Total Divorce Blog

There’s been a lot of news coverage recently about “fathers” who found out that they weren’t fathers at all, and what happens when child support orders are already in place before that discovery is made.  Both Missouri and Texas have put forth legislation that would address the concerns of these “duped dads”.

The Arkansas Supreme Court this week said protections for “duped dads” in the state’s laws do not apply in divorce cases.  Kevin Martin fought a case for back child support in 2004 by requesting a paternity test.  The test showed that Martin wasn’t, in fact, the child’s father.  The Arkansas paternity statute says that means no liability for child support, but Martin’s child support case didn’t arise under paternity laws. Rather, it grew out of a 1997 divorce.  In the divorce case, Martin had agreed that the child was “of the marriage”.

The Circuit Court found that the original agreed order foreclosed Martin’s right to raise the issue of paternity, and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed, pointing out that the statute that would have shielded him from support payments didn’t apply in divorce cases and that the prior agreement was binding.

Early last month, The Divorce Blog detailed a proposed Alabama divorce law that would extend the divorce waiting period for parents with children under the age of 18 to a full year. Current Alabama divorce law allows a court to finalize a divorce in the state in as little as 30 days after filing. While admitting that his proposed divorce law has slim chances of passing this legislative session, state Senator Hank Erwin said in a Montgomery Adviser story today that he hopes such legislation will spark more discussion on making marriages last. Erwin had hoped that such a longer waiting period would result in some couples seeking counseling and then reconciling.

An opponent of this Alabama divorce legislation questioned in the story whether it took a holistic view of divorce. Specifically, Montgomery family law lawyer Judy Barganier called the legislation “well-intended” but off in that some divorces are better for the children involved, especially when there is a lot of conflict in the marriage. Barganier added in the story how most of the divorce cases that she handles center around money, parenting approaches, substance abuse, and mental health issues. We’ll keep you updated on any more developments with this proposed Alabama divorce law.

On yesterday, Texas legislators pushed through a piece of legislation that would double the marriage license fee to $60 for any couple who did not attend eight hours of a premarital counseling class. This fee and the three-day marriage waiting period would of course be waved for soon-to-be-married Texas couples who did attend the class. A keyetv.com story detailed how this Texas marriage legislation was proposed by state Senator Warrren Chism, who was quoted in the story as saying that “divorce is destroying this country.” Opponents of this legislation have scoffed at such a notion, said it’s not the duty of lawmakers to save this institution, and called this bill a “marriage tax.” This bill has passed the state Senate and House and is now waiting for a signature from Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The story juxtaposed the conflicting opinions about this legislation. Dr. Joseph White of the Diocese of Austin Family Counseling and Family Life described the legislation as being “fantastic” in the story. He added that since the state of Texas publicly recognizes a marriage between a man and a woman, it thus has an interest in preserving the sacrament. State Representative Pete Gallego disagreed in the story and said that it’s all about personal responsibility. We’ll see what Perry thinks and keep you updated on this legislation.

While recent reports have indicated that the U.S. divorce rate is currently at its lowest level since 1970, some experts have questioned the assertion that relationships are in better conditions nowadays as compared to years past. An Associated Press story from last week detailed that there are approximately 3.6 divorces per every 1,000 people in the United States, and how some experts have contributed this decline to the fact that more people are living together without getting married. Other researchers have noticed a “divorce divide” in which the divorce rate has actually fallen among college-educated couples but has stayed the same for less-affluent and less-educated couples.

The divorce rate in the United States reached its peak in 1981 when there were 5.3 divorces per every 1,000 people. The story noted that America’s divorce rate began to increase in the 1960s before skyrocketing in the next two decades as most states adopted no-fault divorce laws. The current U.S. divorce rate is the lowest in 37 years.

Experts have linked the decline in the U.S. divorce rate to several factors, especially the fact that the number of people living together without being married has increased tenfold since 1960. Other interesting things to consider include the fact that the U.S. marriage rate has dropped by nearly 30 percent in the last 25 years and that Americans are waiting longer to get married than as in the past. Specifically, people are getting married about five years later as compared to 1970.

A proposed Oregon divorce law would increase the price of divorce in the state by $10 and allocate the extra money towards legal clinics that focus on assisting domestic violence and sexual abuse victims in the state. A recent OregonLive.com story detailed how the House Revenue Committee advanced House Bill 2961, which would provide an anticipated $350,000 for the Domestic Violence Clinic of Lane County Legal Aid & Advocacy Center. With its federal grant set to expire next year, the clinic could use this money to continue to fund a program in which University of Oregon law students aid these victims. Current and past participants of the program pushed hard for the House committee to help maintain this unique aspect of the clinic’s mission. This proposed Oregon divorce law now goes to the full House.

The story added that there are roughly 18,500 Oregon divorces each year. Depending on the Oregon county, divorcing couples pay anywhere from $195 to $371 in fees and courts costs during the divorce process. About 36 percent of couples getting a divorce in Oregon do not pay these costs because they can not afford them. We’ll keep you updated on any more developments with this proposed Oregon divorce law.

Last week, New Hampshire men and women lobbied lawmakers on behalf of a bill that would extend health care coverage to people who lose those benefits after they get a divorce. An Associated Press story in The Telegraph provided some interesting information about state Senator Martha Fuller Clark’s proposed New Hampshire divorce law, which would allow divorced spouses to stay on their ex-spouse’s insurance plan indefinitely or until they get remarried. Existing state and federal laws allow ex-spouses to buy extended insurance coverage under those policies for three years after the divorce, but proponents of this legislation claim that these COBRA costs are too expensive.

The story detailed the situation of Damon Josz, a father who divorced from his wife last year and then had to drop coverage for himself and a daughter from a previous marriage because the COBRA costs were too expensive. The self-employed mechanic added how this proposed New Hampshire divorce law is not “gender-specific” and stated that it would help both men and women whom no longer have health insurance after divorce.

The Associated Press story detailed how insurance companies and organizations like Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield and the Association of American Health Insurance Plans opposed this proposed New Hampshire law and even warned how it could lead to higher costs for employers. Clark disputed this claim by saying that taxpayers will brunt more costs in the long run if divorced spouses are left with no health insurance following divorce. We’ll keep you updated on any developments with this New Hampshire divorce law.

Earlier this week, a proposed Tennessee divorce law requiring a waiting period and mediation during divorce proceedings in the Volunteer State was approved by the House Children and Family Affairs Committee. A Kingsport Times News story detailed House Bill 1981, which calls for a 60-day divorce waiting period for married Tennessee couples without children and a 90-day waiting period for couples with children under 18 years of age. Specifically, the waiting period would take effect once a couple filed for divorce in Tennessee on any grounds. State Representative Brian Kelsey co-sponsored this Tennessee divorce bill and said in the story that the whole idea behind it was to require couples to sit down and come to agreements prior to the divorce process beginning.

Kelsey added his opinions in the story that mediation would make Tennessee divorces more amicable. At the request of the Tennessee Bar Association (TBA), an amendment has gotten rid of an original part of this divorce bill that would have given a judge the power to deny a divorce involving children if either parent failed to attend a mediation session. TBA representative Steve Cobb added in the story that this revamped Tennessee divorce bill could save couples money that would have most likely come out of their pockets during drawn-out divorces.

A few Representatives expressed their concerns about this proposed Tennessee divorce law. Representative Johnny Shaw specifically asked Kelsey if he is trying to deter people from getting divorces in the state with this proposed law. State Representative Mike Turner wondered whether this proposed Tennessee divorce law would actually hinder those people who needed to get divorced quickly.

The Kingsport Times News story detailed that this proposed Tennessee divorce law will soon be voted on the House floor. Its Senate companion will be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee early next week. We’ll keep you updated on the latest developments with this proposed Tennessee divorce law.

The Divorce Blog has previously detailed a pending New York divorce in which a Nassau judge refused to rule on it in anticipation of a proposed no-fault divorce law in the state legislature. On Monday, Nassau County State Supreme Court Justice Robert Ross officially denied the divorce of Jeffrey and Paula Molinari some two weeks after coming to his unusual decision to not rule on the case. Jeffrey Molinari had sought a divorce on the grounds of “constructive abandonment,” or that his wife refused to have sex with him for a year. When originally refusing to decide this case, Ross said that current New York divorce laws do not recognize this argument as a valid reason for divorce and then urged state legislators to pass a proposed no-fault divorce law which would allow such a divorce. With legislators failing to take such action in the last two weeks, Ross came to his final decision and denied the Molinari divorce.

A Newsday.com story said that Ross declined to comment on the case but did write in his decision that even if this proposed New York no-fault divorce law was acted upon, it would be too long to make a timely determination in this case. As detailed here yesterday, the New York Senate Judiciary Committee has passed a proposed divorce law that would not allow a no-fault divorce law in the state but rather shorten the separation period in order to file for divorce from one year to three months. The Newsday.com story added that New York is the only state without a no-fault divorce law and rather requires one spouse to blame the other of wrongdoing and the couple to agree to a complicated separation agreement.

Paula Molinari’s New York divorce lawyer was not happy with Ross’ final decision. Specifically, Dominic Barbara called this continuing New York divorce “a tragedy” and added that his client would “be happy” to end the pain of this case for her children if a fair divorce settlement was offered. Jeffrey’s Molinari’s lawyer disputed such claims and said that it is Paula Molinari who wanted to prolong the case for her financial gain. Specifically, Kenneth Koopersmith added that his client can now file a new divorce case in New Jersey, which passed a no-fault divorce law earlier this year.

No-fault divorce laws most often allow divorces to end more quickly. Proponents of a New York no-fault divorce law have criticized current fault laws as a means to stretch out divorce cases and use this lengthy process to arrange more favorable custody and financial agreements, as Jeffrey Molinari has accused his wife of doing. Opponents to a New York no-fault divorce law have said that it threatens the sanctity of marriage and takes away an important bargaining chip for the poorer spouse. We’ll keep you updated on the latest developments surrounding this strange divorce case and the New York no-fault divorce law debate.

The Divorce Blog has detailed in the past how New York currently does not have a no-fault divorce law, which would allow a couple to seek a divorce by simply saying that their marriage has broken down and there is no prospect of reconciliation. Just a couple of weeks ago, a judge delayed ruling on a pending New York divorce and urged the state legislature to pass a proposed no-fault divorce law. With that said, the latest New York divorce news includes legislation that would not establish a no-fault divorce law in the state but rather reduce the separation period for a party to file for divorce. Specifically, the New York Divorce Report detailed how the Judiciary Committee of the New York State Assembly approved a proposed divorce law last week that would reduce the current separation period in order to file for divorce from one year to just three months.

This proposed New York divorce law would also mandate that wannabe divorcees in the state enter into a written agreement resolving all issues in their divorce, including child custody, equitable distribution and child support. Critics of this legislation have continued to express their desire for a no-fault divorce law in the state. They say that a New York no-fault divorce law is necessary for those divorce cases in which there is no marital fault, or instance of adultery, abandonment or cruel or inhuman treatment, and a clear need for a judge to decide divorce issues. We’ll keep you updated on the newest developments with this proposed New York divorce law reducing the separation period from one year to three months and the latest efforts for no-fault divorce in the state.

Sports superstars and personalities capture our attentions for their vast athletic potential and their amazing feats on the field. Constantly being in the celebrity spotlight, these figures also create headlines for their lives off the field, especially when it comes to divorce. Earlier this month, AOL.com ranked “The Top 15 Nastiest Divorces in Sports,” and we’re taking a closer look at some of the common themes involving the “winners” — and adding a few nominees of our own.

• Boxing Buddies: Remember when Mike Tyson bit off part of Evander Holyfield’s ear! Well these two former heavyweight champs are not only just linked to this infamous episode in the history of boxing but are also known for their nasty divorces. Tyson and his ex-wife Robin Givens (of “Head of the Class” fame) were involved in a bitter divorce in 1989 which involved allegations that Tyson hit his ex-wife with a closed fist. Givens explained to Barbara Walters during an interview with her husband on “20/20” how life with Tyson was hell. Holyfield’s bitter divorce with his wife of three years, Janice, included his embarrassing admission that he fathered two children out of wedlock.

• Out-of-Wedlock Kids: Holyfield wasn’t the only sports celebrity to have his reputation tarnished with the acknowledgement that he fathered children out of wedlock. Former Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego Padres baseball player Steve Garvey was a popular figure on the baseball diamond, but his public image became as filthy as a dirty home plate when it became public knowledge during his divorce with ex-wife Cindy that he too fathered two kids out of wedlock. Garvey has also been accused of missing child support payments.

• Low Blows: Current New York Giant defensive end Michael Strahan recently divorced his wife Jean. However, this divorce didn’t end without the NFL sack specialist being sacked by his ex-wife’s allegations that he led an “alternative lifestyle.” Former Oakland A’s slugger and American League MVP Jose Canseco helped expose the public to the baseball steroid controversy. His ex-wife Jessica exposed some alleged details about Jose in her book, which included comments about his manhood and claims that the ex-ballplayer hardly showered.

Visit The Divorce Blog later this week for even more themes surrounding the most interesting sports divorces of all time.