Just over half of all adult Americans are currently married, which represents the lowest such rate for several decades, and has caused social researchers to explore the reasons why young Americans are choosing not to get married.

According to a recent report from TIME magazine, the nation’s low marriage rate may be a direct result of young couples’ fears of eventually having to file for divorce.

In a recent survey of cohabitating couples (people who are living together but are not married), researchers from Cornell University discovered that many women were concerned about getting married because they feared being “trapped” in a bad relationship.

Researchers found that low-income women were especially concerned about the potential financial effects of divorce, and many chose to avoid marriage out of fear of hypothetical divorce issues.

The survey also discovered that a significant majority of women who responded—67 percent—said they were worried about the possible economic and social problems that might arise from a divorce.

And, while fears of divorce are rising and the marriage rate drops, cohabitation rates are rising steeply across the country. Many observers feel that this trend is related to economic factors, not social fears.

According to some experts, middle-class women are less frightened of marriage because, on average, they feel that they can afford the potential end of a marriage. For people with steady incomes, issues like child support or alimony are not as troublesome.

For folks on the lower steps of the income ladder, however, marriage and divorce might pose daunting financial difficulties.

Lower-income women, for example, are often the primary breadwinners in the home, as low-income men continue to face frighteningly high levels of unemployment.

Since women with low incomes tend to be the primary money-earners, they are often reluctant to marry because marriage to an unemployed man adds another mouth to feed, without adding any additional income to the family.

As a result, lower-income women believe that marriage may serve as a trap, with extra responsibilities heaped onto an already busy daily docket.

This belief may also help explain why lower-income couples tend to cohabitate for longer periods of time than couples with higher incomes. Sources indicate that many high-income duos cohabitate for a few years as a prelude to eventual marriage.

Of course, the nature of marriage and divorce has evolved steadily since the inception of both institutions. And today’s marriages, while ostensibly based on love and affection, still play an important role as an economic engine in the modern world.

Because marriage decisions have such important economic consequences, financial realities will continue to influence people’s decisions about whether they should get married. And it seems that fears of divorce may also play a powerful role in these important decisions.

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

As he continues to poll strongly in the race to represent the Republican party in the 2012 presidential election, Newt Gingrich has started to face more questions about his previous divorces, which remain a potential roadblock for the conservative candidate.

And reporters are leaving no stone unturned in their pursuit of the truth about Gingrich’s first divorce, which he claims was first pursued by his wife, rather than through his own initiative, according to a recent report in the New York Times.

Court documents suggest that Gingrich’s first divorce in 1980, in which he separated from his wife, Jackie Battley Gingrich, was initiated by the politician, rather than his wife.

According to sources, court documents discovered in Carroll County, Georgia show that Gingrich himself asked for the divorce. And his wife did not seem to support this decision, as she asked a judge to block the divorce because, at the time, she did “not admit that this marriage is irretrievably broken.”

This information directly contradicts a statement on the Gingrich campaign’s website, which claims that Gingrich did not actively seek a divorce from his first wife.

Gingrich’s 1980 divorce was particularly noteworthy because it occurred around the same time that Jackie Gingrich was receiving medical treatment for cancer, although the tumor that doctors removed from her body proved to be benign.

This tale, however, proved to be fodder for Gingrich’s critics, who questioned the sincerity of his socially conservative views after he allegedly opened divorce discussions while his wife was in the hospital.

In 1985, the first Mrs. Gingrich told the Washington Post that her husband’s offer of a divorce “came as a complete surprise,” despite Gingrich’s alleged claims that the couple had been talking about it for a decade.

Despite claims that Gingrich proposed a divorce while his wife was suffering from cancer, Jackie’s daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, recently claimed that her parents had discussed divorce before the tumor operation.

Gingrich Cushman has also made several campaign appearances on behalf of her father, and appears to support Gingrich despite his own admission that he has made errors in personal judgment during his life.

The media’s focus on Gingrich’s personal history—which includes three marriages and two divorces—has been criticized by the candidate’s supporters.

Some believe that his personal life is irrelevant to his ability to the lead the country, and that voters should judge Gingrich based on his police proposals, not his past divorce filings.

On the other hand, critics of Gingrich believe that his past offers an important glimpse into the man’s values, which would inevitably play an important role in how he governs, if he is eventually elected.

Regardless of which side is correct, the media’s focus on Gingrich’s personal life seems a bit old-fashioned, as divorce no longer carries the same social stigma it may have held several decades ago.

Gone are the days when a trip to a divorce attorney caused a serious dent to one’s personal reputation. Well, this theory may prove true when it comes to most Americans, but it may be suspended for people who are running for the nation’s most important elected office.

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

A businessman in Los Angeles is facing the possibility of several years in prison after allegedly bilking Eddie Murphy’s ex-wife out of several million dollars she had gained from her divorce settlement with the famous actor and comedian.

While the divorcee is referred to in court papers only by her initials, sources indicate that the victim of the alleged fraud is Nicole Murphy, who recently divorced Eddie Murphy after a 12-year marriage.

For allegedly stealing most of the $7 million Nicole Murphy had received from her ex-husband as part of their divorce agreement, 45-year-old Troy David Stratos is facing 14 different criminal charges, including fraud, money laundering, and obstructing justice.

Sources indicate that Nicole Murphy also filed a civil lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles against Stratos last year, and then re-filed the same claim against Stratos in state court in Florida this May.

According to court documents, Stratos allegedly convinced Murphy to let him invest the proceeds of her alimony settlement.

Stratos had presented himself as an entrepreneur, and claimed that that he was a movie producer, as well as a talent promoter.

Stratos’ appeal proved convincing, as Murphy established a revocable trust that allowed Stratos to invest her money as he pleased. This decision, however, proved to be disastrous, as Stratos allegedly spent the bulk of the money on himself.

In addition to spending the money on goods for himself, Stratos also established a bank account in Florida and used Murphy’s own money to pay certain expenses that he had promised he would cover himself.

The alleged fraud, however, did not stop there. Stratos convinced Murphy that she should purchase luxury vehicles to package with her mansion in Granite Bay, California, in order to improve her odds of selling the home.

But instead of selling the house, Stratos remained in the residence rent-free, and used the vehicles as his personal cars, without making any real effort at selling the home. Stratos also convinced Murphy to refinance several of her mortgages, which allowed Stratos to pocket more short-term cash.

All told, Murphy alleges that Stratos and other defendants named in the federal lawsuit stole upwards of $11 million. If he is convicted on all 14 charges, Stratos faces up to 30 years in prison.

And, while this may seem like an extreme example of fraud, women who receive large divorce settlements are often uncertain how to invest their new money.

As a result, many people are vulnerable to potential scam artists after receiving a healthy divorce settlement.

If you or someone you love has recently received a large sum of money after a divorce, do some research for financial professionals that can help you safely invest your cash. If someone promises high interest rates with little risk, be very cautious about signing on to such an unrealistic bargain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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