An unprecedented phenomenon is taking place among baby boomers. In 1970 only 13% of adults over 50 were divorced, separated or never married. Today 33% of adults between 46 and 64 are divorced, separated or never married, according to census data compiled by Bowling Green State University in Ohio. As well, experts believe those numbers will increase as younger people approach their 40′s and 50′s, keeping in mind the lower rates of marriage among this age group.

The ramifications of this new reality are enormous for society in general. While older spouses typically rely on their spouses for support and care, the elderly single will look to government programs to assist them.

Statistics show that unmarried boomers are five times more likely to live in poverty than their married counterparts. They are also three times more likely to need food stamps, disability payments and social assistance.

Experts offer the following reasons for the surge in grey divorce:

1. People are living longer and married couples in their 50′s or 60′s are more reluctant to spend the rest of their lives together in a bad marriage;

2. As women become more financially independent they are more willing to leave a situation that their mothers and grandmothers could not, for purely economic reasons;

3. Baby boomers who experienced the sexual revolution of the 1960′s and 1970′s feel less social pressure to marry or stay married;

4. Being divorced or single as an older adult no longer holds the stigma it once did.

In our throw-away, secular society it is not surprising that the marriage covenant between husband and wife no longer has any value. However, spouses who have been abused verbally, emotionally, or physically can never be faulted for getting out to protect themselves and often, their children.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

You know you’re not in Kansas anymore when you open a newspaper and read another story about a teacher charged with sex offences for exploiting, raping or sexually assaulting a child, their student.

Whether you read Britain’s Daily Mail, Australia’s Daily Telegraph or any North American newspaper, you can’t escape the reality that students are no longer safe in their classrooms.

An Associated Press study identified 2,570 teachers who had lost their teaching credentials between 2001 and 2001 for sexual misconduct. In another study the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation estimated that between 1991 and 2000, 290,000 students had experienced some type of physical sexual abuse.

You shouldn’t be surprised to learn that the AP study confirmed that of the teachers who had their licenses revoked only 10% were women, however, you wouldn’t know that from the media coverage. The stories that hit the press focus on younger, attractive female teachers.

So, why would a mature professional woman, often married, ruin her career, her life and her family’s life to sleep with a 16-year old boy?

I have a number of theories:

1. The Cougar Effect

Today’s society has glamourized the notion of an older woman with a younger man. Courtney Cox’s TV show “Cougar Town” featuring Courtney as a 40-something divorcee, is the tip of a trend that saturates the media. After all, what could be wrong with a teenage boy having an affair with an experienced older woman?

2. We Fell in Love

The most infamous teacher/student case is that of teacher, wife and mother, Mary Kay Letourneau, then 34-years old and her 13-year old student, Vili Fualaau, both from Washington State. She was sentenced to six months in jail and three years probation for having sex with her young student. Her sentence was more lenient because she agreed she would no longer see Vili, however, shortly after she finished her six-month term, she was found having sexual relations with him in a car.

She then served seven years in prison, giving birth to their two children, conceived when she was out of jail. Upon her release Mary Kay and Vili married, selling the photos to Entertainment Weekly for $750,000. She also wrote a book about her story which was published in France.

Interestingly, her father John Schmitz, who was a California Senator and U.S. Congressman, saw his political career flounder after it was discovered that he had carried on an affair and had two children out-of-wedlock. Her parents separated after the news broke, but later reconciled.

Part 2 of this post will be published tomorrow.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Actor Dennis Quaid, the more reserved brother of Vancouver resident, Randy Quaid, is in the throes of his third divorce. He and his estranged wife, Kimberly Buffington Quaid, were married for seven years.

In 2007 the Quaid’s had twins who almost died after mistakenly receiving an overdose of a blood thinner while in the care of the prestigious Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles. The Quaids were awarded $500,000.00 in compensation for their infants’ ordeal.

The divorce petition filed by Ms. Quaid last week in their home state of Texas alleges a conflict of personalities and the relief sought includes a division of assets and spousal support.

That’s where it gets tough, especially for Ms. Quaid. Until very recently, spousal support would only be awarded if the potential recipient had suffered physical abuse from her spouse, and the violence resulted in a conviction against the assaultive spouse, or the spouses had been married for at least ten years. If one qualified for support the term of support was limited to three years and the lesser of $2500.00 per month or 20% of the payor’s income.

In September 2011 the support law was amended to provide that support could be paid, in cases of family violence and a ten-year marriage, to a maximum amount of $5000.00 per month for a period no longer than five years. If a marriage lasted between ten and twenty years, support could be paid for seven years and marriages over thirty years could result in support payments for ten years.

While a number of U.S. states are overhauling their spousal support laws to limit spousal support payments and eliminate life-time support, Texas has been ahead of the curve for many years.

If one compares Texas support law to British Columbia support law, there is a stark difference. While Texan spouses are subject to onerous eligibility criteria, British Columbian spouses will typically receive support, particularly if they did not work during the marriage, with the amount being based on the husband’s income and the family’s lifestyle during the marriage. Certainly, there are no caps of $2500.00 or $5000 per month.

In fact, it is not unusual in B.C. to see indefinite support awards of upwards of $10,000 per month. Texan men have it easy when it comes to spousal support

I expect that in troubled Texan marriages husbands have a significant incentive to pull the plug before year ten has come to an end. Sounds like the good ol’ boys club is flourishing.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Unless you have been a victim of a custody battle or a family law lawyer, you probably cannot imagine the level some litigants will sink to, to “win at all costs”.

Family law publications and criminal law case books are rife with examples of extreme retaliation, tactics, and tricks parents employ to wrench their child away from a demonized father or mother.

From murdering their child’s other parent, or murdering their child, to kidnapping a child, there are no options off the table for parents seeped in rage over their sudden inability to control their spouse and children. (To read posts on these topics see: November 26, 2011 “4 of the Sleaziest Child Abduction Tactics”; April 23, 2011 “Murder is Cheaper and Quicker Than Divorce”; and February 22, 2011 “Family Law Nightmares”)

The number of recent media reports of separated husbands killing their wives is frightening, particularly when law enforcement lacks evidence to prosecute and convict the offenders.

In these worst-case scenarios, one often recognizes emotional or mental imbalance in the individuals who cannot stand to lose, even if it means a permanent loss of their freedom.

There are, of course, far-less draconian methods of interfering with a child’s parental relationship, such as the strategy used by California mother, Alicia Spenger.

Her estranged husband and the father of their child, Mitchell Katz, was the owner of a California winery.
Ms. Spenger collaborated with a private investigator and a cast of characters who convinced Mr. Katz that his winery should be the subject of a reality television program.

In an elaborate charade, which included meetings, emails and a site visit by a TV camera crew and the show’s producer, Mr. Katz imbibed a few glasses of wine with the crew, only to drive away from his winery and be arrested for drunk driving.

Police Officer Stephen Tanabe’s presence down the road was no coincidence. He was a part of the plan so carefully engineered by Ms. Spenger and her private detective, Christopher Butler, who is no stranger to these kinds of set-ups.

Now Mr. Katz has filed a law suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages against his former wife and others who conspired to lead him into the ruse.

Yes, he willingly drank wine and was not under any coercion by anyone to drive after drinking, however, the act of his wife planning his demise, both from a family court and criminal law perspective is chilling.

A litigant like Alicia Spenger puts her “wants’ before her child’s best interests. Simply devious.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

In a startling report from the British Journal of Medical Ethics, an Oxford research assistant and professor at the University of Melbourne, Dr. Francesca Minerva, and her co-author Dr. Alberto Giubilini, from the University of Milan, argue that “after-birth” abortion should be available to women on the same grounds “pre-birth” abortion is.

The reasons for their position include:

1. A young baby is not a real person and so killing a baby is not much different than aborting a child;

2. Even if a baby is healthy, if the child’s mother decides she is unable to look after the baby, the mother’s wishes should prevail;

3. Disabled children may be happy, but they will never reach the potential of a “normal” child;

4. To bring up a disabled child, may be a burden on the child’s family and society;

5. The child’s mother may not have the time or energy to care for a baby;

6. While adoption may be attractive, it could cause undue stress on a mother;

Needless to say, the fall-out from Dr. Minerva’s article “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” has been received with shock by scholars, ethicists, and religious leaders in Britain. The question posed is as offensive as promoting the culling of the elderly, once they become less than useful members of the community.

The Journal’s editor defends the piece, saying the publication’s role is to present well-reasoned arguments and not to promote one particular moral view.

The scathing criticism leveled against Dr. Minerva came as a surprise to her she said, and she believes the article has been taken out of context:

“I wish I could explain to people that it is not a policy-and I’m not suggesting that and I’m not encouraging that.”

While infanticide was legal in Rome and other ancient civilizations, it boggles the mind to think that 21st century western culture could ever accept Dr. Minerva’s hypothesis, whether she believes it or not.

Dr. Minerva has the right to say what she thinks, but it is disingenous of her to suggest that her provocative thesis would not be met with alarm, even anger.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Forget the Amazing Race, Survivor, or The Bachelor, the best reality show on TV today is the Republican Presidential race. It has everything these shows have and so much more.

The first episodes focused on Herman Cain, a political neophyte, definitely not the maligned “Washington insider” that voters are urged to run from, CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, and later CEO of the National Restaurant Association.

Cain’s candidacy was initially met with humour, meaning “how funny is it that this guy thinks he has a chance?” But Mr. Cain fooled everyone as his bombastic, yet charismatic personality, began to charm throngs of Republican voters and independents alike. He had a lot of pluses, including his African-American heritage. For a short time he was out-polling President Obama.

Cain was able to quickly brand his message on tax reform in one simple phrase “9/9/9”. However, like scenes from The Bachelor, where one guy dates fifteen women, an entourage of women appeared on the scene, each of them alleging personal, intimate relationships with Mr. Cain. It seemed as if the parade of “tell-all” stories had no end, and when perpetual victimized female defender, Gloria Allred jumped into the fray, as she is wont to do, it was all over for Herman Cain.

Scene two developed around a new, fresh candidate, Texas Governor Rick Perry. Like his colleagues, initially his ratings soared as the Republican base responded to his Texan charm and invocation of motherhood and apple pie issues for Republicans, including more guns, more jails and less dependence on government.

However, he too faded fast when it became apparent that he resembled the typical airhead blonde on The Bachelor. He couldn’t keep up with the big boys when it came to public speaking, debating or analyzing core issues. The nail in his coffin was his exclamation “Oops” in one of his last debate appearances, after realizing he had bumbled and fumbled yet again. He left the Amazing Race unable to finish as a Survivor.

The latest episodes revolve around the trifecta of Governor Mitt Romney, Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich and Pennsylvania Governor Rick Santorum, an eclectic collection of candidates. Oh, yes, Senator Ron Paul is also running but he has maintained his “no competition” status from the get-go.

Governor Romney has “been there, done that” in 2008, when he was a presidential contender battling Senator John McCain, who took that race. A casting director could not have found a better candidate than Governor Romney. He is a man of extremes, including extreme wealth, an extreme organization and Super Pac behind him, and he is extremely telegenic. Dare I say it? Yes, the guy is a “hunk”, obviously a candidate for People magazine’s “Sexiest Man of the Year”, joining George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and the rest of the beefcake boys.

He is currently the candidate who has won the most delegates and continues on an upward trajectory towards the finish line. His bait has landed the support of independents and middle-of-the road Republicans, while Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum fish in friendlier waters, down south where “grits” and “God” abound. I predict Governor Romney will be the Survivor.

The candidacy of New Gringrich could fill a book by itself. That he is a brilliant debater and a treasure trove of political savvy, only matched by his enormous intellect, is hard to deny. But he may be too smart for his own good. He is a man with a gigantic ego who refuses to accept that he can’t win and he won’t win, and it’s not because he allegedly divorced his first wife while she was undergoing cancer treatments. It’s about his wacky ideas.

Early in his campaign Mr. Gingrich introduced his proposal to force judges whose decisions weren’t in keeping with his moral and political views, to appear before Congress to explain and account for their actions. Shades of pre-Glasnost Soviet Union come to mind.

His dislike for Governor Romney is becoming pathological and at this point it appears to me that his continued candidacy is merely to spite the Governor. There is a political role for Mr. Gingrich to play but it is miles away from the Oval Office.

Finally, Rick Santorum is also a viable candidate in this Amazing Race. He has several key criteria down pat. He is not a Mormon, but a more family friendly Catholic, he has a big smile; and he and his wife have seven children. He even out scores Mitt Romney who has a mere five children.

Mr. Santorum and Mr. Gingrich are drawing delegates from the sale pool of voters: hardcore Conservatives. Perhaps the two of them will do a “deal” to outwit and outsmart Governor Romney.

We’ll have to wait and see, because this race is far from over. Tune in next week for further episodes.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

When buying and selling sex in Canada is legal, how do you decide what parts of Canada’s Criminal Code criminalizing prostitution-related activities are unconstitutional and deserving of abolition?

You look at today’s decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal in Canada v. Bedford 2012 ONCA 186 and recognize that while you still cannot communicate in public or in a motor vehicle to discuss the sale of sex, you can sell sex, just like before, without fear of arrest, and in twelve months you can legally offer sexual services from your own bedroom, without being charged for running or occupying a “common bawdy-house”.

So, what is a “common bawdy-house”? The words are used interchangeably with “brothel” and connote vulgarity, indecency, and debauchery. The Ontario Court did not strike down the law on keeping or occupying a common bawdy-house, rather they deleted the word “prostitution” from the definition section which now reads:

“a common bawdy-house is a place kept or occupied for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency”.

With one stroke of a judicial pen, sex workers can soon legally offer their services from their home, an option that was otherwise unavailable to them. Without this change in the law, sex workers can only work the streets or meet their “dates” in a hotel or a client’s home.

The crime of keeping or occupying a common bawdy-house was legislated to combat neighbourhood disruption or disorder and safeguard public health and safety, however, the Court today ruled that the safety of working girls is more important than maintaining a quiet neighbourhood, recognizing the extreme risks of harm that befall street sex trade workers.

The Court also held that the law against “living off the avails of prostitution”, while intended to target pimps, was inadvertently outlawing reasonable services required by prostitutes including drivers, spotters, and bodyguards. Thus, the Court inserted language into the Criminal Code that only bars commercial relationships between prostitutes and their service providers where the relationship is conducted “in circumstances of exploitation”.

The decriminalization of these Criminal Code provisions raise difficult issues that fall along ideological lines. Prime Minister Harper is on record as saying that prostitution is bad for society and harmful to communities. .

Meanwhile liberal factions believe the Court’s tinkering with the law does not go nearly far enough. They seek complete decriminalization of prostitution laws as modeled by the Netherlands experience.

For Canadians, the jury is out until the Supreme Court of Canada rules on the issue or the Harper government takes a stab at enacting laws that maintain the illegality of prostitution-related offences without offending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the protection of life, liberty and security of the person.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang