Judith's Divorce Blog

SAY IT WITH A COCKROACH

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:07:00 +0000

I see New York’s Bronx Zoo is repeating what is now becoming an annual Valentine gesture reported on this blog last year Yes once again couples are being encouraged to name a cockroach after their loved one. However, this year if that doesn’t appeal you can give them a cocoa-roach. Mmm delicious, but it does make you wonder what they would sell to a couple who are divorcing or maybe this is a line the zoo hasn’t thought of yet!

KUNG HEI FAT CHOI

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:20:00 +0000

Midnight heralded in the Chinese New Year. With hundreds of lanterns, fireworks and beating drums, the celebrations can be an impressive spectacle. Moreover the animal symbols for each year are distinctive and can on occasions influence even the reason for and style of divorce that I am called to advise on.

So 2011 gave rise to the rabbit, defined as the ex who becomes pregnant with quads within days of her divorce decree.

In 2010 it was the tiger, or rather the cunning husband, stalking his terrified prey and spoiling for the kill.

In 2009 we saw the ox; big, beefy and whose sheer size is intimidating.

In contrast, the year before it was the rat who told his wife he loved her before sliding off down a drainpipe with the lady across the road.

Five years ago, of course, it was simply the pig. A term covering all manner of transgressions by an unthinking, unkind or abusive spouse.

So what can we expect in 2012? The Year of the Dragon has me trembling with trepidation already. Will collaborative practice and compromise go out of the window as unjustifiable demands are presented in an inflammatory and demanding way? Will the flames be fanned and will I be asked to fight fire with fire? If I am it will, of course, be a retrograde step. Instead I sincerely hope that anyone contemplating divorce this year has made a New Year’s resolution to behave in a calm and dignified manner and to collaborate to find a workable solution that will suit the whole family .

CRIME OF PASSION

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:21:00 +0000

I was stunned today when somebody said to me that they’d read in the newspaper that if your wife had been unfaithful you’d be let off if you killed her for it! Now our criminal justice system might be constantly criticised for being too lenient, but it is never that much so. No, some of the headlines accompanying reports of the test cases on the new defence of “Loss of Control” to a murder charge were seriously misleading.

I am not a criminal lawyer and the points argued in the cases were somewhat technical but briefly, as I understand the position, if you calculatingly kill your spouse for sexual infidelity it is murder and the court must impose a life sentence upon you. If, however, that sexual infidelity is accompanied by a qualifying trigger leading you to lose your self control in circumstances where anyone similar would also have lost control, then you may have a defence. In the one test case that succeeded, the appellant’s murder conviction was quashed but he has gained a re-trial only and remains in custody. He argued that the infidelity was coupled with potentially provocative factors including his wife’s taunts about her sexual partners and the graphic descriptions that she gave him. This led to his loss of control manifesting itself in the killing. If successful, however, that defence does no more than reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter.

Either way the perpetrator of a crime of passion is going to spend many years behind iron bars. Believe me, if your spouse is having an affair, divorce has to be the more rational option.

CATCHING THEM OUT

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:18:00 +0000

When you travel around this globe of ours, it is always comforting to find an affinity with places that you have never previously visited. I experienced exactly this in Malaysia at the beginning of the month when I spotted the taxi above. Mind I don’t know how successful they are at catching cheating spouses. I can’t help thinking that if the chase were to be carried out in that taxi, the sign on the back might just be a give-away.

DIVORCE EXHIBITS

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 21:30:00 +0000

I returned from holiday in Malaysia yesterday after a long haul flight with KLM. At some point mid-air, my attention was drawn to an article in the in-flight magazine, Holland Herald, referring to the Museum of Broken Relationships in Zagreb. A quick check of the website on my return would suggest that this must be a Mecca for divorcees and their lawyers everywhere. Apparently it “offers a chance to overcome an emotional collapse through creation: by contributing to the museum’s collection.” That collection, according to KLM’s magazine, includes such items as a damaged garden gnome that one spouse hurled through a car windscreen and an axe that another man used to chop up his girlfriend’s possessions when she terminated their relationship.

The museum has recently been given an award for innovation and, if all of that wasn’t enough to entice you to visit, has a café where visitors have a chance to pull themselves together “after an emotional whirlwind caused by the exhibition.”

Even better the museum will apparently be exhibiting at the National Centre for Craft and Design in Sleaford, Lincolnshire from January 28th until April of this year. Of course if it doesn’t take your fancy, you can always try the V&A or, my own favourite, the National History Museum.

FACEBOOK CATHARSIS

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:24:00 +0000

Over the years, clients have referred to how they have ripped up, burnt, or even cut their former spouse out of, family photographs. I understand, however, that, in an age where couples take more photos than ever and proudly display them online in Facebook albums, a more cathartic remedy is available in the form of the delete button. It is no longer enough to simply change one’s status from “in a relationship” to “single”, but, and in addition, complete healing apparently stems from the deletion of all those offending pictures.

Ah, if only life were really that simple.

THEY SEEK HIM HERE

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:08:00 +0000

The report this week that Higgs Boson may have been spotted in Geneva is great news for physicists everywhere. One research scientist, however, is absolutely elated. Yes Mrs Boson has purportedly announced that it is about time the long missing other particle turned up and then proceeded to castigate him as an elusive loner, decaying whilst attracting mass.

HARD TIMES

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:00:00 +0000

I could almost feel sorry for the recession. It was only three years ago when banks were failing and the global economy went into melt-down that we were being told nobody could afford to divorce anymore. With share prices in free-fall and house values spiralling downwards to produce negative equity, we believed it. Figures published last week, however, show that the divorce rate rose by 4.9% from 2009 to 2010. Of course, it’s once again the recession’s fault; apparently all those monetary difficulties are driving a wedge between couples who then find solace in the divorce courts.

I wonder if there could be another explanation: like a catch-up from all those who deferred their split in 2008-09 in the hope that the value of their home or spouse’s pension might recover. A year on, they simply got sick of waiting!

SPLISH SPLASH

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:28:00 +0000

Divorce petitions are frequently based on allegations of unreasonable behaviour. What constitutes unreasonable behaviour is a subjective test, based on the experience of the person seeking the divorce. Examples given can frequently come in trends and as a result of the findings of a survey commissioned by Unilever this week, I predict that there will soon be an influx of divorce applications incorporating allegations to do with domestic bathing arrangements.

The days of “Save water; shower with a friend,” are now behind us. Sadly it would seem that we spend so long in the shower that we would actually use less hot water and, therefore, energy taking a bath. There is now clear scope for a green campaign directed at couples bathing together, with the added bonus that throwing in Archimedes’ Principle means two can bathe in less water and yet it will still be the same depth!

There has to be a snag, and of course there is, because two fully grown adults quite simply don’t fit comfortably in the average home bath tub! As a result any such campaign will need a major re-think and the best Judith’s Divorce can come up with, is “Don’t pull the plug; leave the bubbles for the mug.”

Yes divorce lawyers will potentially be inundated with claims that one half of the happy couple always insisted on being first into the tub, leaving the soap to dissolve and only a murky grime for the other half to wash in.

SWEET DREAMS

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:05:00 +0000

Once upon a time, I saw a client who was looking to divorce his wife. I asked him the reason but was taken by surprise when he told me that their whole marriage had been dictated by the state of their bed and there was now no choice but to bring the relationship to an end. Was he sure, I enquired, suggesting that perhaps it might be less painful to change the bed.

“No,” he said, “It’s the mattress you see. When we were first married we had a spring coil version and we bounced along together happily. Then a few years back, we changed it for memory foam. Now she never forgets; I’m harangued day and night for everything I’ve done and everything I’ve not done.”

“Well if that’s the case, surely a change of bed will help,” I persisted.

“Oh, we’ve done that,” he replied, “But we got a waterbed this time and I can’t sleep on it because every time I fall asleep she tries to drown me!”

Oh dear, do you think it would have been more civilised if they had simply drifted apart?

CO-OPERATIVE LEGAL SERVICES

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:23:00 +0000

The Co-op is going to offer family law legal services as soon as it can obtain the necessary licence from the SRA. Its recent press release suggested that it would be looking to recruit lots of family lawyers as a result.

“Is it good news other than for those lawyers whose positions might be at risk with the demise of legal aid?” Of course it is, anything with the potential for increasing standards on the high street is always good.

“Why is the Co-op choosing to go down this route, surely it has no previous expertise in the area?” Maybe not, but it has already recruited well established lawyers to head up and advise on the initiative and don’t forget that it has a long history of offering services at times of human misery as its funeral parlours already demonstrate.

“Okay but what’s in it for customers?” (Note we no longer call them clients) Well there won’t be any old fashioned “divis” but we can probably expect a move towards fixed pricing rather than hourly rates although I don’t anticipate that we shall see any two for one offers.

“How do the traditional high street firms feel?” Oh they are over the moon. To know that in the future their opposition has to live up to their label of co-operative, is like manna from heaven for those solicitors and their clients used to being dragged through the court process. Maybe collaborative law will expand even further!

THE NEED FOR LEGISLATIVE CHANGE CONTINUES

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:06:00 +0000

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in the Kernott v Jones case again highlighted the urgent need to reform the law affecting couples that live together, according to Resolution.

The Supreme Court declared that an unmarried couple’s share in property can be adjusted after they separate, provided there is evidence of a common intention to adjust ownership, or such intention can be imputed.

Resolution said that although one in six couples in the UK currently live together without being married, huge numbers of people face distress, injustice and hardship because of out-of-date laws surrounding cohabitation combined with the “common law” marriage myth. Those affected include children who were not party to their parents' decision not to marry.

In making yesterday’s judgment, both Lord Collins and Lord Wilson were critical of the continuing failure of Parliament to legislate on cohabitation.

David Allison, Chair of Resolution, said: “The fact that it has taken four different hearings in four different places to determine the outcome highlights that the law for cohabitants is a mess and is in urgent need of reform. Despite the “common law” marriage myth, it is possible to live together with someone for decades and even to have children together, and then simply walk away without taking any responsibility for a former partner’s welfare. That is simply wrong. The current situation for people who live together often creates injustice and hardship, and the law fails to reflect the way people are choosing to live their lives.”

Resolution is calling for new laws for couples who have lived together for five years or more – or for less time in cases of exceptional hardship. For cohabiting couples with children, the law would offer protection regardless of how long they have lived together.

These couples would have an automatic right to apply for certain financial orders if they separate. If a couple wished to opt out of this provision, they could do so by way of a written agreement. Such a law would prevent injustice by allowing the courts to recognise a cohabiting relationship and decide on an outcome that is fair and reasonable.

PARENTING HOAX

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 14:06:00 +0000

There was what I understand to have been a hoax circulating on the Internet over the course of the last week, claiming that the results of a study from the California Parenting Institute show that every parenting style causes children to grow up into adults with problems, becoming “profoundly flawed and joyless human beings.” Regardless of whether or not the parents are over protective or permissive, their children suffer feelings of bitterness and isolation throughout adulthood. Sham it may have been but perhaps it caught so many people out because there could almost be a resonance of truth about it.

It was Philip Larkin, who in his poem “This Be the Verse,” claimed:
“They f… you up your mum and dad
They may not mean to, but they do
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.”

Certainly Lord Justice Wall thought so too when he quoted Larkin in a judgment which he gave back in 2009, adding for good measure: “This mother and father are no different from many separated parents who make the damage to their children caused by their separation much worse by continuing their battles against each other in legal proceedings”

FAMILY JUSTICE REVIEW

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:01:00 +0000

The Family Justice Review was published today and despite the reports in a number of our national newspapers, one can’t help thinking it could be a “bit of a damp squib.” An opportunity has certainly been lost to propose any radical changes to the law and one has to wonder whether the money will ever be made available to follow the recommendations that are made. It’s all very well and good for the report to say that care cases should be resolved within a period of six months, but with the court system already stretched beyond belief are extra judicial hours going to be provided to achieve this and will staff- cuts at the associated agencies on whose reports the courts rely be halted?

An internet hub for the initiation of all divorce cases sounds marvellous but the Court Service has generally lagged behind the private sector so far as technology is concerned and one has to wonder whether there is the actual capability to develop this within the foreseeable future. Mind the Ministry of Justice is going to have to come up with something or it is shortly going to be swamped by litigants in person as we move ever closer to the withdrawal of legal aid from families in dispute at the time of relationship breakdowns.

That part of the report that appears to have really incensed the media is inevitably the about turn from the interim report where a legal presumption in favour of shared care of children as between Mum and Dad was touted. The Chair of the review, David Norgrove, appears to have anticipated this would be the case for I note that in his foreword he acknowledges that “some will be disappointed by our decision to recommend against a legal presumption of shared parenting.” Whilst he stresses that shared parenting should be encouraged, he qualifies this with “where this is in the child’s best interests,” and goes on to explain that the opinion of the review body was that shared parenting is best achieved by “parental education” and “information.”

“Progress depends,” he writes, “on a general social expectation of the full involvement of both parents in the lives of their children before separation, not on changes in the law.”

The aim of the report is to be applauded, namely to find a quicker, simpler, more cost-effective system, but if a cultural shift is required for the sentiment of the report to be fulfilled, that will never happen overnight. So will anything much change? We'll just have to wait and see.

IF ONLY I COULD TURN BACK TIME

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 16:35:00 +0000

The clocks went back last night and half the population took advantage to spend an extra hour in bed whilst the other half got up early. Did anyone take advantage of the extra hour of rolled back time to do something completely different?

So many clients going through a divorce are prone from time to time to express regret about their marriage: “If only; if I’d known then what I know now; I wouldn’t make the same mistake again; if only I could turn the clock back.”
Of course we all make mistakes and bad things invariably happen, regardless. Isn’t that what life’s about?

But how many of us really would make different choices or could behave differently if we turned back time and were living our lives again?

THE WEATHER FORECAST

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 18:11:00 +0000

Did I hear it correctly? Did tomorrow’s forecast really mirror how some people can feel after divorce or separation: “Dreary at first, becoming cheerful again later!”

Whatever happened to the usual: “Overcast with sunny spells”?

SURGERY CASEBOOK

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:50:00 +0000

When you live in the countryside, many of the facilities that urban dwellers take for granted are denied to you. One advantage, apart from the mobile library service, is that your doctor can not only prescribe medication but also dispense it. So it was this evening that I went to the Surgery to collect a prescription.

Whilst queuing is not generally required, I did find myself behind a long-married couple. As he discussed his ailments with the member of staff on duty, his wife turned to me. “Which desk do you think I hand him over at?” she asked, motioning with her head in turn to the reception and dispensing counters.

I must have looked quizzical, because she then pointed to a postcard stuck on the wall. It showed two elderly ladies gossiping; above their heads were text balloons:
“I don’t like the look of my husband, so I’m taking him to the doctor’s this evening,” said one.
“I’ll come too,” said the other. “I can’t stand the sight of mine!”

Finally I have confirmation that clients are more likely to see a doctor about relationship issues than a solicitor!

FAST CHEATS

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:19:00 +0000

This weekend’s report of the marathon runner in Northumberland who cheated when he dropped out of the race after 20 miles then caught a bus to complete the race and ended up clinching a place on the podium, reminded me of a story a client told me, once upon a time. She came into my office in her running kit. Every few minutes she would stretch or alternatively start jogging on the spot and, whilst doing so, complained that her husband had cheated on her although she’d only caught him out the once.

“Do you know the lady involved?” I asked.
“You mean the taxi driver” she said.
“Oh, is that what she does?”
“Yes and the distress at seeing him emerge from that taxi at the edge of the wood, when I thought we were both in serious training for the Great North Run will stay with me forever!”
“I am sorry,” I indicated.

“Oh, there’s no need for that, it’s done wonders for my fitness levels. He used to take off like lightening and I could never understand how he maintained the pace. We were like the hare and the tortoise to begin with, but I tell you what it’s certainly made me increase my speed, just trying to keep him in sight. Not that I managed it until that day when, my leg muscles working to perfection, I finally saw him getting into her taxi just over the first hill! ”

SINKING TO THE DEPTHS

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:41:00 +0000

As someone who has always played second fiddle to Outdoor Man’s love for his boats (of which there have been several during our long marriage), I would like to be able to say that I have some sympathy for Mandy Fleming who was jailed today for sinking her ex-husband’s yacht. I well know that constant expenditure on electronic compasses, rope, sails and other gizmos can be a source of frustration when, after all, the funds could have been spent on bouquets of flowers and other expressive gestures. But isn’t it a universal truth that men need their toys? Without them, what else would they have to polish?

More to the point why, if you are estranged, would you seek to entertain your new lover on board your husband’s yacht? Further, having done so, isn’t sinking the vessel somewhat excessive? I'd always thought that cutting up his shirts was plummeting to the depths; clearly worse wrongs can be inflicted.

FAIR SHARES

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:11:00 +0000

Financial settlements are intended to reflect fairness; the division of assets takes into account various factors set out in law including needs and resources, and measured against what is invariably referred to as a “yardstick of equality.” Both spouses are meant to get their “fair share” although often there can be a sense of losing out when one or both parties’ innate sense of fairness may not correlate with the law itself. Not every separation needs to end in bitterness and an acrimonious court fight. Indeed where a couple can remain amicable, I never fail to be surprised at all the things that can be shared between them. With an increasing number of couples resolving issues by mediation or collaboration, sharing rather than dividing invariably finds potential for discussion, although it can only be properly embraced by those who are fully committed.

Top of the list is always the children and sharing the parenting of their little-ones rather than creating divisions reaps benefits for the whole family. They may be rare, but some couples manage to continue to share days together with their children and I’ve even known some still take a family holiday.

Pets too are capable of sharing. Fido doesn’t always split his time between houses but one partner can take their turn at dog-walking especially when they want a companion for a long distance ramble.

Then there are keepsakes. The prize trophy won together in the best kept garden competition transposes from mantelpiece to mantelpiece every six months.

The timeshare too is a popular choice. With the potential for a loss on sale, many couples decide to retain their joint ownership and take their holidays and pay the fees in rotation.

Insurance policies are often continued on joint lives for joint benefit especially if there is the prospect of a large final bonus or life cover to benefit children perhaps to defray inheritance tax or help meet their upkeep.

Fields can provide grazing for one person’s sheep part of the year and be ploughed for the other’s crops the remainder.

A barn or other building in need of renovation is often continued as a joint project, enabling gains to be maximised and divided.

Cars are sometimes shared, perhaps where one person works at the end of a public transport route and has no need for the family car during the week but needs it for occasional weekend trips or to facilitate contact arrangements.

Lawyers never like this but there are even couples who keep a joint bank account for ease in managing one household’s finances and on the basis that they have agreed the ground rules for operating the account.

The one that always amazes me though is when someone tells me that although the marriage has broken down and they find it intolerable to live with their spouse, they intend to remain in partnership to run their business together. Some never manage to do so and the business relationship breaks down amidst the same rancour as the marriage, but others succeed in building vibrant, thriving enterprises together. As one entrepreneur told me: “A business partnership is like marriage in that you are tied together by a contract and money. Unlike marriage though, you are not expected to share a home with your business partner.”

SHOCKED BY REVELATIONS

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:36:00 +0000

An article in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday has had UK divorce lawyers and their clients reeling with shock at the revelation that six figure mark-ups have been applied to solicitors’ fees for some of Baroness Shackleton's clients. However the explanation that she is slack with her time-keeping and makes herself available to clients out of hours appears to have been accepted and, moreover, her clients are reported as being happy with the service they have received. I guess when you are worth millions, there’s no need to worry about how to pay for your legal services.

For most people however costs are a major concern and they should be reassured by the fact that they are entitled from the outset to a full explanation of how costs will be calculated. Whilst it is always difficult to give a fixed quote in relation to cases arising from matrimonial issues, clients should expect to be given an estimate of the range of costs and a warning if an initial costs estimate is likely to be exceeded. Most family lawyers pride themselves on being transparent about their charging arrangements. Mark-ups, whether of the magnitude reported or otherwise, are not generally applied. On my own part, I endeavour to bill clients at monthly intervals and purely in relation to the time actually spent; that way there are no hidden shocks or mark-ups at the end of a matter.

THE POWER OF THE BEAN

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:10:00 +0000

I like to think that any client visiting Macks’ office is offered a tea or coffee. I have no statistics, however, as to the take up of the beverages. Recent research has suggested that caffeine in someway helps to combat the onset of depression. Separation and relationship breakdown can, of course, be an understandable trigger for stress and depression. In the interests of a holistic approach should I, therefore, be trying to entice all divorce clients to accept the offer of a caffeine-laced drink? Are the risks of addiction to coffee beans outweighed by the benefits? If I too have a coffee while we chat, will I turn into a happy, smiley personality? Outdoor Man says my drinks need something stronger than caffeine adding to them to do that!

A BUSMAN'S READ

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:56:00 +0000

Those of you who follow me on Twitter will know that my trip to Spain this summer ended up as something of a busman’s holiday so far as paperback novels were concerned. Indeed it wasn’t easy lying on the beach in all that heat, trying desperately to refrain from handing out gratuitous legal advice to various characters in my choice of novels. Amongst them were:

Solar by Ian McEwan where the main character is five times divorcee Michael Beard. I found him a most unlikeable personality although curiously women (apart from his series of wives) didn’t seem to mind. Clever and ruthlessly ambitious, his downfall mirrors that of so many men in public life when he lets a certain appendage control his life as much as the grey matter between his ears.

One Day by David Nicholls which set me wondering if there really are people out there who lead such shallow lives. Comic in parts, emotionally moving in others, the book skipped over the misery of divorce and thwarted love suffered by the two main protagonists although they ultimately transformed them. Will I go to see the film, now it’s at the cinema? Probably not.

No Time for Goodbye by Linwood Barclay, a murder mystery full of suspense and arising from dysfunctional family life. In my capacity as a divorce lawyer I couldn’t help wondering if divorce wouldn’t have been easier. Nevertheless I couldn’t put the book down until all the secrets and unexpected twists had been unravelled.

The Road to Lichfield by Penelope Lively, a story of suburban adultery in 1970’s Britain. Maybe wronged spouses put up with more in those days because the husband in this novel, after establishing his wife has had an affair, simply remarks to her that he trusts she won’t be making a habit of such liaisons. She meekly agrees she won’t be, before they walk out into the future together.

Next holiday, I’m going to stick to sci fi.

THE AUTUMN EQUINOX

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:55:00 +0000

I appologise for the lack of activity on my blog of late, attributable, I have to confess, to a very enjoyable holiday period and that despite the rather disappointing summer weather. However it’s the autumn equinox tomorrow and time for life to return to normal and, as the evenings draw in, blog-writing to resume. In Greek mythology autumn, of course, began when the goddess Persephone returned underground to live with her husband Hades. It’s arguably not, therefore, the most appropriate time of the year to be writing about separation. However, I confess that I haven’t been made aware of much underground living going on in Darlington at the moment, and nor have I any knowledge of reconciliations taking place in cellars or other subterranean places. Whilst I actively encourage anyone considering reconciliation to try their hardest, I always remind them that a meeting room at Relate may be a more supportive venue than a coal mine.

AGONY COLUMN FOR DIVORCE LARDIES

noreply@blogger.com (Judith) — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:26:00 +0000

Doughnuts
Originally uploaded by zimpenfish

Dear Agony Aunt

I have been in a loveless marriage for the last 10 years and had finally made an appointment with a solicitor in order to start divorce proceedings. I weigh 20 stones and have read this week that divorcing will mean I gain even more pounds. What should I do; I can’t continue to live with my husband but also can’t risk damaging my health by adding to my obesity?

Janet

Dear Janet

Despite what you have read in the newspapers, the study which was undertaken by Ohio University actually found that whilst marital transition causes women to gain weight following marriage, it is men who are more likely to add to their girth on divorce. In contrast most women actually lose weight dealing with the trauma of separation. Therefore you should go for it girl, get to that appointment and shed your fat!

Yours truly,

Agony Aunt

Dear Agony Aunt

I am a forty something male, recently separated and piling on the stones in the run up to my divorce. How do I cure this? Should I ask my wife to come back?

Roland

Dear Roly Poly

Definitely not. Just buy yourself a recipe book, cancel the takeaways and get yourself down to the gym. Your good wife left you for a reason and now you have to learn how to look after yourself properly and without recourse to convenience foods laden with calories.

Kind regards

Agony Aunt

PS. To all my readers out there – anyone for doughnuts?