuptial agreement can be perceived as unromantic and pessimistic, but it can also be a very wise financial decision.

Prenuptial agreements are on the rise especially among the “baby-boomers” entering into their second and third marriages,
according to the Wall Street Journal.

This is because baby boomers are looking to protect their assets, which are done with a prenuptial agreements, or a legal contract that is created before a marriage to determine what happens to the assets should the relationship end, either by death or divorce.

The president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Marlene Eskind Moses said about prenuptial agreements, “they used to be for the rich and famous… [but] it’s become more commonplace in the market as an estate-planning opportunity for [baby] boomers.”

The financial crisis appears to be accelerating the trend of these prenuptial agreements. With home values does almost 31% from their peak in 2006, baby boomers have become more anxious to hold onto whatever they have left.

The majority of individuals entering into prenuptial agreements are doing so to protect their assets. Gariel Cheong, a divorce attorney with Infinity Law Group LLC in Quincy, Mass., says that prenups help “not just with the markets, but with protecting their spouses and children,” adding that couples that are getting married without many assets are still seeking a prenuptial for these reasons.

Without a prenup, couples are throwing themselves at the mercy of a wide range of state laws that vary greatly about what will happen in the event of a death or a divorce.

After the decision is made to draft a prenup, it is important to make sure that the result you desire will be achieved with this contract. If the signing terms of a prenup are later deemed rushed or uninformed, a court can occasionally have the discretion to chose not to enforce the terms of the prenup. There are decades’ worth of case law for attorneys to pull on when they are either defending or challenging the validity of a particular agreement.

To fight the chance of a judge rejecting the prenup, according to the Journal, it is prudent for the couple to have each side represented lawyers.

There are a list of specific list of items which are generally acceptable on a prenup, but the only way to be certain is to consult with an attorney who is well practiced in the area.

Interestingly enough, since prenuptial agreements are contracts, same-sex couples are often capable of entering into them. Even if the state doesn’t recognize the relationship, there is a freedom to contract and as long as it is carefully drafted a same-sex couple will be able to have a prenup.

The decision to enter into a prenup can be a very difficult decision, but understanding that it protects both sides equally and that it protects both sides from a sudden and untimely death can be important to having a prenup while still keeping the romance alive.

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

The ceremony may have looked familiar, as friends and loved ones gathered around Saori Teshima and her husband to celebrate a monumental life change. But this wasn’t a wedding. When the ring was displayed, the pair weren’t joined, but separated. They took up a hammer and smashed the ring to bits, completing what is becoming more common in Japan: the divorce ceremony.

Teshima’s marriage was ending in divorce after five years, and the couple decided on the increasingly popular divorce ritual as a way to end their union with the same gusto that marked its beginning, according to an article in the Telegraph.

In these ceremonies, spreading across Japan, couples raise toasts to never having to see each other again, and they take symbolic rides in separate rickshaws to symbolize the new journeys that they will begin alone. As a wedding symbolically represents the union of two people, these divorce ceremonies use a series of gestures that signify the split itself.

There were over 250,000 divorces in Japan in 2008, which experts blame on a down economic climate and the end of an era when salarymen led the conventional family unit and provided the foundation of many aspects of life in Japan.

The divorce ceremonies come at a time when divorce still has a stigma attached to it. They serve to make the divorce agreement public and formal, in a manner that friends and family will find acceptable.

Entrepreneur Hiroki Terai is one founder of the idea of a public divorce ceremony. He came up with the idea when some friends of his had decided to split.

“A ceremony at the end of marriage gives the couple and their friends and family the opportunity to gain emotional closure,” said Terai of his invention.

Since that first ceremony, he has started a company that arranges divorce ceremonies exclusively. He has conducted 21 ceremonies since March, and over 700 people have contacted him about them.

According to Terai, “couples ranging from 21 to 57 have taken part in ceremonies so far. Some wear white dresses, a few opt for cakes, and it’s always very moving.”

Roland Kelts, a Japanese cultural critic at the University of Tokyo, told the Telegraph that the divorce ceremonies were a way for people to adjust to changing family structures in the culture. He cited more worldly family members who found themselves comparing their marriages to wider cultural markers, and the change that comes when men are no longer guaranteed employment security for their entire lives.

Terai, meanwhile, maintains his emotional view of the events that he organizes: “Everyone deserves a fresh new start,” he said. “Two couples actually decided to stay together after the ceremony because it made them realize how much they still cared.”

It’s unclear when these couples made the decision, whether it was during the formal exchange of greetings, or the separate rickshaw drives to Terai’s Divorce Mansion, where the couple play out the symbolic reverse of the trip down to the courthouse.

Aoyama Tsuyoshi, a guest at a recent divorce ceremony, said, “I thought it was a joke when I first received the invitation.”

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

A recent article on CNN.com is reporting that an increasing number of divorce cases are being determined based on content uploaded to the popular social-networking website Facebook.

In the article, several divorce and family law attorneys describe their experience with the evolving use of Facebook for undermining the credibility of one of the spouses.

One of the attorneys interviewed, Ken Altshuler, was quoted saying that: “Facebook is a great source of evidence… It’s absolutely solid evidence because he’s the author of it. How do you deny that you put that on?”

The kinds of revelations that Facebook and similar websites reveal in divorce preceding may not be what is expected at first glance.

It’s easy to imagine a foolish spouse posting pictures of him or herself in a romantic embrace with someone other than their spouse. This would clearly be important in the divorce proceedings, but almost any claim made by a spouse can have its validity attacked with Facebook.

The article describes a husband who claims to not have anger problems, but who also has ranting postings full of expletives. Facebook was even used to shed light on a husband and alcoholic who claimed to be sober when pictures of the husband drinking at a barbeque surfaced; as a result, the husband’s credibility with the judge was greatly undermined.

It’s also surprising to realize that it’s not just the information one of the spouses puts up that can affect the divorce.

When one woman suspected her husband of cheating she tried to check his Facebook profile for evidence. She realized she was blocked, or prevented from accessing the information he uploaded to Facebook. The woman then used Facebook to check the profile of the woman she suspected was having an affair with her husband. Under the other woman’s profile, the wife found romantic pictures of a vacation, including an embrace in front of an art gallery, and was able to confirm her suspicions both for herself and for the court.

When a married couple begins to enter the divorce proceedings, it is common for the partners to “unfriend” each other on Facebook. What is frequently overlooked are the mutual friends. If a man is friends with his soon-to-be ex-wife’s best friend on Facebook, the wife’s friend can easily act as a spy for the wife. It is as if the husband is still giving the wife full access to his information.

The result of these revelations can greatly impact alimony payments and can even be determinative in child custody cases. Any information that is uploaded has the potential to surface in court. Facebook has changed its privacy settings several times which can lead to people having much less privacy than they think. If you chose to have a Facebook account, it is important to monitor it and understand how serious the potential ramifications may be.

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