Sam Poueu and Stephanie Anderson, both former contestants on “Biggest Loser,” are getting a divorce after Poueu allegedly confessed to multiple affairs, according to a report from the Huffington Post.

Sources say the couple met in 2010 while filming an episode of “Biggest Loser” during the hit reality weight loss show’s ninth season. The couple reportedly met on a ranch in Calabas, California.

They quickly grew close, and were married in May 2012. Sources also report that the 33-year-old wife is two months away from giving birth to their first child, who is expected to arrive in July.

According to Anderson, she and her husband visited a marriage counselor before calling a divorce attorney, but the counseling sessions led to a shocking revelation.

Anderson says that the marriage was “getting dire,” and her 28-year-old husband eventually confessed at one of their counseling sessions that he had engaged in affairs with multiple women, according to sources.

This claim, however, was peddled to People Magazine by an unnamed “source,” so the rumors of the husband’s infidelity remain unsubstantiated.

Nevertheless, Anderson decided shortly after the counseling sessions to file for divorce, and said in a statement that the “circumstances and specifics of our marriage and our separation are extremely difficult and private.”

During a recent interview, Anderson also noted that the decision to end her marriage gave her “great sadness,” and she also thanked the media for “respecting our privacy during this difficult time.”

Of course, the media loves nothing more than a celebrity divorce story, so Anderson and Poueu will likely be given plenty of opportunities to explain their sides of the story.

Despite the traumatic breakdown of their marriage, the couple still appears to be excited about the arrival of their son, and Poueu seems to be saying the right things about the family’s complicated situation.

Recently, Poueu told sources that his focus “is on Stephanie’s continued health through her pregnancy and the delivery of our son.”

The husband also said that he and Anderson “are excited to be blessed as his parents and are focusing all of our energy and attention on doing what is best” for their son, who remains “the most important person right now to both of us.”

Poueu’s mature attitude towards his wife’s pregnancy certainly bodes well for the couple’s pending divorce negotiations, during which they will have to determine who will have primary custody of their unborn child.

Actress Jane Levy surprised celebrity gossip magazines this week when she filed for divorce from a husband many sources didn’t know she had, according to a report from the San Francisco Chronicle.

According to sources, Levy, who currently stars as the saucy Tessa Altman on ABC’s “Suburgatory,” is seeking a divorce from actor Jaime Freitas.

Sources say the two were married in March 2011, and separated just seven months later, although they’ve waited a long time before officially filing for divorce, which is not uncommon.

Many states require couples to wait a mandatory period of time between their separation and official divorce filing. The purpose behind this seemingly strange divorce law is to promote reconciliation.

In recent years, though, several states have reduced the amount of time couples must wait before they can file for divorce, as several legislatures have deemed these waiting periods to be an unfair restriction on the right to divorce.

Of course, most celebrity marriages end after a long, public courtship and a lavish wedding. This, however, was not the case with Levy and Freitas.

Sources say they did not announce their nuptials to any news outlet, nor have they appeared in many photographs together. A few years ago, they did appear in a music video for “I Know,” a song written by noted film director David Lynch.

According to sources, the music video shows the couple engaged in a “bizarre” courtship ritual in a cabin by a lake.

And while the quiet spouses are going their separate ways, sources note they remain friendly. Levy, however, stated in court documents that the marriage broke down due to irreconcilable differences. She is also looking to avoid paying spousal support, sources say.

Levy has had a more successful career on screen in recent years, after launching her stardom a few years ago by playing Mandy Milkovich in “Shameless,” a popular drama on Showtime.

In 2011, Levy rose to further stardom by landing the role of Tessa Altman in “Suburgatory,” and this year, the 23-year-old actress starred in the remake of “Evil Dead,” an incredibly gory film that has already achieved box office success.

Freitas, sources say, has a much lower profile. Reports indicate that he has starred in several small foreign films, and also the 2013 American film, “Chlorine,” which also featured Kyra Sedgwick, who is married to Kevin Bacon, in case anyone was playing that game.

An Illinois court has dropped criminal charges against a man who was accused of forging divorce documents in order to remarry, according to a report from CBS News Chicago.

Sources say Steve Fanady was initially charged with forging the signature of a Cook County judge, as well as the signature of a divorce lawyer, in order to receive an annulment of his marriage from the Greek Orthodox Church.

Without the religious annulment from the church, sources say, Fanady would have been forbidden from remarrying.

And while sources do not say if the court ruled on the issue of whether Fanady actually forged the signatures in question, the aggrieved man was able to escape the charges based on a novel legal argument.

According to sources, the Illinois court ruled that it could not determine whether Fanady had illegally created the divorce documents because the dispute was between him and his church.

Before making its ruling, the court accepted an argument posed by Fanady’s divorce attorney that prosecuting a man for allegedly lying to his church violated the time-honored separation between church and state.

Sources say that Fanady’s lawyer, while never acknowledging that the allegations were true, successfully argued that the trouble was between Fanady and his church, and could not be resolved in a U.S. court.

The prosecution, in return, claimed that Fanady had forged the signature of court officials, and lied to the church, and thus was eligible for criminal punishment.

But, according to Fanady’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, under the prosecution’s argument, “if a Catholic went to confession to get absolution, and lied to the priest, and got absolution, he could be charged with deceptive practices and theft by deception.”

This, Brodsky claimed, would be disastrous, but never occurs thanks to the fact that, in the United States, “church and state are separate, thank God.”

Sources note that, if Fanady had attempted to pass the forged documents to a court, or other government agency, that the court may have had cause to prosecute him.

But since Fanady only allegedly tried to trick his church into thinking he was divorced, he cannot face criminal consequences for his actions.

After the court’s decision to drop the case, Fanady denied that the allegations were true, but also expressed relief that the legal saga had ended.

“It’s a relief, and it’s really fine to just get on with life,” said an exhausted Fanady. “When the matter first came out, it’s very distressful, it caused a lot of loss of sleep, it was very disconcerting.”

A bill circulating in the North Carolina Senate would force married couples to wait for two years before filing for divorce, according to a report this week from the Hickory Daily Record.

The proposed law, cleverly titled the “Healthy Marriage Act,” would extend the state’s mandatory waiting period before a divorce from one to two years, but it also adds several other layers designed to make divorce more difficult.

According to sources, the new divorce law would also force couples to attend counseling sessions and allow them to live together without suffering a penalty in order to work out their marital troubles.

To no one’s surprise, the bill has generated a fair amount of controversy in North Carolina, but its supporters swear by its potential efficacy.

Sen. Austin Allran, the bill’s sponsor, notes that his state has a “higher-than-average divorce rate,” but claims he doesn’t think that “residents of North Carolina are harder to get along with than people in other states.”

In other words, Allran believes the state’s relatively high divorce rate is a product of poor laws, not cultural trends, and he hopes the bill would change these statistics.

Sources say North Carolina has 3.8 divorces per 1,000 residents, a rate that is slightly above the national average of 3.4 divorces per 1,000 people.

In addition to the potential to reduce the state’s divorce rate, supporters of the bill also claim that it would help children, and it would also reduce the costs to the state that are often incurred as a result of divorce.

But opponents of the bill claim the proposal would set divorce laws back several decades, and note that such measures would be counterproductive at best.

According to Lisa Angel, a local divorce attorney, in 20 years of helping North Carolina clients, “I’ve never had a client ask for the waiting period to be longer.”

Angel also noted that “most clients have thought about this and agonized over this for years before they actually separate, so to extend that only causes more emotional and financial hardship for the family and children.”

Indeed, residents of North Carolina are already required to wait a year between their separation and a final divorce, in addition to meeting other regulatory hurdles that are common to family law disputes.

Opponents of the bill question whether the addition of an extra year to the waiting period would provide anything but headaches for families and courts alike.

In the face of rumors that his wife has moved out of their home, Ozzy Osbourne took to Facebook this week to deny rumors that his wife, Sharon, is filing for divorce, according to a report from USA Today.

In a recent post, Osbourne admitted that he has been “drinking and taking drugs” for the “last year and a half,” which led him to a “very dark place.”

Osbourne also confessed that he hurt his family during his lengthy binge, but claimed that he has been sober for 44 days and swore that he and his wife were not planning to seek a divorce.

The former lead singer for Black Sabbath concluded his message by promising to “be a better person” an apologizing to his fans, as well as “Sharon, my family, my friends and my band mates for my insane behavior during this period.”

Osbourne’s Facebook post was somewhat conspicuous, given the recent flurry of rumors surrounding the allegedly inevitable dissolution of his marriage.

According to celebrity gossip magazines, Sharon Osbourne recently pulled up to a new home with a fleet of moving vans, while her 64-year-old husband has reportedly moved into a rented mansion.

While moving into her new home, located in posh Beverly Hills, Sharon reportedly did not wear her wedding ring, which fanned the flames of rumors that her 31-year-old marriage would soon come to an end.

Sources also note that Sharon was photographed without her wedding ring during a visit with her daughter, Kelly, in Los Angeles a few weeks ago.

In addition, sources claim that the celebrities, who together have raised five children, have been living apart for several months.

Fans of Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne know that their marriage has been anything but traditional, although glimpses of the couple’s relationship during their now-defunct reality television show revealed that they genuinely cared for each other.

Nevertheless, a marriage that has survived 31 years of sometimes outrageous behavior may soon be coming to an abrupt end.

And Sharon Osbourne has done little to quiet the recent rumors by staying out of the public spotlight. Sources have also been unable to gather an official comment from her publicists.

But if her husband’s online musings are to be believed, it may be too early for the couple to contact a local divorce attorney. Then again, both of the parties may have already secured the aid of divorce lawyer.

It is no secret that women are their own worst critics and Dove’s latest ad campaign speaks directly to that.

Regardless of who you are, or where you’re at in your life – a teenager in your formative years, a married woman, a woman going through a divorce, a divorced woman, a mother of 2, a mother of 6, a widow or a grandmother – it doesn’t matter.

Dove wants you to know that you are beautiful, more beautiful than you give yourself credit for. So, how did they do this?

Dove hired criminal sketch artist, Gil Zamora, to sketch 7 women, one at a time.

Zamora does not see the women as he sketches them. With a curtain separating him from the particular woman he is working with, Zamora essentially interviews each woman about their facial features. He sketches based on the descriptions they provide him.

Elsewhere the women chat with strangers who later sit with the sketch artist, the same way the women previously did, and they have similar, interview style discussions in which Zamora asks them about the stranger’s appearance and features, as he sketches.

After both sketches are completed, they are hung side by side and the woman is invited back to view them.

The difference between how the women view themselves in comparison to how they are viewed by strangers is clearly evident and often elicits an emotional reaction.

See the ad video on YouTube – Dove Real Beauty Sketches.

More young women are living with romantic partners before marriage than those who are living alone or with a spouse, according to a recent report on marriage statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The figures, which were gathered during the CDC’s National Survey of Family Growth, were compiled through interviews with more than 12,000 women between 15 and 44, according to an MSNBC report.

According to the survey, 48 percent of American women are currently living with a partner who is not a spouse, which is a significant jump from the 35 percent of women who cohabitated in 1995.

In addition, couples are now less enthusiastic about waiting until marriage to move in with their spouse. In recent years, only 23 percent of women say they were married before living under the same roof with their spouse. This figure was as high as 39 percent as recently as 1995.

Interestingly, though, the relative percentage of women who were living alone was pretty consistent over the past 20 years, ranging from 27 to 29 percent every year.

Sources also note that cohabitation varied by education. A remarkable 70 percent of women who did not have a high school degree were living with a boyfriend, which was the largest percentage by a wide margin.

Older women are also more likely to have tried cohabiting with a romantic partner. Sources say 74 percent of women older than 30 had cohabitated, while only 55 percent of women had lived with a boyfriend before turning 25.

Moreover, women living with non-spouses are more likely to get pregnant, which may have helped raise the number child custody disputes. In 1995, only 15 percent of unmarried couples living together became pregnant, while that number rose to 19 percent in recent years.

And the effects of pregnancies have led to fewer marriages in modern relationships. In 1995, 32 percent of unwed pregnancies led to marriage, while only 19 percent of such pregnancies led to marriage in 2010.

The numbers support anecdotal findings about the shifting nature of modern relationships. As the cost of living continues to rise, and the economy sputters along, many partners find that living together simply makes more economic sense.

And as more Americans continue to delay the age at which they get married (sources say the average age of brides and grooms is at a historic high), they will likely continue to live with romantic partners before marriage at an increasing rate.

A controversial British study blames rising levels of divorce in the United Kingdom on the changing drinking habits of wives, according to a report from the Huffington Post.

Sources say an increasing number of British men are filing for divorce because of their wives’ irresponsible drinking, according to several divorce attorneys.

According to one divorce attorney, Amanda McAlister, the “traditional image of the husband spending too long at the pub, while the obedient wife tended to the children,” is far less common than it used to be “ten or fifteen years ago.”

In her own practice, over the past five years, McAlister claims that she has seen a 70 percent increase in the number of men who cite alcohol abuse as the primary reason they are looking to separate from their wives, sources say.

Many of these men, claims McAlister, say their wives “don’t come home until four” in the morning, but she believes that “home drinkers,” those who drink excessively at home, sometimes in secret, are a bigger problem.

Of course, sources are quick to note that husbands’ excessive drinking has long been a common cause of divorce, but the rising number of alcohol abuse among women suggests that British culture is changing, and it might be a sign of some progress.

As women catch up to men in the workplace, they increasing have a strong “reaction to stressful home and work lives,” according to Elizabeth Hicks, another family law attorney.

Hicks believes that “modern society” now allows women to “go out with girlfriends and drink in a way that wasn’t possible ten years ago, and some of the effects are being seen in the home.”

Unfortunately, Hicks says these important cultural developments are pushing more women to drink, and “when there are children involved the effects can be dire.”

Again, both attorneys note that trouble drinking amongst husbands has long been a cause for divorce, but the increased alcohol use of wives may have contributed to the rising divorce rates across the United Kingdom in the last few years.

Other observers, however, also note that economic distress stemming from the prolonged recession that started in 2007 has led to increased drinking among both men and women. And when that drinking affects the nature of a relationship, marriages can crumble quickly.

As the economy continues to sputter along, many experts believe that excessive drinking will continue to put a strain on Western marriages, for husbands and wives alike.

Thomas Beatie, who was born a woman, was refused a divorce by Judge Douglas Gerlach on Friday on the grounds that his marriage, or nine-year union, was never valid.

Judge Gerlach based his ruling on the ban of same-sex marriages in Arizona. He said there was not sufficient evidence to prove Beatie was a male when he got married.

The ruling stated, “The decision here is not based on the conclusion that this case involves a same-sex marriage merely because one of the parties is a transsexual male, but instead, the decision is compelled by the fact that the parties failed to prove that (Thomas Beatie) was a transsexual male when they were issued their marriage license.”

Beatie started testosterone treatments in 1997 and had a double-mastectomy and chest reconstruction surgery in 2002 to become a “man” but kept his female reproductive organs.

Thomas married Nancy Beatie in 2003 and he gave birth to their first child in 2008, second child in 2009 and third child in 2010 because she was not able to.

The couple would now like to get divorced and see that their children are “treated equally.”

The fate of billions of dollars rests on the possible presence of a prenuptial agreement in the pending divorce case between a billionaire oil tycoon and his disgruntled wife, according to a report this week from Reuters.

Sources say Harold Hamm, a billionaire oilman from Oklahoma, has a personal fortune worth roughly $11.3 billion, which could be split in half if his second wife, Sue Ann Hamm, has a successful trip to divorce court.

Sue Ann Hamm reportedly filed for divorce from her husband several months ago, claiming that her husband had been unfaithful, sources say. But the couple has been tight-lipped about whether they signed a prenuptial agreement before their marriage.

According to sources, if the couple did not sign such an agreement, Sue Ann Hamm could leave the divorce with half of Hamm’s considerable fortune, earned over the course of several years from the profits of Continental Resources, which dominates the Bakken shale region in North Dakota.

In fact, the stakes are even higher for Harold Hamm. Sources say he stands to lose 68 percent of his stake in the company, which he founded in 1967.

And sources note that the wife’s potential payday, which could go as high as $5.3 million, would represent the largest divorce settlement in the history of American divorce.

The case, however, will turn on Oklahoma divorce law, which only requires an “equitable distribution” of marital assets. This does not mean the couple will share their fortune. Rather, it means the court will decide how to apportion the assets using its own judgment.

Weighing in Sue Ann Hamm’s favor are several factors. First, the couple has been married for 25 years, which will likely be emphasized by the wife’s divorce attorneys.

In addition, the couple has had two children together, and Hamm has played an active role as a key executive at Continental Resources. Sources say she even created new marketing units for oil and gas from scratch.

The company itself has refused to elaborate on the divorce settlement process, saying in a recent statement that the divorce is a “private matter” that is “not anticipated to have any impact or effect on the Company’s business or operations.”

For what it’s worth, sources believe the largest prior divorce settlement involved Rupert Murdoch and his former wife Anna Mann, who reportedly received $1.7 billion after their separation, although other sources claim the settlement only involved the exchange of a few hundred million dollars.