According to a recent study by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML), more divorce cases now involve evidence gleaned from social media, such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Flickr and Photobucket.

As long ago as the days of the hotel divorce (where a private eye and his photographer captured an adulterous couple in an indiscreet moment) photographic evidence has often played a part in divorce actions; but now “all they need to do is go online to find evidence on profile pages, wall comments, status reports, and photo files. Incriminating photos and other information … is not usually the image the opposing parent wanted to portray before a judge and the evidence can definitely affect alimony disputes and custody fight. A parent could easily lose custody, alimony, or both due to inappropriate behavior online.”

Jason Krafsky and his wife Kelli, the authors of Facebook and Your Marriage, believe it is not the media site that creates the problem, “it’s the user’s behavior.”

“Lack of boundaries is a huge issue,” says Krafsky. “If you don’t have good boundaries you have no business being on Facebook or any other cyberspace social networking or game sites. It’s just too risky. The other issue is when people get caught for crossing the line they usually don’t handle it well. Whether it is Facebook or something else, establishing personal boundaries is a part of everyday life with friends, co-workers, clients, and extended family members. Setting up boundaries around your marriage relationship is key to proactively protecting yourself, your spouse, your marriage, your kids, and your reputation.”

Many people going through divorce notice that casual friends seem to hold them at arm’s length – as if they had a disease. And social commentators often speak of the divorce epidemic they claim is sweeping the country. Many people think of divorce in metaphors of disease and illness.

Well, it turns out there may be something more to this than just a metaphor.

A 32-year study at Brown University that followed 12,000 people in Farmington, Massachusetts, suggests that “the negative feelings and emotions surrounding divorce are quite contagious and simply knowing someone involved in a divorce exponentially increases [a person’s] chances of divorce” especially if the individuals involved are close.

The study, which is titled “Breaking up is Hard to Do, Unless Everyone Else is Doing it Too: Social Network Effects on Divorce in a Longitudinal Sample Followed 32 Years,” found that divorce between immediate friends or relatives can increase a person’s chances of being divorced by 75 percent. “Even the divorce of friend of a friend” increases the likelihood of a split by 33 percent. “The effects spread like a virus in a phenomenon the study describes as ‘divorce clustering.’” When a brother or a sister divorce, the changes that a sibling will divorce go up 22 percent.

“Overall, the results suggest that attending to the health of one’s friends’ marriages serves to support and enhance the durability of one’s own relationship, and that, from policy perspective, divorce should be understood as a collective phenomenon that extends far beyond those directly involved,” the study states.

Census data suggests that older couples are getting divorces later in life. According to the Census Bureau, 26 percent of the divorces in 2008 were filed by couples married 20 years or more.

This information stands in contrast to the long-held assumption that long-term marriages become more and more immune to divorce. “This is not a reassuring trend for society, as rebuilding your life after a divorce is difficult under the best circumstances and starting over as a senior citizen will prove to be a huge obstacle for those unlucky enough to find themselves in that situation.”

Gray-haired spouses may not face the challenges of a divorce involving child custody and support, but “[a] divorce late in life brings the risk of increased long-term financial instability for both parties and it might be more important for seniors to create a viable divorce plan than it is for any other age or demographic group in the nation.”

SafeGuard Guaranty Corp. looked at the divorce statistics and now offers divorce insurance called WedLock.

If the marriage crashes, WedLock “provides financial assistance in the form of cash to cover the costs of the legal proceeding - as well as other expenses that might arise like setting up a new apartment or house after a divorce.”

Each unit of WedLock insurance costs $15.99 a month and provides a benefit of $1,250 to cover divorce expenses. Customers are encouraged to purchase multiple units of the insurance.

Wedlock is not intended for short-term marriages. “In order prevent people who are already planning to get a divorce from taking advantage of the insurance, Safeguard requires a period of 48 months of marriage before a policy is considered matured and the pay-off is guaranteed.

“Every year almost half of all families that go through divorce end up below the poverty line. And the reason is that on average, people lose 77% of their total net worth as a result of divorce, so WedLock Divorce Insurance℠ may certainly offset some or all of that loss depending on the size of the policy purchased.”

Many couples discover that in marriage it is not what is said so much, but how it is said that matters. But what happens when one partner cannot hear?

According the British firm Hearing Direct.com, a retailer of hearing aids and other related products, “ongoing deafness in a marriage that causes arguments between spouses can promote marital breakdown to the point of divorce.”

A survey of more than 1,000 people over 40 “who admitted some degree of worsening deafness …found that 33 percent of them admitted that their inability to hear properly had caused arguments with their spouses and family. Of those reporting arguments, 7 percent said their spouse threatened to divorce them unless they go help with their hearing loss.”

“Nearly two-thirds of those affected admitted to pretending they can hear adequately and half said faking their way through conversations had caused them to become depressed and isolated.” In addition to isolation, hearing loss triggers feelings associated with disability and old age. Nevertheless, according to the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, “it can take as long as 15 years for people with hearing loss to get the help they need.”

That’s a long time for even the most patient and loving partner to repeat what he or she said. So when a loved one suggests a hearing test, listen up.

When some couples, as some couples do, come to the end of the road in the marriage, the no-fault grounds - irretrievable breakdown or irreconcilable differences, depending upon the jurisdiction in which they reside - are the grounds for a no-fault divorce.

Basically, irretrievable breakdown or irreconcilable differences mean what a divorce appellant says it mean. These terms, unknown to divorce literature before the 1970s, are big enough in their interpretation, so that a couple who have come to the end of road, who have tried and failed to make a go of it, can dissolve the marriage. In effect, no fault means the marriage died, but no one killed it through his or her actions, and no one is at fault for the failure. Since no one is at fault, there is nothing to prove. In some jurisdictions, couples who reach this point may file jointly.

No-fault does not mean no pain. Very often even when one spouse agrees that the marriage has broken down, he or she may not really want the marriage to end. And many people who end a marriage often find special sadness in the popular song “One Is the Loneliest Number,” with its sad refrain “It’s just no good anymore since you went away…”

What no-fault divorce means that no two people can be forced to stay married when one of them wants out.

Sometimes a spouse who acts in good faith finds herself (it is almost always the wife) with a tax liability because of the illegal actions of her former husband. Normally, married couples filing jointly have what is known as joint and several liability, which means that the Internal Revenue Service holds each liable for taxes owed.

Many women, even in the midst of a divorce, will sign what their husbands tell them to sign. Not infrequently, these same women find themselves with tax liabilities when the I.R.S. reviews joint returns.

Section 434(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, which was enacted in 1998, now protects the innocent spouse from tax liabilities when four conditions can be met. They are as follows:

A joint return contained “an understatement in tax due to an erroneous item” related to the former spouse;

> The innocent spouse had “neither actual, nor implied understanding” of the liability when she signed the return:

> Payment of the understated tax and penalties would be unfair to the innocent spouse;

> The innocent spouse elects to apply for relief within two years of the time that the I.R.S. begins collection efforts.

Good legal advice is recommended when a woman finds herself contemplating use of the Innocent Spouse Rule.

Also know as “show cause,” an Order to Show Cause grants a party – for example, a battered wife in a situation of domestic violence – emergency relief, sometimes the same day the application is made. An order to show cause is supported by the applicant’s sworn affidavit why the immediate relief is necessary and appropriate – for example, to prevent an abusive husband from entering the marital home.

The court can also set the case for oral argument at a later date, which is called a return date, when the parties must return to court and show cause why the order should not be granted in the applicant’s favor.

An order to show case can be brought with notice to both parties. In the case of emergency situations, however, such as situations involving the health and safety of a victim of domestic violence, it may be filed without notice. In this case it is called an ex parte order to show cause.

Sometimes court orders are issue ex parte to avoid giving notice to a defendant, for example, in the case when he or she might quickly sell property disputed in a marital settlement.

Protection from abuse orders typically work through the order to show cause procedure.

Forum shopping is not illegal, but it can make litigation more difficult for the opposing party.

Forum shopping happens when one party fights for a change of venue for a lawsuit. The goal is to move the action to a jurisdiction where the law is more favorable to his or her position. For example, a person may find it more advantageous to his or her position to file for divorce outside of California, which is a community property state. He or she may elect to opt for an equitable distribution state, where the wealthier spouse may retain more of the marital estate. The reverse is also true: California’s relatively generous divorce laws may make the Golden State appealing to the spouse of a wealthy man.

Of course a divorcing couple cannot just pick and choose the jurisdiction.

The court must have jurisdiction over them, and this means that they must meet residency requirements. However, sometimes the rewards of forum shopping make the quest worth the effort, and some divorcing Hollywood celebrities have used this method to their advantage.

On a smaller scale, sometimes people file for divorce in the next county when they want to escape the attention of the hometown newspaper.

In court, a party making an assertion must prove it true, and in a divorce, a spouse making a claim in a fault action must prove such fault. In law, the burden of proof is defined in three ways: in civil actions, preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing, for civil actions, and beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal actions.

Preponderance of evidence, the lower of the two standards, means the litigant’s claims are “more likely true than not true.” This standard is the lowest and easiest burden to meet, and it is the one required in most civil litigation, including divorce, separation and domestic violence.

Clear and convincing, the higher of the two standards in civil action, is the standard required by a litigant “to rebut a legal presumption,” for example, to overturn a prenuptial agreement. This standard requires what is termed “a firm belief” as to the truth of the claim in the mind of a judge or jury.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest and most demanding standard and it is reserved for criminal actions. This is the standard a court uses in depriving someone of his liberty and, in extreme cases, his or her life. This standard means that the jury is “satisfied to a moral certainty” of the proof of the allegations against the accused.