Even celebrities shout at each other...

Paul Simon and his wife, Edie Brickell, have appeared in Court in Connecticut charged with disorderly conduct after what they are calling a 'family dispute'.

It seems that they both gave as good as they got, with the local police chief saying 'there was aggressiveness on both sides".

However, by the time it all got to Court, the couple were back holding hands, saying they didn't feel threatened by each other and seeing no need for the Court to make a protective order.

Each party suffered minor injuries and the incident was classed as one of domestic violence by the police.

Whilst the papers today have been making somewhat light of the situation, domestic violence is a serious issue - if you feel you are in any way in danger you really can get help.   If you don't know where to turn to, email me in the first instance.

More sex please, we're from Maidenhead

Apparently Maidenhead (a town near Slough in Berkshire) is the nookie capital of Great Britain.  A report in The Telegraph recently puts this down to a lot of wealthy 'out at work' banking types and a lot of 'stay at home' wives with nothing better to do than visit the gym and have lunch with the girls.

Maidenhead has the highest number of millionaires outside of London, and property prices average an eye-watering £450,000.  This means that couples who do want to divorce probably won't be able to afford to live in the area if they sell the house, and neither can afford to buy the other out...

One of my colleagues grew up in Maidenhead and is now wondering what her life would be like if she hadn't moved to South Wales.

Wealthier but less happy, perhaps??

We are uncoupled...

Yes, you've guessed right - it's our own dear Gwynnie and Chris Martin who have announced that they are going through a 'conscious uncoupling'.  This is obviously how the stars do it - the rest of us just 'split up' and 'get divorced'...

Whether they are actually going to 'get divorced' is of course a moot point - maybe they're just splitting up?  Or procrastinating?    Or are they aiming to do it 'differently' to the rest of us and, if so, how??

Whatever 'conscious uncoupling' actually means, we hope they manage to have a civilised, fair and pain-free divorce without causing distress to their two children.  It can be done.

I doubt if either of them needs legal advice but, hey, why not?  Give me a ring?  One of you?

What's in a name?

So, you decide to divorce...  What name are you going to be known by?

For women divorcing, you can either go back to your maiden name or keep your married name which you might want to do because (a) it's the same as your children (b) you use it for business (c) you prefer it to your maiden name and (d) it's prestigious and gets you a good table in restaurants...

But what do you do if you think your name is REALLY important?  You demand it as part of the divorce settlement!

When David Hasselhoff divorced his wife, Pamela Bach, he negotiated the exclusive use of the moniker 'The Hoff' and also the slogan 'Don't Hassle The Hoff'.

Let's just hope he has a bumper sticker of that on his car...

It wasn't me, guv....

An investment banker who claims an imposter stood in for him at his own wedding has fail din his attempt to avoid a big money divorce suit.

The London investment banker told a judge his wife marriage another man 'of the same name' while he himself was relaxing at home some 6 hours away.

However, the Judge granted the wife a decree nisi last year after describing her husband as an 'unreliable' witness and ruling that 'there was a valid marriage between the couple'.

Our non-husband had pointed to a mysterious thumb-print on his marriage certificate - and an absence of wedding photos - to prove he was still a bachelor.

But his complaints were thrown out by the judge, who said he had 'no prospect' of blocking his wife's divorce petition.

The banker met his wife on an Indian matrimonial website in 2003, they became engaged just three days later and a wedding was fixed for the following month.  The fiancee's family arranged a short marriage ceremony in advance of the full festivities, in order to speed along her French visa application prior to the couple's move to Europe.  Our banker said he wasn't present at the first ceremony, even though the groom's name on the wedding certificate matched his own.  He also said he didn't notice the discrepancies until a year after the relationship had fallen down.

After the hearing, the wife was understandably said to be 'very happy' at the outcome.

And the moral of this story?  Take LOTS of photos, just in case...

Can we fix it? Probably not...

Despite having THREE pre-nups in place, Bob The Builder’s daughter Victoria Luckwell has been ordered by a judge to give her ex-husband a home and pay off his large debts.

It is stated that Limata, the ex-husband, had gone back on three pre-marital agreements that he would not make claims against family assets. But the judge ruled that proper provision must be made for him – despite the agreements – to avoid the divorce having a damaging impact on the couple's three children.

He said the children could find themselves living with their 37-year-old mother 'in relative luxury' and then staying with their father, who was in debt and lacked assets, 'in relative penury'.

The judge said: "If all the facts were the same but the genders reversed, it is inconceivable that the agreements would outweigh making a substantial award to the wife, even if the children were primarily living with the husband and only intermittently staying with her."

While Victoria was understandably upset, the solicitor for Limata said that he had made 'financial contributions himself during the marriage' and that 'he sought and was given sufficient funds to meet his real financial needs, including a home in which to live.'  She added:  'Marriage brings with it important legal and moral obligations to care for the other spouse in a time of need, including if a marriage breaks down.'

You can see the original version of this article in the Guardian here

Be very careful with text messages!

Apparently there is a growing trend of sending 'sext' messages (that's a text message picture of your, um, private parts) and it can get you in a great deal of hot water.  Never mind that your loved one might be a tad surprised, a recent case in the High Court heard how a man was denied access to his young son when his ex-partner accidentally received a sext message of his crown jewels.  Oops.

Even though the contact had been largely amicable, the sext message led to a breakdown in the relationship and access broke down.

Luckily for our hapless dexter, the Judge saw fit to rule in his favour on this occasion, describing it as 'an incredibly unfortunate event' but saying that it shouldn't deny his chance to have a relationship with his son.

Just to complicate matters, it seems that the man himself didn't send the sext to his ex-partner - he sent it to his new lover and 'somehow' it got sent on to his ex-partner.

Perhaps best not to sext at all, eh?