Recent Blog Posts in July 2011

Tales of scorned exes who erupt violently during a divorce are nothing new for divorce attorneys in Pasadena. But the diabolical and brutal attack allegedly made by Catherine Kieu Becker is unlike anything we've seen in a while. Becker called 911, after she chopped her husband's penis off with a ten-inch knife. Sources close to the case say Becker became unhinged during divorce proceedings and rumors of her estranged husband's extramarital affairs.

It all started when the Orange County resident cooked her estranged husband, whose identity is being kept secret, dinner last week. Little did the man know that his wife had drugged him. According to police reports, after he passed out, Becker tied him to the bed. While he woke up, police say, Becker used a large knife to cut off his penis and then placed it in the garbage disposal.

Lt. Jeff Nightengale told NBC that Becker then called 911 and requested emergency medical help. Nightengale says Becker "told responding officers that 'he deserved it.'" Authorities have learned that Becker was outraged after arguing about an "inappropriate relationship" that had been going on during their marriage and that the couple is currently divorcing.

Orange County prosecutors have charged Becker with two felony counts. According to the Los Angeles Times, the 48-year-old faces one felony count of torture and one of aggravated mayhem with sentencing enhancements for great bodily injury and personal use of a knife." She had been held without bail since her arrest on Monday night and has undergone mandatory psychiatric treatment.

"Given the nature of the offense, it's standard operating procedure," said Orange County sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino.

If convicted, she faces life in prison. Becker's is expected to plead not guilty at her arraignment.

As of last week, her husband was said to be in stable condition. According to reports, he underwent surgery but the organ could not be reattached.

Let My Fingers Do the Talking: Sexting and Infidelity in Cyberspace by Diane Kholos Wysocki and Cheryl D. Childers is a groundbreaking new study that blows the lid off our preconceived notions about sexting and cheating. Nearly two-thirds of the women surveyed by Kholos Wysocki and Childers admitted to sending sext messages, compared with almost half the men. The study found that women are also more likely to meet people in real life after meeting them online.

"Cheating is alive and well, and sexting is on the rise," said Kholos Wysocki, whose first study of sex on the Internet dates to 1992, back in the dial-up days. "But I don't believe the Internet is causing people to cheat. There seems to be something going on with marriage that's the bigger social issue. Before, people would just get a divorce. For some reason, people are staying and cheating instead."

Women, according to the study, were less worried about getting caught sexting and were less cautious about covering their tracks. Kholos Wysocki says this isn't surprising.

"I know young men who are constantly getting naked pictures from women they know on their phones. They're constant!" she says.

This one-of-a-kind study was conducted with an online survey on the infidelity website AshelyMadison.com. Conducted in 2009, the survey probed the site's members about sexual behaviors as well as demographic information. 5,187 responses were used to compose the data in the survey.

Just two weeks shy of their fourth wedding anniversary, the actor filed for divorce from wife Joanne Smith. The news broke just one day after Baldwin filed a restraining order against Smith. The former fashion model turned chef has reportedly been battling drug and alcohol addictions of her own.

"Due to recent events in our home and for the safety of my children and myself, I have made this decision," Baldwin, 50, tells TMZ. "I have had my share of problems with drugs and alcohol many years ago and know first hand how difficult a position she is in."

Baldwin described his difficult family life in court papers and said his wife threatened to kill him and their two children.

"My wife has claimed over 10 times in the last two months that she will stab me, slash me or slit my throat in my sleep," Baldwin wrote.

Baldwin claims his terrified daughters even asked, "Is Mommy going to kill us?"

Authorities in Lake Oswego, Oregon, where the Baldwin family currently lives, have been called out to the family home on numerous occasions for domestic disturbances.

Baldwin had legal troubles of his own in the past, including several driving and substance-related arrests. In July 2006 he was arrested for stealing a car and was booked on a grand theft auto charge. Those charges were later dropped.

He and Smith were married in 2007. They have two daughters, born in 2008 and 2009.

Divorce attorneys in Pasadena have heard a lot about the truth behind the seven-year itch recently. New surveys say it's more than just a myth, even though couples are staying together longer. And Hollywood is the first place to look to see the reality of the phenomenon. Singer and American Idol judge Jennifer Lopez and Latin pop star Marc Anthony recently announced their separation after seven years of marriage.

Lopez and Anthony were married in a secret and casual ceremony in 2004 at Lopez's Beverly Hills home. But the breakup thus far has been anything but secretive. Announced on Friday, July 15th, speculation as to why the couple broke up bubbled over before the weekend had come to a close. "We have decided to end our marriage," Lopez and Anthony told PEOPLE in a joint statement. "This was a very difficult decision. We have come to an amicable conclusion on all matters. It is a painful time for all involved, and we appreciate the respect of our privacy at this time." But every major tabloid had a theory as to why the pop music super couple had broken up. People reported that perhaps signs of trouble came a full week earlier when Lopez attended the BAFTA gala for Prince William and Kate Middleton without Anthony. Other magazines point out that the couple had not been seen together public since early June. Whatever the reason for the split was, Anthony made light of the situation at a concert in Bogotá, Columbia over the weekend. "They're saying I'm single," he told fans.

Lopez and Anthony, in addition to having 3-year-old twins Emme and Max together, also have several business ventures with one another. Que Viva, a globe-spanning reality talent show, is currently filming; despite their breakup, Anthony and Lopez are committed to working with one another, according to representatives for the show.

It's an old statistic told so many times that most divorce attorneys in Pasadena started to believe it was the truth: Military marriages are at a higher risk of divorce than civilian couples. After all, it makes sense that the stresses of combat, long absences and potentially life-changing injuries could destroy even the strongest of unions. But a new look at the data shows that this might not be the case at all.

Robert Hughes Jr. of the University of Illinois covered a fascinating new study of military couples and divorce for the Huffington Post this week. In the story, he quotes a 2006 New York Times article by Lynette Alvarez states, "Military deployments have a way of chewing up marriages, turning daily life upside down and making strangers out of husbands and wives." Yet a new study conducted by Benjamin Karney of UCLA and John Crown of RAND Corp. takes a deeper look by studying the recent personnel records of the U.S. military to estimate the effects of time deployed on the risk of divorce. The study found that overall, women serving in the military are at higher risk for divorce than non-military women, but female Army officers did not fit this specific pattern. Across the branches of the military, couples with children were less likely to divorce than those without kids. Younger couples, just as in non-military America, are more likely to divorce.

As for those deployment myths, Karney and Crown found that deployment might actually help keep military marriages together. In 20 different tests, the pair found that in only two of the tests conducted did deployment mean a greater risk for divorce. In fact, the study found that the longer the deployment, the lower risk of divorce. In the study, Karney and Crown write "for the vast majority of the U.S. military - the longer that a service member was deployed while married, the lower the subsequent risk of marital dissolution.... Deployment appears to enhance the stability of marriage, the longer the deployment, the greater the benefit."

If you're looking for divorce advice in Pasadena, you've heard time and time again that getting divorced isn't easy. But across the pond in the United Kingdom, one judge has made headlines around the globe for saying divorcing in the UK is easier than getting a driver's license.

Sir Paul Coleridge, a Family Division judge, spoke boldly to BBC Radio this week about the state of the British family and the recent major increase in divorce. The judge urged couples to "re-educate" themselves about relationships and family values.

"Everyone in the land, from the Royal Family downwards, is now affected by family breakdown," he said. "It affects the lives of children themselves, it affects the lives of their parents ... the wider family gets caught up in it. It then ripples out to the local community, the schools and then into the wider community."

He noted that roughly 3.8 million children currently are tied up in the UK's family justice system with no indication of decline in the immediate future. Social changes over the last 50 years, including cohabitation and having children out of wedlock, are to blame for the divorce explosion, the judge says.

"On the whole, (cohabitation) was regarded as something you didn't do, to have a child outside marriage, so that created a framework that stopped very much breakdown," Coleridge said. "We've had a cultural revolution in sexual morality and sexual behavior."

When asked if he thought getting a divorce was too easy, he replied, "Divorce is easy in the sense that obtaining a divorce is easier than getting a driving license. It's a form-filling exercise and you'll get your divorce in six weeks if everyone agrees. In about 1950, you weren't allowed in the royal enclosure at Ascot if you were divorced. That now would exclude half the Royal Family."

Coleridge believes the breakdown of the British family is one the country needs to address.

"We need to have a reasonable debate about it and decide what needs to be done - and I don't mean government," he added. "They didn't cause the problem."

No matter where you are in the process of divorce, getting a handle on various financial scenarios is critical to your peace of mind. While financial problems can tear a marriage apart, understanding your financial situation today will improve your prosperity tomorrow.

The primary cause of divorce often is because couples are not on the same page financially. It's time to ask some questions. What do you need to know now? Four categories will determine your settlements: Assets, liabilities, income and expenses. Take charge and get the answers you need to make decisions that can make all the difference. Some of the critical questions include:

• What is my property value and who places the value on it?
• Does property get split equally, and, if not, who gets what property?
• What tax liability will I have?
• How do we divide retirement funds and future pensions?
• How will the lower earning spouse survive financially?
• Who gets custody of the children?
• Who will pay for the children's medical needs?
• How much child support should be paid?
• How much spousal support should be paid (if any)?
• What happens if a paying ex-spouse dies?

Sometimes it's true that we don't know what we don't know -- and that can hurt us. Obtaining the right legal, tax and financial advice early can save thousands of dollars that otherwise can be difficult to recover. As an example, Sally is 54 has been married for 25 years. She and Matt finally agreed on a divorce. They both want out and agreed that Sally would walk away with 50 percent of their assets. After all, Nevada is a community property state.

Unfortunately, equal doesn't always mean equitable. Sally has not worked in 10 years. She is too young for social security, and her job opportunities are limited. Instead of having her assets grow toward retirement, she will be reduced to spending her assets now to provide for a whole new set of expenses. Matt, on the other hand, has a job with health insurance and retirement plans. He won't need to spend down his assets early.

Avoid the pitfalls by doing your homework. Getting a financial analysis will help couples determine short- and long-term consequences. Analyze taxes, inflation, capital gains, pension benefits, life expectancy, income, health and lifestyle when considering any settlement options. The decisions of today will be felt years down the road. Having various scenarios laid out with charts and graphs will assist tremendously. Engaging an unbiased expert will minimize emotions and explain possible outcomes objectively.

If your partner is emotionally abusive to you, he may:

• refuse to acknowledge the value or self-worth of others;
• not listen;
• humiliate others;
• ignore logic;
• not take responsibility for hurting others;
• be jealous and possessive;
• often see himself as a martyr or victim; and
• make you feel guilty for no reason.

This type of behavior by your partner can leave you feeling out of control, weak, and/or humiliated. You may feel like you have to walk on egg shells to avoid confrontation and try to have to anticipate his moods and in order to keep the relationship at peace. You may also feel pressured into having sex and confused as to where you stand in the relationship. Basically, you may feel as though you are on a roller-coaster ride of good and bad times, and often you may even feel afraid and isolated from others. Emotional abuse usually happens slowly as a relationship progresses until one day you realize what's happening and have to deal with it.

One single mother told me that while contemplating a divorce from her verbally abusive husband, her friends (at the time) told her she was crazy. They would say, "you're gonna give up that nice vehicle... you won't be able to have a house on your own." She said that she realized that her number-one responsibility was to raise her son well and "everything else was secondary." She said that today, although they live in a small apartment and she struggles with a busy schedule, she has a great job, good friends, and is much happier than before. She says, "I had to go it alone. It's so much more important that [my son] sees me happy and that I teach him that material things don't matter as much." As you can see in this example, as hard as we try to improve our awareness and self-image, when you love someone, it's easy to be blind to the existence and effects of emotional abuse.

It is important to remember that emotional abuse can also be traumatizing. When something bad happens to you, if you can't resolve it in your mind or convey its intensity to others in order to get help, it probably caused you some sort of emotional damage. Emotional abuse is also harmful to a woman's self-esteem. According to the website Thisisawar.com (an educational resource which helps people deal with illness, grief, pregnancy, debt, and other personal issues), emotional abuse can have "serious physical and psychological consequences for women, including severe depression, anxiety, persistent headaches, back and stomach problems." Other symptoms include panic attacks, irritability, emotional numbness, eating irregularities, and insomnia. So how can you determine how much damage was done to you, and how can you fix it?

Scientists now have the technology to examine the brain and read the damage caused by emotional abuse through brain scans. According to recent research, these scans reveal such a trauma actually "changes the structure and function of the brain, at the point where the frontal cortex, the emotional brain and the survival brain converge." One of their major findings was that scans of people who had experienced emotional abuse were similar in "structural and functional irregularities" to people diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

If you feel you are or have been a victim of emotional abuse, there is help. First, if possible, remove yourself from the abusive situation. If you can't, then you should surround yourself with a network of people -- family and friends -- who can help you cope in such an unhealthy and often dangerous situation. You should also talk to a professional who will know how to help you through analysis and counseling. Under these circumstances, a professional will help you decide the best course of action for you. Couples therapy may be an answer or you may discover that it's time for you to leave.

This brings up an interesting point. It's very difficult for a lot of women to move on. I know several women who have stayed for years with partners who were abusive, neglectful, and unfaithful. Women who say they can't leave (besides having very low self-images) usually have long-standing erroneous beliefs that keep them tied to these undeserving men. Some of these women believe that they cannot abandon their dysfunctional partners; that these men somehow need them in order to survive. Oh, really? If those men really needed them, they would fear losing them and smarten up! Some women tell themselves that their partners will change and eventually recognize their value and love. Wrong. That outlook puts off happiness and fulfillment until "someday", which is when exactly? And deep down, do they believe it will ever really happen with this man? Other women believe that they will never find another man to love them so they stay with their abusers even though they are extremely unhappy. Why? Classic low self-esteem -- even if this were true, I believe that a woman can be alone and happy (I was), which is far better than feeling miserable sharing your life with a sadistic man! Don't make these mistakes. Acknowledge your value as a person who deserves love and respect. Recognize when something is really over.

One important thing to keep in mind is that the people in your life whom you love should make your life easier and add to your joy, not take away from it. Ask yourself: are you more often upset and confused than you are peaceful and happy? If so, then something is not right, and you should remedy the situation. If world events of the last few years have taught us anything, it's not to waste a moment of life. Do what it takes to make yourself happy. Above all, be true to yourself. If you follow your heart, and you love honestly and openly, you will at the very least know that you gave your all and will have no regrets.

This article has been edited and excerpted from Boot Camp for the Broken-Hearted (New Horizon Press, 2008) by Audrey Valieriani. Based in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, Valeriani is the creator of TheAccidentalExpert.com, which provides relationship coaching.

The Win/Win Model

When Alex and Leslie moved into their new house, they were full of enthusiasm. It was late spring, the house was freshly painted, and the furniture, carpets and drapes had all been cleaned. It was an exciting new start in a new community. They had a small garden, and the two decided to go to a local nursery and shop for some flowering plants. Alex, who likes to cook, had put a corned beef in a pot with water. He put the pot on a low flame, and left it to simmer on the stove. After planning the garden at the nursery and buying the plants, the two thought of several other stops they needed to make before getting back home. When they pulled up to the house hours later, after a lovely day of shopping, the entire house was filled with a greasy, gray smoke that the corned beef had turned into.

How did each of them act? Well, of course, they were both upset, but more importantly, Alex didn't defend and Leslie didn't attack. Alex accepted responsibility for his huge mistake and profusely apologized to Leslie for creating this mess. She insisted that it was just as much her responsibility as his; she also could have remembered that the pot was on the stove. The issue that consumed both of them was what they needed to do together to repair the damage. They got to work and after many weeks of considerable effort and expense, they restored the house. The story became a humorous, although rueful, family legend.

Some years later, Leslie, who was under a lot of stress at work at the time, absentmindedly left a pot of eggs boiling on the stove and went to work. Fortunately, Alex happened to come home for lunch that day. Yes, once again, the house was filled with smoke. He remembered the compassion Leslie had shown for him years before with the corned beef incident. Without calling her, he got to work to rectify as much of the damage as he could. He knew how upset she would be with herself, and wanted to minimize the additional stress of this accident rather than pile more stress on to his already overextended wife while she was at work. Compare this win/win model of communication with the win/lose model so common among unhappily married couples.

The Win/Lose Model

Gio took his nine-year-old daughter over to his brother's house one Saturday afternoon so she could play with her cousin of the same age. The two kids were playing on a backyard swing as the brothers drank coffee on the patio nearby. Gio's daughter fell off the swing and broke her arm. They immediately took her to the hospital to have it set. Gio's wife, Anna, had been out running errands. When she got to the hospital a couple of hours later, their daughter's arm was already in a cast. The little girl was pale and a bit shaken, but otherwise fine. Gio's wife was understandably upset about the accident, but she directed all her anger at Gio, whom she blamed for not supervising their daughter properly.

For months, long after the arm was healed, Anna repeatedly used the incident to bolster her arguments in other disagreements that she and Gio were having in their unhappy marriage. Whenever she had the chance, she "threw in his face" that he was a poor father, irresponsible, self-involved, and careless.

In the win/win model, a couple see themselves as on the same side, so when adverse events occur, they are happening to "us." The fact that an action of your mate's precipitates the adverse event doesn't make him the "bad guy." In fact, it may make him worthy of your compassion because you know he feels bad about it. In the win/lose model of communication, any adverse event is fresh evidence of your mate's inadequacies and your disappointment in him.

So how do you know if it's time to go? Which model of communication does your marriage operate with most of the time? If it's the win/lose, we would say you are probably living in an unhappy marriage. You have to make serious efforts to correct this problem. How does anyone in your family benefit if you and your spouse continue to operate as adversaries? If you have already made those efforts, to no avail, it may be time to go. What kind of outside help have you sought? How vigorously have you tried to tell your mate that the model of communication the two of you are engaged in together doesn't work for most things, but most assuredly doesn't work for a marriage?

Questions to Think About

1. Do my spouse and I communicate using the win/lose model? Yes___No___
2. Is one or both of us frequently trying to demonstrate the other's shortcomings, mistakes, and inadequacies? Yes___No___
3. Does one or both of us usually try to gain the upper hand to prove the other wrong in a crisis, rather than see the crisis as happening to "us"? Yes___No___

This article was excerpted with permission from the book How to Know If It's Time to Go by Dr. Lawrence Birnbach and Dr. Beverly Hyman, published by Sterling Publishing Co., Inc. Dr. Birnbach is a psychoanalyst who specializes in working with people in troubled relationships. He practices in New York. Dr. Hyman is a business and organizational consultant specializing in conflict management and negotiation. The authors were both divorced before they were married to each other in 1997. www.sterlingpublishing.com

Here's a curious statistic about gay marriage and divorce that may be surprising to family attorneys in Pasadena: Those states where gay marriage is legal are also states with low divorce rates. Researchers say education and marriage age may play a part in the statistic.

Early data from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control's National Vital Statistics System suggests that 5 of the 10 states plus the District of Columbia with the lowest divorce rates per thousand people coincide with the nine jurisdictions that currently perform or recognize gay marriages. Naturally, states with more marriages have more divorces - yet the statistic holds water when looking at divorces as a share of marriages. In gay marriage states, the number of divorces in 2009 was 41.2 percent of the number of marriages while in the remaining 36 states which do not recognize gay marriage and for which 2009 data is available, it was at a whopping 50.3 percent.

The curious correlation between gay marriages and low divorce rates can be attributed to many things. D'Vera Cohn of Pew Research Center says there is a link between education, marital age and divorce rates.

"From what I understand from the research, people who take the time and have the discipline to complete a college degree or more advanced education - those personality traits are also useful in sustaining a marriage," she told UsNews.com recently.

Studies also have shown that states with higher education rates are more likely to support gay marriage. In addition to education level, age may be a factor as well. Statistics show that same-sex couples who get married tend to be older on average than their straight newlywed counterparts.

Family attorneys in Pasadena have seen the global divorce rate explode over the last several years. From India to Italy, divorce has become a global hot topic and a universal issue. Asian countries like China and Japan have experienced major divorce growth since the economic crash of 2008. Yet the tiny nation of Taiwan is reporting a slow and steady drop in the divorce rate.

New government statistics released last week showed that 58,037 couples divorced in 2010, which is a big drop from the 63,230 average for the period of 2002 to 2006. The number of Taiwanese divorces from the first half of 2011 is roughly 11 percent lower than the daily average from 2010. The overall daily average has dropped from 179 in 2003 to 159 in 2010. The study found the largest number, 31 percent, of divorces happened to couples that had been married for more than five but less than ten years. Couples who were married for less than five years made up the second-largest group, with 27.7 percent. Much like in America, Taiwanese newlyweds are the most likely to divorce.

An in-depth look at the numbers from 2003 show that 40 percent of divorces took place during the first year of marriage, with the percentage dropping steadily after the first year. But in 2010, the biggest groups - who accounted for 30 percent of divorces - were couples that had been married for one year and couples that had been married for six years.

The previous spike in Tawian's divorce rate has largely been attributed to women's individualism. Wang Yun-tung, a National Taiwan University sociology professor, wrote in a recent article that high divorce rates can be related to rises in education and more job opportunities for women. He points out, however, that a higher divorce rate can also be a good thing because it can reflect a higher degree of economic independence among women and a freedom of personal choice.

If you are a parent seeking divorce advice in Pasadena, chances are you are worried about how all of this will affect your children. Many parents worry if their successes and failures at marriage directly impact their child's future relationships. A new article in The Wall Street Journal suggests that children of divorce have learned from their parents' mistakes and tend to have happier, longer-lasting marriages.

Author Susan Gregory Thomas, a child of divorce, says the children of Generation X - kids born between 1965 and 1980 - have witnessed the effects of divorce and taken its lessons to heart.

"According to U.S. Census data released this May, 77 percent of couples who married since 1990 have reached their 10-year anniversaries," Thomas says. "We're also marrying later in life, if at all. The average marrying age in 1950 was 23 for men and 20 for women; in 2009, it was 28 for men and 26 for women," Thomas writes.

She also points out that modern couples are more likely to live with one another before getting married. A 2007 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research noted that "among those entering first marriages in the early 2000s, nearly 60 percent had previously cohabited with their future spouses." Thomas says that many couples are taking their time to get to know one another before walking down the aisle, therefore meaning less divorces.

Yet Thomas is a realist (and she herself has divorced). Being part of the divorce generation, she points out that survivors of divorce are more likely to partake in civil and amicable breakups after witnessing their parents' nasty divorces.

"I have yet to meet the divorced mother or father who feels like a good parent, who professes to being happier with how their children are now being raised. Many of us have ended up inflicting pain on our children, which we did everything to avoid.

But we have not had our parents' divorces, either," she adds. "We can only hope that in this, we have done it differently in the right way."

  Amy Singer

Singer, who runs the Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Singer Cos., said the trial was the first high-profile murder trial to take place in the social media age and will forever change how lawyers defend clients.

"We had video live stream on computers," she said. "There were bloggers. There were chat rooms. As a result, my entire team was monitoring the blogosphere, chat rooms and discussion rooms, giving feedback to the defense team daily. This whole trial was social-media driven."

In her 32 years as a trial consultant, Singer has worked on plenty of high-profile cases, including the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the Jack Kevorkian euthanasia case, and the William Kennedy Smith rape trial. In the Kennedy case she was hired by Time Warner to conduct a "shadow jury" and report findings nightly on the television program "A Current Affair." A psychologist, she also has worked for tobacco and Chinese drywall class action attorneys.

Singer got involved in Anthony's case about 1 1/2 years ago when she got a call from Ocala attorney Dorothy Clay Sims, who owns a farm near Singer's Gainesville farm. Sims was co-counsel for Anthony with South Florida native Jose Baez.

Singer was tapped to help the team pick a jury and consult during the trial, along with other defense consultants, Richard Gabriel of California and Karen Hurwitz and Mike Ford of Texas.

PRO BONO DEFENSE

Baez's team asked the court for funds to hire jury consultants but was turned down after prosecutors told the judge they were not hiring jury consultants. The consulting team worked on the case pro bono as did all the defense attorneys.

Singer said they knew the case would be largely won or lost during jury selection.

"I agree with Nancy Grace that the case was pretty much over after the jury was picked," she said, adding blogger comments confirmed her view.

Common wisdom that attorneys like stupid jurors is just "old wives' tales," said Singer, who said her team was clear that they wanted "bright and intelligent" jurors.

Also in: people who mentioned Caylee Anthony's skull was found in a field.

"That was a good juror for us because we knew the field was contaminated by swamps," Singer said.

The jury consultants also were happy to have two nurses on the jury, so they could see that the prosecution was reaching by having pathologists testify that all accidents are reported to police, she said. "It was clearly out of their area of expertise as pathologists, and the nurses would see that," Singer said.

Out as jurors: people who mentioned Casey Anthony was out partying and getting a tattoo when her daughter was missing.

"Because what does that have to do with the price of tea in China. It just shows that she is crazy," Singer said. "Some people, when they are traumatized, they imagine things. And that's what Casey did. It's magical thinking. Plus she's a pathological liar."

COMBING BLOGS

The consultants' job was hardly over once the jury was picked. In fact, that's when it became a full-time gig for Singer. The consultants were tasked with monitoring voluminous social media sites to keep their finger on the public's pulse. To keep up with the blog traffic, Singer asked for volunteers on the website of the American Society of Trial Consultants and was overwhelmed with responses.

When Singer first told Baez about the social media plan of attack, he wasn't convinced.

"He said, 'Do we really need to do that?'??" recalls Singer, who believes the prosecution also did not realize the need to monitor social media.

Danielle Tavernier, spokeswoman for Orange State Attorney Lamar Lawson, whose office prosecuted Anthony, said her office did not hire jury consultants or use any social media.

"We do not have a Twitter account, Facebook page or blog, and we don't use any social media," she said.

Once Singer assured Baez of the necessity of social media, she and her team combed through blogs to isolate the "important negative comments" they felt needed to be addressed.

"I didn't want to hear the good stuff," she said. "We needed to give the jury enough weapons to bolster their opinions. I didn't want to be singing cowboy music to someone who wants to sing opera."

For instance, when the blogs started attacking George Anthony, Singer and her team took notice and encouraged the defense to beef up their attacks on the defendant's father.

"We had to know how much to blame George," she said. Similarly, bloggers "loved" Cindy Anthony until she took credit for the chloroform searches and then began to turn on the defendant's mother. At that point, Singer's team "distanced ourselves" from her and encouraged Baez to take a watered-down position in closing arguments that "at least she had some sort of maternal instinct."

SOCIAL MEDIA

The team worked hand in hand with Palm Beach-based Legal Graphicworks, which spent hundreds of hours creating timelines, 3-D graphics and other visual aids to illustrate the case to jurors.

"I am the type of person who wakes up at 3 a.m. when I have an idea and jots it down, and they are the same way," Singer said, adding she would frequently e-mail Legal Graphicworks company CEO Jim Lucas at 3 a.m. and get an answer.

Gabriel, one of the other consultants on the case, said he felt the Casey Anthony case will forever change the way trials are run in major cases and believes trial consultants were instrumental in her acquittal.

"I think this is the most significant case where the Internet played a role," he said. "A lot of people think we just pick a jury, but we do a lot more. It might have benefited the prosecution to hire jury consultants to understand how the jury makes decisions. I believe it's important for everybody to use a consultant."

But not everyone thinks the internet and social media was as helpful to the defense as other factors.

Miami criminal defense attorney Roy Black attributes the fact that an out-of-town jury was chosen as the single most important reason for the acquittal.

"I think the reason Casey Anthony was acquitted was because a jury was picked from Pinellas County and did not see any of the coverage or social media and therefore was not influenced by the Nancy Graces of the world," Black said. "If they were from Orlando and had to go home every night, they would have seen television and the Internet. It proves why it's necessary in a high-profile case to have an insulated jury."

Another Miami criminal defense attorney, Mark Eiglarsh, gives trial consultants and their use of social media some credit for the defense win, but thinks the lack of evidence and the jury's reasonable doubt was the overwhelming reason.

"There's no question that all of those things -- social media, Twitter, all of it -- are valuable, but at the end of the day, they could only prosecute with what they had," he said. "I'm sure the guy who sold Jose his suits will take some credit too, and some might say the prosecutor's bullying affected jurors. But first and foremost is always, is there sufficient proof to tip the scales?"

"I don't think the prosecutors live in a cave," he added. "They know about Twitter and these things."

When asked whether her office might employ social media in the future, Tavernier said, "if it was something that was ever considered, there would be a cost attached, and there would be a lot of debate on that."

Over the years, divorce attorneys in Pasadena have seen suspicious spouses go to some pretty extreme measures to check up on the whereabouts of their partners. From teddy bear cameras to hidden microphones, husbands and wives who worry their other half is cheating will do just about anything to find out the truth. Now a New Jersey court has ruled that the use of GPS tracking device to follow your husband or wife isn't an invasion of privacy.

The court ruled in the case of Kenneth Villanova, a New Jersey sheriff's officer, who sued the private investigator hired by his ex-wife in 2007. After Villanova successfully stayed under investigator Leonard's radar, the PI recommended his client purchase a GPS tracking device. She took his advice, placed a device in Villanova's glove compartment of his GMC Yukon-Denali, and in less than 3 weeks, Villanova was busted leaving a driveway with a woman who wasn't his wife. Villanova initially sued his wife for invasion of privacy but dropped the suit during the divorce settlement.

He did, however, pursue an invasion of privacy suit with Leonard. His lawsuit claimed the device invaded his privacy and caused him "substantial and permanent emotional distress." Yet appellate judges Joseph Lisa, Jack Sabatino and Carmen Alvarez ruled that Villanova had no right to expect privacy as the GPS device tracked his whereabouts on public streets. In the ruling, Judge Lisa wrote "there is no direct evidence in this record to establish that during the approximately 40 days the GPS was in the ... glove compartment the device captured a movement of plaintiff into a secluded location that was not in public view, and, if so, that such information was passed along by Mrs. Villanova to (Leonard)."

Naturally, Leonard and his team were thrilled with the outcome, as are many private detectives and their attorneys across the country. GPS tracking devices are currently used in everything from child custody cases to background checks and fraud investigations.

As all divorce attorneys in Pasadena know, even though the financial fate of a divorcee is ultimately up to a judge to decide, there are some exes who just can't get over losing their fortunes - and some of them go on to blame their lawyers. Nobel prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz is one of those guys; he's now suing his ex-divorce lawyer, alleging that the lawyer's failure to file divorce papers in time cost Stiglitz a chunk of his $300,000 Nobel Prize money.

Jury selection started last week in the professional negligence trial filed by Stiglitz against Rita M. Bank of Ain & Bank in Washington. According to court papers, the trial is scheduled to last six days and will feature testimony from Stiglitz as well as lawyers from New York and Washington. Stiglitz says he lost more than $5 million because Bank concealed the fact that she met with Jane Hannaway, Stiglitz's second wife. The suit claims Hannaway and Bank met to discuss a potential divorce before Stiglitz hired her in 2000. Hannaway filed for divorce in 2002. Bank has denied the allegations and has refused to comment about the case. Stiglitz claims he repeatedly asked Bank to file divorce papers in 2000 and 2001 but she never granted his request. By stalling for time, the lawsuit suggests, Hannaway was then able to stake claim in his Nobel Prize money which he co-won in 2001. Stiglitz's case alleges that he could have saved "millions of dollars in legal fees, expert fees and future incomes and royalties" had Banks filed for divorce in a timely manner. He is seeking $1 million in damages from Banks.

Stiglitz is an acclaimed author and will be sworn in as the International Economic Association president this week. He was married for a third time in 2004 to Anya Schiffrin.

Divorce attorneys in Pasadena certainly have seen a slew of celebrity marriages collapse this year. In fact, just over the last few days .a trio of high-profile Hollywood divorces were finalized.

"Medium" star Patricia Arquette and "Hung" star Thomas Jane finalized their divorce last week after nearly 2 years of an on-again/off-again marriage. Patricia filed for divorce back in 2009. She then changed her mind a few months later and called it off. Reports said the couple was trying to work out their problems but then a few months later the divorce was back on. The pair of television stars was married in 2006 and they have an 8-year-old daughter together.

Comedian George Lopez and his longtime wife Ann Serrano saw their marriage fall apart last year amid rumors of the funnyman's extramarital affairs. Fans of the comic were stunned to hear about his alleged sexual encounters with prostitutes last year especially since Lopez and Serrano seemed inseparable. Serrano even famously donated a kidney to the star back in 2005. Serrano filed back in November and as of last Friday the divorce was finalized. The two produced many entertainment ventures together, collaborated on charitable organizations, and have one daughter. Lopez and Serrano were married for 17 years.

And, finally, the three-year marriage of Green Lantern actor Ryan Reynolds and sometimes-blonde bombshell Scarlett Johansson is over. Last week, a judge finalized the divorce in a Los Angeles courthouse. The pair filed for divorce last December, saying in a joint statement that "after long and careful consideration on both our parts, we've decided to end our marriage... We entered our relationship with love and it's with love and kindness we leave it." Since the breakup, Johansson has been linked to actor Sean Penn while Reynolds has been spotted with a bevy of blond models and gal pal/former co-star Sandra Bullock.

Family attorneys in Pasadena know that when it comes to high-profile divorces, it takes some time before one of the spouses is fully ready to talk about it. Linda Hogan, ex-wife of wrestling icon Hulk Hogan, for example, has remained mum since their 2009 divorce. Until now, that is. Linda is about to release a new memoir and, according to reports, she pulls no punches when talking about life with the Hulk.

Wrestling the Hulk: My Life Against the Ropes is Hogan's chance to tell her side of the highly-publicized divorce, which broke up one of reality television's favorite families. Hogan tells PopEater.com that she worked overtime to create the illusion that she had a happy family even though her superstar husband was having an affair.

"I was doing all the gluing and mending and keeping the family together," she said. "Making everyone look good, handling the show and the kids' careers, handling the animals, the house, the TV show. I was like the camel, they just loaded me up. It just got to the point where I had a feeling my husband was having an affair, I knew it in my heart of hearts, I just didn't have proof. When a husband is cheating he doesn't act the same, I certainly knew that, I knew there was a problem."

Hogan says she was villainized by the press for having a relationship with Charley Hill, a then 19-year-old who was reportedly a friend of her son's.

"My husband made everyone think he was my son's high school friend. It wasn't like that at all," she added. "He attended the same school in a different year. My kids did not know him and I didn't meet Charley until almost ten months after I'd filed for divorce. My husband was already living with another woman way before that."

Hulk Hogan and Linda Claridge were married in 1983 and they have two children, singer and reality star Brooke Hogan, age 23, and Nick Hogan, 21.

Divorce attorneys in Pasadena wondered how long this would take: Former First Lady of California Maria Shriver has filed for divorce from Arnold Schwarzenegger. The official filing comes nearly two months after news broke that Schwarzenegger had fathered a child outside their marriage - 14 years ago.

Shriver cited "irreconcilable differences" as the reason for the divorce. In paperwork filed with the Los Angeles County Superior Court, she states she is seeking joint custody of the couple's two minor children, Patrick, 17, and Christopher, 13. The couple also has two grown daughters: Katherine, 21, and Christina, 19. Shriver is seeking spousal support and is requesting that Arnold pick up the tab for all legal fees.

According to reports, there was no prenuptial agreement signed when the pair married in 1986, so accordingly the family's considerable assets will be split 50-50. TMZ.com is reporting that sources close to the family say Arnold and Maria are on speaking terms and working together closely to resolve the issues as soon as possible. Maria allegedly informed Arnold of her intention to file for divorce beforehand and has told friends they are both committed to having an amicable divorce.

Within days of announcing their separation in May, news of Arnold's infidelity and 14-year-old son Joseph lit up gossip sites around the globe. Schwarzenegger allegedly carried on a brief affair with the family's housekeeper Mildred Baena. Baena claims that Schwarzenegger found out about Joseph only recently and that suspicions about his paternity were arisen after the child visited the family after a long absence last summer.

Back in May, Maria released a statement saying, "This is a painful and heartbreaking time. As a mother, my concern is for the children. I ask for compassion, respect and privacy as my children and I try to rebuild our lives and heal. I will have no further comment."

The Hollywood marriage of Tea Leoni and David Duchovny is the kind of on-again, off-again union family lawyers in Pasadena have come to expect from Tinsel Town. The pair, who met in 1997, separated in 2008 and renewed their vows in 2009, have once again broken up. Yet it still remains to be seen if the couple will file for divorce this time.

A rep for the couple announced last Wednesday that Duchovny and Leoni have broken up after 14 years of marriage. This is deja vu for celebrity couple watchers who witnessed separation in 2008 after Duchovny had admitted to sex addiction. The X-Files star entered a rehab facility for his problems. There were even rumors that Leoni was engaging in a sexting relationship with actor Billy Bob Thornton. Thornton and Duchovny successfully got a retraction from the Daily Mail for that story; the paper also reported Duchonvy was having an affair with his tennis coach at the time.

After some counseling, the couple seemed to be on the mend and even appeared in public together arm in arm like they did in October of last year at a New York City Film festival. Yet as 2010 came to a close, whispers of problems for the couple started to circulate. Insiders from Duchovny's Showtime series "Californication" say the actor hasn't changed his womanizing ways.

"He's a guy who loves women," a "Californication" source told Us magazine. "He's always noticed an attractive lady."

Duchovny denied any problems in a 1997 Playgirl interview "I'm not a sex addict... I have never been to those meetings. It's hurtful to my family and if I was involved with a woman in a monogamous relationship, it would be hurtful to her."

According to the recent statement, neither Duchovny nor Leoni has filed for divorce. The pair, who met on the set of "The Tonight Show," have three children.