A Normally Loud Household

Let me preface this article by saying I not only grew up in an Italian family but for the first 18 years of my life I never realized that my father was practically deaf(we discovered how hard of hearing he was after he finally got a hearing aide when I was in college). So not only did we yell because of our heritage but we yelled so my Dad could hear us. By the way my Dad's sister was also deaf so we yelled when we saw my aunt, heck we just used loud "outside" voices all the time.

My husband, who by the way also came from a rather loud Italian household and who himself tends to be on the loud side, insists that my yelling in the household disrupts our family life, is abnormal, and will lead our children into therapy.

First I want to say that surfing the web I have discovered more than one website devoted to to among other things mothers and yelling: today's cliche'

This is where I found that I am not alone in trying to get the kids ready for school while I get myself dressed for work and after repeating that they need to brush their teeth a million times, my voice starts to go up and up and up until I sound horse.

The next question that begs is whether or not this is healthy for the children. Growing up in my household, I have discovered that I have a thicker skin than some other individuals who grew up in quieter homes. The employees I hire who come from more sheltered environments are not as resiliant as those who have had their lives threatened daily by mothers who had enough of Dr. Spock and his ridiculous ways.

At this point I need to stress that yelling and abuse are two very different things. When I yell at my kids to take out the garbage, it is not abusive. It has come on the heels of me making the same request a dozen or more times and receiving the answer, "I will" without a muscle being moved in the direction of the garage.

Do I think a loud household is harmful? No I don't. I think a loveless household is harmful. I think an ambivalent household is harmful and I think a bad marriage is harmful. A loud household, well that is just normal.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!

A Normally Loud Household

Let me preface this article by saying I not only grew up in an Italian family but for the first 18 years of my life I never realized that my father was practically deaf(we discovered how hard of hearing he was after he finally got a hearing aide when I was in college). So not only did we yell because of our heritage but we yelled so my Dad could hear us. By the way my Dad's sister was also deaf so we yelled when we saw my aunt, heck we just used loud "outside" voices all the time.

My husband, who by the way also came from a rather loud Italian household and who himself tends to be on the loud side, insists that my yelling in the household disrupts our family life, is abnormal, and will lead our children into therapy.

First I want to say that surfing the web I have discovered more than one website devoted to to among other things mothers and yelling: today's cliche'

This is where I found that I am not alone in trying to get the kids ready for school while I get myself dressed for work and after repeating that they need to brush their teeth a million times, my voice starts to go up and up and up until I sound horse.

The next question that begs is whether or not this is healthy for the children. Growing up in my household, I have discovered that I have a thicker skin than some other individuals who grew up in quieter homes. The employees I hire who come from more sheltered environments are not as resiliant as those who have had their lives threatened daily by mothers who had enough of Dr. Spock and his ridiculous ways.

At this point I need to stress that yelling and abuse are two very different things. When I yell at my kids to take out the garbage, it is not abusive. It has come on the heels of me making the same request a dozen or more times and receiving the answer, "I will" without a muscle being moved in the direction of the garage.

Do I think a loud household is harmful? No I don't. I think a loveless household is harmful. I think an ambivalent household is harmful and I think a bad marriage is harmful. A loud household, well that is just normal.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!

LET IT SNOW

Never being one to leave Christmas shopping until the last second, I had arranged to use my last day’s annual leave today for that very purpose. Determined not to let a few inches of snow impede the task in hand, I set off for a local shopping centre. Imagine my delight to arrive there amongst the ice and snow flurries to find it open for business as usual with only a limited number of other shoppers. “Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow,” I shivered.

Wandering around I bumped into a client who shared similar thoughts. “Every snow storm has a silver lining,” she confided. “Once divorced your shopping takes half the time, with only half the people to buy gifts for!” Tempting, I thought, as I surveyed shelf after shelf seeking something called “inspiration.”

Mind if anyone is stuck trying to find the perfect Christmas gift for that would-be divorcee, it seems Lloyd Platt Limited, family lawyers in London, have incurred the criticism of the Church of England by offering divorce vouchers at £125 for a half hour’s advice. Can I disappoint readers by letting you know that Latimer Hinks will not be doing the same this festive season, but then it already offers a free no obligation half-hour session to divorce clients and its regular fees are less than that anyway.

Dating During Divorce

Dating while a divorce is pending is always a bad idea and should be avoided. The effect it will have on your legal case is something which most individuals rarely realize. The most important aspect of the case which will be affected is that you will cause your spouse to have undue anger and turn a case which might otherwise have been settled easily, amicably and inexpensively into a difficult, acrimonious and expensive battle. The spouse most often than not becomes irrational and turns the case into a battlefield for revenge making settlement difficult if not impossible.

The spouse may also try to turn the children and other family and friends against the dating spouse.
Additionally the non-dating spouse will try to justify to themselves and those around them that the divorce was caused by the dating spouse's need to cheat. Regardless of the ultimate reasons for the divorce, the non dating spouse will look to vindicate themselves and seek empathy from others.

In the event the children become aware of the situation, this may cause the children to feel that the dating spouse has abandoned the other parent and they will therefore sympathize or align themselves with the other parent.

While a divorce is pending and for months after, individuals go through many changes emotionally. This is not usually a good time to make life decisions and entering into any long term relationship at this juncture is a mistake.

Legally the impact this can have on your case regarding custody and parenting time should also not be underestimated. Besides the non dating spouse being else likely to want to settle these issues on a reasonable basis, the children may express their desire to spend less time with the dating spouse in the event that the "friend" is present. Judges and experts who assist the court in making custody and parenting time determinations are not impressed with a person who dates during a divorce. Dating shows callousness toward the feelings of the children and could be considered poor role modeling for the children. The dating parent is viewed by the court as selfish and self centered and this decision could in fact tip the scales in cases where all other factors are equal.

The best advice any divorce attorney can give a client is DO NOT DATE DURING DIVORCE. NEVER MOVE IN WITH A BOYFRIEND OR GIRLFRIEND. However, if you feel you must date, be as discreet as possible, preferably not allowing anyone to know you are dating. Wait a reasonable time after the divorce is over before introducing your date to your children.
In the event you are found out however, expect your otherwise "easy" and "quick" divorce to turn long, ugly and potentially disastrous.

Dating During Divorce

Dating while a divorce is pending is always a bad idea and should be avoided. The effect it will have on your legal case is something which most individuals rarely realize. The most important aspect of the case which will be affected is that you will cause your spouse to have undue anger and turn a case which might otherwise have been settled easily, amicably and inexpensively into a difficult, acrimonious and expensive battle. The spouse most often than not becomes irrational and turns the case into a battlefield for revenge making settlement difficult if not impossible.

The spouse may also try to turn the children and other family and friends against the dating spouse.
Additionally the non-dating spouse will try to justify to themselves and those around them that the divorce was caused by the dating spouse's need to cheat. Regardless of the ultimate reasons for the divorce, the non dating spouse will look to vindicate themselves and seek empathy from others.

In the event the children become aware of the situation, this may cause the children to feel that the dating spouse has abandoned the other parent and they will therefore sympathize or align themselves with the other parent.

While a divorce is pending and for months after, individuals go through many changes emotionally. This is not usually a good time to make life decisions and entering into any long term relationship at this juncture is a mistake.

Legally the impact this can have on your case regarding custody and parenting time should also not be underestimated. Besides the non dating spouse being else likely to want to settle these issues on a reasonable basis, the children may express their desire to spend less time with the dating spouse in the event that the "friend" is present. Judges and experts who assist the court in making custody and parenting time determinations are not impressed with a person who dates during a divorce. Dating shows callousness toward the feelings of the children and could be considered poor role modeling for the children. The dating parent is viewed by the court as selfish and self centered and this decision could in fact tip the scales in cases where all other factors are equal.

The best advice any divorce attorney can give a client is DO NOT DATE DURING DIVORCE. NEVER MOVE IN WITH A BOYFRIEND OR GIRLFRIEND. However, if you feel you must date, be as discreet as possible, preferably not allowing anyone to know you are dating. Wait a reasonable time after the divorce is over before introducing your date to your children.
In the event you are found out however, expect your otherwise "easy" and "quick" divorce to turn long, ugly and potentially disastrous.

THEY TOOK HALF

When Outdoor Man and I married, rather a long time ago now, we considered a wedding present list something of a vulgarity. As a result we had only ourselves to blame when we received numerous duplicate gifts.

With the advent of the internet and shared spaces, of course, it is possible to have such a list and yet almost keep yourself removed from it as though its very existence on the internet makes it impersonal and therefore an acceptable part of organised life. What’s more registers for such lists are widely available, taking the hard work out of even finding a host site for the list. I was absolutely tickled though to come across this register. After all why should only soon-to-be-married couples have all the fun? What could be more useful than a site for the soon-not-to-be-married? It boasts that it’s the only gift registry for the newly single and invites your friends and family to help your transition to your new found freedom. It’s for “when the love is gone and so is the coffee pot.” Of course if your marriage fell apart quickly or the family dug into their pockets rather deeply at the time of the Big Occasion, they might not be so keen to repeat their generosity but you’ll never know that unless you register.

THE PRIMARY SCHOOL NATIVITY PLAY

Did I imagine it, or did Mary really turn to Joseph when he dropped the baby doll and say (in a broad Yorkshire accent), “You drop my baby again Joseph and I’ll be out of here quicker than you can say ‘divorce’? ”

DEAR SANTA

Dear Santa

Thank you so much for the two Nintendo Wiis, the two black Labrador pups and the two complete works of William Shakespeare that you brought me last year. It was very kind of you, but after the two Siamese kittens, the two X boxes and the two complete sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannia the year before, I had rather hoped that you might have delivered different gifts to my parents’ separate homes. Of course, they were both very excited to each see me open my gifts but as you will appreciate it was very difficult for me to keep the enthusiasm going for their benefit.

Also neither was happy not to have outdone the other, although Mum was gutted to discover that my stocking at Dad’s house had an I-Tunes voucher in it, when there were only nuts and sweets in the one I hung from her mantelpiece; maybe the second one fell in the fire as you were coming down her chimney. Mind Dad was equally displeased when he learned that John, my Mum’s boyfriend, had given me a DVD player. So, if there’s anything from him this year, can you just leave it in your sleigh and give it to someone whose parents are still together.

Just so you know I’m at Dad’s on Christmas morning this year and then as soon as we’ve eaten dinner I dash to Mum’s for 2.30 pm and dinner with her. That said I don’t actually like cooked carrots, parsnips or brussel sprouts, and especially not twice in one day. If, therefore, your reindeers are feeling peckish they would be doing me a big favour if they’d eat those, rather than helping you with the mince pies.

Oh but please help yourself to as much as you fancy of the sherry that Mum leaves out for you. She can get very maudlin after she’s had a drop or two and then starts to cry about the divorce and how it’s spoilt Christmas for her.

Also, and I don’t know how this works but if it’s possible to give Dad some cash in his stocking I’d be grateful. That way he can give Mum the maintenance that she says he owes and she won’t threaten to stop our contact.

Finally if you get a chance to sprinkle any of that Christmas magic you bring with you, can you stop my parents arguing when Dad drops me off? It gets quite embarrassing the way they yell at each other in the street, especially when they are wearing paper party hats!

Yours sincerely
Name deleted to protect anonymity

xxx

Divorce Coaching

What is a divorce coach? Life coaching and divorce coaching is the newest way for clients to help deal with the emotional issues of their divorce. Emotional issues often get in the way of being able to make good decisions, reaching settlement and moving on with your life. A divorce coach acts as an advocate and guide for one party, providing the support and guidance aimed at facilitating agreement between both spouses. The role of a divorce coach is to provide support, empathy and understanding for the emotional upheaval associated with divorce. The divorce coach is not a therapist or “shrink”. Coaching is focused on divorce-related issues faced in the here and now and does not probe into the psychological or emotional past of the client. A coach who is a licensed professional trained in family systems is particularly qualified to assist the client in identifying challenges and managing them in the best way possible. The average cost of a divorce coach are as follows:
$50.00 per 25 minute session
$100.00 per 50 minute session
Is this worth it? Only you can decide if a divorce coach is right for you.

Divorce Coaching

What is a divorce coach? Life coaching and divorce coaching is the newest way for clients to help deal with the emotional issues of their divorce. Emotional issues often get in the way of being able to make good decisions, reaching settlement and moving on with your life. A divorce coach acts as an advocate and guide for one party, providing the support and guidance aimed at facilitating agreement between both spouses. The role of a divorce coach is to provide support, empathy and understanding for the emotional upheaval associated with divorce. The divorce coach is not a therapist or “shrink”. Coaching is focused on divorce-related issues faced in the here and now and does not probe into the psychological or emotional past of the client. A coach who is a licensed professional trained in family systems is particularly qualified to assist the client in identifying challenges and managing them in the best way possible. The average cost of a divorce coach are as follows:
$50.00 per 25 minute session
$100.00 per 50 minute session
Is this worth it? Only you can decide if a divorce coach is right for you.

ON BBC THREE

The National Council for One Parent Families says about three million children today in the UK have experienced the trauma of their parents separating, and a million of them never see one of their parents again, usually the father. Tonight at 9pm Alesha Dixon presents a new programme on BBC 3 called “Whose your Daddy.” Coming from a single parent family herself she describes her own experiences on the BBC website in advance of the programme and argues that it’s really important for both parents to be active in some way in their children’s lives

WRITE AWAY

According to her website Leah Carey combines a background in professional theatre, training as a Spiritual Life Coach, and a lifetime of psychic experiences to support her clients in experiencing their own light. Leah's goal in all of her work is to support her clients in embracing and claiming their own self-empowerment.

On 18th November she initiated a free online writing experience called WriteAway for people who have been through divorce. The WriteAway concept is based on the use of writing as a healing art. Every weekday morning she posts a writing prompt that offers participants a vehicle for exploring their thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and experiences around divorce

At her website there is also a WriteAway Forum to support participants and once a week, she blogs in response to what she is reading on the boards. The primary aim is to maintain and promote an atmosphere of healing and forward movement.

ON CAMERA

If you hanker after marrying again without the pain of divorce, don’t do what an unfortunate Peruvian man did and seek to re-marry in a mass ceremony in front of television cameras. If you do, you might just find yourself subject to an attack by your current wife’s family. Moreover, her aunt and sister could even be bigger than you, for which see this clip from Sky News.

I'M A CELEBRITY, GET ME OUT OF HERE

I have been pre-occupied with court cases and other commitments over the last week, preventing me from adding to this blog. During my absence I note that two divorce linked stories seem to have been making the headlines.

The first, of course, reported the alleged demands of Veronica Lario against Silvio Berlusconi, her estranged husband, for maintenance of some €43 million (£39 million) a year against a purported offer of €200,000 – €300,000 per month instead. Certainly a bit of a difference, but enough for most of us to live with every comfort we could imagine.

At the other extreme, recent divorcee Katie Price (alias Jordan) had been roughing it in the jungle, on the same TV reality show where she had originally met her former husband, Peter André. She endured 7 days of horror when the British public voted for her to undertake every Bushtucker trial going including eating live cockroaches, witchety grubs, the private parts of kangaroos and other equally tasty delicacies. It seemed a strange way to put her marriage behind her and I say that, even after reading reports that she was paid £250,000 for participating. If Silvio Berlusconi were to offer every Euro his wife is seeking by way of maintenance to enter that jungle, I’m sure most divorcees would still elect to stay at home and luxuriate in their poverty.

Remembering to Give Thanks

This has been a tough year. Right out of the gate in February with the loss of my Dad and Grandmother, 2009 blasted me with cold winds which to date haven't let up much. The poor economy, some unexpected pitfalls and an unexpected rash of unhappy clientel piled on to the scene this year. A lousy economy will always bring out the worst in people so it was difficult for me to dig deep this year to see the good as I try to do each Thanksgiving as I give Thanks.

This year I give thanks to the legacy left by my Dad that lives in me. My Dad never intentionally hurt a living soul. Each day of my life I look to see if my actions can or do hurt another individual and if I feel they have or will I attempt to alter them. This by the way is not an easy feat for a trained advocate. However, an advocate does not need to be a bully. One of my Dad's many doctors made a statement to me when treating my Dad one day which has stayed with me. He said: "First do no harm." Of course he was referring to the Hypocratic Oath he took as a physician, but I see no reason why the rest of us cannot live by that credo in our daily lives.

If every one of us got up each day and said to ourselves, "Do no harm." the world would be a better place. Have I ever failed to adhere to this creed? I'm sure I have, but I can say in all honesty never did I do so with any intent. Besides the love of my friends and my family and the health of all those I hold dear, I am thankful for what my Dad has taught me. The legacy he started which I hope to continue in my daily life. "First, do no harm. Second try to do some good today."
I am thankful for the opportunity to try. Happy Thanksgiving!

Remembering to Give Thanks

This has been a tough year. Right out of the gate in February with the loss of my Dad and Grandmother, 2009 blasted me with cold winds which to date haven't let up much. The poor economy, some unexpected pitfalls and an unexpected rash of unhappy clientel piled on to the scene this year. A lousy economy will always bring out the worst in people so it was difficult for me to dig deep this year to see the good as I try to do each Thanksgiving as I give Thanks.

This year I give thanks to the legacy left by my Dad that lives in me. My Dad never intentionally hurt a living soul. Each day of my life I look to see if my actions can or do hurt another individual and if I feel they have or will I attempt to alter them. This by the way is not an easy feat for a trained advocate. However, an advocate does not need to be a bully. One of my Dad's many doctors made a statement to me when treating my Dad one day which has stayed with me. He said: "First do no harm." Of course he was referring to the Hypocratic Oath he took as a physician, but I see no reason why the rest of us cannot live by that credo in our daily lives.

If every one of us got up each day and said to ourselves, "Do no harm." the world would be a better place. Have I ever failed to adhere to this creed? I'm sure I have, but I can say in all honesty never did I do so with any intent. Besides the love of my friends and my family and the health of all those I hold dear, I am thankful for what my Dad has taught me. The legacy he started which I hope to continue in my daily life. "First, do no harm. Second try to do some good today."
I am thankful for the opportunity to try. Happy Thanksgiving!

Thanksgivng and Divorce

For many divorced parents, every other Thanksgiving leaves them feeling ungrateful. Most divorced families share their children on an every-other holiday basis. This translates to one year feeling elated and full of the holiday spirit, and the next, alone and empty feeling.Holidays are important times for families, but fear not, you can have a happy time. There is no law that says you have to

IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS

The newspapers were quick today to report two court decisions yesterday where the best interests of children formed the core of the judgments. Both served to demonstrate what a difficult quest it can be for a Judge in determining best interests when sometimes there can be a very fine line between the available options.

In the first case the Supreme Court acted to reverse earlier decisions made in the Court of Appeal and High Court thus enabling a 3 year old child to remain in the care of his grandmother who had looked after him very much since birth, rather than move to live with his natural father. In the second, the Court of Appeal has refused leave to appeal to a mother who has been ordered to hand over her 11 year old son to the care of his father against, it was argued, the child’s wishes. The boy is reported as being vehemently opposed to seeing his father, but his guardian for the purpose of the court proceedings and a child psychiatrist agree that he is suffering emotional harm by being estranged from his father as a result of his mother’s attitude.

One has to wonder, when you see criticism levelled at the courts about decisions of this kind, why they are always expected to get it right when parents, who are also entrusted with the best care of their children, don’t.

Health care Reform

The House of Representatives has passed the first version of health care reform this weekend. The fact that this bill made it through the house is quite a feat given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Most Americans are in agreement that health care reform is necessary. Anyone who has ever had any contact with health insurance carriers in recent times knows that it is a nightmare. While the foes of health care reform yell about governmental interference between a patient and his doctor, the interference from the insurance companies between the patient and their doctor is rarely mentioned. Those of us however, myself included who have been forced to fight with insurance companies over health services will tell you that the system NEEDS to change.

While I do not want the government involved in my medical decisions, neither do I want the conglomerate insurance companies deciding what treatment I need and when.

We need an overall to give autonomy back to the medical profession and to the patients where it belongs. If in fact that means some governmental regulations need to be put in place than so be it. The question always involves how much government and what role. We need to trust that the powers we elected will hit the right balance and return health care decision back to the people and the medical professionals where it belongs.

Most people want reform, and have been screaming about it for a long time. Finally it seems someone is listening.

Health care Reform

The House of Representatives has passed the first version of health care reform this weekend. The fact that this bill made it through the house is quite a feat given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Most Americans are in agreement that health care reform is necessary. Anyone who has ever had any contact with health insurance carriers in recent times knows that it is a nightmare. While the foes of health care reform yell about governmental interference between a patient and his doctor, the interference from the insurance companies between the patient and their doctor is rarely mentioned. Those of us however, myself included who have been forced to fight with insurance companies over health services will tell you that the system NEEDS to change.

While I do not want the government involved in my medical decisions, neither do I want the conglomerate insurance companies deciding what treatment I need and when.

We need an overall to give autonomy back to the medical profession and to the patients where it belongs. If in fact that means some governmental regulations need to be put in place than so be it. The question always involves how much government and what role. We need to trust that the powers we elected will hit the right balance and return health care decision back to the people and the medical professionals where it belongs.

Most people want reform, and have been screaming about it for a long time. Finally it seems someone is listening.

SOAP OPERAS

Reports today suggest that in India too the grounds for divorce are becoming easier. Under the Hindu Marriage Act a couple can be divorced if cruelty can be shown. What constitutes cruelty, however, seems to be becoming more of a subjective test possibly even in line with divorces on unreasonable behaviour in this country. I say that because, despite the husband’s protestations that his treatment of his wife was in line with the normal wear and tear of married life, the court held that preventing his wife watching soap operas on television was indeed cruel. Some of course might argue that if the programmes were anything like some of our daytime viewing, then he was doing her a favour.

DOUGHNUTS

I am what might be described as a regular contributor to local radio. Hence yesterday afternoon I was interviewed on BBC Tees’ Drive-time show. I understood that the presenter wanted to quiz me about my reaction to the survey referred to in my blog entry yesterday. Imagine my surprise therefore when in opening she referred to the results of a survey by the consumer watchdog Which? suggesting that a child’s lunchbox can contain as much sugar as 10 doughnuts. A wave of fear swept over me; was it a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time or had I just totally misunderstood my brief? I felt my fists clench as I struggled to think how I could possibly comment on doughnuts, perhaps something along the lines of “I’m not a dietician but...” might do it.

Fortunately she moved on to Children in Need and then the survey on the effects of separation; phew, panic over!

STAGGERING

“Staggering,” is the best description I can give to the results of a survey published today by family lawyers at London law Firm, Mishcon de Reya. The study of over 4,000 parents was commissioned by the firm to mark the 20th anniversary of the Children Act, implemented in November 1989.

Whilst seventy per cent of parents quizzed by the law firm cited their child’s welfare as the main priority during separation, the results also showed that:
Children said they felt used (19 percent), isolated (38 percent) and alone (37 percent).
Many admitted they turned to drink and drugs, played truant from school or self harmed.

For 38 percent of children the separation meant they never saw their father again.
50 percent of parents admitted putting their children through an intrusive court process over access issues and living arrangements.
25 percent of parents surveyed believe that their child was so traumatised by their separation that they self harmed or contemplated suicide.
20 percent of separated parents admitted that they actively set out to make their partner's experience ‘as unpleasant as possible’ regardless of the effect this had on their children’s feelings.

Sandra Davis, head of family law at Mishcon de Reya , says that, “This research shows that despite their best intentions, parents are often using their children as emotional footballs. They don’t have the tools to co-parent effectively following separation and their only solution is to turn to the courts. Children – alongside the economy - are suffering because of this. The millions of pounds spent each year on Legal Aid, running the courts and CAFCASS could be better spent educating parents about their children’s needs and gaining an understanding of how to resolve and avoid long term disputes and reduce hostility.” In short there is a need to “protect children from the worst excesses of parental conflict. Therapeutic input, not litigation, is the answer and will reduce the emotional and financial cost of separation.”

Resolution has already started to try to tackle the problem with its Parents after Parting workshops and its dedicated webspace for parents. Government funding however is needed if family therapy centres are to be set up and counselling available for all who need it. As the survey shows, 64 percent of parents quizzed said that if counselling was available they would consider attending.

You Make Me A Better Man

As a certified life coach, one of my specialties is divorce coaching. Whenever I work with men I find that they have so many issues with their past relationships that they have lost touch with how best to communicate and resonate with a woman. The pain of the divorce affects their thoughts and perceptions about women in general and clouds their judgment. After working through their beliefs about

SON ET LUMIERE

Yesterday evening I visited Durham City where a festival of light is taking place. The Cathedral itself was the setting for a spectacular son et lumière. Images showing the history of Christianity in the North East and drawn from the Lindisfarne Gospels, as well as from inside the Cathedral, were projected onto the outside of what has to be one of England’s most beautiful Norman buildings, accompanied by a harmony of monastic chants.

Sometimes you can look at the exterior of something and see nothing of the inside. Faces are the same; they can show a multitude of emotions, but on occasions nothing. When you hurt inside your facial expressions and demeanour can betray you or you can hide them behind a façade of stone. Either way we know you are aching, we just don’t always see or acknowledge it.

DIVORCE SPIN

My eyes were drawn to a story in the Telegraph today about MPs committing to divorce if they change political party. Whatever will they come up with next I wondered and then realised that the MPs in question are in Malaysia where they are all members of the Pan-Malaysia Islamic Party. Apparently they’ve taken a verbal oath not to transfer political allegiance and if they do to pay the penalty by divorcing their wives. The oath has drawn criticism from various quarters who believe (understandably) that it is trivialising marriage and according to Malaysia Women’s Minister “degrading and mean.”

However, Teresa Kok a lawmaker with the Democratic Action Party is reported as hailing the pledge as meaning that “they will not leave their party or their wives.” Funny, I thought marriage itself included a promise not to leave your wife and yet look how many men do! Leaving a political party as well can’t make life that much difficult surely. Call me a cynic, but maybe Malaysian politics are a bit like the British version with plenty of spin, not much substance and pre-election promises broken all over the place.

GRUMPY AND IMPERFECT

Have you ever considered your divorce lawyer to be negative minded? Does he or she keep telling you that you can’t do that which you wanted? In fact are there times when they seem downright grumpy? If so, you could have found the perfect person to advise you!

In its current edition, Australasian Science Magazine publishes an interview with Professor Joe Forgas from the University of South Wales in which he refers to details of his recent research showing that grumpy people cope with more demanding situations than happy ones because of the way their brains process information. It seems that critical or negative thinking people can actually be better at problem solving and make fewer mistakes than their sunnier natured counterparts; presumably this explains the personality traits of various occupations including lawyers. Hooray, there is a valid reason for my imperfections!

ONE KINGDOM; TWO SYSTEMS

When you live and practise in the North East of England, you are inevitably aware that only a matter of miles away across the border in Bonnie Scotland the law is very different. So tonight, Alasdair Loudon of Edinburgh law firm Turcan Connell treated Resolution’s Tees Valley Regional Group to an illuminating talk on divorce, Scottish style. How on earth can it be that we have one kingdom with two such different systems? The English system is of course deemed to be one of the most generous in the world for wives when it comes to financial settlements and hearing Alasdair talk I wondered if the Scottish one is amongst the tightest, when maintenance for a spouse is restricted to 3 years and the scope for taking needs into account is severely limited!

Why is it that here in England we are struggling to persuade Parliament to allow no fault divorce before a two year separation, whilst further North you can terminate your marriage after you have lived apart for one year (if you both consent) or after two years if you do not?

I wonder what the potential is for marriages to break down over arguments as mundane as “do we live in Jedburgh or Berwick; Gretna Green or Carlisle?” Moreover the one, who wins the argument, presumably also wins the financial settlement!

When everyday life gets too much for us, banks go bust, politicians lie and the price of petrol increases again, Outdoor Man frequently expresses a desire that we should opt for a more simple life aboard his boat. I’d always thought this was nothing more than a pipe dream, but listening to Alasdair tonight I realised that there could be method in his madness after all; Outdoor Man keeps his boat on the West Coast of Scotland!

Separation vs. Divorce

To married people the terms separation and divorce are used interchangeably. It seems that the public at large is unfamiliar with the difference between the two. Frankly there is a rather big difference in that with a legal separation the parties remain legally married. In a divorce they do not. Additionally a separation agreement is only enforceable in the same way any other contract would be enforceable. One needs to sue the other party for a breach as opposed to having a judgement (of divorce) already in place. The burden is on the party bringing the action to show that in fact the contract was breached and then the party may proceed to the enforcement part of the matter. In a divorce there is no need to prove whether or not the breach was intentional or if it was an oversight. If you don't get want you are entitled to from what is listed in the judgement you can jump right to the enforcement part and garnish salaries or collect your money the way you would in any other civil matter where you already have a judgment against the other party.

Separation agreements also do not automatically turn into divorces. People can stay legally separated for ever if neither party files for divorce. Even after the filing, there is no guarantee the matter will not be contested by the other party. If the filing of the divorce is contested after a separation agreement is executed (which by the way it often is)this can lead to a very ugly litigated battle where the separation agreement will be put in jeopardy of being changed or altered in order to settle the matter amicably.

Separation agreements do not provide the closure the parties in all liklihood are seeking in disolving their marital ties. These agreements should be entered into with full knowledge as to each parties responsibilities and risks in the future.

Separation vs. Divorce

To married people the terms separation and divorce are used interchangeably. It seems that the public at large is unfamiliar with the difference between the two. Frankly there is a rather big difference in that with a legal separation the parties remain legally married. In a divorce they do not. Additionally a separation agreement is only enforceable in the same way any other contract would be enforceable. One needs to sue the other party for a breach as opposed to having a judgement (of divorce) already in place. The burden is on the party bringing the action to show that in fact the contract was breached and then the party may proceed to the enforcement part of the matter. In a divorce there is no need to prove whether or not the breach was intentional or if it was an oversight. If you don't get want you are entitled to from what is listed in the judgement you can jump right to the enforcement part and garnish salaries or collect your money the way you would in any other civil matter where you already have a judgment against the other party.

Separation agreements also do not automatically turn into divorces. People can stay legally separated for ever if neither party files for divorce. Even after the filing, there is no guarantee the matter will not be contested by the other party. If the filing of the divorce is contested after a separation agreement is executed (which by the way it often is)this can lead to a very ugly litigated battle where the separation agreement will be put in jeopardy of being changed or altered in order to settle the matter amicably.

Separation agreements do not provide the closure the parties in all liklihood are seeking in disolving their marital ties. These agreements should be entered into with full knowledge as to each parties responsibilities and risks in the future.

BUSMAN'S HOLIDAY

I was on vacation last week. The trouble is that as regular readers of this blog will know I keep coming across divorce everywhere I turn, not just in the office. So it was that whilst I was wandering across a beach in out of season Cornwall, a complete stranger, dressed in a wetsuit and holding a surf board, looked at me and said: “It’s not working. We can’t communicate about anything important; in fact we can’t communicate at all.”

Maybe I have a sympathetic looking face, but the term “busman’s holiday” springs to mind!

Practicing Law Among Old Friends

A group of matrimonial attorneys found themselves in the courtroom recently discussing the longevity of their time in the trenches and relaying tales of experiences with attorneys not quite so familiar with the world of matrimonial law. One attorney said , that she remembered when I was a newbie. That I informed her much to her chagrin was 23 years ago. We talked of the difficulty of settling cases with those entering our world who are merely dabblers and were ill equipped to settle a case much less try it.

The dabblers are dragging these cases out to make money they aren't earning said one lawyer. It is really disgusting how these attorneys take cases from us and then blow them up. They will usually charge a lower retainer to begin the case but due to their inexperience they will cause a case to linger far beyond where it should. The economy was blamed for these attorneys entering our world. Everyone thinks they can practice matrimonial law, until they get a case. The over abundance of practicing attorneys also is a danger to the trusting consumer.

Sadly we must all be wary of the variables in our world and handle them accordingly. Caveat emptor has never been more important than it is in these economic times.

Practicing Law Among Old Friends

A group of matrimonial attorneys found themselves in the courtroom recently discussing the longevity of their time in the trenches and relaying tales of experiences with attorneys not quite so familiar with the world of matrimonial law. One attorney said , that she remembered when I was a newbie. That I informed her much to her chagrin was 23 years ago. We talked of the difficulty of settling cases with those entering our world who are merely dabblers and were ill equipped to settle a case much less try it.

The dabblers are dragging these cases out to make money they aren't earning said one lawyer. It is really disgusting how these attorneys take cases from us and then blow them up. They will usually charge a lower retainer to begin the case but due to their inexperience they will cause a case to linger far beyond where it should. The economy was blamed for these attorneys entering our world. Everyone thinks they can practice matrimonial law, until they get a case. The over abundance of practicing attorneys also is a danger to the trusting consumer.

Sadly we must all be wary of the variables in our world and handle them accordingly. Caveat emptor has never been more important than it is in these economic times.

WINNERS AND LOSERS

One of the pleasing touches I’ve invariably found in hotels in the Swiss and Austrian Alps is a newsletter on the breakfast table with a quote for the day. It is in such circumstances that I recently came across this offering by Denis Waitley, the American writer and motivational speaker. I believe it’s an entirely appropriate quote for a blog that seeks to delve into the complications of human relationships, though I make no comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the sentiments expressed:

Losers make promises they often break. Winners make commitments they always keep.

Marital Longevity and the Quest to be Happy

I just realized that both of my grandmothers were born on the 22nd day of the month. October was my paternal grandmother while July was the birth month of my maternal grandmother. The other significant co-incidence is that both sets of grandparents had been married over 50 years, as coincidentally were my parents.

Doing what I do it seems almost inconceivable that I have been surrounded by marriages of such longevity. I myself cannot be put into a category with these extraordinary people in that I am on my second marriage and the 50 year mark would put me into well passed my own life expectancy.

It would be a young child's fantasy to believe that each of these marriages were perfect in every way. I witnessed as a young child certain instances which would mar my vision of a perfect marriage. None of the instances I witnessed however,or even some of the stories I heard could ever touch the real life stories I have been privy to in my matrimonial practice.

Is longevity something that is passe' in modern marriage? I ask myself that question frequently. I don't believe that modern families are any more dysfunctional than they were 50 years ago. I do believe however, that modern families are less tolerant than generations before us and feel that they deserve to be happy. Are we in fact a more narcissistic society if we choose to live our lives happy as opposed to suffering within a loveless marriage? I think it has more to do with societal acceptance of divorce as opposed to our own selfish quest for happiness. We are not judged the way our grandparents would have been if they divorced. More and more couples divorce and it is less of an issue even in polite society.

As their granddaughter I would never presume to judge the marital relationship of any of my grandparents. They as well as my parents set for me a loving caring cocoon that to this day I can still retreat to whenever I need to experience the love that they showered upon me. Their examples represent the gold standard for me in terms of marriage. As I remember my grandma on this day of her birth I advise you all of the gift she gave me of her strength. A brave 19 year old girl who left her family and her home to follow her husband to a new world called America. Not knowing a sole or the language, she managed to raise 3 children and taught herself English without the help of bilingual signs or English as a second language course. On this day I honor strength of character and the quest for happiness be it within the marriage relationship or outside. Happy Birthday Grandma.

Marital Longevity and the Quest to be Happy

I just realized that both of my grandmothers were born on the 22nd day of the month. October was my paternal grandmother while July was the birth month of my maternal grandmother. The other significant co-incidence is that both sets of grandparents had been married over 50 years, as coincidentally were my parents.

Doing what I do it seems almost inconceivable that I have been surrounded by marriages of such longevity. I myself cannot be put into a category with these extraordinary people in that I am on my second marriage and the 50 year mark would put me into well passed my own life expectancy.

It would be a young child's fantasy to believe that each of these marriages were perfect in every way. I witnessed as a young child certain instances which would mar my vision of a perfect marriage. None of the instances I witnessed however,or even some of the stories I heard could ever touch the real life stories I have been privy to in my matrimonial practice.

Is longevity something that is passe' in modern marriage? I ask myself that question frequently. I don't believe that modern families are any more dysfunctional than they were 50 years ago. I do believe however, that modern families are less tolerant than generations before us and feel that they deserve to be happy. Are we in fact a more narcissistic society if we choose to live our lives happy as opposed to suffering within a loveless marriage? I think it has more to do with societal acceptance of divorce as opposed to our own selfish quest for happiness. We are not judged the way our grandparents would have been if they divorced. More and more couples divorce and it is less of an issue even in polite society.

As their granddaughter I would never presume to judge the marital relationship of any of my grandparents. They as well as my parents set for me a loving caring cocoon that to this day I can still retreat to whenever I need to experience the love that they showered upon me. Their examples represent the gold standard for me in terms of marriage. As I remember my grandma on this day of her birth I advise you all of the gift she gave me of her strength. A brave 19 year old girl who left her family and her home to follow her husband to a new world called America. Not knowing a sole or the language, she managed to raise 3 children and taught herself English without the help of bilingual signs or English as a second language course. On this day I honor strength of character and the quest for happiness be it within the marriage relationship or outside. Happy Birthday Grandma.

DEATH KNELL FOR FAMILY LEGAL AID

Latimer Hinks withdrew from legal aid work in 1998 and numerous other firms across the country have taken the same step. Resolution has warned that new fixed fees for family legal aid work published today by the Ministry of Justice are likely to mean a further exodus of lawyers from family legal aid and so undermine access to justice for ordinary families.

The new fees represent a further cut in legal aid remuneration at a time when family legal aid is already in crisis. The number of family legal aid practices in the country has dramatically dropped, from 4,500 in 2000 to 2,800 in 2006.

“The potential of these new fees to cause substantial and long term damage to the provision of family legal aid for separating families has been grossly underestimated,” said David Emmerson, Chair of Resolution’s Legal Aid Committee, strongly urging the government to reconsider the fees for private law cases before they come into effect in October 2010,

“Some of these fees represent a cut of more than 40 percent to hourly rates that have already remained static for the last ten years. Faced with this uneconomic scenario there is a very real danger that firms will walk away from legal aid work, further undermining access to justice.”

Lawyers estimate that for a very simple child contact case taking around 14 hours a legal aid firm would currently receive £960 on the basis of the hourly rate. The new fixed fee would be just £471 a cut of more than 50 percent.

Similarly a legal aid firm managing a straightforward divorce finance case which goes to full hearing, would be paid £2,106 at present; this will reduce to £1,299 under the new fixed fee regime, a cut of almost 40 percent.

Family Court vs. Supreme Court
Which is the proper venue?

To all of you unfamiliar with the judicial system the question of what forum to bring an action can be quite confusing. While Supreme and Family Court have concurrent (the same) jurisdiction over many matters there are some cases which can only be brought into one or the other.

Supreme Court contrary to its name is the lowest court in the State system. In NY the next highest court is the Appellate Division which hears appeals from the Supreme Court and the the highest Court in the State is the Court of Appeals. Under the state court system lies the county courts consisting of Family Courts and District Courts.

One cannot obtain a divorce in our Family Court system here in NY. A divorce action must be commenced in Supreme Court. From there it could proceed on appeal to the Appellate Division and rarely but not unheard of can go to the Court of Appeals for specific disputes.

Once a case arrives int he Supreme Court system it cannot have any matters heard at the same time in Family Court. Once the Supreme Court matter is resolved however, many of the issues resolved in Supreme Court may be enforced in Family court as well as in Supreme Court.

Family Court which is sometimes referred to as "the people's court" does not require that petitioners be represented by an attorney. In fact none of the courts can require representation by counsel however, the process of the system makes it very difficult for a pro se litigant to represent themselves in any court other than in family court. Most times the issues found in family court revolve around support, and custody disputes between unmarried couples or couples who are no longer married.

While having an attorney represent you in any matter where there are legal issues is always desired, family court is really the only court that lends itself to the assistance of the pro se litigant. Procedures are usually more relaxed in family court and many times cases are not heard by judges but by hearing examiners who possess the same powers of enforcement as a judge with the exception of doling out jail time in the event of a contempt proceeding.

While most attorneys do practice is family court, it is usually their preference to have cases heard in Supreme Court. Procedure and protocol are usually more attorney friendly in the Supreme Court and sometimes it is more expeditious to bring emergency relief in the Supreme Court as opposed to Family Court which usually has a six week wait period from the filing of the petition to the hearing date.

Although it is not mandatory, one unfamiliar with the legal system should be very wary of entering any of the hallowed halls of justice without proper representation. One misstep could cost you thousands in the long run; much more than the price of competent counsel. In certain circumstances failure to have counsel can not only ruin a litigant financially but it can devastate a family and negatively impact parental relationships with children. Think carefully before deciding to go it alone.

Family Court vs. Supreme Court
Which is the proper venue?

To all of you unfamiliar with the judicial system the question of what forum to bring an action can be quite confusing. While Supreme and Family Court have concurrent (the same) jurisdiction over many matters there are some cases which can only be brought into one or the other.

Supreme Court contrary to its name is the lowest court in the State system. In NY the next highest court is the Appellate Division which hears appeals from the Supreme Court and the the highest Court in the State is the Court of Appeals. Under the state court system lies the county courts consisting of Family Courts and District Courts.

One cannot obtain a divorce in our Family Court system here in NY. A divorce action must be commenced in Supreme Court. From there it could proceed on appeal to the Appellate Division and rarely but not unheard of can go to the Court of Appeals for specific disputes.

Once a case arrives int he Supreme Court system it cannot have any matters heard at the same time in Family Court. Once the Supreme Court matter is resolved however, many of the issues resolved in Supreme Court may be enforced in Family court as well as in Supreme Court.

Family Court which is sometimes referred to as "the people's court" does not require that petitioners be represented by an attorney. In fact none of the courts can require representation by counsel however, the process of the system makes it very difficult for a pro se litigant to represent themselves in any court other than in family court. Most times the issues found in family court revolve around support, and custody disputes between unmarried couples or couples who are no longer married.

While having an attorney represent you in any matter where there are legal issues is always desired, family court is really the only court that lends itself to the assistance of the pro se litigant. Procedures are usually more relaxed in family court and many times cases are not heard by judges but by hearing examiners who possess the same powers of enforcement as a judge with the exception of doling out jail time in the event of a contempt proceeding.

While most attorneys do practice is family court, it is usually their preference to have cases heard in Supreme Court. Procedure and protocol are usually more attorney friendly in the Supreme Court and sometimes it is more expeditious to bring emergency relief in the Supreme Court as opposed to Family Court which usually has a six week wait period from the filing of the petition to the hearing date.

Although it is not mandatory, one unfamiliar with the legal system should be very wary of entering any of the hallowed halls of justice without proper representation. One misstep could cost you thousands in the long run; much more than the price of competent counsel. In certain circumstances failure to have counsel can not only ruin a litigant financially but it can devastate a family and negatively impact parental relationships with children. Think carefully before deciding to go it alone.

BLOG ACTION DAY - CLIMATE CHANGE

That the climate is changing there appears to be no doubt. Scientists, however, seem divided as to the causes and also the solutions. As for politicians, without them would green or eco taxes have been invented? There seems to be an emerging policy to say that it’s to save the planet, in anticipation that everyone will pay without protest. I’m surprised they haven’t started to tax divorce, well not overtly anyway, although there is already VAT on the solicitor’s bill. Mind single parent families and relationship breakdowns are like gas guzzlers, only a thousand times worse, the multitude of sins they get blamed for. Come to think of it how long will it be before someone tries to make a connection between the rising number of divorces and global warming? There must be a scientific model somewhere, showing a correlation.

HOW TO STOP HATING YOUR EX

Stop hating your ex must sound like a tall order for many people, but this book by René Ashton seeks to show you how. “I wanted someone to tell me how in the world I was to escape the grips of this ferocious animal wreaking havoc in my life,” she writes; she’s not describing her ex, however, but instead her anger.

René forwarded me a copy of the book in advance of its US publication date last week. I’m sure that it will only be a matter of time before it’s available in the UK too. More like a work-book than a reference source, it’s written in a very down to earth style and pushes the reader onward in a mission of self-healing asking for deliberated responses to questions posed, even providing lined pages for the replies.

“You cannot change your ex. Try as you may. Manipulate as you may. Punish, kick, scream, whatever your tactic, it won’t work”, she reminds us. “The only thing you can change is yourself to make things different.” Through the book, she endeavours to train the reader how to let go and draws on her own experience in illustrating the depths to which the broken hearted and wronged can sink but also how they can move on.

René clearly feels strongly that children should have the right to be co-parented properly. She spares no punches when she identifies those careless or vindictive comments that can cause untold harm and urges the reader to “talk to a professional (not your kids), unload on your friends (not your kids).”

If you feel caught in a trap of negativity or denial as a result of relationship breakdown, it could help but you mustn’t expect any sympathy. “You have the capacity to change,” and that’s what the author wants you to do.

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

John Cleese kicked off his “How to Finance Your Divorce Tour” in Norway last weekend. He’s reported as telling his audience that he’d fallen on hard times because he had been ordered to pay $20 million to a woman he believed to be “the special love child of Bernie Madoff and Heather Mills.” Ouch! Divorce can have a tendency to bring out the bitter side of people as well as their ingenuity when they look to raise the necessary finances.

It all reminded me of once upon a time when I acted for a client whom I shall kindly describe as totally eccentric.

“You can call me Mr Praline,” he said when we first met, after he’d stepped across my room in three long and exaggerated strides, bowler hat perched precariously on the top of his head. He was a strange client; not easy to take instructions from when every few seconds he’d change the subject and yell out: “And now for something completely different.”

He was very fond of pets, I recall, with a fish called Wanda (or was it Eric?) and a large snake he referred to as Monty.

When settlement terms were ordered by the court, he completely broke down, banging a dead parrot on the desk and claiming to have to go back and live in a cardboard box. However, he paid what was required with borrowed funds, and then decamped to work as a lumberjack to pay for it all!

THE TENANT OF WILDFELL HALL

This novel by Anne Bronte was the token classic in my summer reading list. If there was ever a story that demonstrated the inequalities that used to exist between the sexes this is it. It’s set in the early part of the 19th Century when it definitely wasn’t considered acceptable for a husband to binge-drink and form sexual liaisons with other women, but some did anyway. Whilst divorce is actually mentioned once, it wasn’t really an option and nor was running away easy when your husband controlled all your finances and you’d promised to love, honour and obey him before an all-knowing God.

Even without a divorce though the story has a happy ending, or at least it does for the wife. The husband however dies from his excesses with a conviction that an angelic hereafter is not to be his destiny.

There are times when you realise just how much society has changed in the last 200 years and yet also how little.

Beware of the Mediation Process

Anyone who reads this blog knows I am a big proponent of Mediation, and I have written on the subject many times. The law at present does not require Mediation to be done only by licensed attorneys. Anyone can hang a shingle and declare themselves a mediator. Therapists, social workers, retirees, anyone and everyone who sees this as a potential source of new income is declaring themselves a mediator.

Clients who have entered my office and thought my fee was high for this service, have returned to me with agreements written in appalling condition. These agreements would guarantee the parties a lifetime of family court proceedings to flush out the many ambiguities and missing provisions of these so called agreements.

Such is the arrogance of these mediators to advise these clients that I a licensed attorney who has been practicing matrimonial law for some 23 years doesn't understand the process and is merely attempting to make this more complicated than it should be!!

The process is complicated but in a practice such as mine it is streamlined in such as way as to avoid unnecessary contact with the court after the agreement is executed. My agreements are about 60 pages in length and cover all contingencies. Here is a hint: if your agreement has only about 20 pages in it, you are missing an awful lot! If it has less than 20 pages be prepared to become a staple at the local family courthouse, because unless you and your former spouse are excellent at communication and compromise you will soon find that such intervention will be necessary due to the failings of your cheaply obtained agreement.

Most people do not believe in the phrase that "you get what you pay for." In many instances it is untrue, but when it comes to a dissolution of your marriage and the future of your financial stability, not to mention the welfare of your children,
you should heed the warning.

Would you put your trust into the hands of a particular surgeon because his price was the cheapest or do you want the very best in the field? The same should apply when dealing with all major decisions in your life. Divorce is a major decision. Be informed and chose your avenues wisely. There are bad apples in every field and charlatans eager to bleed you as well. Get referrals from sources you trust, investigate the attorney you use and use someone who has a license on the line. Your future depends on your choices.