The piece is interesting, although I have to admit that I don’t find it that surprising.  Humans are social animals, and psychological research (such as these conformity studies) shows just how influenced folks are by what’s happening to the people around them.  The idea of ideas spreading has, in the last couple of years, even made it into popular culture in Malcolm Gladwell’s imminently readable “The Tipping Point“.  (A scary section in there is not the idea of divorce being contagious, but the idea of suicide!)

It is sad to hear that the marriage primarily featured in the ABC piece ended as it did.  But, the reason that the wife in that story decided to divorce was because she saw that her recently-divorced daughter move into a happier relationship.  I can’t fault someone for deciding they want to be happier.

There are some tips at the end of the story that are good little tidbits for thought.

Taken from examples in the story, here are things not to do:

• Go to an online dating service and state that you are single and childless while actually going through a divorce and seeking custody of the kids;
• Claim that you spend time with your kids when your online-gaming log-ins prove that you don’t;
• Deny drug or alcohol consumption and then post pictures of yourself indulging in those vices.

It seems that an increased awareness of social networking sites as potential sources of evidence should eventually lead to fewer and fewer of these gaffes.  In the meantime, here are some great tips from the article:

1. Watch what you say - If you plan on lying under oath, don’t load up social networks with evidence to the contrary.
2. Beware frenemies.
3. Photos can be costly.
4. Privacy settings - Find them. Get to know them. Use them. Keep up when Facebook decides to change them.

The “family home” of Mr. Robson is a hall built in 1673 on property that includes 2,050 country acres that are complete with 18th century gardens and a village of 18 houses.  Now, while the property is very old, and while it was an inheritance, it has actually only been in Robson’s family for 60 years.  Who did it belong to the rest of the time?

The matter before the court now is whether it was fair for the judge to order to Mr. Robson to sell the place.  Robson’s counsel is arguing that 8 million pounds for a housing fund and income fund is too much, that the lifestyle that the family enjoyed over the 25-year-marriage was based on overspending, and that the judge who made the decision didn’t like Mr. Robson.

In Washington, property that has been inherited is considered separate property.  Although the law allows a court to order that the separate property of one spouse be awarded to the other if it’s necessary to achieve an equitable result, that kind of order is rarely entered.  I’m not aware of an instance, and have always imagined it would take something like Bill Gates-level wealth.  Considering the estate is supposed to be worth 42 million pounds, it’s not an insignificant asset.

Well, if you’re this lawyer, you laugh in the court, call your wife’s request for spousal support a “joke”, call opposing counsel “a moron” and then find yourself found in criminal contempt of court.

Edward Weltman did apologize and the results fall into the good news/bad news realm:  The good news is that his sentence was reduced from six months to three day.  The bad news is that two of those nights were spent on the jail’s medical floor.  All things considered, that’s not a bad trade-off for uncommonly bad courtroom behavior, especially when the person doing it has plenty of experience with courtroom norms!