Divorce has only been legal in Ireland since 1997. Now that a decade has gone by since it became an option, that nation is beginning to come to grips with it and a funny thing is happening. Life is still going on, and as counterintuitive as this seems to be, the marriage rate has actually risen by more than seven percent.

But more than that, there seems to be a new, progressive attitude about marriage and relationships that is taking root in Ireland. Adults under age 35, especially, are at the forefront of the changes. A recent survey found that 57 percent said it's acceptable for a couple to live together without being married. When the couple in question have children, 49 percent said they were okay with it when the couples had kids — a smaller number, but still pretty impressive considering the short lifespan of divorce in Ireland.

Of course, there is still a debate over whether changing the law has led to a breakdown of family values. But a column I read the other day astutely pointed out that people aren't anti-family, they're simply pro-choice. They want for there to be options, and for a "family" to not be so tightly defined. And they want for those who are so supportive of marriage and family to soften their stance and support "the quality of family life, regardless of what shape or form it comes in."

The column is a good read. You should check it out.

Click here for more.

Late last week brought an end to an ugly story of divorce and murder in Nevada. A 46-year-old Reno man was sentenced to life in prison for murdering his ex-wife and shooting the judge who presided over their divorce. The judge has since recovered from his injuries.

Every time I hear about one of these situations — and there are many horrific stories like these that arise out of divorce cases — I wonder about the legal process. Are all of the people who apparently are driven to this kind of violence by divorce just plain crazy? Or is there something about the nature of a divorce proceeding — the adversarial bitterness of it — that sends otherwise sane people over the edge?

I don't know if there's ever been any research on that topic, but there should be. It's bad enough to go through a divorce that can't be settled out of court, or without significant legal intervention. But to experience that and then also end up being impacted by a violent crime... well, it's more than I'd be able to handle. I know that much.

Click here for more.

The more time I spend reading stories and news items about divorce, the more amazed I get at the lengths some people will go to in an effort to spin circumstances in their favor.

We've written in the past about whether there's a time of year when divorces are most likely to happen. I've heard back-to-school time is big, because people wait until the summer is over and the kids are back in school. Everyone knows that post-holiday time is big, because everyone just wants to get past the holidays and then start the arduous task of ending a marriage. And the other day I saw a press release talking about how there's this Valentine's Effect. Apparently the idea is that people get so stressed out from all the talk and marketing nonsense that goes along with Valentine's day that instead of coming closer together with a loved one, they break up.

Wow, this is all such complete BS.

To the credit of LegalMatch, the legal service that issued the press release I came across, they acknowledge that the timing of all these so-called Valentine's Effect divorces may just be the carryover of marriages that started to crack right after the holidays. But anyone who tries to connect divorce with a certain time of year — especially a group of lawyers looking to drum up business — is just full of it.

I will say this, though: Too much talk about Valentine's Day is enough to make you sick. Whether it makes you get divorced — that's a much tougher sell.

Click here for more.

A couple of marriage mediators in Holland are getting ready to hold that country's first divorce fair.

We've seen these events in other countries as well. Mediation, not surprisingly, is the big thrust of this event. The organizers say that many of Holland's 60,000 annual divorces could be avoided through mediation.

There's also a survey circulating on behalf of the event that found that 90 percent of women say a good relationship is the most important thing in their lives. Meanwhile, 88 percent said their lives are too stressful, and very few women said money (12 percent) or career (8 percent) are priorities when it comes to determining happiness.

Bearing all those things in mind appears to set the stage for marriage mediators to have a successful business in Holland. It's not the material things that seem to matter to women there, it's having a good relationship. And if that's your goal, as opposed to wealth or career advancement, it seems like there's a good chance that mediation would be helpful in restoring damaged relationships.

Click here for more.

We'd all like to think that divorces can be accomplished without ugliness and outright nastiness, but we all know it doesn't happen that way much of the time. And a woman in Des Moines is finding that out the hard way.

The woman claims that her husband broke into a safe — presumably in their house — and took a $3,000 cashier's check that she intended to use to pay her lawyer. She reported the incident to police, according to a report in the Des Moines Register. But as some reader comments on the Register's Web site indicate, she may not have any legal recourse. Since they're not divorced yet, it may be tough for her to lay claim to that money as "hers."

And that underscores the importance of something we talk about here at FWW all the time: separating your finances as soon as you can once a divorce gets started. Now, it's true that she might very well have done that. And depending on who the cashier's check was made out to, the guy may not be able to do anything with it anyway.

But in any case, if you're worried your ex is going to do something to screw you, it's crucial to take precautions. You'd think putting the check in a safe would be good enough. But apparently not. Learn from this woman's tough luck and don't let something like this happen to you.

Click here for more.

Just when you thought you had heard every bizarre divorce story out there comes this one out of Vancouver. A Winnipeg man got permission from a judge to run a radio commercial in search of his wife, so he can divorce her.

Sounds ridiculous, but it's a last resort in a strange situation. The couple was married in December 1989 and separated in October 1990. And the guy hasn't seen his estranged wife since. He wants to remarry now, but he can't find his wife in order to get their divorce finalized.

Do you get the feeling that this story is headed toward an ugly ending? Would it surprise you if it came out that this guy has something to do with the fact that his ex is nowhere to be found? People don't just disappear into the ether for 17 years. It also makes you wonder about the whole idea of requiring a certain amount of time for a divorce to be finalized. If a couple agrees that the marriage is over, why drag it out any longer than it has to be? Of course, the flip side is, who lets their marriage hang in post-separation limbo for this long? After a couple years, don't you think you'd make sure the plug got pulled?

Click here for more.

With Valentine's Day coming up, every form of media is full of images of people getting engaged or married and the jewelry stores are obviously doing big business. But for the large segment of the population that is divorced, it's an entirely different thought process when it comes to wedding and engagement rings. The San Francisco Chronicle ran an interesting story on Friday about the question of what should happen to your rings once your marriage is over.

The accepted protocol on engagement rings seems to be that you get to keep it. Legally, it's not considered part of the marital assets because it was a gift given to you before you were married. And aside from that, a guy would have to really be a greedy bastard to ask to have it back. I can see a guy doing that, though, if the ring was a family heirloom. I think I'd have a hard time holding on to the engagement ring if it had belonged to my ex's grandmother, or something like that.

The wedding rings are a whole different story. Some people attach a lot of emotional meaning to them and choose not to part with them. Some people have them melted down and made into other pieces of jewelry. Some women sell both the wedding and engagement rings to pay for lawyers. One man quoted in the story said his wife sold her rings so she could get a boob job.

I think it's all a matter of personal preference. And it's probably a function of how amicable the breakup is, too. If it was angry and bitter, you might be more inclined to get rid of the rings, along with everything else in your house that had anything to do with the guy. One woman said she wanted both of the wedding rings to be kept together after her divorce, just because it seemed to her like the right thing to do. Her ex didn't see it that way, so it didn't happen.

So let's hear from all of you. What happened to your rings?

I read a lot of news stories and columns about divorce, and I often find myself reading the same things over and over again. Similar stories, similar bits of advice and words of caution. So it really jumps out at me when I find something that offers a fresh perspective, and that was most definitely the case when I saw a column in a Michigan newspaper written by a high school senior who is a child of divorce.

What she had to say should resonate long and hard for any divorced parent, no matter what stage of divorce you're in. She writes about how her parents struggled to compromise as they worked to agree on a visitation schedule. As part of the process, the family was assigned a "friend of the court." Perhaps the most striking thing she wrote is that she never actually met the person who served in that official capacity.

When we talk about mediation here at FWW, it always seems to me like a foregone conclusion that whoever does the mediating would at least meet the children. The fact that it isn't a requirement is appalling. Perhaps there's a reason for it. Maybe the court doesn't want that person's decision-making process to be swayed by a child's undoubtedly emotional reaction. But you know what? I think that comes with the territory.

The writer goes on to say that by following the letter of the law, a parent could be thrown in jail if the visitation schedule isn't adhered to by all parties. And sometimes the visitations don't happen because emotions get in the way. Depending on how bitter and angry and resentful the parents are, the whole thing could easily be turned into a regrettable nightmare. But again, the most important message here is that you have a child of divorce telling you that nobody listened to her — mom, dad, the friend of the court — no one. She grew up feeling like she didn't have a role or a choice in what was happening to her family. She referred to herself as a prisoner of war.

This is a fun little story out of Canada, where a woman is having all sorts of trouble getting the judge to believe that her husband has got some questionable sources of income. She has made claims that the guy hasn't reported all of his income, but the judge isn't buying it. The guy definitely sounds suspicious, though. He's into some sort of real estate dealings and owns a hip-hop clothing store. And his estranged wife says he moves in gambling circles and wanted the judge to restrict him from taking the couple's two children to certain places.

Lots of talk, but apparently no proof. The woman was granted 55 percent of the family assets, but the judge issued a joint custody ruling despite the fact that the guy at least looks a little shady. He reportedly secured a $500,000 loan without any registered security. Something tells me that doesn't happen unless you know certain kinds of people, if you catch my drift.

You would think that appearances are everything when it comes to a judge making a custody ruling in a divorce trial. Maybe the guy used some of that half million to buy himself some really talented lawyers.

Click here for more.

There's a strange set of laws in Japan that are making things difficult for children who are born within 300 days of a divorce and their mothers.

I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of Japan's divorce laws or its "child registration" laws, but from what I can tell, if a child is born within 300 days after a divorce, the child is legally considered the offspring of the mother's former husband. As you might imagine, that could cause all sorts of problems.

A news report I read about this issue cited one example where a couple split up and the woman conceived a baby with her new boyfriend. But the ex-husband didn't make sure that the divorce papers went through in a timely manner. Because of the delay, the baby was born 155 days after the divorce was finalized, and now there's a dust-up over who the child's father is, according to the law.

Wow, this whole thing seems really silly. So many times, when I read about these antiquated, overly complicated family laws in other countries, I'm not sure what surprises me more — the fact that any of these laws are still on the books or the fact that anyone cooked them up in the first place. What possible purpose does a law like this serve?

One order of common sense for the folks in Japan, please!

Click here for more.