You've heard of speed-dating, but how about speed-divorcing? England has recently set into motion a new process to allow couples who have no disputes to sail through proceedings, bypassing the court queue entirely, says The Telegraph.

If couples can agree to all terms of a separation or divorce via a four-way, face-to-face talk, they'll hit the fast-track. While a traditional case takes three to four months, the new procedure is lightening fast. Says the article:

Provided every aspect of the case had been agreed and the hearing would last no more than 10 minutes, all that was needed was a day's notice to the court and a chance for the judge to read the papers overnight.

Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Should the couple hit a snag, though, they'll be back at square one in the courtroom waiting line — and will incur additional expenses. Perhaps Madonna and Guy will utilize the new system...

According to the American Psychological Association's new "Stress in America" study, "the declining state of the Nation's economy is taking a physical and emotional toll on people nationwide, and it is women who are bearing the brunt of financial stress."

The study confirms that women are more stressed about money (83 percent of women versus 78 percent of men) and the economy (84 percent versus 75 percent).

Financial stress is clearly a global issue and is, in fact, the main cause of divorce for Australian women, reports The Brisbane Times. More than one-third of women cite money as the reason for break-ups, divorce, and relationship stress.

Why more women than men? Researchers suggest that in times of economic crisis, women are more aware of mounting bills and expenses, particularly with regard to children. Consequently, they feel stress, and that stress carries into the relationship.

And economic crisis it is. The number of Australians citing financial insecurity as a relationship stressor has doubled since 2006.

Lawyers don't have the best reputations to begin with, and Gary Karpin isn't helping their cause.

The 57-year-old man posed as an Arizona divorce lawyer since 1996, reports The Arizona Republic. 

Karpin was, in fact, a trained attorney, although he has been disbarred in Vermont and Maine. When he landed in Arizona, he skipped the bar entirely and instead set up shop in divorce law, specializing in mediation - and raking in at least $300,000 from the 24 known cases he filed.

How was he discovered? When a client discovered Karpin was dating his wife, he dug up some interesting dirt on his "lawyer."

Unfortunately, this isn't the only case of dishonesty in divorce (no, we're not talking about your ex). Just last week, we posted "Fraudster Bilks Divorce Group." A North Carolina woman offered a sob story to her divorce support group, which came to her aid with more than $6000. Turns out, it was one big lie.

Karpin faced his own lies in his two-month trial, during which he represented himself; the jury found him guilty on 23 counts of theft and one count of fraud. Karpin is awaiting sentencing and could face more than nine years of jail time.

Photo: The Arizona Republic

Israel Meir Briksman is not the traditional "Wanted" man. Yet his picture is splayed across his Brooklyn neighborhood with instructions to his fellow community members: An arrest warrant has been issued against the man, and he is to be shunned.

The crime? He will not grant his wife a "get," or a spiritual divorce, says web site haaretz.com. On paper, the Orthodox Jewish community has agreed to publicly shun husbands who refuse their wives a divorce until they come forward. In reality, this is the first enforcement of the declaration.

Says the article:

Briksman's picture was released on the Web site of the rabbinic court, alongside photographs of other men who have refused to give their wives divorces.

Of the men who information was published, one has already come forward and granted his wife a get. But Briksman, who had been in custody battles with his wife of eight years over the couple's children, has yet to resurface.

You may remember a piece we ran last month, "'Get' This: Prenups May Be Required for Australian Jews," which mandated both husband and wife to allow the possibility of a get, in addition to a civil divorce, should the couple split.

Seems modern day realities are invading even the most sacred of traditions, but, we have to say, sometimes for the better.

Briksman's wife believes her spouse in the U.S. but will not return to New York anytime soon and she will remain "aguna," or "chained," the label given to women whose husband's refuse a divorce.

By all accounts the Divorce, Separation Support Group of Raleigh, North Carolina, is a terrific bunch of people, both men and women, at least 600 members, who meet once a week to give advice and help each other. The group was betrayed last January by a Fayetteville woman, Margaret Irene Haithcock, 51, who got $6,241 out of them by lying.

She came to the group and announced that she had a triple tragedy that had put her in debt. Her son had been killed in Iraq, she said, and she had cancer, and needed further treatments at Duke. Also, a fire had burned down her house and her letters from her son who was killed in Iraq.

The group, in response, held several fund raisers for her and actually had a memorial service for her son.

But it turned out that none of that was true.

An arrest warrant was issued in June, charging her with obtaining property by false pretenses. The warrant said that the claims of her illness and a dead son were offered only as a way to get money from the group. It took authorities more than two months to find her.

Haithcock, who is also known as Margaret H. Cooke, was arrested last month. According to records at the North Carolina Department of Corrections, she has a history of arrests and convictions dating from 1984 to 1990. She was imprisoned, most recently, for six months in 1990 on forgery charges. Other charges included credit card fraud, credit card theft, attempted forgery, and cheating on property services.

Haithcock/Cooke pleaded guilty on Thursday (October 9) to the charges, and has been ordered to repay the divorce support group. She was given three years of probation, fined $200, and ordered to undergo a mental health assessment.

Finally, she was told not to be in touch with the support group ever again.

What no one has made clear, however, is whether or not Haithcock/Cooke lied about another thing: Was she ever divorced?

In Florida, there is no such thing as “joint custody”; instead it is called “shared parental responsibility.” The person given custody is technically the “primary residential custodian” and the other parent is the “secondary residential custodian.”

Why? Because courts around the world are trying to remove inflammatory words from family law, in hopes that will make divorce less fractious. In 2005, France eliminated any gender bias in the language in its divorce laws. It treats mothers and fathers as exact equals, except in one area: a wife may take back her maiden name.

As long ago as 1991, the British courts changed the language for custody, in an attempt to remove the sense of ownership that went along with the word “custody.” Because of that, 17 years ago, “we heaved a collective sigh of relief,” said Jonathan Smith, a family lawyer in Great Britain.

The problem, he said, was that the courts were using the new terms “parental responsibility,” “residence,” and (for the parent who does not live with the child) “contact” time.

But, he said, regular people, and the press, continued to talk about "custody" and "access" to the child.

And yet, people keep trying. In 2001, the Minnesota legislature adopted new language for custody and visitation, ahem, “in an attempt to lessen the animosity in custody battles.” One parent is the “primary caregiver,” but both parents are apportioned “parenting time.”

Even in New York, where we and everyone else have endlessly referred to “custody” in celebrity cases, like the Christie Brinkley-Peter Cook divorce, the actual terms are “residential custody” to one parent, making the other parent the “non-residential parent.”

Is being single such a bad thing? Especially after divorce? A few celebs' friends think so. Pink's buddies are pushing the recently divorced pop singer to start dating again, says The Metro, despite her distaste for the singles scene. She admits that she "never goes on dates," and prefers less obvious hookup scenarios.

Pink better watch out, or before she knows it, matchmakers will start popping up — which happens to be the case for Tom Arnold, says contactmusic.com. Maria Shriver, of all people, is playing Arnold's cupid. (The connection? Arnold is a good friend of Shriver's husband, Arnold Schwarznegger.) In fact, Shriver has been labeled Arnold's dating coach, matching him up with friends after his third divorce earlier this year. The results? Mixed:

He explains, "When your friends set you up, you really know what they think of you — and evidently my friends think I'm old and fat."

Regardless of the outcome, why must everyone have someone? What do you think? Tell us below.

Actress Shiva Rose's divorce from fellow actor Dylan McDermott is taking a toll on the family home, reports contactmusic.com. Rose is unable to buy out McDermott's share of their Brentwood residence; consequently, they are selling the house.

Actually, that's one side of the story. A source told the New York Post that Rose is being forced to sell the home, while a statement released from Rose's camp said the two have agreed as a couple to sell the house they shared for nine years.

Regardless, divorce is expensive. If you remember, McDermott filed after 11 years of marriage, stating he would represent himself in the divorce process. Perhaps he was attempting to save a few bucks?

With the country embroiled in a tainted-milk scandal, a Chinese woman is suing her husband for the right to breastfeed her son, and therefore prevent her husband from divorcing her.

What is as pure as mother’s milk, or as safe? That’s a question that even Confucius would have trouble debating. But a Chinese court will now have to.

The couple met online and married quickly, in September, 2007. Clearly they didn’t use eHarmony and didn’t know the perils and pitfalls of online dating.

Almost before they got to know each other, a baby was conceived. But while she was pregnant, she says, her husband took too many pregnant pauses. He was away for long stretches of time.

Once the son was born, her husband snatched the baby, telling her, “If you want to see your son, we have to divorce.”

She looked for her son, and finally found him after a frantic search — and with her breasts and temper engorged — at her husband’s sister’s house, and took him away. The victory was short-lived.

The husband went ahead and filed for divorce, but the court rejected his request because it ruled that when a child is still breastfeeding, a husband cannot file for divorce. Dripping with venom, the husband ignored the court’s ruling, rounded up a group of friends, and took the child away again, by force.

How dare he?

Now the wife is suing her husband to get the child back, and to breastfeed without interruption.

The court has yet to rule on this case. But your FWW scribes will keep you abreast of the situation as it unfolds.

Last week, we highlighted the story of a husband who threatened to divorce his ex-smoker wife if she lit up again; this week, cigars are the point of contention.

An otherwise happy Egyptian wife is divorcing her husband — and his stogie habit — reports Russian news source Novosti. The woman alleges that her partner refuses to smoke outside their home, and, consequently, she has developed a heavy allergy.

In her own words:

"My husband deliberately puts my life to danger. And I am not ready to sacrifice my life for the sake of love for him," she said.

She calls him "inflexible"; he calls her "inhumane":

"I am a draftsman engineer, and I often take additional work home to earn more money for my loved but ungrateful wife," he lamented.

Feels like everything's going up in smoke these days...