Su Cooke's Blog

When Maria Prieto and her boyfriend James Agnew decided to buy a condo and move in together three years ago, Agnew suggested the pair get a cohabitation agreement.
Prieto admitted she didn’t know what that meant, but once it was explained to her she agreed to it right away.
“We just decided that if we were to break up, we wanted to know what would happen, who’s going to get the condo. We didn’t want it to be a fight if we broke up: ‘Who’s going to pay whom’ and that type of thing,” she explained.
Many people wrongly assume that cohabiting couples have the same rights as their married counterparts. For the most part, they’re right, but there are some areas where the law can mean you leave your relationship empty handed.
Unlike married couples, Ontario law does not guarantee an equal 50-50 split of your assets — or net family property — after a relationship ends. Net family property refers to more than just physical property — it also includes other assets such as RRSPs and one’s pension, with a few exceptions (for example, inheritance is often not considered part of the net family property, but family trusts can be included).
In plain English, that means what’s mine isn’t necessarily yours and visa versa.
Of the more than 15 million Canadians who reported in the 2006 census that they are married or in a common law relationship, nearly 20 percent — or 3 million — are common law.
Marian Girgis, a barrister and solicitor at Levine Associates ( www.levlaw.com) in Toronto, says she sees many more couples come in for cohabitation agreements now than when she started practising law in 1993. As the demand for agreements have increased, so too has her clients’ knowledge.
“My average client is much more informed than 20 years ago,” she said, adding she thinks the Internet has played a role in people having more information — even if some of it is wrong.
It turns out, there’s a lot of misconceptions about the rights of common-law partners after a relationship ends. One way a cohabitation agreement can protect spouses is by spelling out what property can be split and how it will be split. It can also spell out how spousal support will be handled, and how joint debts will be paid.
“Right now, married spouses can go to the family law act and force a equalization of their net family properties through agreement or through litigation and, eventually, a court order,” explained Girgis.
“Common-law partners have to rely on the common law to permit them to make a claim against their partner’s assets.”
This means that married people essentially have an automatic right to the equalization of net family property — common-law spouses do not.
For example, imagine a married couple who have been together for 25 years. One of the spouses has a pension that is worth $300,000; the other spouse has no pension. When the couple splits, the spouse with the pension gives $150,000 to the spouse without so the value is equalized between them.
This is not the case for common-law partners. The partner with the pension walks away with it intact; the partner without the pension gets nothing. The common-law spouse could try to make a common-law claim in order to get a share of their partner’s pension, but there’s no guarantee.
Cohabitation agreements offer the same protection that prenuptial agreements, or marriage contracts, do for couples who are getting tying the knot. A cohabitation agreement turns into to a marriage contract if a cohabiting couple marries. If they don’t, the agreement remains active until one of the partners dies, unless the contract stipulates and end date.
The process
To get a cohabitation agreement, each partner must retain their own lawyer. Without independent legal advice, an agreement isn’t likely to hold up in court in the event of a separation, says Girgis. Each partner gives full financial disclosure explaining all of their debts, as well as their assets. Neither partner can be forced into signing a cohabitation agreement.
That last point is important, since it’s typically one person, or one person’s family, who drives the decision to get an agreement in place. So how does Girgis ensure that her client is not being coerced into signing something they don’t want?
“I would counsel my client to hopefully get as fair a deal as possible,” she says. “Sometimes you tell your client, ‘Don’t sign this, it’s not fair.’”
It’s acceptable that people want to exclude certain assets from their relationship, she says, but it’s about creating a document that’s fair to both parties. After all, she argues, if a document is weighted too heavily toward one side, there’s a good chance the court may set it aside, making it worthless.
There is no one dominate age group that seeks cohabitation agreements, says Girgis — couples young and old get them. However, she says she has noticed an increased demand from people whose families have urged them to get an agreement to protect a family fortune or business asset.
“They want to pass it down through that one family’s line,” she explains. “They don’t want to dilute it. It’s very common. More often than not, that’s one of the main reasons people come to see me.”
As for the old argument that the prenuptial or cohabitation agreements make relationships more business than romantic?
Prieto says it’s all about practicality.
“I don’t see it as romantic or not romantic. I see it more like it’s practical.”
Would she recommend others get a contract as well?
“Absolutely,” she said. “I talked to some co-workers and people that I know, and yes, I recommend it. I would rather be protected or cautious if something happened.”
One couple’s decision
The nagging feeling began about two years ago.
My partner, Keith, and I had decided that I would give up my rented bachelor apartment to move in with him in the condo that he owned.
While I loved Keith and wanted to believe this was the start of my forever relationship, there was something holding me back.
Perhaps it was due to the bitterness of my own parents’ divorce. Or maybe it had something to do with friends of mine whose cohabiting relationships had ended in brutal fashion. Whatever the reason, I was hesitant about this next big step.
The plan was I would pay Keith rent, and he’d keep the mortgage under his name alone.
Friends told me everything was going to be fine. Despite their reassurances, I decided to seek out the advice of a friend who’s a lawyer. That friend who highly recommended we sign a document that would detail how things were to go if we didn’t work out.
We never did.
When we bought a house together recently, that nagging feeling returned.
We could sign a partnership agreement, which is more business than personal. It would detail who gets how much of the house should the partnership — err, I mean relationship — end. Or we could get a cohabitation agreement from a family lawyer.
After careful consideration, Keith and I decided not to get a cohabitation agreement at this time.
Our decision was made not due to trust or love, but rather practicality.
Since the house is in both our names, we each have a right to the property if we split up. And we don’t have a lot of other assets that would come into play should we part ways.
That doesn’t mean we have ruled out getting a domestic contract in the future. We’re confident that if we decide to get a legal agreement down the road, it won’t mean we love each other any less.

Recent research has just identified 15 occupations with an elevated risk of divorce. We were shocked to find that the list did not include professions like pro golfers, manufacturers of custom-made choppers, and North Carolina Senators turned Democratic presidential nomination candidates. We were also surprised at some of the jobs that did make the list.

Here are the guys you want to steer clear of, according to the study out of Radford University in Virginia, in order of increasing risk of divorce:

Maids and housekeeping cleaners

Roofers

Waiters

Telemarketers

Baggage porters and concierges

Entertainers and performers, sports and related workers

Nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides

Telephone operators

Factory workers: food and tobacco

Gaming service worker

Extruding machine operator

Gaming cage worker

Massage therapists

Bartenders

Dancers and choreographers

So what you’re telling us, Radford researchers, is that our dream of having a happy marriage with that guy who clocks in at a cigarette factory by day, bartends by night, and works in a gaming cage (??) on weekends will never come true?

Related: You Won’t Believe What These People Put on Their Resumes…

The study also found that some of the professions with the lowest divorce rate are: sales engineers, podiatrists, and transit police.

Related: The Habit That Puts You at Risk for Divorce

Do you think there’s any truth to this research? What jobs do you think carry a higher risk of divorce? And do you think it has to do with the actual profession (as in, a bartender has more chances to cheat and ultimately, end his marriage) or do you think men likely to divorce tend to choose these occupations?

FIRST POSTED: TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012 02:00 AM EDT | UPDATED: TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012 10:00 AM EDT

Divorce goes beyond wreaking havoc in households – workplaces pay the price, too, when couples split.

The economic cost is huge: A divorcing employee can cost the company up to $80,000 in lost productivity, says Canadian mediator Karen Stewart. “Divorce causes chaos in lives and reduces productivity at home and at work. It causes a ton of distractions and lost focus.”

The ripple effect of home wars makes for bad business, yet the negative economic impact has not been widely recognized or addressed.

“Consider the appointments away from work to rearrange finances, home, kids, counselling and legal meetings. Then also consider the cost of lost productivity due to stress, lack of motivation/concentration and emotional breakdown,” says Stewart, president of Fairway Divorce Solutions, which is headquartered in Calgary.

The average divorce takes about two years from start to finish; fighting over kids and money is mayhem and costs accumulate quickly.

“The strain of divorce leaves employees tired, overwhelmed and quite distracted. There are personal e-mails, texting, Google searches and phone calls – all in an attempt to survive what for most people is the worst period of their life,” says New York therapist and professor Dr. Joel Block.

“Then, of course, even when they are focusing on work, the focus is compromised by the distraction of surviving the divorce – will the children be harmed, will I have enough money afterwards, will I ever find love and happiness again? These are just some of the questions that compete with focusing on the job,” says Block, author of The Marriage Work Connection: A Couple’s Guide to Balancing Your Life Together.

Divorced mother of four, Lisa Lloyd, weathered the divorce storm while working and raising her brood.

“Absolutely my productivity was compromised during the divorce process. Emotionally you are drained and beat up. You are tired and at times, feeling very inadequate,” says Lloyd, who lives in Alberta.

Her family, not her work, was her first priority and it was a struggle to balance it all, but she managed by using divorce mediation along with keeping her employer apprised of her divorce journey.

“Some days were completely upside-down emotionally and their understanding allowed me to push through those days faster and with the belief that those kinds of days would become less and less as time passed,” she says.

Divorce is much like working through a death or loss – time heals and repairs, says Lloyd.

“I believe divorce makes you much stronger, more aware and adaptable – qualities an employer should embrace.”

Experts agree mediation and conflict resolution are key to moving through divorce effectively and efficiently, cutting down on stress, costs and time vs. the traditional adversarial legal system.

“Companies can be proactive in reducing these costs by educating their employees with regards to how they can move through divorce in a way that does not destroy their career, finances and relationships,” says Stewart. “When an employee is getting a divorce, it affects the company in its entirety.”

Employer Mary Krauel agrees: She spent 25 years in the corporate world and recalls an employee’s divorce that affected a multi-million dollar consulting project she was managing.

This division manager was embroiled in a nasty split and was being denied access to his kids.

“He carried this stress to work. It made him increasingly insecure in what he was doing and in his competency. He began to fear he would lose his job,” says Krauel

He became extremely confrontational, non-cooperative and unproductive, ultimately impeding advancement of the project and possible financial success.

Krauel offered him trust and understanding, a place to be vulnerable without fear of repercussions. Weekly meetings soon included conversations about how things were going at home.

“Even though I could do nothing to help him at home, I could at work,” says Krauel, who recently opened a Fairway Divorce Solutions franchise in Mississauga. “A workplace is a family and when one is hurt all are affected.”

WHAT WORKPLACES CAN DO

Pro-active measures by companies can lessen the divorce impact. Therapist and author Dr. Joel Block suggests these tips:

Employee assistance programs should offer marital counselling services. Partner with marriage enrichment programs and other services that support marriage.

Install marriage-friendly travel policies. For instance, permit executives who are on the road more than one-third of the time to have their spouses accompany them on selected business trips.

Provide psychological support for families who are relocating.

Create more liberal parenting leave by allowing parents to patch together as much paid time off as possible, including vacation, sick days and perhaps even a short-term disability policy.

Initiate personnel policies and work environments that permit parents to spend more time with their children, thus helping to reduce the marital stress that accompanies childrearing. Examples include opportunities for job sharing, compressed work weeks, career breaks and working at home.

THE COST OF DIVORCE ON COMPANIES

• Absenteeism of employees attending meetings with lawyers or appearances in court.
• Time lost to stress leaves or sick days.
• Decline in productivity due to stress.
• Dysfunctional behaviour caused by stress may cause grievances that may result in suspensions, time to investigate grievances and possible legal fees.
• Failing to complete tasks or follow up with customers may result in lost sales or result in missed discounts.
• Increase in benefit costs due to short-term disability for stress leaves.
• Overtime of other co-workers to complete work of absent employee.
• Stressed employees will not be at their best in their dealings with suppliers, co-workers, their bosses and, most importantly, their customers, which will reflect on business.

Source: Mary Krauel, Fairwaydivorce.com

Check out author Rebecca Eckler’s article on blended families, as posted in The Toronto Star, with tips on how to make it work for your own personal household!

Blended families: Author Rebecca Eckler talks about becoming a modern-day Brady Bunch

March 8, 2012  The Toronto Star  REBECCA ECKLER

Blended families: Author Rebecca Eckler talks about becoming a modern-day Brady Bunch

It’s tricky business of blending two families while making sure everyone is happy and accepting of one another.

It was the most awkward phone call I have ever made.

The person I needed to reach was my boyfriend’s ex-wife. A friend who is a divorce lawyer had suggested that I call the mother of Jordan’s children to invite her over. The idea was to give her an opportunity to see where her children are staying and how they live when they’re not with her.

It took me months to steel myself for that phone call.

But things had changed rapidly since Jordan and I had started dating.

First we had started spending time together with his two daughters, Jenna, 12, and Tegan, 10, and my daughter, Rowan, 8. Then I’d become pregnant with Jordan’s child (we’re expecting in June), which means her girls are going to have a new half-sibling in common with my daughter.

After minutes of stuttering about why I was calling, I extended the invitation for her to come over and asked her to ring me if she ever thinks I’m overstepping my bound with her children. The phone call lasted almost half an hour and, for a while at least, it seemed to help.

Jordan and I are now engaged, and truly about to become a modern-day Brady Bunch. We’re part of a growing group of people in second marriages grappling with the tricky business of blending two families while making sure everyone is happy and accepting of one another. Keeping interactions with exes friendly — or at least cooperative — is only one part of the picture. At least as daunting is the logistical nightmare of getting everyone under the same roof.

I have my daughter full time, and her school, friends and activities are in Toronto. Jordan is with his girls 50 per cent of the time, and they have school, friends and activities just outside Toronto. His delicate balance of time spent with his children, at work and with me means a lot of time in the car. His gas bills, naturally, are outrageous.

In another time management hurdle, my ex has our daughter for March break, so our newly blended crew won’t be all together. In the future, we’re going to try to have the same schedule, but it won’t always work out.

Still, the emotional terrain is far more complicated than the scheduling or geography.

My 8-year-old, who was used to sleeping with me every night since she was 3, still moans when I tell her that Jordan is sleeping over. “Is he sleeping over tomorrow night?” she’ll ask. “Is he sleeping over the night after that? How about the night after that?” While she adores Jordan and her new stepsisters, and is excited about the baby, she still shows signs of jealousy. If I give Jordan a hug and a kiss, for example, she’ll be between us in a split-second asking for a hug or kiss, too. I’m not sure she knows that’s what she’s feeling. She just knows she has to share me, and even after a year, that still feels new. Likewise, Jordan’s daughters don’t always understand why we talk on the phone so much.

It’s definitely a balancing act for both Jordan and me.

And so is the budget. At first, I thought it would be easy enough. My ex and I would take care of our daughter financially, while Jordan and his ex would cover costs for their two daughters. Jordan and I would be responsible for our future baby. But it’s not that simple. On the smaller scale, when we go grocery shopping, does he have to pay more because he has two children and I have one? And what about bigger-ticket items, like vacations? At first there were some difficult discussions about who will pay for what before I realized that if you blend a family, you have to blend almost everything. From now on we’ll go 50/50 on trips, even though there are two of us versus three of them. I’ve come to understand that, in blended families, there is no “them” versus “us.” There can’t be.

But not everything can be perfectly even. For example, my daughter will be going to a costly overnight camp this summer, and I’d like all three girls to go together. Would I be willing to help out with the costs? Absolutely. But would I be stepping on toes if I did? I think so.

For my daughter’s birthday, I’ve always taken her to Miami for a few days. Already she has to get used to a new man in her life, two new siblings, and a new baby on the way, so we’re going to keep that mother-daughter tradition.

It’s an adjustment for everyone. Jordan’s daughters have had to become accustomed to sleeping in a different house, and to spending time with me and my daughter. They also have to digest the idea of their father moving on to a new relationship, and to sharing his attention with a baby sibling. I have to make sure my daughter feels comfortable and knows she is loved as much as before, while also nurturing my new adult partnership and building a relationship with Jordan’s kids.

For the most part, because we all communicate pretty well and tell each other how we’re feeling, so far we’re transitioning as best I could hope for. But it’s not easy for every blended family.

A good friend of mine called me near tears with frustration at her stepchildren. She married a man with two preteen sons, and then had a child with him. Her stepchildren are disrespectful to her and leave her home in disarray, she says. As they’ve gotten into their teen years it has become more difficult, not less. “I feel like I don’t even want to come home when they’re there. They leave pizza boxes everywhere, they don’t say hi to me when I walk in.”

We’ve had tearful conversations about messes at our house, too. But I went into this relationship knowing that to love Jordan was to love his children, just as he knew that to love me was to love my daughter. It’s not always easy, but there are ways I’ve learned to make it easier.

For instance, I always look at the positives of having his children in my life. Jenna is super friendly, outgoing and smart. Tegan makes me laugh, is a talented artist and has a smile that can light up a room. They’re both great to my daughter. And with two more girls at home, I never have to worry about finding a hairbrush or hair elastic.

Jordan and I spend a lot of time talking about our children, how they are adapting, and what we can do to make these changes easier. Sometimes it feels like we’ll always be adjusting. But I realize that I’m lucky. Our families are supportive. Our three children get along. And having a baby on the way seems to have brought us even closer. The other night, one of his daughters told me she loves me. I told her I love her, too. It’s not the same love I have for my daughter, just as I’m sure she doesn’t love me the way she loves her mother. But it is love.

And though I couldn’t have known it, it turns out this is the family I’ve always wanted.

Rebecca Eckler is the bestselling author of Knocked Up, Wiped! and Toddlers Gone Wild. Her most recent books are The Lucky Sperm Club and How to Raise a Boyfriend. She is currently working on Knocked Up, the Sequel.

Rebecca Eckler is the bestselling author of Knocked Up, Wiped! and Toddlers Gone Wild. Her most recent books are The Lucky Sperm Club and How to Raise a Boyfriend. She is currently working on Knocked Up, the Sequel.

Tips for making a blended family work

There’s no special formula for ensuring everything goes smoothly when it comes to blending families. But Jo-Anne Cutler, a family therapist from Mississauga, offers this advice.

1. Encourage respect. While kids need to be eased in to a blended family, all biological parents and step-parents should provide a united front in terms of expecting respectful behaviour toward all family members, old and new.

2. Watch your tone. When it comes to discipline, so much hinges on the way it’s delivered. Don’t scold. If there’s something that needs to be addressed, mention it in a casual way, like, “Hey, is something wrong? Is this a teenage thing that you’re not saying ‘hi’ to me? Or did I do something wrong?”

3. Hold family meetings. With a new family, these are really important. Meetings offer a time for everyone to take a deep breath. Ask children what isn’t working for them and don’t take the answers personally. This is a time to let go of the typical parental hierarchy and let the kids say exactly how they are feeling.

4. Expect kids to act out. Divorce will have an impact on them at any age. “The children might be experiencing emotional issues surrounding their divorce. And they might act that out on their new family members and make them scapegoats for their feelings.”

5. Consider therapy. Counselling can be great for children of any age going through a divorce and adjusting to a new family. “It’s a time for children to speak to someone who they know won’t judge them,” says Cutler. “Then, hopefully, they’ll learn to speak openly at home as well.”

6. Keep the peace with exes. “This is a lifelong thing,” explains Cutler. “There will be graduations, soccer games, weddings.” At some point, someone has to break the ice over coffee or on the phone. If you don’t get along, “make the love for your children bigger than the angst for your ex.” – Rebecca Eckler

The below article from The Toronto Star showcases how Canadian families all have their own individual means of growth and love, even in the most unique of situations! There is no guideline when it comes to family.

Saturday, March 3rd, 2012, Amy Dempsey

Identical twins adopted from China by two different Ontario families grow up 400 km apart

The drop-off takes place on a wet winter night at a roadside coffee shop near Hamilton.

A girl with a curtain of jet black hair sits at a table by the window, waiting, parents at her side. When headlights flash across the parking lot, she beams.

Seconds later, the door bursts open and heads turn as a grinning girl with the same curtain of dark hair walks in — an unmistakable clone of the first.

She’s come with an overnight bag and a pillow. And, curiously, she’s come with two parents of her own.

“Gill!” sings the sitting family. Smiles all around as she gives the other girl an affectionate slug on the shoulder.

The four parents have driven a combined six hours through snow and rain and rush hour to meet in between their two towns. In a few minutes, one pair will turn around and head back, this time with both girls in tow.

All this so that two 12-year-olds can have a sleepover.

It’s an enormous effort for what will amount to an 18-hour visit, but it is an effort spurred by a promise made years ago, when the parents discovered their adopted daughters had a startling connection.

They were identical twins.

The girls were born in China, separated by circumstance and parceled out to two different families. Whether by fortune or design -  no one will ever know – the couples who adopted them were both from Ontario. And they figured it out.

Kirk and Allyson MacLeod adopted their daughter, Lily, 12 years ago and brought her home to Keswick, north of Toronto. Mike and Lynette Shaw adopted their daughter, Gillian, 12 years ago and brought her home to Amherstburg, just outside Windsor. When the parents discovered the connection, they vowed to raise them as sisters.

The situation is as rare as it is fascinating: Lily and Gillian are one of only a handful of twin pairs in the world known to be growing up in this way — apart, yet together. They are an accidental experiment, giving researchers a new window into human behaviour by allowing them to study the effects of nature and nurture in real-time. For science, Lily and Gillian are a treasure.

And for the people raising them — strangers thrown together by extraordinary circumstances — the unusual arrangement has made them pioneers of a whole new kind of blended family. They are making up the rules as they go.

The photos came by courier on a cold Christmas Eve in 1999. An early gift.

At their home in Keswick, Allyson and Kirk MacLeod tore open the package and stared in awe at the little girl who would soon be theirs. Tiny hands balled into fists, a sleepy gaze.

Allyson and Kirk, in their early 30s, had been trying to have a baby for years. After two miscarriages — the second at five months — they decided to adopt. More than anything, they wanted a family.

The babe in the photo wore a white dress with blue polka dots. Her cheeks were chubby, eyebrows arched in surprise, lower lip settled into a perfect porcelain pout. A patch of dark fuzzy hair, sparse in front, grew thick at the crown of her head. They named her Lily.

In a town 400 kilometres away, Mike and Lynette Shaw, at home with their two young children, opened their own package.

Mike and Lynette, also in their early 30s, had always wanted a house full of kids. Nearly two years before the package came, Lynette had given birth to a third child, Jonathan, who was born with a rare heart defect and died when he was only 17 days old. Another pregnancy could be difficult, both physically and emotionally. So Lynette and Mike decided to adopt.

The babe in their photo wore a pale pink sleeper with buttons up the front. She had chubby cheeks, arched brows, a perfect pout and a patch of dark fuzzy hair; sparse in front, thick at the crown. Her name would be Gillian.

The Shaws and MacLeods had met once, three months previous, at a gathering of couples adopting through the same Ottawa-based agency. They were part of a small group of parents-to-be who would travel to China together in February to pick up their children. When the photos arrived on Dec. 24, an excited email exchange ensued.

But when the Shaws saw the photo of Lily, they were taken aback. Mike put the two pictures together, scanned them and sent the split-screen image back to the MacLeods with a brief message: Notice anything similar about these two?

They did. Allyson and Kirk had been thinking the same thing.

The two families contacted the adoption agency and asked coordinators to look into the matter. At first, the parents were concerned the orphanage may have inadvertently assigned one baby to two different families. Adoption documents even gave the girls the same birthday. If there were two of them, could they be twins?

Word came back from the orphanage a few days later: there were indeed two babies. Workers said the girls were found in different locations, brought in separately. They were not twins, just look-alikes.

And so the MacLeods and Shaws found themselves, two months later, at a hotel in China’s Hunan province, waiting outside an elevator with three other couples. When the doors opened, five nannies stepped out with five little girls in their arms, babies bundled into so many layers of clothing they could hardly move. Only their heads peeked out of the hooded zip-up suits they wore.

It was immediately clear to all that two of the babies were identical.

Officially, the orphanage still insisted the girls, then 8 months old, were unrelated and could not be adopted together. If the parents didn’t take the baby assigned to them, they would go back into the adoption pool. And there was no guarantee they would end up together next time.

Maybe workers at the orphanage really didn’t know. Maybe they didn’t care. Or maybe, as the girls’ parents like to think, they couldn’t afford a DNA test and did what they thought was the next best thing: place the twins with families near each other.

“They could have easily sent one of the girls to Australia and one to Canada and nobody would have been the wiser,” says Kirk. “To put the girls together in the same group of people, I think the orphanage was saying to us, ‘please find out.’”

A DNA test would later confirm what the parents didn’t doubt for a moment. Lily and Gillian were twins.

Before leaving China, the Shaws and MacLeods made a pact — without having any idea what the commitment would entail — to raise the girls as sisters. The strangers were family now.

Like any parent faced with a unique child-rearing challenge, Allyson turned to the all-knowing internet for answers, emailing some of the world’s leading twin experts for advice. Could they, she asked, point her toward resources for parents raising infant twins apart?

When Nancy Segal read Allyson’s email, she was floored. As a prominent twin expert and former assistant director of the renowned Minnesota Center for Twin and Adoption Research, Segal had encountered a slew of unusual multiples over the years. But identical twins being raised apart, yet as sisters? It was unheard of.

The bad news for the parents was that there weren’t any how-to manuals. The good news — for science, at least — was that tracking the twins’ growth could lead to fascinating and valuable research.

It would be difficult to overstate the importance of twins to genetic research. They have been called nature’s living laboratories, scientific treasures, the workhorse of behavioural genetics. Twins are the vehicle through which scientists have been able to study and decode the effects of nature and nurture on our behaviour, personality and disease vulnerability.

Identical twins, who come from a single fertilized egg that splits in two, are genetic photocopies of each other. By comparing them with fraternal twins — who come from two separate eggs and are no different than non-twin siblings, genetically speaking — researchers have been able to pinpoint what is genetic and what is not.

In the late 1970s, scientists at the Minnesota Center for Twin and Adoption Research began studying what was then a new category of multiples — adopted twins who were separated at birth and reunited as adults.

Perhaps the most famous of the twins studied were Jim Springer and Jim Lewis, identicals who reconnected at age 39 and found that their parents had unknowingly given them the same name. The “Jim twins” had both married and divorced women named Linda, remarried women named Betty and had sons named James Allan and James Alan. Both had dogs named Toy.

They were an anomaly, to be sure, but a mesmerizing one that inspired Dr. Thomas Bouchard’s landmark “Minnesota Study of Identical Twins Reared Apart.” The study shook the scientific community by demonstrating, across a number of traits, that twins raised apart are as similar as twins raised together.

The study’s evidence of genetic influence in traits such as personality (50 per cent heritable) and intelligence (70 per cent heritable) overturned conventional ideas about parenting and teaching. And findings of genetic influence on physiological characteristics have led to new ways of fighting and preventing disease.

Bouchard’s research on reared-apart twins used information that was gathered retrospectively — from the memories of twins reunited as adults and, if they were still alive, their parents. Now, twins like Lily and Gillian are giving researchers the opportunity, for the first time ever, to study reared-apart twins in real time — throughout childhood, adolescence and, if all goes well, into adulthood.

Over the past decade, Segal, now a psychology professor at California State University, has found about 15 more sets of adopted twin children being raised by different families, most of them Chinese girls.

Researchers attribute this phenomenon to China’s one-child policy, which led to the abandonment of thousands of female babies. Though China’s official adoption rules state that twins should be placed together, pairs like Lily and Gillian prove things don’t always happen that way.

Twelve pairs are part of Segal’s ongoing research on reared-apart twin children, a project that promises to open a new window into human behaviour. Every few years, for as long as they are willing, the twins and their parents will complete a giant questionnaire packet that tracks their behaviour, attitudes and health as they age.

Segal’s study includes a wide range of reared-apart twins. One set is growing up in the same city. Another set is separated by 8,000 kilometres of land and sea — one in California, the other in a tiny Norwegian village. One American family, after discovering their child had a twin, moved across the country so they could grow up together.

“The twin relationship, particularly with (identical) twins, is probably the closest of human social ties,” says Segal, who is herself a twin. This is why it’s so important for multiples to grow up together.

Segal marvels at the sacrifices parents of reared-apart twin children have made in order to nurture their bond. She has always believed strongly that twins should be raised together, but these families are the exception to her rule. “These parents have worked very hard to get these children, they are very loving families,” she says. “They immediately fall in love with these children and I think that you cannot ask them to give up a child.”

As babies, Lily and Gillian would crawl on their hands and toes, bums in the air. One day, seven months after Mike and Lynette brought Gillian home, she scooted over to the couch, grabbed hold of the edge, pulled herself up onto her feet and took her first wobbly steps across the room.

Lynette called the MacLeods and left the news on their answering machine. She knew Allyson and Kirk would want to know.

Hours later, the Shaws’ phone rang. It was Allyson. She’d heard the message just as she was about to call with news about Lily. Earlier that day, within hours of her twin, Lily had taken her own first steps.

Weeks earlier, the twins had met for the first time in Canada after spending several months apart. It was a hot day in July and the Shaws had taken a detour into Keswick on their way to Lynette’s family cottage in North Bay. The girls’ cheeks were flushed and they both wore sundresses.

When their parents sat them down on the floor, face to face, it was like plopping one in front of a mirror. The girls stared and stared at each other, puzzled and hesitant. “It was painful to watch,” says Allyson, chuckling at the memory. Many of their early visits started this way.

The parents later discovered that Lily and Gillian weren’t just identical, they were mirror-image twins: Lily is right-handed, Gillian left-handed; their hair whirls at the crown in opposite directions; both have an eyelid that droops when they’re tired, but on opposite sides. For the girls, staring at each other really was like looking in a mirror.

Growing up, Lily and Gillian were both picky eaters, both afraid of clowns and obsessed with dress-up. They loved drawing and would lie on their bellies on the floor together for hours, sketching and colouring pictures. When 2-year-old Gillian started grabbing soothers from other kids and whacking them on the head, Mike and Lynette assumed the aggressive streak came from having an older brother and sister. Then Lily came to visit and they saw she had developed flying fists of her own.

Being from small towns, both families knew when they decided to adopt little girls from China that they would have a lot of explaining to do over the years. The twin thing complicated the story further.

At school one day, Gillian was asked to draw a picture of her family. In one corner of the paper, she drew herself with her parents and older siblings. Up in the top corner, in heaven, she drew Jonathan. And off to the side she drew Lily, Allyson and Kirk. The teacher thought Gillian was confused. The picture required a parental explanation.

When Lily was six, a friend visiting the MacLeod home questioned her about Gillian.

“Where’s your sister?” the friend asked.

“She doesn’t live with me,” Lily replied.

The friend scoffed. “Then you don’t have a sister,” she said.

Lily fired back. “My mommy has a sister and she lives in Nova Scotia and they’re still sisters.”

When the girls were little, the first thing they did when one twin arrived for a visit was run upstairs, empty the contents of the visiting twin’s suitcase and have a fashion show. They would change 15 times a day.

The clothes swap was also a tool in one of their favourite games — tricking their grandparents into believing one was the other. “WHO AM I?” they would shout, bursting into fits of laughter when Grandpa Shaw or Nanny MacLeod guessed the wrong twin.

The girls revelled in their sameness. On one visit, Lily arrived in Amherstburg with her hair cut several inches shorter than her sister’s. This upset Gillian. She pouted until Allyson took her outside and chopped her hair to Lily’s length. Problem solved. They girls skipped off together, new bobs bouncing at their shoulders.

The twins loved being together, which made leaving difficult for everyone. They cried and wailed and sometimes stayed gloomy for days. The separation hit Lily hardest. Without Gillian around, she was an only child again. And a lonely one. It broke her parents’ hearts. “In an odd sort of way that’s really unexplainable,” says Kirk, “there was this sense of leaving part of Lily behind when we drove out of the driveway.”

Twin-laws . This is what some couples have dubbed the parents of their child’s lost and found sibling, the people with whom they must — for better or for worse — forge a relationship.

Siblings Far, a low-traffic, bare-bones weblog, is one of the few resources for families raising separated twins. It went up a few years after the MacLeods and Shaws brought Lily and Gillian home. The blog’s authors are blunt in their delivery of advice.

“This is a long-term commitment,” the site cautions. “You do not get to choose the family that has adopted your child’s sibling. It may or may not be a (compatible) match between the households.”

Jim and Susan Rittenhouse launched the website in 2004, soon after they discovered their 4-year-old daughter, Meredith, had a twin.

The Rittenhouses live in the Chicago suburbs. Their daughter’s twin was adopted by a couple in Birmingham, Ala. The twinship was discovered when Jim came across a photo of his daughter’s double on a blog. By coincidence, the girls are both named Meredith. “The story abounds in craziness. It really does,” says Jim.

In the past decade, through Siblings Far, Jim and Susan have connected with dozens of couples in similar situations. Jim says the experience with their own twin-laws has been positive, but they’ve heard from enough panicked parents to know that finding a lost sibling doesn’t always mean a happy ending. Once you’ve made the connection, they warn, you can’t go back in time. You can’t pretend not to know.

In Montreal, Anne-Marie Merkly, a 48-year-old single mom, is also raising an adopted Chinese daughter who has a faraway twin.

Flavie Merkly met her double on their seventh birthday in August 2008. The twin flew in from California with her parents for their first-ever visit, a trip that was years in the making after a friend of Anne-Marie’s discovered a photo of a girl on a blog who was unquestionably a clone of her daughter.

When they met, “Flavie and her sister literally just embraced, started to giggle and then took off running,” Anne-Marie remembers. “As if nothing had happened. As if one had gone shopping and come back.”

The families spent a wonderful week together. They spoke of future visits. Flavie’s twin sobbed when it was time to leave. But months after the reunion, the other family stopped emailing, stopped calling, abruptly cut off nearly all communication with Flavie and her mom.

Anne-Marie has no idea what happened. “It’s very much a big question mark,” she says. “We don’t understand it.”

In the beginning, the unanswered questions drove her crazy. Was it something she said? Something they did? Truth be told, the girls live very different lives: Flavie goes to private school, her twin is home schooled. Flavie travels a lot, her twin doesn’t often leave California. Perhaps the other family disagreed with Anne-Marie’s method of parenting. She tries not to think about it anymore. There is nothing she can do.

For Kirk and Allyson, Mike and Lynette, there was never any question about whether they would keep in touch, whether they would tell the girls what they knew.

“I think the only option that we all understood,” says Kirk, “was to say we will make the sacrifices to say this is going to work. We have to make it work.”

From the very beginning, the girls knew they were twins. And from the moment they came out of the elevator in China, the MacLeods and Shaws were family, bound by a promise to bring the girls together as often as possible. “It was like getting married all over again,” says Allyson. “All of a sudden you’re like, well, we’re hitched.”

Visits were arranged every six to eight weeks. Early on, the girls started calling each other’s parents Aunt and Uncle and acquired a shared pool of eight grandparents. “People say, well that’s a unique situation, but we just take it for granted,” says Kirk. “This is all we’ve ever known. For us, it’s like a blended family.”

The arrangement works because the Shaws and MacLeods are alike where it counts — both come from large, close-knit families and have small-town roots — even though their personalities and lifestyles differ.

Mike and Lynette started dating in high school and have been married 20 years. They were both born and bred in Amherstburg and have no intention of ever leaving. The Shaws live just outside town on an old concession road in a large two-storey brick house built on the land Lynette’s father and grandfather farmed. Their kids go to local Catholic schools. Their parents, siblings, nieces and nephews all live minutes away.

Lynette, 44, is a dental assistant. Mike, 43, manages data communications for a construction company. Lynette is easygoing and friendly. Mike is at once goofy and charming, a playful teaser who would do back flips to make his kids laugh.

Kirk and Allyson grew up in Nova Scotia, met in their 20s and moved to Toronto together to study theology. As a young married couple, they established a Presbyterian Church in Keswick. They now live in nearby Sutton, in a house with a pool on a tree-lined street.

Allyson and Kirk, 45 and 44, are humble, friendly and down-to-earth — the kind of people who would do anything for anyone. When they left the East Coast years ago, it was with the intention of eventually moving back, but that plan was shelved after they adopted Lily. They couldn’t bring themselves to move further away from their daughter’s twin.

Over the years, the MacLeods and Shaws have spent countless holidays, weekends and family vacations together. There are no hotel stays when they visit each other’s towns. If the MacLeods are in Amherstburg for the weekend, the Shaws give them the master bedroom. Same goes when it’s the other way around.

They give it all they’ve got, but sometimes, both couples readily admit, it’s far from perfect. “It’s not roses all the time,” Mike says. “But you have to get along, that’s just the way it is. Just like your in-laws.”

The Shaws are a busy bunch. Mike and Lynette have two other children — Heather, 17, and Eric, 16 — with jobs and commitments of their own. It’s difficult for them to get out of town, which means the MacLeods do the bulk of the travelling.

Because Lily is an only child and the MacLeods’ entire extended family is in another province, Kirk and Allyson wish the girls could get together more often. They have to remind themselves that Mike and Lynette have other children to think about. Keeping the commitment manageable for both families is one of the most difficult challenges.

Despite minor differences, the Shaws and MacLeods get along well, respect each other. So far, there have been no major disagreements. They say it’s because at the centre of this, for all four parents, is one guiding principle: this is not about them. It’s about the girls.

With Lily and Gillian nearing their teen years, the parents acknowledge there will be challenges ahead. What happens, for example, when one twin is allowed to do something the other is not?

Already there are a few minor variations in MacLeod and Shaw household rules: Lily wears makeup; Gillian’s parents discourage it. Gillian has Facebook; Lily has to wait until she turns 13.

The girls say these differences don’t bother them much, but things are bound to change as they enter high school and bigger issues arise — parties, dating, driving.

“Can you imagine them driving the 401 to see each other?” Lynette says to Mike one day at home in Amherstburg, her eyes wide.

Looking a little further into the future, the parents wonder if the girls will go to university together someday. Kirk has his fingers crossed, though he acknowledges a lot could happen before then. “I have no idea what this relationship will morph itself into as they get older,” he says. “I just hope they stay close.”

The winter visit is a short one, a tease almost, but the girls make the best of it. They wake up early on Saturday, pull on their coats and boots and trudge through the snow to the drugstore to buy magazines. Back at home, they flip through them, discussing hairstyles, trading posters, giggling at awkward teenaged photos of Lady Gaga and other celebrities.

Upstairs in Lily’s room, they swap clothes, a cute white tee for a pair of Abercrombie sweatpants. In the kitchen, they play computer games and Google things they’re curious about, like paddlefish (ew!), pink dolphins (weird!) and white tigers (cute!). For lunch, Allyson makes chicken fettuccine alfredo. It’s the girls’ favourite dish.

Four months away from their 13th birthday, Lily and Gillian say they aren’t that much alike these days. But they both play guitar and flute, both love glamour and fashion and celebrity, both have bedroom walls covered in Taylor Swift posters. They don’t wear matching outfits, but they have similar taste in clothes. Last year, they unknowingly bought each other the exact same navy blue Aeropostale beach cover-ups for their birthdays.

Gillian has braces now and Lily doesn’t, which makes it much easier to tell them apart. The childhood aggressive streak is gone. In the presence of strangers they have the soft, whispery voices typical of shy adolescent girls, though Lily’s is a bit softer, a bit more whispery.

Gillian tends to be more outgoing than her twin, perhaps because she is so often surrounded by siblings and cousins, aunts and uncles. “In our family,” says her older sister, Heather, “it’s pretty much if you want to be heard you have to talk loud.”

The girls can be very competitive. They compare notes on new clothes, hobbies, friends, classes at school. Lily says Gillian gets better grades and is more into sports. Gillian says her twin is better at drawing and guitar.

They see each other every eight weeks, give or take. They don’t cry or make a fuss anymore when they part — just a quick hug and a wave — but their families say they are quiet and withdrawn for a few days afterward.

When they’re not together, they email each other every day, without fail. Gillian writes to Lily in the morning while she waits for the bus. Lily sends a note back when she gets home from school.

The girls imagine what it would be like to live together, but they don’t wish for it. “Sometimes I think about her coming to my school and what it would be like,” Lily says softly. “She might have different friends than me.”

Lily would like it if they lived closer to each other. “Like maybe an hour away,” she says after a thoughtful pause.

Gillian feels some sadness, knowing her twin gets lonely. “Lily misses me a lot more,” she says one day, hesitantly, when her sister isn’t around. They are both careful not to hurt the other’s feelings.

“I think if we lived together we’d be more closer,” Gillian says. “Well, we are really close now, but I think we’d be more, like . . .” She pauses to think about it. “Sisters.”

Even so, she says she feels the same kinship with Lily as she does with the siblings she has grown up with. Heather, her older sister, thinks Gillian has an even closer bond with Lily, mostly because the twins are the same age.

Together in Lily’s bedroom, the girls say that given the option between the situation they’re in and an altered past in which they end up with the same family, they wouldn’t change a thing. “Because we wouldn’t have the experience that we’ve had,” says Gillian. “Like all the stories. Memories. And then I don’t know where, like, my Mom and Dad or Aunt Allyson and Uncle Kirk would be.”

Lily agrees. “I like seeing her, but it’s cool that we get to travel and meet up at different places.”

And anyway, Gillian says with a shy smile, “if we grew up normally it wouldn’t be as interesting.”

Watch out- even divorce carries around a mythical curse! Mind you, apparently you only have to worry if you are a red-carpet A-list starlet. What do you think of the “Oscar Curse”? Is this pattern a result of that glorious statue or a mere coincidence? True or not, we can try to be positive… one marriage may be down, but at least these ladies are going home with a golden boy.

Read below for full story.

CAROLYN MCTIGHE; FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2012 01:00 AM CST; WINNIPEG SUN

Beware the Oscar Curse

If the “Oscar curse” myth is true then Meryl Streep had better start looking for a good divorce attorney.

Since the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences first began handing out Oscars in 1929 a long list of best actress winners have succumbed to a supposed “Oscar curse” that has seen their marriages end in divorce shortly after taking home the golden statuette.

Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Audrey Hepburn and Vivien Leigh are just a few of old Hollywood’s royalty that seem to have fallen victim to this blight.

And even today actresses like Reese Witherspoon, Kate Winslet, Hilary Swank, Halle Berry and Sandra Bullock have all seen their own marriages dissolve after winning the prestigious award.

According to a study of the 751 best actor and actress nominees from 1936 to 2010, 63 per cent of the winning actresses divorced compared to those actresses who lost in the same category.

The study, conducted by the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management and Carnegie Mellon University, also found that the average marriage for a best actress winner was only 4.3 years where a marriage for a non-winning actress typically lasted 9.5 years.

For relationship expert and celebrity life coach Patrick Wanis these results are not surprising. In fact, Wanis believes that the reason many of these marriages end has nothing to do with a curse, but more likely has something to do with an unconventional imbalance of power within the relationship.

“Generally speaking all men or the majority of men are highly intimidated and threatened by highly successful and powerful women,” says Wanis. “They are accustomed to being the leader, sometimes the boss, and almost always the provider. So men often get their value from being the powerful one, the strong one and the protector. When that is taken away from men they don’t know what to do. They think if she already has all the money, power and fame what can I offer her?”

Combine a man’s fragile ego with the inevitable changes that a best winning actress goes through after winning the Oscar and you have a recipe for disaster. Expectations and time commitments increase and suddenly the relationship is taking a backseat to the woman’s career.

“The real question is how does the woman change after she wins the award, because it only affects the relationship if she changes and her life and her world changes,” says Wanis. “When a woman wins best actress they expect her to keep producing the same quality and calibre of movie. Then there is the additional attention she gets, which can affect the relationship. If she is getting so much attention does that mean she is taking attention away from her partner? Does she get more consumed with her career or does she find a balance?”

For best actor winners the sustainability of marriages and relationships appears to be much higher. Though wives often have to deal with rabid groupies and female fans, the dynamics of the relationship and the balance between the husband and wife fall into more acceptable norms and therefore tend to work better.

“Men are threatened by powerful women, but women are turned on by powerful men,” says Wanis. “For women the greatest aphrodisiac is a powerful man. For men, on the other hand, a woman who is accessible and open is the greatest turn on. Women like power and are attracted to it. It makes women feel more feminine, but for men being around a powerful woman can be emasculating.”

Movie critic Richard Crouse agrees that most Hollywood men have a hard time accepting a secondary role in their famous wife’s life. And although many celebrity couples try to weather these often rocky spells in their relationships, for many of them the damage is already done long before the woman gives her Academy Awards acceptance speech.

“I think most of the relationships that fail after the Oscars were in trouble long before the awards ceremony,” says Crouse. “Winning the best actress award simply adds additional strain to an already fractured relationship. Just think of Reese Witherspoon. After she won the award her phone was probably ringing off the hook and it was never for Ryan Phillippe. That would be a tough thing to handle even for the most secure man.”

For anyone who missed the opportunity to watch the Family Matters TV episodes featuring Fairway/Karen Stewart, showcasing Independently Negotiated Resolution, we have now received the links! Feel free to watch these episodes that aired across Ontario and BC and will be airing again this quarter.

Enjoy!

Episode 114: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RD4i00d5Z0

Episode 115: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCG8xiJZAFA

Read below for Law Times’ article on the courtroom intolerance on hostility involving children.

Sunday, January 30, 2011 | Written by Marta Siemiarczuk |

Family Law: Chiang shows courts’ intolerance for hostility involving kids

All too often, clauses in separation agreements or court orders related to how parents are to govern themselves in dealing with each other and when interacting with their children go ignored or are simply chalked up to good intentions.

That wasn’t the case in Gill v. Chiang, a decision of Justice A. Duncan Grace. The matter dealt with a contempt motion against the father, James Chiang, for allegedly breaching the terms of an arbitration award arising out of a mediation-arbitration process and subsequently turned into a formal court order.

The case apparently dealt with extremely high conflict and, as a result, the very detailed arbitration award tried to leave no stone unturned in an attempt to minimize future discord.

The two allegations of contempt I found most interesting were that Chiang alienated the children and sent communications to Johanne Gill and the kids that violated the parenting principles in various ways.

In particular, they were denigrating and critical in some cases, while those that included the children placed them in a position in which they found themselves embroiled in their parents’ frequent disputes over scheduling, extraordinary and special expenses, and extracurricular activities.

According to Grace, Gill filed as evidence almost 400 pages of e-mail communications between the parties and the children to support her allegation that, since the arbitration award, Chiang had continually undermined the principles of tolerance, co-operation, and restraint it articulated.

To be clear, this was not a motion to change terms of custody or access on the basis of the parties being unable to work together and communicate effectively. This was a contempt motion with very serious implications for Chiang.

Grace provided some very telling examples of how Chiang had undermined the principles of the award.

They included forwarding e-mails Gill sent to him to their son while “commenting briefly, colourfully, and inappropriately about it” and doing the same with messages dealing with s. 7 expenses while providing his view on who should pay.

He also sent his son e-mails stating, in reference to his other son, “Just don’t let Nick get saddled with ur mother alone,” along with other similar types of messages.

As for an explanation for his actions, Grace noted Chiang didn’t deny sending the messages. Rather, he indicated it was his ex-wife who was “projecting” her own behaviour onto him and that she was the one undermining the terms of the award.

Grace had this to say about Chiang’s actions: “His description of Ms. Gill and her communications are unnecessary and insulting, and his negative views of Ms. Gill are not only shared with the children but . . . evidence his attitude that time spent with Ms. Gill . . . is something to be endured not enjoyed.”

In considering the matter, Grace applied the test for contempt found in Sickinger v. Sickinger. It asks whether there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the order in question clearly outlines what the parties are to do and not do; that the moving party has provided clear details of the contempt to the respondent; and that the respondent has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order.

Confirming that the fact that an arbitration award underlies the court order didn’t diminish its enforceability – notwithstanding submissions to the contrary by Chiang’s counsel – Grace held that Chiang did in fact deliberately and wilfully contravene the parenting principles incorporated into the order and was in contempt.

As noted earlier, I think it’s fair to say it’s rare that these kinds of clauses in orders get to the point of actual contempt motions. It’s also unusual to see them actually end in a finding of contempt with a penalty imposed.

Given the difficulties in family law matters that are so personal to the people involved and the challenging dynamic of interacting with each other, this case is certainly something to keep in mind.

Unfortunately, Grace ordered the parties to return later in February to speak to the issues of costs and penalty, so we don’t yet know what will happen to Chiang. Still, at least we know the court won’t tolerate this type of high-conflict communication.

Read below for Melody Lau’s story on why being alone (minus the candy) on Valentine’s Day was healthier than staying in an unsuitable relationship.

Not The One: A single woman’s response to the Post’s love-fest

Melody Lau Feb 14, 2012 – 1:23 PM ET | Last Updated: Feb 14, 2012 2:41 PM ET

I knew that Kristian was “the one” a few months into our relationship – or so I thought.

I had just woken up and turned over, only to see him still asleep. For some reason, I could never sleep in past 8 a.m. at his place (was it his mattress? The weird temperatures of his room? I’ll never know). He eventually woke up, though, and his tired blue eyes widened; he always looked handsome without his glasses on. We glanced at each other and mumbled a good morning. In that moment, I told myself, “Yes, I love him. He could be the one.” Unfortunately, that thought never crossed his mind. About a month ago – two months after this moment – he and I broke up.

Various causes resulted in the split, but the decisive one was that he just didn’t love me back. Sometimes – OK, often – two people just don’t feel the same way. I had caught on to his growing distance, though, and eventually cast my own doubts on the relationship. Due to a realization that something wasn’t right, the split was mutual, and although we’re still in the awkward transitional stage, we remain close friends.

Now, yet again, I will be alone on Valentine’s Day and thanks to the fine folks at theNational Post and their two-week feature, The One, I’m reminded of just how single I really am. As one of the two Arts & Life interns tasked with compiling these lovey-dovey tales, I was at first distraught. Work was supposed to be a refuge from my personal woes, not a magnifying glass for them.

But as the assignment continued, something dawned on me about these so-called perfect moments. More often than not, contributors realized their partner was “the one” for them at very different times. The CBC’s Grant Lawrence, for instance, admitted to knowing early on in the relationship that his now-wife Jill Barber was his soulmate, but Barber just can’t recall the exact moment.

Surely, couples should generally be on the same wavelength, but no two people think all the same thoughts and feel all the same feelings. In my case, my now-ex and I never shared an “aha!” moment of love, but if these cases compiled here are called “the one,” then this must be a rare feeling indeed – one that must be felt by both parties, even at different times. Otherwise, we’re just left with unrequited love, which I think we’ve all had enough of.

Working through the submissions of kisses and cuddles, I realized I was going to have to plow through many “not the one” moments before stumbling onto anything real. But like all things worthwhile, you spend some time crying over your missteps, and you move on. Even if it might take weeks, months, years.

This won’t be my last Valentine’s Day alone, but hearing other couple’s stories not only helped me realize relationships are possible, they also assured me that my ex was, evidently, not the one for me. The only ones I’ll be spending my non-holiday with this year are my best friends, my junk food and my pile of rom-coms. After all, those are the ones that will never let you down.

To all you hopeless romantics who think that February 14th brings about flowers, hearts, romance, and, above all, love… beware; this soon may be fading imagery.

Read the article below to see how Valentine’s Day is actually beginning to be the day of broken hearts for many couples contemplating, or going through, a divorce.

Mitch Kowalski Feb 6, 2012 – 11:54 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 6, 2012 3:40 PM ET

Thinking of getting a divorce for Valentine’s Day? Then a new Canadian online service may be assistance.

According to some, the six weeks before Valentine’s Day see the highest number of divorces and break-ups for Canadians.

“A lot of couples wait until after the holidays to reconsider their relationships,” says My Support Calculator General Manager, Omar Ha-Redeye. “Christmas shopping, family visits, and busy vacations mean that people put their relationship problems on hold until the new year.” Relationship problems may also arise out of New Year resolutions and greater introspection over direction in life, he claims. but in these uncertain economic times couples thinking about divorce need to carefully consider the impact of spousal support and child support payments arising out of any split.

Now Canadians can, without any charge, calculate basic spousal and child support obligations online using My Support Calculator.

The website also provides a directory of local lawyers who can assist with any split.