Our Blogs

It was expected to be one of the most acrimonious celebrity divorces of the past few years – a war of attrition between two estranged and wealthy spouses battling over custody of their daughter – yet, less than a fortnight after Katie Holmes filed for a divorce from Tom Cruise, it was announced that the couple had arrived at an agreement. Now, with the exception of the tabloid hacks weeping over the loss of a multitude of pre-written headlines, this agreement appears to be in all parties’ best interests. Katie will become the primary carer of their daughter, Suri, whilst Tom will be afforded regular sustained contact with the six-year-old. Tom’s vast fortune is also unlikely to be significantly affected and (most importantly of all if prior reports are to be believed) neither Cruise nor Holmes will be allowed to exert any overt influence over Suri’s choice of religion. It seems – if reports are to be believed, at least – that this agreement suits the needs of all parties; a truly amicable divorce. In stark contrast to Cruise and Holmes’s amicable divorce is the thoroughly discordant separation of Mark and Jennifer Evans. Mark and Jennifer are not Hollywood stars, they are not a particularly high-profile couple and, before Tuesday of this week, it is doubtful that many would be aware of their existence, let alone the fact that the couple were in the midst of a prolonged divorce battle. That changed following several stories having surfaced earlier this week, though. The couple married in 1985 with Mark going on to form the Confluence Corporation, an IT firm offering services to the financial sector, which is currently estimated to be worth as much as £40million. The couple later separated in July 2010, with Mrs Evans filing for divorce in April 2011. Following on from this, the courts awarded Mrs Evans £26million of assets earlier this year, prompting Mrs Evans to block the couple’s Decree Absolute and apply for these assets to be transferred to her in full and by way of a court order before the divorce was finalised; a decision which clearly irked one of Britain’s most senior family court judges. Lord Justice Thorpe scolded both Mr and Mrs Evans during a hearing this week, claiming that their dispute was ‘puerile’ and that the pairs’ litigiousness, and resultant legal bills, amounted to nothing more than ‘profligate extravagance’. Thorpe did, however, declare that a final ruling on the couple’s finances should be delivered before any divorce was granted. Whilst the two examples above provide two clear examples of acrimonious and amicable divorces, there is a third, and far more common type: the ambivalent divorce. All divorces are initially ambivalent. The parties, caught up in a myriad of emotions, are left to wrestle with the sadness brought by a failed marriage, and the hope of a newer and better life. The majority of these individuals will be able to put their differences aside and, possibly with some assistance, obtain an amicable divorce. A minority will allow their emotions to control them, and become engaged in an acrimonious divorce.  An even smaller number will remain ambivalent throughout proceedings, one or even both parties unable to come to terms with their emotions and merely signing documents until they're divorced; the preceding few months being little more than a blur. Ultimately, the decision to have an amicable, acrimonious or ambivalent divorce is in the parties’ hands and, provided that both spouses can act with respect, consideration and tact, then an amicable divorce can be achieved.