Our Blogs

Depictions of battles between giant squids and sperm whales always portray a battle of attrition. Two evenly matched enemies battling to an uncertain conclusion. These images of an irresistible force engaging an immovable object serve as the perfect metaphor for the conflict that erupts between two parents during and, on occasions, following their divorce. Noah Baumbach’s tale of a quasi-intellectual couple, their divorce and its effect on their children is one that is clearly borne of its director’s personal experiences. The characters, the plot and the dialect all appear natural and this honest depiction of familial division avoids the melodrama, contrived narratives and maudlin sentiment that have blighted so many other texts that have attempted to address this topic. Custody battles, inner turmoil, post-divorce relationships and partisanship are all represented adroitly and with sensitivity and humour. Each character and their individual motivations are believable. This films was not made to entertain, it was made by a director who needed to liberate himself from the residual pain of his parents’ divorce. When writing and presiding over the creation of this film, Baumbach was engaging in a cathartic act. This film is more than capable of educating divorcing parents and children, but Baumbach did not intend to make a film that preached to its audience, he merely intended to tell a story. We may be able to learn from his accurate portrayal of divorce and its effects, but this is inadvertent. The Squid and the Whale is a wonderfully authentic film that I would advise to anyone that has been affected by a divorce. In fact, I would recommend it to anyone.

It’s no secret that the majority of couples in the UK are now experiencing greater financial hardship than ever before. Not since the 1930’s have jobs, capital and personal solvency been harder to come by and we at Quickie Divorce have noticed that a growing number of our customers are citing financial problems as a reason for their marriages having broken down. The couples in question are not destitute by any means, but they have been unable to maintain the lifestyles to which they had become accustomed before ‘the great recession’. In many instances their lifestyles – whilst not exceptionally glamorous – were funded by cheap credit and the need to repay the bills that they has accrued coupled with the ever growing cost of living have left them frustrated and depressed. These feelings of frustration led to arguments, frequent arguments made the couple distant from one another, this distance resulted in the couple falling out of love and, as we all know, when a couple falls out of love with one another, divorce is almost inevitable. In other instances, household finances have been stretched so thin that both halves of a marriage have become severely stressed. This stress – akin to the frustration felt by couples who can no longer obtain credit – leads to arguments, the cycle described above is repeated and the couple divorce. It’s a vicious circle. Now, I realise that this post may seem somewhat depressing. Many of the people that read it may be in a similar situation after all, and may already have toyed with the idea of divorce. The purpose of this article is not to inform its readers that their marriages are doomed to fail, though, it is to inform them that money troubles, and the arguments that they bring, do not need to end in divorce. Provided that a couple can employ the right coping mechanisms, then their marriage can negotiate fiscal adversity. This all starts with a few small changes. Couples that enjoy more modest activity are, I have noticed, far less likely to experience marital strife when money’s tight. The reason: they are far more adaptable to financial change, tend to be better at fiscal planning and are therefore far better equipped to weather the storm of hardship. The skills that they possess are not integrated from birth, however, and they can be learnt. Any marriage that is subjected to the stress brought about by a lack of capital is capable of enduring the troubling times that ensue, the couple in question merely need to be willing to engage in effective planning and be willing to curtail their spending. If spouses are struggling to make ends meet, they need to sit down together, discuss their situation, analyse their spending habits and create a plan that fits their circumstances. I have advised many friends to do this in the past and they have all informed me that they were astonished at just how much they could save each month if they were more careful with their money. What’s more, the creation of this plan left them feeling empowered and significantly reduced their stress levels resulting in less bickering and fewer arguments. Learning to live with less disposable income is far more difficult, though, and, in many cases, has a significant and adverse effect on people’s sense of self-worth. Over time, though, couples can learn to adapt to these changes. Expensive activities are replaced by cheaper ones and costly hobbies give way to less ostentatious alternatives and the couple will become used to having less available income, realising that their still quite comfortable. Before they become acclimatised to their new situation, however, people are likely to become frustrated and this can lead to arguments. Be prepared for this and don’t let pride keep you from apologising. Arguments within a marriage are not an irregular occurrence and, provided both spouses are willing to forgive and empathise with each other’s situation, then they can easily be overcome. Remember, financial troubles do not need to end in divorce. It may seem trite to claim that money isn’t everything – particularly when the materialistic nature of modern society is taken into account – but a loving, supportive and happy marriage is more important than wealth or solvency.

A divorce, as we all know, can be extremely harmful to children irrespective of their age.

Children of divorce can become estranged from one parent, may blame themselves for the divorce and can even resent their parents in later life. Fortunately, though, the majority of the negative effects of divorce can be negated through effective parenting.

This starts with informing your child of the divorce and explaining how it will affect them and their living arrangements in terms that they can understand. Generally speaking, it will be easier to clarify matters when the affected children are older. The parents will still need to consider what they intend to say to the child carefully, but the older the child the better their understanding of romantic relationships and the more receptive they will be to a literal – though still sensitive – explanation.

Helping a younger child to understand divorce is a far more problematic task, however. Young children process information in a manner that is almost alien to adults and there is a specific way of effectively disclosing information to them as a result. Few adults possess the skills that are required to do this, however, the obvious exception being those who are trained to work with children.

Fortunately, many people who work with children also write books for this audience. Better still, many of them have written children’s books about divorce and these can be an invaluable resource when helping younger children understand divorce and how it will affect them. This may sound implausible, but you only need to think back to your childhood and how much you learnt from the stories that you were told at home and at school to realise just how useful these books can be. They’re relatively easy to find too. Retail giant Amazon even has a section dedicated to them.

Reading to a child has several other benefits, too. It improves literacy, enhances bonding and – best of all – can entertain both parent and child. So, if you’re due to file for divorce and have a young child, one of these books could be one of the best purchases you’ve ever made.

Being both a staunch republican and a fervent supporter of Welsh rugby, I should not have been disappointed to hear that Irish bookmakers Paddy Power are offering good odds on England international Mike Tindall and Princess Zara Phillips filing for divorce. Against my better – or possibly worse – nature, though, I was. Whilst I initially held little sympathy for either the lothario Tindall or the fame hungry Phillips – who, ultimately, is Katie Price with an expensive private education – I did find Paddy Power’s willingness to make light of their potential divorce to be somewhat insensitive. I understand that bookmarkers –like all businesses – need to diversify, of course. Taking bets on sporting events alone is no longer a viable means of maintaining profitability and patrons are now given the opportunity to place wagers on any number of things as a result. Whilst I can appreciate that such organisations are entitled to profiteer from celebrity divorce, however, I am fairly certain that any profits they would glean from this particular sector are also negligible, however, and that promoting displays little more than appallingly bad taste. Consider, for example, how hurt you would be if you were to discover that your neighbours had placed wagers on when you and your spouse would separate as a result of them having overheard the two of you arguing. People who are experiencing marital difficulties should be afforded the right to resolve matters in private. If they then choose to divorce, they should be allowed to do so with dignity, irrespective of how affluent or privileged they may be. When people are allowed to bet on when, or whether or not, a couple will divorce, a painful and traumatic event is trivialised. This, in turn, plays a significant part in shaping how we, the public, view divorce. After all, divorce is so common these days that people already have a tendency to forget just how harmful it can be, not just to the relevant couple, but to their children, their relatives and possibly even their friends as well. It is not feasible prohibit behaviour that trivialised matters such as divorce – I would openly oppose the introduction of such legislation, in fact – but it is important to remember that every decision to divorce brings significant implications. All sensitive topics, including divorce, should be commented on and even mocked as this serves the interests of democracy. Individuals who engage in such actions – including those who wager on which royal couple will file for divorce next – should remember, however, that the act of legally ending a marriage is more than capable of causing significant damage to couples, their friends and their families.

This post may seem a little off topic. Generally, the theme of divorce is only discussed in its literal context on this blog, but not only are the stories of a potential split between the Tories and the Lib Dems interesting reading, they also provide me with the opportunity to discuss issues I raised in a previous post: ‘Do Schisms in Political Opinion Lead to Divorce?’ Whilst this post discussed how individual opinions can lead to divorce, the divisions that have appeared within a coalition government comprised of two political parties that could not be more polarised in their administrative outlooks serve as a clear example of how differing opinions can lead to divorce, whether it be on a political, commercial or personal level. Consider, for example, how the debates between the two parties concerning the UK’s fiscal policies could mirror the discussions that could take place between a married couple who are debating their own financial position. One half of the couple arguing that they need to curb their spending in order to preserve their solvency, the other claiming that being a few hundred pounds overdrawn is not a pressing concern. Similar comparisons could be made with regards to discussions concerning the penal system (considering how best to discipline the children), education (debating whether or not to send the children to a private school) and the welfare state (deliberating how much pocket money to give the children each week). The actions of Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg reflect those of a couple that chose to marry despite the fact that one is an old Etonian that staunchly promotes laissez-faire and rugged individualism whilst the other is a radical liberal that donates half of their salary to any number of charities. Whilst there is some truth to the saying ‘opposites attract’, however, the vast majority of such couples will soon be filing for divorce. A minority of these couples will survive, though as their love for one another will encourage them to learn how to negotiate and arrive at appropriate compromises. Compromises between two polarised political parties, however, is far less likely. Not only is the task of creating policies which reflect both Conservative and Liberal viewpoints a highly problematic task, but the core supporters of either party is certain to be repulsed by the introduction, or even proposal, of any legislation which so much as hints at Conservative/Liberal leaning. The marriage between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is a marriage of convenience only and, as with all such marriages, divorce is beckoning.

Its critics have argued that it weakens the institutions of marriage and family, religious figureheads maintain that couples that do it are living in sin and right-wing think tanks claimed that it’s more harmful to children than divorce. Now, though, the results of a study conducted by the Office of National Statistics have indicated that couples that cohabit before marrying are more likely to enjoy a long and successful union.

The study’s authors suggested that whilst the majority of cohabiting couples will separate, it also provides couples with an opportunity to gauge their suitability and that those who chose to marry after having lived together will be less likely to divorce.

The study also revealed that the number of couples that are choosing to share a home before marriage has grown consistently since the early eighties – a trend which no doubt stems from the growth of liberal attitudes regarding cohabitation – with all under 35s now far more likely to share a property than live together as man and wife. Couples were far more likely to have exchanged vows by the time they hit 40, however.

It would appear, then, that cohabitation before marriage is a good idea. A couple cannot possibly know if they are well-suited to one another until they have lived together, after all, and cohabiting will provide the couple with an opportunity to assess their compatibility before deciding whether or not to walk down the aisle.

As the aforementioned research has shown this ‘acid test’ should result in more stable marriages and a lower divorce rate. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Well… there are a few drawbacks. A spouse that divorces their partner is entitled to a share of the marital assets. Despite recommendations which have been put forward by legal professionals, however, cohabiting couples do not enjoy similar legal rights. Couples can obtain cohabitation agreements in the hope of negating this problem, but – akin to prenuptial agreements – there is no guarantee that such an agreement will prove to be legally binding.

Additionally, whilst 25% of all children in the UK are born to cohabiting parents, it may be better for couples to marry before having children. A recent report from the Jubilee Centre revealed that 37% of cohabiting couples would separate before their first child’s fifth birthday whereas only 6% of couples who were married before the birth of their first child had separated within the same period.

Additionally, 66% of couples that were living together had separated before their child reached 16 compared with 16% of married couples.

People in the UK spend an average of 41 hours each week at work. In other words, if someone were to begin full time employment at 20 and remain employed in this capacity until the age of 65 then – excluding sickness or holidays – they would have spent a total of 11 years at work. Like it or not, our jobs play a huge part in our lives and, as a result, are certain to influence marriages and, in some instances, cause divorce. Following the news that entrepreneur and multimillionaire, Duncan Bannatyne, is now embroiled in divorce proceedings, Quickie Divorce began to wonder whether the sheer amount of time and dedication that certain employees may be required to put into their work could bring about a divorce. If our presumptions were correct, then business owners, Managing directors and other employees with high levels of responsibility would be amongst those most likely to be divorced. Well… we were wrong. Individuals that are employed as professional dancers and choreographers are actually the most likely individuals to divorce, with researchers at America’s Radford University claiming that 43% of all people that work within this sector have been through a divorce at some point. Barmen and massage therapists shared second place with 38% and casino workers and machine operators rounded out the top 5 having recorded figures of 34% and 32% respectively. Those least likely to divorce included agricultural engineers, optometrists and transit police. The study in question failed to put forward any suggestions as to why these careers are likely to end in divorce, however, and it is reasonable to suggest that individuals that are drawn to such careers are more prone to divorce rather than these careers themselves facilitating marital separation. Irrespective of the lack of clarity, these statistics are certainly interesting. If anyone would like to put forward their own theory, then please leave a comment below.

Reports have claimed that Duncan Bannatyne may need to make 43 members of his staff redundant as a result of his impending divorce from his wife of five years, Joanne McCue. Bannatyne is reported to be worth £430 million according to the Sunday Times Rich List, but the Dragon’s Den star has refuted this, claiming that his assets amount to significantly less than the reported figure. According to reports, Miss McCue is requesting an allowance of £1,000 per day, the couple’s current house and holiday home in the South of France as part of her divorce settlement. It has also been claimed that Bannatyne feels that his estranged wife should be more considerate of the current economic climate and put forward a more sensible request. The Daily Mail also asserts that Bannatyne would need to make a significant number of his staff redundant in order to meet these demands. A spokesperson representing the Clydebank born businessman moved quickly to respond to these reports, though, having announced that both Bannatyne and his Managing director, Nigel Armstrong, have reassured all staff that they will do their utmost to avoid redundancies and maintain their employee’s job security. The reasons behind the couple’s separation have not yet been identified, though a source has claimed that the divorce has come about as a result of matters which could affect any married couple. Prior to the couple having commenced divorce proceedings, Bannatyne took to social networking site Twitter in order to inform the public of the fact that he was experiencing marital difficulties, going as far as to inform his followers that he had considered suicide. This post was later removed. Both Bannatyne and McCue have both declined to comment on the reports following legal advice.

In this blog’s infancy, I proposed an article to my peers. My suggestion, though – much to my chagrin – did little more than turn me into the proverbial ‘office idiot’. The crux of my article – that any individual whose spouse is refusing to consent to a divorce should be patient and wait for them to come around – was met with derision and laughter. “That’s ridiculous” they said. “People are stubborn” they added. Well, who’s laughing now? This morning, you see I discovered that perhaps the most pig-headed fellow ever to grace the news has finally consented to his wife’s request for a divorce several months after she made her initial request. This man was the now infamous ‘Canoe Man’, John Darwin. Darwin – for those of you that have forgotten – faked his own death in 2002. Following him having been declared legally dead by the authorities, his wife then claimed hundreds of thousands of pounds through their life insurance policy, all whilst Mr Darwin was alive and well and shifting between his family home and a bedsit located next door. Several years passed and, to all extents and purposes, the couple’s cunning scheme seemed to have worked. The money from the aforementioned insurance pay-out was used to clear debts and, following Mrs Darwin having sold the family home, Mr Darwin obtained a fake passport and the couple fled to Panama with the intention of starting, somewhat ironically, a company offering canoeing holidays. It was only after Mr Darwin began to miss his now adult children – who, all parties claim, were unaware of the ruse – and decided to return to the UK that things began to unravel. In accordance with his plans, Mr Darwin returned to the UK, walked into a police station in London’s West End and, in what must have been the least convincing performance since Bill Clinton denied his infidelities, proclaimed that he had no memory of the past 5 years. The police – who had already reopened investigations into Darwin’s disappearance three months beforehand – were not convinced. Soon, evidence of the couple’s subterfuge came to light. On the 5th December 2007, the Daily Mirror printed a story that featured a picture of the couple that had been taken in Panama in 2006. Mrs Darwin’s resolve crumbled and she confessed to the ploy. Both were later sentenced to six years imprisonment. But how, exactly, does this prove my point? Consider the sheer resolve and, indeed, stubbornness that must be required to go through with such an elaborate plan. Mr Darwin’s displayed a distinct lack of conscience when planning and executing this strategy, even more when choosing to deceive his friends and family. Such a man would not think twice about denying his wife a divorce through selfishness, yet, after several months, concede he has. What does this prove then? Precisely what I intended to argue in the first instance: that whilst an individual may initially deny their spouse a divorce, whether it be in hope or spite, they will always come to the realisation that they are clutching at straws, conclude that they have no desire to remain in a toxic marriage and, in time, will yield to their partner’s request. If you are patient, a divorce will almost certainly follow.

A study conducted by the University of Missouri has revealed that couples that receive state benefits and have combined annual incomes of less than $20,000 (around £12,500) are more likely to divorce. A finding which has been relayed by several news providers in the US. Whilst the fact that couples who experience financial hardship are likely to encounter matrimonial difficulties is in no way surprising, though, the report also highlighted that couples who also claim state benefits are more likely to divorce than those on low incomes alone. The report’s author, David Schramm, explained that couples who are struggling to make ends meets are likely to be stressed and irritable and that this often results in marital dissatisfaction which, in turn, is likely to lead to divorce. Not one report has put forward any possible explanation as to why those in receipt of benefits are more likely to divorce, however, which – considering the fact that each relied upon this particular ‘angle’ within their headlines – is somewhat unusual. Now, I have at this time been unable to locate a copy of the report in question, and whilst I accept that Schramm may well have posited on why the claiming of benefits may bring about a divorce, I will presume – in accordance with the contents of the aforementioned articles – that no such theory was put forward and state my own conjecture: couples that are claiming benefits are likely to be experiencing greater financial difficulty than those that are not. These couples are therefore subjected to even greater pressure which can result in marital dissatisfaction and divorce. It’s a very simple theory, yes, but it also makes a great deal of sense. Claiming benefits alone is, in my humble opinion, unlikely to cause a couple to divorce. , Hardship, on the other hand leads to unhappiness and marital unhappiness will, almost inevitably, end in divorce.

Following Grant Thornton’s recent survey, we now know that adultery is no longer the most common reason for divorce and that more people are now opting to file for a divorce as a result of them having fallen out of love with their spouses. Whilst we at Quickie Divorce have already put forward our own theory in an attempt to explain this, Grant Thornton’s spokesperson, Louisa Plumb put forward an interesting suggestion of her own: the behaviour of celebrity couples. Noting that celebrity couples such as Peter Crouch and Abbey Clancey, Cheryl and Ashley Cole, and Wayne and Coleen Rooney have survived marital infidelity, Plumb posited that the behaviour of these celebrities is influencing the behaviour of spouses that discover that their partners have engaged in marital infidelity. In short, whilst many spouses would previously have viewed their partner’s affairs as unforgivable sins and filed for a divorce without a moment’s hesitation, they are now more likely to forgive their partner’s indiscretions and persevere with their marriages. Now, we stand by the theory we put forward in our previous post, but do admit that we may have presented our conclusion in too definitive a manner. As with all significant changes that take place in the divorce arena, there are usually a plethora of social and economic factors that need to be taken into consideration and whilst many couples may delay a divorce because of the state of the economy, social factors must also be deliberated upon so that a bigger, more informative picture can be formed. Anyway, onto Plumb’s conjecture. Social commentators have long argued that celebrity behaviour is capable of influencing our actions and desires. Female celebrities are accused of promoting unhealthy diets, footballers of encouraging ostentation and musicians of promoting violence. Nevertheless, the fact remains that only a very small minority are profoundly affected by the conduct of such individuals and even fewer would look to their actions for guidance when discovering that their partner had engaged in infidelity. I accept that a small minority of people will choose to forgive a cheating spouse and avoid a divorce because “it’s what Cheryl did,” but such individuals will more than likely be so obsessed with celebrity culture that it is equally likely that they will view their cheating partner as a new accessory. Not only do they have the Prada handbag and the new pair of Jimmy Choos, they now have the philandering spouse too. As easy as it is to conclude that people are not directly influenced by the behaviour of these celebrities, however, this conclusion may well be too simplistic. The column inches relaying the stories of long suffering, yet forgiving husbands and wives may well have encouraged many a spouse to forego divorce proceedings, forgive their partners and do all that they can to recreate their previously happy and functional marriage. Why? Because this coverage showed them that it is acceptable to forgive an act of adultery. In many instances, it is the insult, not the loss of trust that leads betrayed spouses to divorce their partners; their decision to divorce, ultimately, a means of retaining lost pride. When portraying victims of adultery as being forgiving, it became more socially acceptable to forgive adultery. Those individuals that would previously have initiated divorce proceedings as soon as they discovered their spouse’s infidelity no longer find the thought of addressing this indiscretion to be deplorable or embarrassing, they now see it as socially acceptable. Still, we believe that such individuals represent a minority and that the majority of people would opt for a divorce if they discovered that their partner had been engaging in an affair. Do you agree?

Before I begin, I must admit that this, and the series of posts that will follow it, will be seen by some as shamelessly self-indulgent. You see, whilst I greatly enjoy writing about and disseminating vital information regarding the divorce process, new and proposed developments in family law and the findings of surveys and studies, I have long harboured  a love of the arts and have, for some time now, been considering how to discuss these topics within this blog. My ‘eureka’ moment arrived earlier this week. I have viewed, read and listened to any number of artistic texts dealing with divorces and the dissolution of relationships, many of which have been profound and moving so why not write about them. They could, after all, help people through divorce in the same way that they’ve helped me through the end of relationships. So, as of today, I will be posting about my favourite albums, films and books that deal with such topics as divorce, break-ups and the decline of the modern nuclear family. I thought long and hard about what I would discuss first, concluding that it would be appropriate to talk about the text that yielded my aforementioned moment of enlightenment; Bob Dylan’s timeless classic, Blood on the Tracks. Recorded following the singer songwriter’s separation from then wife, Sara, Blood on the Tracks is laced with all of the emotions and moods that one would associate with divorce – regret, sadness, anger, longing and confusion, to name but a few – and this text’s profoundness is rooted in the brutally honest nature in which the tales of marital breakdown contained within it are recounted. Blood on the Tracks tells stories of happy relationships gone wrong (Tangled up in Blue, Simple Twist of Fate), the anger that a person often feels towards a departing spouse (You’re a Big Girl Now, Idiot Wind), and the sadness and despair brought on by divorce (You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go, If You See Her, Say Hello). Stories which, following break-ups, mirrored my own feelings and, even the album had long finished, stayed with me, accompanying me on my journey back to happiness and contentment. If you haven’t heard this album before, I strongly recommend that you seek out a copy. If you are going through a divorce or separation, I am certain that it will help you attempts at recuperation. If, on the other hand you are in a happy relationship or blissfully single, then you can enjoy the majestic song writing and lyricism of one of the greatest musicians of the modern era.