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.

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.

There is a story out of Florida that is so sad, scary and horrifying, I almost don't know where to begin. A man is being held without bond after forcing his way into a day care facility and allegedly shooting his estranged wife to death in front of a room full of toddlers.

The couple has been in the process of a divorce since October, and have been going through mediation to determine custody and visitation of their 2-year old daughter, who was apparently at the day care facility when this happened on Friday. The divorce had become more and more contentious as time went on. The man purchased the alleged murder weapon at a pawn shop last week and spent time drinking in a bar on Friday before going to the day care and firing two shots into his wife's chest. She was pronounced dead at the scene.

The man blames the stress of the divorce. But obviously, there's a lot more going on here than that. This was pre-meditated, from the sounds of it. And clearly, the guy has something wrong with him. But here's hoping the legal system won't allow him to hide behind an insanity plea. Anyone who murders someone in front of children deserves to fry.

Not only does this couple's little girl essentially not have parents anymore, you've got a whole room full of children traumatized and maybe even scarred for life because of this. What an unbelievable tragedy.

Click here for more.

Earlier this week, I wrote about a British law firm that conducted a survey about divorce. The point of it was to illustrate that few people were aware of mediation services that can help make the process easier and less expensive.

The other day I ran across another statistic from that same survey that really surprised me. Seventy-six percent of the 2,000 people surveyed said they did not consider the prospect of high legal fees a deterrent to divorce. I guess if you want to split up, you're going to do what you've got to do, legal fees be damned. But my instinct was that more people would be intimidated by the costs.

Again the statistic comes from a law firm that's pushing its services, which include the less-expensive option of mediation. But still it's nice to know the cost isn't holding too many people back. It would be a shame if that were the case.

Click here for more.

With a presidential primary going on, you'd think politicians in Michigan would have plenty on their plate, but one state representative thinks the legislature should take up its time on a bill that would help determine who gets custody of pets in a divorce.

Now, nobody loves dogs more than I do. I've got two of them. But does anyone think this needs to be the business of government? I guess at least one guy in Michigan does. Why, I have no idea. The law would require divorcing couples to spell out the arrangements for pets, or else the judge would decide what happens to the pets. Is it just me, or is that pretty much already the way it works?

I'd have to agree with lawyers quoted in a news story I read about this who say the court's time doesn't need to be taken up with such things. Pets are important. We love them. But people need to be able to decide these things on their own, without legal intervention.

The funny thing is, this happens to just about everyone. Even Richard Mellon Scaife, as we wrote about the other day, is arguing with his estranged wife over who gets the dog.

Click here for more.

A couple of stories I read in the last few days served as a reminder of how deeply-rooted Islamic beliefs can and do play havoc with marriage and divorce.

The first was a story I've actually written about here before. The Washington Post ran a front-page story on Saturday on the Egyptian woman who got three cell phone text messages from her husband saying, "I divorce you," and now that nation's courts are determining whether that constitutes a legal divorce. Under Islamic law, a man can end a divorce simply by declaring that desire to his wife on three occasions. The Post story wasn't much different than previous coverage, but apparently the Egyptian courts are presently debating the matter and preparing to rule. So this will be something to watch.

Meanwhile, a man in Saudi Arabia has decided to end his 10-year marriage because he discovered that when he and his wife were infants, they were breast fed by the same woman. It's apparently common in some cultures for surrogate mothers to nurse other women's children, and in Islam, any children nursed by the same woman are considered "milk siblings" — whether they are related or not. So despite a decade together — a union that has produced four children — the man wants a divorce because as far as he's concerned, he's married to his sister.

Obviously, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. But the fact that the man in this "milk siblings" case wants a divorce really stretches the limits of my religious tolerance. It's just an entirely different sensibility at work that I don't think I'll ever understand.