Our Blogs

Sociologists and anthropologists worldwide tend to report negative findings when studying how divorce affects children with recent research from the University of Wisconsin having indicated that children of divorce struggle socially and academically. Fresh studies conducted by the Pew Research Centre – which analysed the responses of 2,961 adults surveyed in October 2010 – have suggested that the long-term effect divorce can have on children are more varied than this, however, and have also implied that matrimonial separation can have a positive influence on the children involved. For example, findings showed that 60 per cent of children that entered into stepfamilies as a result of one of their biological parents having remarried claimed that they enjoyed a closer and more settled marriage than their biological parents. In comparison, only 45 per cent of individuals without a step-parent said that their marriage was closer than their parents’, suggesting that children from stepfamilies learn from being part of a harmonious family unit and witnessing a parent in a happy marriage. The majority of adults with step-relatives still felt a stronger sense of obligation towards blood relatives, however, with 85 per cent of those surveyed saying that they would feel compelled to assist a biological parent that required financial assistance or caregiving whilst only 56 per cent said that they would feel the same way about a step-parent. Additionally, 78 per cent of parents said that they would feel compelled to assist their fully grown biological child with only 62 per cent stating that they were duty-bound to assist their adult step-child. Unfortunately, fewer individuals within the UK are remarrying according to information from the Office for National Statistics. Fortunately, sociologists have argued that this is due to extenuating factors such as the rising cost of wedding ceremonies and growing social acceptability of cohabitation so children of divorce can still be introduced into an extended family and witness a harmonious adult relationship even if their parents don’t remarry. Finally, some good news!

According to UN statistics, Russia had the highest divorce rate in the world in 2010. The country’s population has also declined drastically in the last 20 years, with its population currently standing at 142 million compared with 150 million in 1991. Domestic violence is also rife in with reports stating that approximately 2,000 children are killed by relatives each year in Europe’s largest nation. In the hope of addressing their demographic nightmare, Russian authorities announced the formation of a new public holiday, Family Day, in 2008. Celebrated on the 8th July, Family Day is seen by many as an alternative to Valentine’s Day and sees all married couples that have celebrated their 25th anniversaries in the past year presented with medals to mark their achievement. Approximately 5,000 medals are to be given to Russian couples this year, with 400 of them being sent to couples resident in other European countries including France, Germany and the United Kingdom. On the eve of Family Day, courts throughout the country suggested that they refrain from registering divorces on family day declaring that this would give couples an extra day to “re-consider” their decision to divorce. Russian Authorities have also used Family Day to further promote their ‘Give me Life’ campaign – an initiative designed to curb Russia’s high abortion rate.

Following compulsory introductions and me being asked what I do for a living, regardless of the social event in question, this comment nearly always ensues: “hmmm… funny you should say that, I’ve been having some problems in my relationship recently.” I’ve come to accept this, though. In the same way that teachers will be grilled on the best techniques to help a child read, mechanics will be questioned about squeaky brakes and doctors quizzed on ‘that rash’, I often fill the role of unofficial marriage counsellor at parties.

Most of these conversations are fairly innocuous – the aforementioned comment finding itself consumed by more inane small talk – but, on one or two occasions, I’ve found myself talking to people with significant marital problems; harrowing conversations have ensued and the inevitable question of “do you think we should separate/divorce?” has reared its rather unpleasant head.

Answering this question is no easy task. It may seem logical to ask whether or not that person is happy in their marriage, but whilst this is a good place to start, there are many more questions that need to be asked before you can tell someone that they should really be consider separating and/or divorcing their partner.

Firstly, any aggrieved spouse needs to ask whether or not their partner is aware of why they are dissatisfied or even whether they are even aware of the fact that they are unhappy at all. Generally speaking, if one partner is unhappy in their marriage, then the other will be aware of it. If the couple have been married for a long time, however, then one half of the marriage can slip into a ‘comfort zone’ and become less receptive than usual. This,in itself, is not a valid reason to pursue divorce and you should talk to your partner before taking any further action. Take time to consider why you’re unhappy and what could be done to improve the situation and then communicate this to your partner. If they’re completely unwilling to consider compromise or even listen to what you have to say, then it may be time to call time on your marriage and file for divorce. If, on the other hand, things don’t resolve themselves immediately, give them time.

If the same problems still exist after a while, then you need to ask yourself some further questions. Are you and your spouse frequently arguing for trivial reasons? Do you still, or have you ever, shared common goals and values? Are you still able to compromise? These are just a few of the things that you will need to ask yourself before establishing whether or not you want to divorce your partner.

Ultimately, if you decide that you will be unable to fix the problems that are plaguing your marriage, then, however painful it may be, you should proceed with divorcing your spouse. This will not be an easy task, but if you have concluded that you will be happier alone, then it is also almost certainly one that is worth taking.

General opinion may suggest that traditional gender roles have all but been eradicated and that old-fashioned titles such as ‘housewife’ and ‘breadwinner’ no longer have any bearing on modern-day marriages. A study conducted by Ohio State University suggests otherwise, however. The research – which involved analysing data on over 3,600 couples provided through three separate National Surveys of Families and Households conducted from 1987 to 2002 – had been undertaken in order to ascertain how and individual’s employment status could influence their decision to divorce their partners. Results revealed that a woman’s employment status had no direct effect on whether a husband decided to end their marriage. Females were more likely to initiate divorce proceedings if they were in full time employment but only if they were extremely unhappy in their marriage. A man’s employment status, however, had a significant influence over whether or not a couple separated. Not only is it more likely that a wife will choose to leave her husband if he is unemployed, but men who find themselves without work are also far more likely to choose to leave their wives even if they are relatively happy in their marriages. The findings of the study imply, according to researchers, that there has been an asymmetric change in traditional gender roles in marriage. Liana Sayer, who led the study, also stated that the findings suggested that men do not view a marriage in which they are unemployed and their spouse works as the norm. In comparison, a female’s employment status has no bearing over whether or not a couple file for divorce, suggesting that a wife entering or maintaining her presence within the workforce does not represent a violation of matrimonial norms. “These effects probably emanate from the greater change in women’s than men’s roles,” said Sayer. “Women’s employment has increased and is accepted, men’s non-employment is unacceptable to many, and there is a cultural ambivalence and lack of institutional support for men taking on ‘feminized’ roles such as household work and emotional support.” Sayer’s research is due to be published in the American Journal of Sociology in the near future.

The divorce rate may be falling, but with nearly half of all marriages still ending in divorce, it is hardly surprising that hundreds of relationship coaches and marriage counsellors are advising people on how to ‘divorce proof’ their marriages. Just as no ship is unsinkable, though, no marriage is immune to divorce.

I do not wish to detract from the efforts of these individuals; they are ultimately, after all, actually arguing that a large number of divorces can be avoided through effective preparation, planning and tolerance. When they choose to present their advice as something which is guaranteed to prevent a divorce, however, they misinform their readers.

Perhaps such headlines are inconsequential, though. The majority of married couples will be more than capable of realising when their union is at an end, but what of those that don’t? Can the circulation of such articles lead people to presume that divorce is never an option? That separation can always be avoided? It’s unlikely, but it concerns me, nevertheless.

You see, whilst there are an abundance of resources available that discuss how a struggling couple can save their marriage, there is very little available on when it’s appropriate to proceed with a divorce.

It is undeniably noble to attempt to resolve marital discord and prevent a divorce, but delaying the inevitable can, in our experience, generate antipathy between spouses. This resentment can have significant and negative repercussions when the couple do decide to divorce, particularly when the time comes to discuss the contentious issues of dividing assets and agreeing childcare.

Perversely, then, under certain circumstances, attempts at marital reconciliation can do more harm than good. Both halves of a couple will nearly always make considerable efforts in the hope of resolving their problems, but, in some instances, these attempts will prove to be fruitless.

Both spouses will rarely simultaneously decide to divorce, however. Generally, one spouse will conclude that they should file for divorce when the other feels that further attempts at resolution are appropriate. It is in this situation that one spouse can take offence; concluding that their partner is preventing them from moving on and harbour significant resentment towards them as a result. When one spouse decides that they want a divorce there is unfortunately very little, if anything, that their partner can do to change their minds.

When circulating the belief that a marriage can be ‘divorce-proof’, the writers and orators of such beliefs can lead some to believe that they can repair their relationship, irrespective of how damaged it may be. I have already stated that this is a noble ideology, but it is simply not true. Some marriages must end in divorce and acceding to the need to end a toxic relationship is a vital step in recovering from a failed marriage and laying the foundations of a happy life. If both halves of a marriage feel that divorce can be avoided, then of course they should do their utmost to circumvent it. If, however, it is inevitable, then it is far healthier to accept it, learn from your mistake and move on without guilt. You may leave with a heavy heart but, in time, this will heal and happiness will ensue.

Couples in Mexico City could soon be able to forgo the divorce process if they choose to end their marriage within its first two years according to reports.

The bill’s creator, Lizbeth Rosas Montero, has claimed that this would allow couples to sample living together before making a lifetime commitment, adding that she believed that these changes, if agreed, would result in a reduction in the city’s divorce rates. It’s an interesting idea, but it’s also completely unnecessary.

Research from the Office for National Statistics has revealed that more and more couples are now living together before marriage and, in turn, fewer and fewer marriages are now ending in divorce. This research may have been conducted in the UK, but its findings are relevant on a global scale. In fact, the findings contained within the report led me to conclude that if we genuinely want to see fewer marriages end in divorce, then we must encourage couples to live together before making the decision to walk down the aisle.

Critics of cohabitation may continue to argue that the institution of marriage has been damaged as a result of it now being socially acceptable for couples to live together before marriage, but as the aforementioned study has shown, this is simply not the case. Also, what would be more debilitating to this institution; cheapening marriage by turning it into a trial period or simply allowing couples to live together and ensure that they’re compatible before marrying? I think it’s a no brainer.

So, the logical way to reduce the divorce rate is to not only allow, but to encourage couples to live together before they marry; the first step being the introduction of new laws that protect their interests.

A firm of solicitors located in the south west of England are utilising unusual methods in order attract new customers; offer them a free divorce. Follett Stock Solicitors, who have offices in Devon and Cornwall, have advertised their free divorce service – available to all customers who sign up before the 30th June – on flyers, its website and twitter. Predictably, religious leaders have heavily criticised the firm’s actions with Father Robin Eastoe, rector of the Heavitree team of churches in Exeter and Devon, arguing that the offer and its deadline is encouraging more couples to separate. Father Eastoe told the Daily Mail: “It [divorce] should be a couple's own decision made at their own pace. Saying 'come on do it quickly as it's free' puts an awful lot of pressure on people at a sensitive time when they are hurting. Putting a time limit on it is definitely putting pressure on people to make a snap decision. In the interests of society, we should put as much effort as possible to strengthening marriage.” The firm’s associate partner, Rebecca Gurgul, defended Follett Stock’s actions stating that the offer of a free divorce was designed to assist people in need, specifically those who wanted to divorce their spouse but could not afford to do so. Miss Gurgul further stated: “We don't think marriage is insignificant but a lot of people going through a divorce struggle with the cost of it all”. The free service that Follett Stock is offering is limited, however, and it does not include provisions offered by online competitors such as courier collection and delivery of important documents, enhanced customer support and dedicated case managers. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is! style="border:0;" />

Research conducted by Cambridge based think tank, the Jubilee Centre, has shown that cohabiting couples are six times more likely to separate before their first child reaches five when compared to their married counterparts. The study, which saw researchers analyse data from more than 14,000 households and 22,265 adults, revealed that 37 per cent of parents who were cohabiting when their child was born will separate before the child’s fifth birthday. In comparison, only 6 per cent of couples who were married when the child was born had separated. 66 per cent of all cohabiting couples had separated before the child reached 16, compared with only 16 per cent of married couples – a fourfold increase. Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of Work and Pensions, warned last year that children from broken homes are nine times more likely to commit a crime than those from stable families. Dr John Hayward, director of the think-tank, said: “All the evidence suggests that families headed by married, biological parents who have not previously lived together provide the best environment for both the individuals involved and their children. “This has huge personal, social, economic and political consequences for us all.”

People are susceptible to moral panics and nothing seems to inspire dread quite as much as the discovery of a new or mutated strain of a disease – the sort of bug that can turn your bones into jelly and ravage your brain’s frontal lobes leaving you a limp, salivating shadow of your former self. And now, a new and highly contagious infection has been identified by academics at the prestigious Brown University – with researchers claiming that divorcing couples’ desires spread amongst other couples within their social circle in much the same way as a disease is passed from one person to another; the ‘Divorce Virus’, if you will.

The study concluded that close friends of a divorcing couple were 147 per cent more likely to divorce their spouse, the work colleague of an individual going through a divorce 55 per cent more likely to leave their partner whilst friends of friends were 33 per cent more likely to pursue a divorce. Additionally, couples whose siblings divorced were 22 per cent more likely to then divorce themselves.

Experts have reasoned that the phenomenon – which they have termed ‘divorce clustering’ – is largely attributable to individuals feeling that divorce is more acceptable and less stigmatised following them having been informed that a friend or colleague is divorcing their partner.

Other experts have claimed that many married individuals will not consider leaving their spouse as a result of their relationship problems alone. This changes, however, when an individual is experiencing problems in their marriage and becomes aware that a friend or colleague is divorcing their partner as they realise that a divorce is pursuable and could, potentially, solve their problems.

Now, we at Quickie Divorce know that the foundations of a solid and stable marriage are unlikely to crumble due to the inadvertent influence of a close friend, but what about couples who find themselves on the brink of separating; is it possible that such an event could persuade them to give up on a marriage that could be saved? Considering the lures of singledom, it seems entirely possible.

Relationships are difficult, marriages are downright complex. When comparing the former to the latter, commitment and tolerance are required in far greater quantities than they had been previously and, what’s more, any sense of freedom that an individual previously enjoyed is likely to come under significant threat following marriage.

The need to reach compromises that suit both parties is unavoidable when you begin to cohabit and share a bank account. Unfortunately, no matter how compatible a couple are, they will, following marriage, experience bickering, quarrelling and outright arguing in a manner that they had previously believed to be unthinkable. Occasionally, these disputes escalate bringing about great stress and fear which lead people to question the success of their marriage and the wisdom of their decision to wed in the first place.

Taking these factors into consideration, it is entirely understandable that a stressed spouse will begin to give the possibility of divorce more serious consideration following someone close to them having informed them of their decision to divorce their spouse. Worse yet, they may envy the sense of liberation expressed by this individual and conclude that the only means of rectifying the problems they have been experiencing and regaining happiness lies in a fresh start without their partner. In turn, this individual may then tell their spouse that they wish to separate without having sufficiently thought their situation through. Such actions could condemn a marriage that could well have been worth saving to the doldrums of disappointment and failure. Even if a couple were to rectify their differences following such a statement having been made, the rejected spouse is likely to harbour feelings of resentment for quite some time.

What we at Quickie Divorce are trying to communicate is that a decision to divorce or separate is never one that should be taken lightly. Yes, it may well seem that the grass is indeed greener on the other side, but remember that your situation is unique to you, and the decisions of others should have no bearing on whether or not you choose to divorce your spouse.

Before even considering uttering the D word in the presence of your partner, consider your situation. Is there a realistic chance that you and your partner can improve your situation? If there is, then you owe it yourself – and indeed your spouse – to do everything you can to try and resolve your differences. If, on the other hand, you conclude that your relationship is not only in disrepair, but that you are grossly unhappy, cannot see yourself being happy whilst married to this individual and that this will not change, then it may well be time to cut ties to your spouse and proceed with your divorce.

In a nutshell, don’t initiate divorce proceedings because of what those around you are doing, do it because – following heartfelt, considered and extensive analysis – you have decided it’s what’s best for you.

Children and finances are widely regarded as the most common causes of an acrimonious divorce but research conducted by the Co-operative has revealed a new cause of significant dispute during such proceedings: the family pet. The study revealed that a significant number of cases involving animals are prompting contested divorces, with 20 per cent of all cases involving pets resulting in court hearings concerning custody of their pets. Another 10 per cent of couples have enlisted professional mediation in order to determine who their four-legged companions should live with. Lee Mooney, head of pet insurance at the Co-operative, stated that custody of a family pet is now one of the main factors behind upset and conflict when married couples choose to divorce. Mooney also noted that the survey revealed how highly people regard their pets. Money also added that couples may soon prepare prenuptial agreements before purchasing a pet in order to avoid arguments in the event of a separation. The Co-operative’s research further supports a study undertaken by financial consultancy, Grant Thornton, in 2007 which highlighted the growing number of legal battles concerning the custody of pets, a spokesperson for the consultancy saying: “While many have never heard of custody battles over pets, or may ridicule those who fight over them, in many cases the pet is considered to be part of the family.” In UK law, pets are viewed as personal possessions that are to be divided between separating couples. The U.S. has long recognised how commonplace battles over family pets are during divorce proceedings, however, and over 90 universities currently offer their students courses which address the issue of pet custody. Previous high profile cases have seen actors Jake Gyllenhaal and Kirsten Dunst battle over custody of their German shepherd Atticus. Similarly, Hollywood actress Drew Barrymore fought for custody of Labrador, Flossie, when divorcing her comedian husband Tom Green. The Co-operatives findings also revealed that pets can be immensely beneficial to separating couples with half of the 20 per cent of couples who got back together having stated that their decision to resume their relationship came about as a result of their pet. Some couples also claimed that their pet becoming ill or even dying forced them to discuss matters with one another, resulting in them resolving their differences and resurrecting their relationship.

Women who lose their virginity before the age of 16 are more likely to become divorced in later life according to research conducted by the University of Iowa. The study, undertaken by associate sociology professor Anthony Paik, examined the responses that 3,793 married and divorced woman had supplied during the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and revealed that 31 per cent of women that had their first sexual experience before the age of 18 divorced within five years of marriage whilst 47 per cent divorced within 10 years. In comparison, only 15 per cent of women who were 18 or over when they lost their virginity divorced within five years whilst 27 per cent divorced following 10 years. The research also showed, however, that the likelihood of a woman becoming divorced in later life was unaffected if their first sexual experience was entirely wanted and they were over 16. If sex took place before the woman was 16, then the increased chance of divorce still applied even if the experience was wanted. Of the women surveyed only one per cent stated that they were certain that they wanted to lose their virginity at 13 or younger, five per cent at the age of 14 or 15 and 10 per cent at age 16 or 17. Despite his findings, Paik proposes that sex itself does not increase the prospect of divorce stating that “The results are consistent with the argument that there are down sides to adolescent sexuality, including the increased likelihood of divorce. But there's also support for the "more sex positive" view, because if a teen delays sex to late adolescence and it is wanted, that choice in itself doesn't necessarily lead to increased risk of divorce”. Paik further theorised other explanations, suggesting that women who had sex as adolescents were predisposed to divorce. Paik also submitted a more casual explanation, positing that early sexual experiences could lead to individuals developing behaviour that was conducive to divorce. “'If the sex was not completely wanted or occurred in a traumatic context, it's easy to imagine how that could have a negative impact on how women might feel about relationships, or on relationship skills.”

So your divorce has finally been finalised, you’ve received your decree absolute and you’re now legally single again. You’d assume that everything’s now been finalised and that you can breathe a sigh of relief. But wait, you’ve forgotten to file a Clean Break Order and now you’re former spouse can pursue you for your future earnings whenever they see fit. Recent news of Michael Douglas’ ex-wife’s attempts to obtain a share of money that the actor has earned following their divorce in 2000 has highlighted the importance of such orders. As does the story of Kevin Halstead who won the lottery just four months after his divorce was finalised. You see, without a Clean Break Order, you could be pursued for any future earnings. And whilst you’re unlikely to find yourself starring in a Hollywood blockbuster or celebrating a lottery win anytime soon, your former partner could still pursue you for any money you inherit or if you finally get that well-paid job. It is far, far easier to overturn an informal agreement than a financial order that has been approved by a District Judge and, in order to ensure peace of mind; a Clean Break Order is certainly an investment worth making.