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?

read more »

Here's a divorce story from the international press, but I have no doubt it's true everywhere.

The story comes out of Madrid, and I saw it on the website of Pakistan's Daily Times. The gist of it is that a lot of professional athletes get divorced and abuse drugs during the first year after their playing days are over.

It doesn't take much thinking to figure it out. You spend all those years being cheered, making millions, having something all-encompassing around which your life revolves. And then it's all gone.

I'm not sure what happens abroad, but here in the U.S., a lot of former pro athletes and coaches end up taking jobs as sports analysts on TV. For some, it turns into a long-term second career, and I think a big part of the reason they do it is that it keeps them connected to the game. And if that keeps their marriages from falling apart, then it's a good thing.

There's been a lot of talk lately about the National Football League's poor record of taking care of its former players, many of whom suffer tremendous physical problems after retiring. But you have to wonder whether any of the pro leagues are seeing to the mental health of their former players. With all of the spouses and families that could be impacted when athletes have trouble adjusting to retirement, it seems like something the leagues should be doing.

Click here for more.

I noticed that the New York State Assembly recently enacted legislation signed by the governor that requires notice be given in divorce cases about the potential loss of health insurance when covered by a spouse's plan.

Judges are obligated to notify parties of the termination of coverage when they issue a divorce settlement. They're authorized to grant a 30-day continuance in the divorce proceedings, so parties have an opportunity to obtain their own health policy.

But we shouldn't jump for joy at this development because it's civil and decent to notify your former spouse that he/she will no longer be insured. New York hasn't gone half as far as the New Hampshire requirement that employers must continue the coverage of the divorced spouse for up to three years unless they remarry.

New York is only preventing exes from being blindsided. My question is this: Is 30 days sufficient to shop around the maze of complicated health plans? Probably not. With 46 million Americans uninsured, we certainly don't want to add to that number. It may be difficult for divorced women to secure individual health insurance plans if they have pre-existing health conditions.

In New York, a spouse is eligible for COBRA if they become divorced but they will have to pick up the actual costs, plus a small additional percentage to obtain up to 36-months of coverage.

One day society will recognize that health care is a universal need and right. While the notice of loss of insurance is a benevolent idea, New York should go further and join New Hamphire in providing extended group insurance coverage under the employer's plan following a divorce.

 

Should ex-spouses continue to be covered by health insurance paid for by the employer of the working spouse? The New Hampshire Legislature said "yes" and passed such a law.

Divorced or separated spouses, women and men, are eligible for health coverage for up to three years, unless either party remarries. Coverage will also end if health care arrangements are provided in a final decree of divorce.

In an op-ed piece, the conservative, Manchester Union-Leader newspaper loudly groused about the "continued spread of European-style socialism into New Hampshire..." This mandate is a heavy burden on businesses and insurance companies, the newspaper proclaimed.

I don't think this is an excessive burden on employers. To eliminate this coverage because of a divorce would shift the burden to society and taxpayers who would have to pay for medical care for those without insurance.

The New Hampshire law may be one small step for society to recognize the need for universal medical insurance. Employers should see the importance of keeping workers and their families healthy. Continuing to insure divorced or separated spouses is extremely helpful in easing a difficult transition.

This is an excellent model of public policy which more states should follow. The implications are huge, given that about 46 million in the U.S. have no health coverage. States in New England may take the lead in not adding to that figure. It's appropriate that the "financially independent party" in a divorce, continue to provide some protection for the ex-spouse. The Manchester Union-Leader lamented that conservative Gov. John Lynch signed the legislation. But is this "socialism" or merely protecting the common good? I think the latter.

Click here for more.