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.
Often men in a power position in the movie industry there are sexual predators who will try to take advantage of young women for their own sexual benefit. Harvey Weinstein, Roger Ailes, Eric Boling, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, Charles Payne, Roman Polanski, Donald Trump, and Anthony Weiner. These people seem to fit the list of predators to gain adavantage for their own benefit. This can occur in divorce cases as well where one spouse takes adavantage of another spouse. In addition, this could be charged as domestic violence. Harassement is a big problem when dealing with domestic violence. A bully partner can be a big problem throughout a persons life. Sometimes the spouse or partner will not say anything for many years. In order to stop this delay in reporting and seeking protection we certainly can make the idea of going to court and seeking protection much easier for individuals under these circumstances.
The recent case of Harvey Weinstein is an example of delay in reporting harassment by a person. Although he may or may not come under the statute for domestic violence he certainly shows the signs of it.
The good news is that we have this growing list of names for the public to read. The silence has been breached. It has been my experience that a poisonous presumption contributes mightily to empowering the morally challenged and disabling the vulnerable: there is a deep fear of affecting a man’s income and reputation. One editorial board actually told me that they could not back statute of limitations reform for child sex abuse—which would protect millions of children and families in their state—because they had received two reports about powerful men and their reputations did not deserve to be harmed. That’s the calculus: millions of victims to two men.
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.
Lawyers for Linda Macklowe accused 432 Park Avenue’s developers of “playing dirty” and violating a slew of laws by surreptitiously filings plans to downsize her unit — and then trying to force her to close on the $14.4 million pad.
“We shouldn’t have to close when they are playing dirty,” argued Adam Leitman Bailey, an attorney for Harry Macklowe’s estranged wife, who said the closing should be delayed until the former couple’s $2 billion divorce is final and their assets divvied up. “This isn’t the time when you decide to close or not,” he added. In divorce proceedings the division of property can be done at any time during the divorce proceedings. often if there is no resolution then the trial will decide the fate of unresolved division of property issues. Often before the divorce is final certain provisions will be made by the parties to provide temporary or permanent division so that at some level the parties can go on with their lives.
According to Bailey, Harry is getting preferential treatment from 432 Park’s developers — CIM Group and (ahem) Macklowe Properties — since he never received a closing notice even though he’s in contract to buy the apartment next to hers on the 78th floor. “They’re not playing fairly,” charged Bailey, whose navy pinstriped suit was torn at the shoulder, the result of vociferous arguing in court that morning. “He’s going after her money.” Having a third party lawyer represent Harry’s interest in real property is an very passive aggressive maneuver to obviously push his wife into making decisions she is not comfortable making at this time.