Of course marriage is not soley composed of financial issues but more about who the people are when they enter the marriage. The most important aspect of the relationship is how people treat each other regardless of money or anything else.
It should come as no surprise that divorce is linked to alcohol (ab)use. Research consistently shows that, compared to married people, divorced people drink more and in more harmful ways(e.g. binge drinking), are more likely to have a lifetime or recent alcohol use disorder (AUD) diagnosis, engage in more alcohol-related risky behaviors, and have higher alcohol-related mortality. The issues of divorce tend to be life altering and can permanently alter a persons future as far as relationships and children. The fight over financial support, property division and custody are so harrowing that people need a break from reality. Alcohol provides the antidote to to peoples divorce problems
Past studies have found some evidence that this link might be causal, such that alcohol abuse increases the risk of subsequent divorce. Now a recent study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in May 2017 strengthens the evidence that link might be causal in the other direction, too: Divorce increases the risk for subsequent alcohol abuse. It seems the effect of the process of divorce can make a person suffer some sort of mental impairment that needs to get remedied. Alcohol might be the quickest and fastest way to numb the pain that results.
Based on a population-based Swedish study of almost 950,000 Swedes born between 1960 and 1990 who married in or after 1990 and who had no AUD diagnosis prior to marriage, this new study found that, after divorce, the rates of first-time AUD increased sixfold in men and over sevenfold in women. These rates remained greatly elevated even after controlling for potential confounding factors, including prior problem behavior, low parental education, and familial risk of AUD.
“It was quicker, cheaper and easier on so many levels – emotionally, mentally, spiritually and physically – than a lot of other horror stories I’ve heard,” she said.
This trend is largely caused by a change in patterns of adoption in China—a country from which many children are adopted. In 1999, 98 percent of children adopted from China to the U.S. were girls. In 2016, boys accounted for the majority of Chinese adoptees for the first time, albeit only 51 percent. This shows the growing trend in America that boy adoptions are ok and should be ok in the future.
This change has nothing to do with more Americans wanting boys. China has recently gotten far less strict about the one-child policy, which previously limited most families in China to one child each in order to slow the rate at which China’s population was growing. When the measure was in full effect, Chinese girls were put up for adoption in much larger numbers, according to an NPR report.
The question must be asked as in all move away cases is the reason for the move away a motive separate than other reasons given for the move away request. Often the move away if fought with anterior motives and seems to be almost always done so based on my experience. Although parties in the move away process claim, family, jobs, friends are the sole motivating forces generating the move. But are they? I truly believe in most case the move away is done to alienate the other parent from their children. I have not had a case where it did not come up that the moving party was in a very contentious custody dispute and the other party just got up and left the state. Dont tell me this was to find a better job and to go live with mommy and daddy in another state because things were better there. I dont believe it at all. This is where I really disagree with most court rulings with move away orders given by superior court judges who always seem to side the with he primary custodian of the children. Although the argument that child needs stability and has bonded with one parent already and the courts do not want to disrupt this stable status quo relationship they in effect has left behind a parent without any connnection to their child so that one parent can go on with their life and leave the other parent helpless and without child. This cannot happen anymore and needs to be addressed seriously by the superior court family law bench of all united states.
In one case in particuar case Bruce v Jennifer an Alaskan superior court case involving Domestic violence and child custody move away issues brings to a forefront the anterior motives of a party while trying to hoodwink the court to get what they want which is full custody of the child and to escape dodge with the kid and tearing the bond from the other parent in half as a result of Courts blessings.
The appellant in the Michigan move away case alleged on appeal that Jennifer had committed domestic violence in a prior relationship which would assist Bruce the father in alleging giving her sole physical custody was not in the best interest of the child. The court stated, in full:Regarding the accusation that [Jennifer] hit her boyfriend, there is no time frame associated with this alleged incident
Just days after Harvey Weinstein said his wife, Marchesa fashion designer Georgina Chapman, was standing by him, Chapman now says she has chosen to divorce her husband.
Chapman said in a statement to tabloids, “My heart breaks for all the women who have suffered tremendous pain because of these unforgivable actions. I have chosen to leave my husband. Caring for my young children is my first priority and I ask the media for privacy at this time.” Therefore child custody and visitation will be an issue in Harvey’s case. However, it will be interesting how the allegations turn out. Because if the mere lechery of Harvey is all that sticks his visitation rights may not be impaired. But if rape allegations an forceful sex are proven in court his custodial rights will definitely be limited and a fight will ensue that will be rather difficult for Harvey. The couple have two young children 7 and 4 which will need a stable environment to thrive. It is unclear if that can be achieved under these conditions Harvey finds himself in. A bond has definitely been established and it is still very important for young children’s growth to have frequent contact with both parents.
Weinstein said he supported Chapman’s decision to leave him, in a statement quoted in Page Six. “I support her decision, I am in counseling and perhaps, when I am better, we can rebuild. Over the last week, there has been a lot of pain for my family that I take responsibility for,” Weinstein said. All these things said are great for public sentiment.
A couple in Canada who decided to divorce after 35 years of marriage had to go to court to settle one of the more important aspects of their separation: Who gets their Edmonton Oilers season tickets? Often during the divorce there are issues regarding the division of property. Usually the house is the main issue. In others people have to divide personal property such as jewelry, cars, dogs and cats and other belongings people acquire over there long term marriage.
Often people have to deal with other financial issues such as spousal support and in long term marriages that can be a huge issue.
Beverly and Donald McLeod separated in 2015, with Donald agreeing to pay Beverly $15,000 per month in spousal support. But they needed a court order to decide what to do with the hockey tickets they had shared for the past 11 years.
Tyrese Gibson is now under the microscope of the L.A. County Dept. of Children and Family Services over claims by his ex-wife and baby mama that he spanked his 10-year-old daughter so hard she couldn’t sit. Spanking by itself is not necessarily abuse because some family use spanking as a form of discipline. However, times have changed and spanking your child repeatedly or too hard can be considered a form of child abuse. Gone are the old days when a parent could physically punish their child freely and without any consequence to their actions. Nowadays a spanking can be reported to child protective services. They will immediately start and investigation into these actions. The first people that are investigated or interviewed are of course the child. In Juvenile Court the child has tremendous weight in determining how to proceed with the prosecution of any abuse. The social workers doing the interview are highly sensitive all the children who are interviewed. The parents then are interviewed and are secondarily important to the whether charges are filed in juvenile or criminal court.
Tyrese and Norma Gibson are in a court battle … Norma’s trying to get a permanent restraining order prohibiting him from physically disciplining their kid. Norma is trying to seek a domestic violence restraining order which she can get in family law superior court. This is not the same as a juvenile court order nor is it a criminal restraining order. It has lessor implications than juvenile court and criminal court. However, if Norma succeeds in getting a restraining order for her child Tyrese will have to follow it. Any violation of a restraining order can cause Tyrese to be arrested and charged with a crime, violation of a court order.
She also wants full physical and legal custody. She’s worried Tyrese will take their daughter to Dubai, where he has business ties, and not come back. She also wants Tyrese to take domestic violence courses. Again, filing for fully custody or a modification of the prior custody order will take place out of juvenile court and land the parties in family law court. Normally the judge will have to decide the case based on the best interest of the child standard. There are many cases where one parent is fearful of the other parent kidnapping the child by leaving the country and not coming back. Often to avoid problems the Court can make a restriction on the travel of the child outside the country. But in more and more case because of the Hague Convention and the international kidnapping laws awareness Court will allow a parent to leave the country. This happens quite often if a parent wants to visit relatives in foreign countries.
Terrence Howard‘s taking an “L” in his longstanding spousal support war with his ex-wife … who just won in appeals court. This divorce case of Terrence Howard has been going on for years. This shows how a case in the Family law court system can last as it seems forever. A case such as Howard’s should make a person involved in a divorce reflect is it really worth it to drag a case out for years to achieve exactly what? To lose money? Im sure Terrence lost thousands paying his family law attorneys and his appellate lawyers to drag a case out for spite and contempt of heart. Noone wins in cases that drag out over years to fight and fight and win absolutely nothing but lose thousands to the Family Court system.
In Terrence Howard’s case he chose to fight a payment of spousal support to his ex wife. Often the appellate process can take years because of the nature of the appellate process in the Superior Court system. Often the Trial Court family law judges are permitted what is called broad discretion to handle their family law cases such as spousal support. Since the appellate three judge panel is permitted broad discretion to rule on spousal support matters that makes it difficult for an appellate court to overturn cases that the trial judge ruled on.
According to court docs, Michelle Ghent Howard got a ruling on their spousal support overturned. Two years ago, Terrence convinced the court he’d been forced to sign their marital settlement under duress. He claimed she was threatening to go public with naked photos and videos. Interestingly, Terrence claimed the threat of putting nude photos of himself on the web was enough to coerce him into signing a contract. Often when once thinks of duress they think of someone facing physical or severe emotional harm. Terrence claims duress was fear of nude photos of himself leaked. Often the defense to a signing of any contract in the State of California would be duress or coercion. In addition, if a party claims they did not sign a contract without their consent it could be a plausible defense to signing the contract.