It is not uncommon for divorcees to remake their bridal jewelry into a new ring or pendant better suited to their new, single status so it should be no great surprise that the jewelry industry is jumping onboard. But, to create a line of 'divorce rings'? Isn't that taking it a bit too far? Not only can it appear callous to cash in on an emotionally trying and often devastating event but this also raises a whole slew of questions. What is the proper protocol? As Chiara Atik poses in her article, "Will 'divorce rings' catch on?", does one spouse bend down on one knee, present the ring and ask his/her spouse to divorce them? Are both parties entitled to rings? Which party is required to pay for the ring/s? Can it/they be included in the settlement? The plaintiff requests alimony, child support and a 2 carat, princess cut, Cartier divorce ring. And better yet, what does the ring indicate? Is it a celebration of newfound freedom or a warning beacon to indicate severe emotional baggage? Or just a new way for women (and men) to compete with one another? Suzie only got a 1 carat ring from Jeff but I made Bob buy me a 3 carat ring from Tiffany's… On the other hand, maybe the jewelry industry is on to something…I mean, wouldn't the concept of impending jewelry help to take the sting out of a crumbling marriage? I can just hear it now, "he may have fathered a child with his secretary but he's going to buy me one huge divorce ring". In fact, jewelers should take it one step further and add it to the bridal set. No longer are the engagement ring and wedding band enough; the bridal set of the future has become a trio. This post was prepared by Christina Glaser, a 1L at Rutgers Law School. Rate this: Share this: Share Email Facebook Reddit Digg Twitter Print StumbleUpon Like this: Be the first to like this post.
Read more detail on Recent Family Law Posts –