87 Gorgeous Engagement Rings Under $2,000

When dreaming of an engagement ring, it’s hard not to picture a, um, sizable diamond being placed upon your finger. Sure, not every bride-to-be is drawn to big, super-sparkly diamonds, but whether three or more carats is goals or you prefer a daintier approach to an engagement ring design, cost is always the ultimate factor when choosing your engagement ring. Not the most romantic part of your engagement story, but a practical aspect that most couples face. Luckily, the market is filled with gorgeous engagement rings that cost $2,000 or less whether you choose a smaller diamond, diamond slice, gemstone, antique ring, or cluster ring. Or, you can look to diamond alternatives like moissante, white sapphire, or even an ethical, lab-grown diamond (they’re a totally legit option) to save a little cash and go bigger with your stone.

An engagement ring under $2,000 hardly means you have to sacrifice. For the bride drawn to vintage and antique styles, Art Deco, Edwardian, and Victorian-style rings are a few popular styles that you can easily source for well under $2,000. Many of these styles incorporate stunning metal-work around a smaller stone or several small stones that create the illusion of a bigger ring. Plus, the intricate design of an antique ring is incredibly eye-catching whether done in white or yellow gold or a mix of metals.

For modern brides, unique cuts like trillion, shield, hexagon, and half-moon shapes make for a super stand-out ring from two-stone styles to unique settings like off-kilter, east-west, or floating designs. Even in a smaller carat weight, these contemporary cuts will feel utterly spectacular on a yellow, rose, or white gold band or a mixed-metal setting for a super-unique look.

Multi-stone engagement rings from three-stone styles to clusters create the illusion of a bigger ring for a lot less, too. But if size is super important (hey, we get it) a lab-created diamond or diamond alternative like white sapphire or moissantite is a perfect option that will keep your ring under $2,000 and still sparkle like the best of them—there are a ton of brands are creating spectacular style using this ethical practice.

No matter your style, we’re certain you’ll find an under-$2,000 engagement you love in our edit ahead. From traditional to fashion-forward, these styles are proof that your dream ring doesn’t have to cost you a fortune. Well under, in fact!

See more: 55 Opal Engagement Rings That Are Beyond Chic

Source link

source https://divorceyourring.com/top-posts/87-gorgeous-engagement-rings-under-2000/

We Hope You’re Having a Holly Jolly Christmas Eve · Divorced Moms

I spent 11 Christmas Eves alone as a single mom. Well, not alone every year. But, I did the Lion’s share of the shopping and preparing and then setting up gifts from Santa…don’t you just hate “some assembly required?”

You’ve maxed out your credit cards, put up the tree, wrapped gifts and baked cookies, which, by the way, will settle nicely on your hips and thighs. And I promise that at midnight Christmas Eve you’ll remember something you need from the grocery store.

But it’s the most wonderful time of the year! Except for how it’s totally not when you’re a single mom on Christmas Eve. Whether you’re a Grinch or a Christmas-lover, some things about Christmas are really, really terrible, and all the Santa hats and candy cane ornaments in the world can’t cover that up.

With that in mind, we’ve put together this article in the hope that you’ll at least get a laugh or two while doing your Christmas Eve single mom duty.

Have a Holly Jolly Christmas!

1. Red, white, just keep my glass full…

 

2. We fill your pain…

 

3. Love? Don’t you need to be crazy…

 

4. Show those pearly whites…

 

5. I guess she stays after hours…

 

6. Naughty is always nice…

 

7. Single moms and poverty go together…

 

8. No explanation needed…

 

9. We’ll be avoiding you…

 

10. Someone keep her away from the plum pudding…

 

11. Oh sister, surely you kid…

 

12. Sakes alive girl, we are with you…

 

13. Good riddance…

 

May this Christmas end the present year on a cheerful note and make way for a fresh and bright New Year. Here’s wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! From the DivorcedMoms family to yours.

 

More For You

Source link

source https://divorceyourring.com/top-posts/we-hope-youre-having-a-holly-jolly-christmas-eve-%c2%b7-divorced-moms/

2018: The year we looked to the future by John Bolch

This year I will keep my review of the year mercifully short. Not only will I limit it to one post, I am only going to mention my top five stories of the year, stories that will all make a difference to families and family justice in the future, one way or another. In fact, as I put this together I realised that I am not so much looking back, as looking forward. Accordingly, I decided that the best way to review 2018 was to peer into my trusty crystal ball to look at 2019…

Story 1: I see a future in which couples can divorce without animosity.

I will begin with the obvious one, and the one that I suspect most commentators would agree is the most significant family law story of the year: reform of the law on divorce.

The mists are clearing. I see a 69 year-old woman. She looks very sad and frustrated. She is desperate to rid herself of an unhappy marriage. However, she still has to wait another year before she can at last divorce her husband, on the basis that they have now been separated for five years. She had tried previously to divorce her husband on the basis of his ‘unreasonable behaviour’, but he defended her petition, and the law said she could not have her divorce, thereby trapping her in a loveless marriage.

The mists are returning. The woman fades, and then returns. This time she looks happy. The law has changed! She no longer has to blame her husband for the breakdown of the marriage! She just has to file a statement with the court saying that the marriage has broken down, and there is no longer any such thing as a defended divorce. She can finally get on with her life.

The woman’s name, of course, is Tini Owens.

Story 2: I see a future in which all are treated equally.

Civil partnership for opposite-sex couples.

Somewhere in the cloudy depths of my crystal ball I spy a young couple. They are a very principled couple. They want to enter into a legal relationship, but they consider the institution of marriage to be patriarchal and sexist. Ideally, they would like to enter into a civil partnership, but until now that option has only been open to same-sex couples.

But what is this I see? The couple are undergoing a ceremony at a Register Office. Surely, they have not disregarded their principles and decided to marry after all?

I listen to what the Registrar says. This is not a marriage, but a civil partnership! The happy couple beam at one another as the ceremony ends.

Their names, of course, are Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan.

Story 3: Do I see a new course being plotted?

A new President of the Family Division.

As I peer deeply into my crystal ball I see the fog clearing. I am at some sort of conference. The next speaker is being announced – it is the President of the Family Division!

But what is this? This is not the familiar face we know and love. This is a new face. It is, of course, the face of Sir Andrew McFarlane.

What will Sir Andrew say? Will he announce some new initiative to reform family justice? Will he plot a new course for those involved in the family justice system? Will he, indeed, be as ‘hands on’ as his predecessor? The audience eagerly await what he has to say.

Unfortunately, the fog returns as he begins to speak. We will just have to wait to hear what he says.

Story 4: I see a better way of dealing with financial disputes.

Financial remedy courts.

As I look into my crystal ball all is murky. I can barely make out what is taking place. It seems to be some sort of arcane ritual, with those present unsure what is going to happen to them.

Ah, then I realise what has happened. My crystal ball is stuck in the present, watching a financial remedies case being heard in a family court in 2018. I give the crystal a clean, and it moves forward a year.

That’s much better. The court is now run by specialists, who help most of the couples settle their cases by agreement. And those cases that don’t settle are decided in a far more predictable way, consistent with other such courts around the country.

Both lawyers and litigants in person have a better idea what to expect when they go to court to sort out financial remedy claims!

Story 5: I see a brave new paperless world.

Digital divorce.

The view in my crystal ball is hazy, but the haze is clearing. I see a lawyer sitting at her desk, her eyes fixed on the computer screen in front of her.

I can now make out the words on the screen. The lawyer is filing a divorce petition on behalf of her client.

I watch as she submits the petition. I look on jealously as it is accepted, remembering how long it used to take me to issue a divorce petition by post, and how the court would so often come up with some trivial reason to reject it, causing further delay.

The lawyer quickly turns to another client’s file on her computer (I can’t see any paper files anywhere). This time she is applying for a decree absolute. The application is gone in moments…

____________

OK, I realise that I may be somewhat optimistic as far as the timing of some of these changes goes. We may, of course, have to wait until beyond 2019 for no-fault divorce, civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples, country-wide financial remedy courts and a fully digitised divorce system. Still, at least we can dream…

 

Source link

source https://divorceyourring.com/top-posts/2018-the-year-we-looked-to-the-future-by-john-bolch/

Top 5 Trivia Questions Of 2018 — See Also

The Youngest Person To Ever Graduate From An American Law School: He was a child prodigy who loved the law.

The Law School With The Highest Paid Recent Graduates: Want to make the big bucks? Try this law school.

Of Course This Firm Has Already Raised Associate Salaries: They had a great year, and they’re sharing that with their associates.

If You Work At This Biglaw Firm, Be Ready To Bill Your Butt Off: Not a lot of slackers at this firm…

The Most Indebted Law School Graduates With The Worst Job Prospects: This is scary.

Source link

source https://divorceyourring.com/top-posts/top-5-trivia-questions-of-2018-see-also/

Religious Liberty Is Under Significant Threat This Term

I have written how the religious liberty doctrine is grossly unbalanced based on a distortion of Founding anti-establishment liberty. Unfortunately, it looks as though that unbalance is about to become far worse. On November 2^nd, the United States Supreme Court announced it will decide a case, in part, on whether the Establishment Clause bars state and local government from taxing citizens to maintain a 40-foot Christian cross WW1 memorial.

The reason the case is all but assured to end in finding that the state may indeed maintain a religious monument is most members of the Court have established viewpoints on the issue. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has praised previous dissents that denied a strict separation of church and state and argued “Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state.” Justice Clarence Thomas does not even believe the Establishment Clause applies to the states. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Chief Justice John Roberts have all previously agreed using taxpayer dollars to improve church property is permissible. Given the text and plain meaning of the Establishment Clause, the views of the majority of the Court are perplexing to say the least.

The Establishment Clause was founded upon the deep-rooted Constitutional principle of freedom of conscience. Regarding free conscience in the religious liberty context, James Madison stated citizens must be free “to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes is acceptable to him.” In other words, religious freedom is based on the premise that the individual alone holds the power to make up their own mind about what service to give to religion. No matter how well intentioned, the state is not to make the choice for anyone. Madison was also clear that civil society being separated entirely from religion did not infringe upon other rights stating: “We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance [emphasis mine].”

Accordingly, nothing regarding anti-establishment liberty prevents government actors from personally expressing references to a belief or trust in God. Free speech remains a part of the First Amendment as well, after all. Rather, what the Establishment Clause does require is a strict adherence to the principle that civil mechanisms do not encroach upon the free conscience of citizens by forcing them to pay for or share religious views. When state governments tax citizens to maintain religious symbols (regardless of whether any taxpayer objects), they violate free conscience by forcing citizens to pay for a religious message they might otherwise disagree with.

The majority of the Court understands this principle well and applies the First Amendment religious liberty prohibition against government coercion correctly in other contexts. In Janus v. AFSCME, the Court held the state of Illinois could not extract agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees. In issuing its opinion in Janus, the Court stated:

Whenever the Federal Government or a State prevents individuals from saying what they think on important matters or compels them to voice ideas with which they disagree, it undermines these ends. When speech is compelled, however, additional damage is done. In that situation, individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning, and for this reason, one of our landmark free speech cases said that a law commanding “involuntary affirmation” of objected-to beliefs would require “even more immediate and urgent grounds” than a law demanding silence.

In fact, the famous phrase the Court relies on in the Janus case, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhor[s] is sinful and tyrannical,” comes from Thomas Jefferson’s preamble to the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty. It is astounding to think the Court could utilize religious liberty protections against coercion to prevent a state from compelling public-sector union speech, yet find it completely acceptable for a state to extract money from citizens to compel large and expensive religious monuments. Such a result is to make a mockery of our Constitutional religious liberty principles and I hope the Court does not reach it.

An argument the majority of the Court appears likely take in upholding state-funded maintenance of a religious monument is state governments have a long tradition of established churches. Relying on these past practices to dilute plain meaning Establishment Clause intent however presents glaring problems. For one thing, the Establishment Clause was only incorporated to the states in the mid-20th century. It should go without saying that all state assessment frameworks that blurred the line between church and state prior to being under Establishment Clause scrutiny are irrelevant to current Establishment Clause doctrine.

For another, it is absolutely clear that Madison — the leading Founder in regard to religious liberty and the lead representative in Congress in passing the First Amendment — would have viewed this case as a violation. As I wrote before, Madison stanchly opposed and defeated on free conscience grounds a religious-neutral, non-preferential assessment bill that gave citizens complete autonomy to direct funds however they wanted, including for religious purposes. It defies all common sense to say that while Madison opposed an assessment framework that offered individual citizens complete autonomy to service religion or not, he would have been fine with the assessment at issue here which offers citizens no choice on whether to fund a religious monument.

But perhaps most importantly, to allow the government to compel citizens for the payment of religious monuments, even based on tradition, but to deny public union extractions would amount to an egregious viewpoint discrimination. Yet that is exactly what the Court appears willing to decide. I hope for the sake of religious liberty I am wrong.

---

Tyler Broker is the Free Expression and Privacy Fellow at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. His work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review and the Albany Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

Source link

The post Religious Liberty Is Under Significant Threat This Term appeared first on Divorce Your Ring.

source https://divorceyourring.com/top-posts/religious-liberty-is-under-significant-threat-this-term/

6 Traits a Divorced Woman Looks For In a Man When She Is Ready To Love Again · Divorced Moms

 

Divorce sucks. That’s the simplest phrase for it. People get divorced for many reasons including finances, a lack of communication, a lack of passion and compassion, infidelity and overall dissatisfaction. While it can be assumed that no one enters into a marriage with the intention of getting divorced, life happens and sometimes the only remedy is to part ways.

When it comes to dating or being in a relationship with a woman who has been divorced for any amount of time, there is a possibility that she may still be hanging on to a few lingering feeling from her past love. It’s normal and it is a part of being human.

As a man who wants to show her that you are interested, when she opens up to you, be ready to listen more than you speak and don’t put up your defenses. Everybody wants and needs to feel the excitement of dating, being in a new relationship and forgetting about painful pasts.

If you meet a woman who has experienced divorce, here are 6 traits a divorced woman looks for in a man.

1. A man who isn’t afraid to have hard conversations.

There is no way to really get to know someone without talking with them. Women love to talk. Not just about how their day went or other mundane topics. Women like to be able to bear our souls without fear of judgment. And guess what? She is looking for a man who isn’t afraid to hit the ball back to her by asking questions that tap into real feelings and emotions.

If you’re considering dating and entertaining a relationship with a woman who had been divorced, don’t shut down she asks you questions about the future or about your past. If you too have experienced being divorced, use it as an avenue to find more common ground.

2. A man who knows what he wants.

No one likes someone who is lukewarm. Dating is all about options but when it comes to dating a woman who has been divorced, you have to be clear about your intentions. If you are looking to have fun and see multiple people, tell her. If you are open to being in an exclusive dating situation, tell her. More often than not, she doesn’t want to get married again tomorrow.

She just wants clear direction about how and where she should focus her energy especially is she has children or a busy schedule. Divorced women tend to know a little bit more of what they want in a man so they need a man who is sure of what he is looking for in a woman.

3. A man who is open to change.

Men are creatures of habit. Women know this. But it’s refreshing when a man gets bit by the adventure bug and wants to try something different. If your ideal date is dinner and a movie and hers is indoor rock-climbing and a sip and paint, be open to trying something new. Women are prone to put themselves in situations where they can get to know you better. You can’t talk during a movie but you sure can get a lot of laughs and good conversation over a glass of wine and a relaxing environment.

Being open to change doesn’t mean change with the wind. It just means that you can be open to changing your style of doing things to show that you care about someone other than yourself sometimes.

4. A man who is sure of himself.

Women love a confident man but there is a fine line between confident and cocky. A divorced woman may feel that she lacks in this area because for some, they think that being divorced is like wearing a D that resembles the scarlet letter. Women can sense a man that has an authentic picture of himself and his life.

When you paint the picture that she can relate to, you’ll have a better chance of getting her to be confident in herself as well.

5. A man who allows himself to be vulnerable.

Love is all about vulnerability. Vulnerability is all about giving someone the ammunition they need to possibly destroy you, but hoping that they will not. Women aren’t the only emotional beings and as a man, it is okay to show that side of you. Talk about your fears, your past, your desires, wants and needs.

Yes, women do love manly-men but they also want a man who can cater to their emotional needs. Don’t wait until you decide you want to be committed to be open. Vulnerability starts from day one.

6. A man who doesn’t remind her of her past love.

A divorced woman typically is more open and honest about her past. She will tell you what worked and what did not work. She will tell you what she loved about being married and she will tell you about what she hated. Pay attention to what she says. Always be yourself and allow her to see the real you. Because people are people, there are some characteristics we all share.

Ask her questions about her past and talk with through things that she may not understand. Some things are men habits. Some things are people habits. If she still has negative feelings towards her past, it doesn’t mean she isn’t ready to move forward. It could mean that this is your opportunity to help her see her past in a different light.

Men deserve love. Women deserve love. It doesn’t have to be complicated. Divorce is a life event, not a life sentence. When you meet a woman who has been through a divorce, if you’re interested in her, use her past to learn about her and how you can love her best.

More For You

Source link

The post 6 Traits a Divorced Woman Looks For In a Man When She Is Ready To Love Again · Divorced Moms appeared first on Divorce Your Ring.

source https://divorceyourring.com/top-posts/6-traits-a-divorced-woman-looks-for-in-a-man-when-she-is-ready-to-love-again-%c2%b7-divorced-moms/

Was Husband in Contempt for Not Achieving the Impossible? | FamilyLLB

Was Husband in Contempt for Not Achieving the Impossible?

The facts in Malboeuf v. Hanna raised an interesting issue:   Should a spouse be held in contempt for failing to satisfy a court Order that was impossible to comply with in the first place?

At an earlier hearing to address issues arising from their separation, the court ordered the husband to designate the wife as the irrevocable beneficiary of his life insurance policy.  Under the wording of the Order he was required within 30 days to “make arrangements to change the existing beneficiary designations to ‘irrevocable’ beneficiary designations ‘in trust for the children’ (if allowed by the insurer).  The goal was to secure the husband’s child support obligations towards their children by making the wife the trustee of the funds.

[While we have you here, we wanted to remind you that you can get the latest articles delivered to your inbox. Sign up here.]

The problem was that the insurer, RBC Insurance, did not allow such irrevocable designations on its policies.

This prompted the wife to claim that the husband was accordingly in breach of the strict wording of the Order, and should be found in contempt of court. At the least, he should have circumvented the obstacle raised by RBC’s policy by taking reasonable, good faith steps to try to achieve that required outcome through other means.  For example, he could have obtained a further Order requiring RBC to make the designation irrevocable, or could have purchased a new policy that did allow such designations to be made.

The husband countered that he had satisfied the technical wording of the Order by making the request to RBC; from there, it was out of his hands.  The “irrevocable” designation would be in place but for the fact that RBC did not allow it.

The court reviewed the law on civil contempt of court, noting that to prove the husband’s contempt the wife had to show all three of the following:

1)  that there was a clear and unequivocal Order stating what the husband should/should not do,

2) the husband actually knew the terms of the Order, and

3) he intentionally failed to do what was ordered of him.

The court added that even with all three elements established, it still had the power to override a contempt finding if it felt the husband had acted in good faith to take reasonable steps to try to comply.

In this scenario, the court concluded that the husband was not in breach. First of all, the Order did not clearly and unequivocally require him to irrevocably designate the wife, but rather contained built-in wording that contemplated a potential hurdle (i.e. “if allowed by the insurer”).  That alone absolved the husband from being held in contempt.

Nor was there anything in the wording of the Order that clearly and unequivocally required him to take other steps, such as getting a new policy or getting a court to force RBC to bend its policy.  Without such added obligations being clearly placed upon him, the husband could not be found in contempt in this situation.

For the full text of the decision, see:

Malboeuf v. Hanna, 2018

At Russell Alexander, Family Lawyers our focus is exclusively family law, offering pre-separation legal advice and assisting clients with family related issues including: custody and access, separation agreements, child and spousal support, division of family property, paternity disputes, and enforcement of court orders.  For more information, visit us at RussellAlexander.com

 

Related

Source link

The post Was Husband in Contempt for Not Achieving the Impossible? | FamilyLLB appeared first on Divorce Your Ring.

source https://divorceyourring.com/top-posts/was-husband-in-contempt-for-not-achieving-the-impossible-familyllb/