Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Paul McCartney Divorce Update:8-27-07 Maybe All Paul Needs is Love, Love...

Sir Paul McCartney will reportedly pay his estranged wife Heather Mills $80 million in an out-of-court divorce settlement - $20 million for each of the four years they were married. The former Beatle has agreed to hand over his luxury Georgian house in St John's Wood, north-west London and a Beverly Hills mansion in Los Angeles - which together are said to be worth $25 million.

The News of the World reports that McCartney's 35-year-old fashion designer daughter Stella and her elder sister Mary are angry that the deal means their father cannot speak out to counter Mills' allegations that he was abusive to her.

Update 8-27-07: Paul McCartney may be so frugal that he will reconcile with estranged wife Heather Mills in order to save the $70 million should they divorce. Apparently, there have been signs of an improving relationship between McCartney and Mills. The couple's three-year-old daughter Bea may be facilitating a reconciliation. Stay tuned $$$$


Viper said...

Horror of Divorce

The American Myth of Divorce

By William C. Spohn

For the past 30 years, Americans have used these ideas to justify their increasing recourse to divorce. Recently, however, mounting empirical evidence indicates that these justifications are illusions. The widespread practice of divorce in this culture has been based on the wishful thinking of adults while its tragic cost has been borne by children.

Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's The Divorce Culture analyzes the history and social significance of divorce. More importantly, she raises troubling ethical questions about the practice.

Since 1974, 1 million children a year have seen their parents divorce, and 45 percent of all American children can expect their families to break up before they reach the age of 18.

Instead of looking at marital breakup in terms of an ethic of obligation to others, Americans began to see it in terms of an ethic of obligation to the self. In other words, no longer were the parents' interests presumed to be subordinate to their children's; instead, individual happiness became the new standard by which a marriage was judged.

According to Dafoe, this shift was a result of the psychological revolution of the 1960s and '70s, which changed "the locus of divorce from the outer social world to the inner world of the self." In this view, "the family, once the realm of the fettered and obligated self, [became] a fertile realm for exploring the potential of the self, unfettered by roles and obligations."

A more troubling picture emerged from studies of larger populations and from tracing the effects on children over time. It turned out there was no trickle down of psychological benefits from mothers to their children. Even though 80 percent of men and 50 percent of women felt their lives were better after divorce, the effects on children were disastrous. By almost every measure, children in divorced families fared worse: emotional problems, early sexual experimenting, dropping out of school, delinquency, teen pregnancy, and drug use.

Remarriage was no solution; children in stepfamilies were two to three times more likely than their counterparts to suffer emotional and behavioral problems and twice as likely to have learning problems.

Long-term studies by Judith Wallerstein and others argue that the impact of divorce on children is cumulative. Even 15 years after their parents' divorce, many children are emotionally troubled, occupationally aimless, and unable to sustain a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Their parents' inability to sustain the relationship that counted most to them and the subsequent loss of connection to their fathers seem to have eroded these young peoples' sense of identity and ability to trust others and commit themselves.

But once we pay attention to the children, it becomes impossible to pretend that divorce is primarily an individual's choice rather than a profoundly social event.

"The truth is that divorce involves a radical redistribution of hardship, from adults to children, and therefore cannot be viewed as a morally neutral act."

So, should we stay together for the sake of the children? Dafoe argues that in most cases the answer is yes. Divorce makes sense in the 10 percent to 15 percent of troubled marriages that involve high-level and persistent conflict with severe abuse and physical violence.

... Traditionally, spouses were obligated not merely to stay in a troubled marriage for the sake of the children but to improve it.

Society also has a stake in parents' remaining committed: "It is the experience of dependable and durable family bonds that shapes a child's sense of trust and fosters development of such traits as initiative, independence, and even risk-taking,"

Children have moral priority; the social cost of divorce has to be counted even more than the benefit to the individual spouse; society has a stake in keeping marriages together; fathers are not dispensable. Such appeals may be able to counter the ethos of expressive individualism that has redefined marriage as an institution for the self-fulfillment of adults.

William C. Spohn is Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good at Santa Clara University.

Ron said...

Wow, Viper, that was a mouthful. You must be an attorney or something.

Legal Pub said...

Viper is an honored patron. He is an outstanding divorce attorney. He offers not just legal insight, he provides nasty venom that can turn any amicable dissolution of marriage into a full blown nuclear war. Viper as always, thanks for your input.

Anonymous said...

Blonde Bombshell:

No matter how much she gets, she deserves it. To put up with any man let alone a Beatle, she deserves just compensation, her fair share.

I am looking for a ride home tonight, any takers? Bring your bank statement so I can make sure you meet my standards.

Get a real life guys


Anonymous said...

California Surfer Dude:

Serious bucks! That is why marriage is on my black list.
Surfer Dude

Viper said...

Sex Change Should End Alimony, Man Argues

CLEARWATER, Fla. (March 28) - Lawrence Roach agreed to pay alimony to the woman he divorced, not the man she became after a sex change, his lawyers argued in an effort to end the payments.

But the ex-wife's attorneys argued Tuesday that the operation doesn't alter the agreement.

Lawyers for Roach and his ex-wife grappled in a transsexual rights case that delves into relatively uncharted legal territory.

Only a 2004 Ohio case has addressed whether or not a transsexual can still collect alimony after a sex change, those involved say.

"There is not a lot out there to help us," Circuit Judge Jack R. St. Arnold said.

Roach and his wife, Julia, divorced in 2004 after 18 years of marriage. The 48-year-old utility worker agreed to pay her $1,250 a month in alimony. Since then, Julia Roach, 55, had a sex change and legally changed her name to Julio Roberto Silverwolf.

So, what do you all think?

Anonymous said...

According to Parade Magazine, Halle Berry attempted suicide after her failed marriage to baseball slugger David Justice.

"I was sitting in my car, and I knew the gas was coming when I had an image of my mother finding me," she tells the magazine. "She sacrificed so much for her children, and to end my life would be an incredibly selfish thing to do. It was all about a relationship. My sense of worth was so low," Berry says. "I promised myself I would never be a coward again."

J.D. Mills