This is a followup on a recent post about divorce in the virtual world. This time, a UK woman is divorcing her husband after she caught him canoodling with another woman in the virtual world called "Second Life." Let's be clear here -- the other woman was not real in the sense of having a physical existence, but was a character in an online game in which players create a parallel universe for themselves, complete with jobs, homes, and activities. Apparently, those activities can include romance -- in fact, the couple involved in this case first met and married in Second Life, according to the UK paper The Telegraph. (And I'm still curious about why so many of these stories come out of the UK...) However, they also married legally in the physical universe, and now they're divorcing, with the husband planning to move on and marry his new sweetheart -- also in the real world -- despite the fact he hasn't yet met her.

And they say gays are making a mockery of marriage.

But seriously, online infidelity is a real risk for married couples, says the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. I'm no marriage counselor, but it seems to me that one solution for that might be clear communiation up front with your spouse about what online behavior is acceptable and what you consider "cheating." Another could be to turn the computer off and have some real-life quality time with the person you've pledged your life to. Just a thought.

Madonna is a follower of the Jewish mystical religion called Kabbalah, and her belief system doesn't include a Christmas celebration. In years past, the family has skipped Christmas altogether, apparently with Ritchie's consent. But this year, he wants to treat the couple's two children to "a traditional English Christmas," according to the British paper The Mirror, while Madonna wants the kids to be with her on Christmas Day.

What have we learned about custody and religion so far? First, that religious issues are coming up more and more often in custody cases. And, that custodial parents have the right to make religious decisions for their kids -- but that kids who are old enough can have their own opinions on these matters factored in by the courts. In Madonna's case, the divorce is not yet completed, so there's no permanent custody order and it's not completely clear which party has the type of custodial rights that would allow them to make religious decisions for the children. And both of her children with Ritchie (she also has a daughter from a previous relationship) are too young to have their two cents considered.

As always, we hope the parents can work things out and maintain amicable joint custody of their children.

This is still the general rule for dependent exemption purposes, but it's no longer an either/or proposition for all purposes under a recently issued IRS Revenue Procedure. (There's also a very clear explanation of the new guidance on the McGuire Woods website.) Now, the IRS will treat a child as a dependent of both parents for purposes of tax treatment of Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) and Health Savings Accounts (HSA), as well as certain other fringe benefits of employment. For federal income tax purposes, both parents can now treat their children as dependents even if no waiver has been signed by the custodial parent, meaning that both can exclude from their gross income any money taken from an MSA or HSA and used for qualifying medical expenses.

This may seem quite technical, but for parents who use MSAs and HSAs, it's good news. Both parents can benefit from treating the child as a dependent, and they no longer need to negotiate (or argue) about who gets that tax benefit.

First up, a man in England is sentenced to 14 years in prison for killing his wife, from whom he was separated. Why did he do it? Because she changed her status on the social networking site, Facebook, to "single." He felt "humiliated" by this, so he drove to her house in a drug-fueled rage and stabbed her to death in her bed.

Next, a murder-suicide, also in England -- and I thought the Brits were supposed to be so mild-mannered. In this case, the wife apparently posted an entry on Facebook indicating that she was splitting from her husband. He became enraged and killed her and then himself, leaving their two young daughters orphans.

In a story that's less horrifying only because it didn't happen in real life, a Japanese woman "murdered" an avatar that was her husband in a virtual game world, after the husband "divorced" her in the game world. The woman used login information she got from her virtual husband when they were virtually happily married, to go into his account and "kill" his avatar. He complained to police, and the woman is being prosecuted for illegally accessing a computer and manipulating electronic data.

The couple's agreement with the facility storing their embryos designated the wife as the person with the sole legal right to make decisions about them. The appeals court held that the agreement was binding on the divorcing husband and wife, and ordered that the embryos be destroyed at the wife's election. The court rejected the husband's argument that the embryos were alive, and followed other courts in finding that one spouse does not have the right to impose parental obligations on the other.

A blog post at www.divorce-lawyer-source.com says that there are more than 100,000 stored embryos across the country, and I agree with the assessment in that article that this issue is going to keep coming up in divorces as more and more couples use alternative reproductive technology to have children.

This reminds me of the Brooklyn couple who both refused to move out of their home during their divorce, and ended up living in separate parts of the house after a judge ordered them to put up a wall.

Here's hoping your spirit of compromise was a little better-developed than that of these folks, who have taken the idea of equal division of property to the next level.

There are over a million active duty service members in the U.S. Armed Forces today, many serving in high-stress areas like Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps surprisingly, the rate of divorce generally among service members is comparable to that in the general population (although there was a sharp increase between 2001 and 2004, a period when deployments increased significantly). But within the military, women divorce at nearly twice the rate of men. There's lots of speculation about why in this article at Divorce360.com, but no solid answers.

Numbers aside, the reality is that divorce raises special issues for military spouses in almost every aspect of the divorce process, including calculating support, dividing property, establishing a parenting plan, and dealing with retirement and insurance benefits. The Armed Services Legal Assistance Office provides some help for military families going through divorce, and there are websites that offer free legal information as well. Also check out Nolo's Essential Guide to Divorce -- the updated 2nd Edition has a new chapter on military divorce.

Like the United States, Australia has a high divorce rate; approximately 40 per cent of marriages there end in divorce. Matthew Warren's article in the business section of The Australian points to the doubling of households and the resulting inefficient use of resources that occurs when couples divorce. The number of people living in a household, he says, is the biggest single determinant of how much energy and water are used and how much waste is generated. Even though it seems counterintuitive, more people in the household means that fewer resources will be used.

Of course, owners of rental properties, suppliers of small electronics, and furniture stores will benefit when a divorcing family needs to duplicate its household furnishings. But consuming more of these items isn't good for the environment, either. The mantra of "reduce-reuse-recycle" is difficult to apply when two households are being created where once there was one.

Unfortunately, there's no simple, immediate solution to this problem. People who can't stay together for the sake of their children surely won't be able to stick it out for the sake of the environment, either. But as Warren argues, we can start thinking about the bigger picture and considering options for creating more efficient, environmentally sustainable societies.

A Divorce Financial Planner can help divorcing parties assess their situation and make smart decisions about dividing their assets and assigning their obligations. DVPs look at your entire financial picture, taking into account not just what looks like a fair division in the present, but also the future ramifications of potential settlement scenarios. They'll consider tax consequences, the present vs. future value of money, each party's retirement needs and career plans, and whatever else needs to be factored into your financial planning.

Not everyone needs a DVP -- if your assets aren't complex and you haven't been married long, you probably don't need the comprehensive advice. But if you've got a house, more than one retirement plan, and investments -- and especially if it feels overwhelming to you to consider all the possible options for settlement -- you might benefit from some professional help. If you're cooperating in your divorce by using mediation or collaborative practice, you can share the cost by having one DVP assess your situation. 

To find a DVP, ask your attorney if they're using one. Or, go to the website of the Association of Divorce Financial Planners or the Institute for Divorce Financial Analysts and find a DVP in your area.   

Right after the divorce was finalized, Officer Ortiz's attorney sent him a letter reminding him to update the beneficiary designations on any insurance policies. We can only imagine what kept him from doing so -- maybe his pending remarriage, maybe his demanding job, maybe the very common reluctance to think about his own mortality. Whatever the reason, Ortiz never made the change -- and when he died in June of 2005, the designated beneficiary for his life insurance policies, with benefits totaling half a million dollars, was Gloria, his first wife.

The life insurance companies did what insurance companies do in these situations -- they deposited the money with the clerk of the court and filed a lawsuit asking the court to decide who should get the money. The federal court decided that the insurance proceeds were Ortiz's separate property after the divorce, and that he expressed his intention to name Graciela as his beneficiary (to his attorney), and awarded the money to be split between Graciela and Ortiz's two sons. But the Ninth Circuit, a federal appeals court, reversed the decision and held that the divorce judgment did not extinguish Gloria's rights and that because Ortiz did not take any action to change the beneficiaries, Gloria was entitled to the insurance money.

The moral of this story could not be more clear: After your divorce, make absolutely sure you have taken care of the details. That means updating your insurance policies, changing title to your property, making a new will, closing all joint accounts, and following up on anything else you need to do to comply with your settlement agreement or final judgment. Don't wait, or your hard-earned assets could wind up exactly where you don't want them to be.  

In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled on the case challenging the state's marriage statutes, concluding that "in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

The Court's 120-page opinion -- click here for a press release boiling it down -- analyzes California Family Code Section 308.5 (also known as Prop. 22, or the Knight Initiative) which states that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California; reviews the history and scope of the constitutional right to marry in California; and addresses the equal protection issues raised by the limitation of the word "marriage" to opposite-sex couples.

About time! But despite this great victory for same-sex families, there is no rest for the weary. As the New York Times reports, right-wing groups are working to qualify a ballot measure for the November election that would enshrine marriage discrimination in the California Constitution by way of a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. According to SFGate.com, "The constitutional amendment will qualify for the November ballot if officials determine that at least 694,354 of the [1.1 million signatures gathered] are valid, a decision due by mid-June." If passed, the measure would nullify last week's Supreme Court decision and eliminate marriage equality.

The answers to many common questions about what marriage equality means can be found here, at the website of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the lead counsel on the marriage cases.

Now, she's brought her case to the Internet with a video that has garnered nearly three million hits since it was posted on April 10. In it, Walsh-Smith explains her predicament, gives a tour of the apartment she's being asked to vacate, discloses intimate details about her husband to his assistant over the phone, shows photos from her wedding album, makes disparaging comments about her husband's family, and expresses her distress and bewilderment about the situation. In media mentions from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and The Los Angeles Times, experts express various opinions about what it all means. Is it the advent of a new weapon in the divorce wars? A plan that will backfire when the judge is appalled by the tactic? A means to gain public sympathy and pressure Mr. Smith into doing what Ms. Walsh-Smith calls "the right thing?" A way for a disempowered wife to regain some control?

Or, as The L.A. Times says, perhaps it is merely "a performance piece by a theatre professional"? I'm inclined to agree with this view, and the whole thing leaves a bad taste. As an advocate of communication, collaboration, and making every effort to take the high road even in the painful and difficult event of a divorce, it's hard to condone something so clearly designed to humiliate Mr. Smith in the service of revenge and financial gain. The low road seems to have hit a new low.

As explained in more detail in the Oregon Divorce Blog, in Boldt and Boldt the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for additional testimony regarding the boy's preference, which was never considered in the original proceeding. The parents divorced in 1999 and had ongoing disputes about custody, with the father obtaining custody when the son was nine years old. In the meantime, the father converted to Judaism, and stated his intent to have his son circumcised, consistent with the Jewish tradition. The mother asked for -- and got -- an injunction from the court, prohibiting the father from going forward with the circumcision until she could petition the court for a change in custody and a permanent injunction.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that "the decision to circumcise....falls within a custodial parent's authority, despite medical or religious objections by the non-custodial parent." However, the Supreme Court also ruled that the trial court made a mistake by not interviewing the now-12-year-old son about his preferences, and remanded the case to the trial court to evaluate the son's preference. If he does object, the trial court may transfer custody to the mother.

The most significant part of the ruling is the part that says a custodial parent has control over medical decisions, even over the non-custodial parent's objections. Even where one parent retains physical custody, it's far more common for parents to continue to share decision-making than for one parent to have sole power over important decisions like these. Where the fight is over the right to make decisions like this, it certainly raises the stakes in any custody dispute.

Have I mentioned before that mediation and collaboration are great ways to resolve disputes? And that sharing custody cooperatively is optimal for your kids? Sometimes it just can't happen, but once again, giving it your best effort may pay off in the end, when your kid doesn't have to go to court and tell a judge whether he wants to be circumcised.