On May 26 the New York Times reported on the Divorce Hotel, a Netherlands-based company that enables married couples to take a rather unusual trip -- for about $3,000, spouses can go away for a long weekend and return as exes (by comparison, an average divorce in the Netherlands costs between $5,000 and $10,000 and can take weeks, even months to finalize). Despite its name, the Divorce Hotel is not actually one physical structure; the company partners with multiple boutique hotels to offer its clients a swifter, cheaper -- and chicer -- way to call it quits (locations in New York and Los Angeles are currently in the works). To learn more about this unusual service, HuffPost Divorce asked founder and general manager Jim Halfens to dish on what really goes on when a couple checks into the Divorce Hotel for the weekend.
How do you help your divorcing guests feel at ease?
We want to give couples the feeling of being at home. One of the suites [we do the divorce proceedings in] has a fireplace. That said, we also want to take them out of their comfort zone -- if they live in the south, we invite them to [a hotel location] in the north. This also helps keep them far away from new partners or their mother-in-laws.
How do you keep your divorces discreet when there are also regular hotel guests staying at the hotel?
Our clients have their privacy -- nobody knows they are checking in for their divorce. We work in specific departments of the hotel. All conversations take place in suites behind closed doors.
Our guests can use the hotel for their purposes, and walk around freely, but we don’t always know how people will react [to the divorce process] -- sometimes it’s emotional, sometimes it’s more businesslike -- so we always have staff members around. If [a client] is getting emotional and walking around the hallways, someone will be there to comfort them. They aren't creepy or anything, but they are trained and know what to do.
What's the most surprising thing you've seen among the couples who have stayed at your hotel?
There was a husband who ordered a bottle of champagne to toast on a new future. He wished his ex-wife all the best. It was a fantastic moment. We also had a divorce and a wedding on the same day. We were fully booked last December and a divorcing couple wanted a specific hotel, but there was only one date available. The hotel warned me that there was also a wedding there that day -- there would be no escaping it, there would be flowers everywhere. But, if couple didn’t come that day, they would have had to wait on the list for two months. I called the wife and she said she didn’t mind at all. When the couple arrived, they went to check out the wedding. They looked around, looked at the wedding dress. Then they had dinner that night downstairs right next to the wedding party.
Wait, they had dinner together? Do couples usually do that?
Yes, they ate together. The divorcing couples typically have dinner together. And breakfast together in the morning. We don’t mandate that they do anything -– everything is up to the couple. Couples can also choose their rooms. Sometimes they prefer to be close to each other, sometimes they prefer to be far away. One couple decided to sleep together. They emailed me and said, “This might be a strange question” then asked to be in one room.
Has a couple ever come to the hotel but not get divorced?
We’ve been successful with every couple except for one. The guy was trying to get a deal in his favor and disadvantage his wife in every way. The reason he wanted to do the divorce quickly [with the Divorce Hotel] was to blind her of the important details of his company and his possessions and money. He didn’t give enough information to our professionals and more investigation was needed. In the Netherlands, a mediator is not allowed to take a position [or give preference to one spouse], so we sent the couple to work with lawyers.
Can you tell me more about the reality show that you’re creating?
People might think “Why should I go to the Divorce Hotel for arranging my divorce?” We’ll show [our process] in an emotional TV show with wonderful moments -- something you would never expect in a program about divorce. I want to show that what happens in our hotel is very special. I don’t want to [show] creepy, "Jerry Springer," horrible shit.
Do you have a personal connection to divorce?
I have never married or divorced. I am convinced that I will marry in the future. I believe in real love. But not everybody is lucky to find it, so I would like to help those people split up in a positive way.
What do you mean by “positive way”?
Some people have the mindset that, if they divorce, they need to ruin their spouse. I think it’s better to do it quickly. It’s better for your money, of course, but it’s more about the end result: I had an experience with a woman told me that she had problems with her friends because they told her things like, “Why don’t you ruin his life? He wants the divorce, take what you can and get his money.” This woman told me that she didn’t want to ruin his life, personally or financially. She said, “My intention is to be able to, if I run into him in two years, be on speaking teams with this guy.”
Source: www.huffingtonpost.com
Divorce parties - a celebration of life or just bad taste? - Sydney Morning Herald
Is divorce really reason to celebrate?
Are divorce parties in bad taste?
We love rituals. We do. They make us feel connected and purposeful. Rituals may be religious, or not. They may be shared with hundreds or few. But we love them because they are transformative. Weddings transform single people into a married couple, funerals transform dead bodies into living souls. Dinner dates make Friday night sexy. Grand finals make families from strangers, and enemies of others.
Of course, while passion for ritual process is common, commonly loved rituals are rare; one person’s sacred practice is another’s silly superstition – a waste of time, a hassle, even an inexcusable horror.
But what makes some rituals more supported than others? What makes one ritual right and another wrong in the eyes of society?
I’d like to talk here about a relatively new ritual phenomenon. The divorce party – a modern, Western ritual spawned in America sometime in 2007 that has grown in popularity since.
Though Jack White and Karen Elson’s divorce party was a shared affair, in the main divorce parties are organised independently, a la Heather Mills who famously forked out $500,000 for one of her own.
And while women may be seen as the hostesses with the mostest divorce party inclination, they aren’t the only ones doing it; many men’s events organisers cater to divorce parties for boys. In fact, the divorce party has been described as the “final frontier of the wedding industry complex”.
But are divorce parties rituals that are good or bad for society? Are they generally appropriate or in very bad taste?
The Guardian this week had an article written from a pro-perspective. In this context, divorce parties were not about celebrating the end of a marriage, but the start of a new life. Following von Gennep’s famous ‘three phases’ ritual model, the divorce party prompts healing by first separating the protagonist from their married identity, then passing them through the awkward post-separation threshold before finally rejoining them with the fresh life and love potential beyond.
Looked at this way, divorce parties can be seen as a ritual with myriad positive consequences. As a sacrament devoted to a person’s newfound singledom, the divorce party might be a ritual with power to transform woebegone broken-hearts into optimistic hoping-hearts. Surely this is a good thing in a world where divorce happens, and happens often.
Yet when viewed from the other side of the fence, divorce parties can look like very negative exercises in regret - visions of vitriol spewed into tacky, stabby invitations, cocktails of misery and bitterness served up with slices of dead-spouse blood-velvet cake.
Instead of a positive trajectory of healing, divorce parties can see the central character stuck in a regressive loop or loathing. Beginning with hate for the old relationship, middling with stewing over the old relationship and ending with refreshed hate for the old relationship, a divorce party can read like a downward spiral of doom.
How, you might ask, could anything good come from something so vindictive?
Indeed, in this age of social oversharing, it’s likely the shenanigans of a divorce party will be captured and disseminated, possibly intentionally so (especially to the wrong people, ie The Ex). Such grave-dancing is reprehensible, and gains little. Actually, it could lose the jigger quite a lot if the settlement is not quite finalised, and the ‘celebration’ is used to sucker-punch funds.
So perhaps they key factor here is time. Divorce parties might be a healthy, socially desirable ritual practice if held at the right time. That is to say after the bruising and swelling has gone down. Then perhaps the focus will be of new life, rather than ruined life. Then, maybe, likely guests would be contributing to a new future rather than being caught up in a messy war. Then the party is more ‘new-you debut’, less ‘divorce party’ – something we surely should support.
But what do you think?
Have you ever been involved with a divorce party? What do you think about them? Are they are healthy ritual practice, or should we stamp them out on the grounds they’re a socially destructive force?
kfeeney@fairfaxmedia.com.au (I promise I do read mail, even if I don't respond right away...)
Source: www.smh.com.au
DivorceYes.com Offers Free Florida Divorce Resources - YAHOO!
Legal service releases a collection of free resources on its website to educate visitors on Florida divorce.
Fort Lauderdale, FL (PRWEB) June 12, 2012
DivorceYes.com, an online service designed to offer a low cost, fast way to get divorced, recently released a collection of free Florida divorce resources on its website. Now, those interested in learning more about the process of getting divorced in Florida have a robust resource to turn to.“We want our clients to understand the Florida divorce law that applies to their case, as well as the court process,” explained Jeff Miller, senior counsel at DivorceYes.com. “Because an informed client is our best customer, we offer general Florida divorce information on our website. In addition to walking through the divorce process, step by step, we have made source materials available for those who want to take their study to the next level.”
Some of the resources included on the DivorceYes.com website are as follows: introduction to the divorce process, information on filing for divorce without kids, information on filing for divorce with kids, alimony explanation, child visitation law overview, and much more.
Of course, DivorceYes.com is a real law firm, so visitors to the website can also speak to a real divorce lawyer to get answers to their questions and practice advice.
“Our lawyers are available to consult with our clients, to answer their questions and to offer them sound practical advice,” said Miller. “Giving our clients the opportunity to have an informed understanding of the law and the process is where we start. Providing them with low cost legal representation of the highest quality and giving each client our full, undivided attention are the hallmarks of our services.”
To access the free Florida divorce resources, visit http://www.DivorceYes.com.
About the Miller Law Firm and DivorceYes.com
Miller Law Associates is a Florida divorce law firm with offices located in Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, West Palm Beach, Tampa and Jacksonville, Florida. Managing attorney Jeff Miller has been practicing law as a trial lawyer in Florida and throughout the United States since 1980. His practical in court experience brings a wealth of experience to those needing divorce representation in Florida. All Florida divorces must be obtained in court. The purpose of the divorce website, DivorceYes.com, is to ease the burden of divorce on families and to get the process completed as quickly as possible at a fair and affordable price.
Jeff Miller
Miller Law Associates
866-343-4556
Email Information
Source: news.yahoo.com
London 2012: Fencing selectors defend team as squad completed - BBC News
British Fencing has defended the team it selected for London 2012 after finalising its 10-strong Olympic squad.
Eight of the team are going to the Games by virtue of discretionary "wild cards" as Britain is the host nation.
Performance manager Alex Newton told BBC Sport: "There would always be tricky decisions and people not liking them because there's so much at stake."
The last three competitors - Husayn Rosowsky, Anna Bentley and Sophie Troiano - were confirmed on Tuesday.
Defending the decision-makers
Selecting Sophie Williams over Jo Hutchison has been British Fencing's most controversial decision. Performance manager Alex Newton explains how it was reached.
"In women's sabre we could only send two athletes - we sent the top-ranked fencer at the time, Louise Bond-Williams, and then we had three more ranked 52, 53 and 59 in the world.
"They could all put in a credible performance in London, but medal-winning? I'm not sure. So do we send someone to take part, or do we look at the longer-term future of the sport and give experience to someone who can not only put in a credible performance but deliver something for the future?
"Selecting Sophie Williams isn't a gamble. We've done a huge amount of analysis, for example on who Sophie's beating: she doesn't lose against lower-ranked opponents and sometimes she can beat those higher-ranked. It's an analysed projection of what we think we can do with Sophie."
Rosowsky completes the men's foil team line-up with Bentley and Troiano added to the women's foil team, alongside fencers announced last week in the foil, sabre and women's epee disciplines.
Rosowsky, 21, said: "The opportunity to compete in front of a home crowd will make a massive difference to our chances. I'm not here just to make up the numbers."
Fencing is the latest sport to experience a series of acrimonious disputes over the composition of its Olympic team, as sports subjectively assign host-nation places that would not normally be on offer outside a home Games.
Men's foilist Richard Kruse and Natalia Sheppard, in women's foil, were the only two Britons to qualify for the Games on merit without recourse to the host-nation places available.
The subsequent decision to select young sabreuse Sophie Williams over the more experienced Jo Hutchison, as well as nominate a team in women's foil - an event where some consider British medal hopes minimal - has angered a section of the British fencing community.
Meanwhile, epee fencer Jon Willis has announced his retirement after being overlooked by the selectors, and foil fencer Keith Cook is appealing after being omitted because, he says, of confusion over his contact details.
"I think [appeals and debate] have got to be expected given that it's a home Olympics and these are places given to athletes who perhaps may never otherwise get the opportunity to go to an Olympics," said Newton.
"Any athlete wants to go to a home Games. Don't we all? I'm not surprised that some people have been hugely disappointed, but I have been surprised by people taking it out on other athletes.
"Is it Sophie Williams's fault she has been selected? No. Has it knocked Sophie's confidence? Wouldn't it knock yours if you had a half-page spread in the Times saying your dad bought you a place at the Olympics?
"If you look at Sophie's age and where she is in her career, she's currently 21 years of age. There's five years' difference between her and Jo. I'm not suggesting Jo isn't a good fencer, she's incredibly consistent, but actually Sophie is nearly as consistent and at this stage she has better results for her age in her first senior year than Jo or Chrystall [Nicoll, also omitted from the team] had."
Willis, 31, had an appeal against his non-selection - alleging Newton had been biased against him - turned down, but also told BBC Sport he disagreed with the nomination of a women's foil team ahead of him.
"My biggest gripe is there's a women's foil team taking up two wild-card places," said Willis. "If there was no women's foil team selected, I'm pretty sure I would have gone.
"I don't want to say anything against the athletes - we've been friends for many years - but if you look at my record and theirs, they don't compare. You can get all the stats you like but, my results versus theirs, I'm the better fencer. For some reason, they've selected a women's foil team."
The women's foil team is almost certain to face world number one Italy, who have won the majority of events in the past four years, early in the Olympic competition - making any hope of a medal unlikely.
Newton defended the selection panel's decision, explaining that even a defeat by Italy would leave the GB team fighting to finish fifth or sixth, which would be considered creditable.
"At the time of selection, Jon Willis was ranked 93rd in the world, with [women's foilists] Anna Bentley 84th, Martina Emanuel 71st and Natalia Sheppard 52nd.
"Jon was ranked lower than three of the four women's foilists, so where would the justification be?
"We analysed it slightly more than that and said, is anybody else in an individual event likely to get a result that's credible? We're not sure. Can the foil teams get a credible result? We believe they can, even if they may not get into the medal zone."
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
London 2012: Could the Olympics be rained off? - The Guardian
Here's a thought. What if, when our impeccably planned Olympics start on July 27, the weather doesn't co-operate? Some long-range forecasts are encouraging, and London has fewer rainy days in July than any other month, but isn't it possible that high summer in England could be as wet and dreary, frankly, as it usually is?
It rained right through many of the Olympic test events. It rained ferociously more-or-less throughout the jubilee weekend. It even rained in Athens during the torch-lighting. While the ever-jovial Danny Boyle, director of the opening ceremony, has promised that synthetic rainclouds will be included "just in case it doesn't rain".
The position at the London Organising Committee is simple: rain will not stop play. "We're a fairly sturdy lot," a spokesperson says. "Beach volleyball will continue in the rain, archery will continue in the rain – just like Beijing, where there were a number of events that continued in the rain." Indeed, lightning will be needed to stop most things.
A few events, such as the BMX and tennis competitions, might be delayed by rain, but the organisers are confident they could handle the rescheduling. So, for the record, if it does not stop raining from the moment the opening ceremony begins until the moment the games are supposed to end, will everything still be completed? "Yes," they say.
Continuing is not thriving, however. Outdoor competitors are used to rain, but they often perform worse in it. Usain Bolt, for one, has registered some early excuses. "He'd have to have the right conditions [to run 100m in less than 9.5 seconds]," says his coach Glen Mills, "and I'm not sure London is going to be kind."
Broadly speaking, then, a wet Olympics will see fewer records, but this varies by event. "For the endurance athletes there could be an advantage relative to hot conditions, in that it can help to keep them cool," says Peter Stanley, who coached Jonathan Edwards to a gold medal, and is now a mentor at England Athletics. "For the throwers, however, turning quickly in a circle that is slippery due to rain is more difficult… You could say a normal British summer would benefit a normal British athlete, but we will have to wait and see."
In truth, the people who would suffer most in a wet Olympics are probably the spectators. Yes, the toilets at the velodrome and the handball arena (which harvest rainwater) will be flushing well. But the roof at the Olympic stadium covers only two thirds of the seats, and there is no roof at all on the Riverbank Arena, where the hockey will be played, nor over all the seats at the beach volleyball, the BMX track, the equestrian events, or on The Mall for the road cycling. So if you've got tickets for one of those, bring a cagoule.
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Children to get stronger rights in divorce - The Independent
The stringent new penalties will be introduced with changes to the law which will establish a legal right for both parents to have a meaningful relationship with their children after a marriage breakdown.
Ministers will today propose different ways to establish the notion of "shared parenting" after separation in law. Judges will be expected, where possible, to ensure that fathers are given time with their sons and daughters and mothers who defy court orders requiring them to give such access will face a range of penalties including the removal of passports or driving licences and the imposition of home curfews.
"The Government believes that there should be a level playing field on enforcement so that denial of maintenance or refusal to facilitate contact both give rise to the same or very similar penalties," the consultation document to be published today states.
Despite some grandparents reportedly being legally warned not to send birthday cards to grandchildren last week, laws will not be changed to ensure grandparents are granted access to grandchildren. Ministers will announce that mothers will in future be warned that they may lose custody of their children if they repeatedly defy court orders. "We want the law to be far more explicit about the importance of children having an ongoing relationship with both their parents after separation, where that is safe and in the child's best interests," said the Children's minister, Tim Loughton.
Campaigners say that without a legal right to see their children, fathers can be excluded. Over the past decade, Fathers 4 Justice has staged high-profile protests including climbing on to the roof of Buckingham Palace.
According to the Government, studies show that following a divorce, 90 per cent of children reside mainly with one of their parents – with just 12 per cent of these children living with their father. Under the four options proposed by the Government, family courts will have a legal duty to ensure that parents have a continuing relationship with their children if a marriage breaks down – because a "child's welfare is likely to be furthered".
Ministers point to a 2008 study which claimed children with "highly-involved dads develop better friendships, more empathy and higher levels of educational achievement and self-esteem".
According to the study children with involved fathers are less likely to become involved with crime or substance abuse. Earlier this year, ministers had rejected the advice from the economist David Norgrove, who chaired an independent official review into family justice, and warned of the situation in Australia after the country introduced "shared parenting" rights. There a series of legal claims and counter-claims led to severe delays in child custody cases.
"Amending the law will allow people to appeal. It's really not needed as judges already take into account these factors," said Matt Bryant, of Resolution, which represents 6,000 family lawyers.
Source: www.independent.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment