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...

After going through the stress of many in vitro fertilizations, I vivdly remember signing a paper giving the unused embryos to scientific research. In my mind, it was the least I could do since, thanks to this modern day miracle, I could possible conceive the child I so desperately wanted.

But I also realized that the pain — both physical and emotional — of this process could also break couples apart. It was right there in front of me, as I witnessed the cumulative strain on people in the waiting room.

What, I wondered, would happen to their embryos if indeed they broke up? A woman on fertility drugs can produce as many as 20 or 30 eggs. Who would get them?

The nurses would smile and tell me not to worry about it, especially since my husband and I were, they said, such a happy couple. Naturally the reporter in me wanted answers. Where exactly did the embryos go? Did they go into one large unpatrolled laboratory where a rogue nurse would sell them elsewhere. And then, in years to come, I'd meet my lookalike in the mall.

Yes, I know, it seems like something out of a Robin Cook medical thriller, and I laughed at how fertile my imagination could be. So did the nurses. Everything, they assured me, was properly monitored and nothing could happen to the embryos without both parents’ consent.

With in vitro fertilization (IVF), doctors usually implant no more than four fertilized eggs to prevent high-multiple births. In Oregon, a divorced couple split on what to do with their six frozen fertilized eggs, and the case ended up in the Oregon Court of Appeals.

Laura Dahl and her former husband, Darrell Angle, had stored their “embryos” with Oregon Health and Science University, where she had undergone IVF. (For the sake of argument, the court called the fertilized eggs “embryos,” although they said that, technically, they would become embryos only once implanted in a woman’s womb.)

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.

You are parents forever, even after divorce. That conventional wisdom resonated this week with the new dust-up between Peter Cook and Christie Brinkley. As we reported this week, Cook apparently violated a confidentiality agreement by deciding to appear on 20/20 with Barbara Walters tonight.

Brinkley swiftly tried to then bar the philandering father from seeing her two children, Jack and Sailor, this weekend.

But a Long Island judge played Solomon and found a solution. Cook can take the children but as Brinkley's lawyer explained, he "has to be away from his home and he can't expose them to the 20/20 broadcast."

Cook claimed he wouldn’t have exposed the children in any case, but the children are seen in the 20/20 broadcast.

A person close to Cook said, "I find it silly that someone who not only allows her children to be in the media but encourages it would have a complaint like this."

The people who should have a complaint are the children.

I’m glad that Sailor and Jack have each other as confidantes since they are caught in the middle like fish in a net while their parents continue their hostilities. Children want to love both parents, and when thrown into an ocean of he said/she said charges, they are left confused, conflicted and hurt. At least they have each other as they swim through these murky waters.

That is no small thing. Often siblings in divorce form enduring bonds.

Forgiveness is difficult when you are co-parenting after a hostile divorce. Christie Brinkley clearly didn't want to have those wounds reopened by a Barbara Walters interview with her ex.

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.”

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...

Pop sensation Pink isn’t blue that she’s through with her ex-husband, the motocross biker Carey Hart. But she does blame her career. She’s not alone in feeling work drove her marriage straight into the dirt.

In an interview, Pink says, “It ‘s such a cliché when you talk about a Hollywood divorce, but the scheduling did get very hard. And it seemed that I was always the one left in charge of it. I got tired of being the Schedule Woman.”

Indeed, it can be exhausting having to juggle so much. Which is why one West Virginia University study shows that working women have a higher divorce rate and cites as a major irritant the disparity between the housework they do, and the housework their mate does.

Maybe it’s also because guys seem to have the lazy gene but when you are capably steering a demanding career, it’s not easy to come home and cater to a husband who collapses into a chair and expects burgers and beer, even if he has had a hard day being a Moto X daredevil.

She married Hart in 2006 in a celebrity-packed wedding in Costa Rica. He, now 32, was a star of “The Surreal Life” reality show and is famous for his tattoo parlors, Hart & Huntington, in Las Vegas, Cabo, and Hawaii.

When you have a career, and like Pink, you are young, successful and fun, you don’t need to put up with a guy who isn’t doing even 65 percent of his part. Financial independence does give you the ability to say, or sing, “See ya.”

In fact, that is what the 28-year-old Pink did. In a new song, she belts out the following lyrics, which could be interpreted as a slap in you-know-who’s face.

“And I don’t need you/ And guess what?/ I’m having fun.”

It’s a “Basic Instinct” to want to raise your child. But Sharon Stone has lost the chance to have 8-year-old son Roan live with her after a California family court ruled that Roan will reside fulltime in San Francisco with her ex-husband, Phil Bronstein.

Stone had petitioned the court to allow Roan to live in Los Angeles for the school year. Instead, according to court documents, Bronstein, whom Stone divorced in 2004, will have “permanent physical custody of child.” Previously, the couple had shared physical and legal custody.

The decision said, “Court finds the Respondent (Sharon Stone) failed to meet her burden of proof and denies her request for modification of custody.”

There’s no sugarcoating here. It is highly unusual for a father to have permanent custody of a child so young.

California courts may ask the “reasonable preference of the child,” but the statute is very clear that that is only “if the court deems the child to be of reasonable intelligence, understanding, age and experience to express such a preference.”

How old would that usually be? “Possibly 15, but usually 16,” says FWW’s Clifford M. Solomon, a divorce attorney for the White Plains, N.Y., firm of Solomon & Tanenbaum. “The court looks at the maturity of the child since you don’t want a situation where a father bribes a child to live with him to stop child support payments.”

So why would Bronstein get fulltime custody of his young son?