The recommendations seem sensible. On retribution: "Throwing your husband's vintage wine collection down the loo . . . might seem like a therapeutic gesture when you're in the throes of rage and despair, but . . . judges will take a dim view of vindictive behaviour, so it's far better to hold your head up high and retain the civilized high ground."

书中的建议看起来很明智。关于报复：“怒火中烧、痛不欲生的时候，把丈夫珍藏的佳酿倒进马桶……可能看起来似乎有点效果，但是……法官会怀疑这是一种报复性行为，因此昂首保持体面的做法要好得多。”

On being served with papers: "Legal letters are designed to be threatening, so don't get into a panic if letters from your spouse's lawyers seem overbearing. . . . Leave [your own lawyers] to deal with the legal jargon. That's what you're paying for."

关于法律文件：“法律信函的初衷就是为了吓唬人，因此，如果配偶的律师来信看起来具有威胁性，也不要惊慌……让你的律师来处理这些法律术语。花钱请他们就是干这个的。”

On keeping children clear of the battle zone: "Never use children as go-betweens. Children are not effective messengers and misunderstandings will ensue. You may also be revealing a range of anarchic emotions to your children which they are unable to assimilate."

关于让孩子远离离婚大战：“不要拿孩子当中间人。孩子并不是有效的信使，反而会造成误解。这样做也会带给孩子一种混乱的情绪，他们无法消化接受。”

On divvying up personal property: "The engagement ring is an outright gift given to the woman on the condition of marriage, and having met that condition, she is entitled to keep it even after the marriage's dissolution. If the ring is a precious heirloom, handed down on the paternal side, returning it is entirely at the woman's discretion."

关于分割个人财产：“订婚戒指是男方以结婚为前提送给女方的礼物；既然结婚这一前提已经达成，即使婚姻破裂，女方仍有权保有订婚戒指。如果这枚戒指是男方珍贵的家传宝，是否将戒指归还男方完全由女方做主。”

On parental responsibilities: "Don't allow roles to become polarised. If one parent is entirely responsible for the mundanities of everyday life (laundry, shopping, school, homework) and the other sweeps the children off their feet every weekend for a round of treats, outings and parental indulgence . . . the children will alternate between dissatisfaction and overstimulation, and eventually will become very unhappy . . . . The downtrodden parent will be understandably resentful. . . . Remember, your new life as divorced parents is really not about scoring points off each other, but ensuring that your children's life is stable, secure, and contented."

关于身为父母的责任：“不要让双方的角色极端化。如果一方完全负责孩子的日常生活（洗衣、购物、上学、家庭作业），而另一方每到周末就带孩子吃大餐、出去玩，让孩子沉浸在溺爱之中……那么孩子就会在不满和过度刺激之间不停转换，最终变得非常不开心……受压迫的一方家长自然也会心生怨恨……记住，离异父母的新生活绝不是要在孩子心目中诋毁对方的形象，而是保证孩子生活稳定、安全和满足。

Though the book is primarily directed to the British reader, and the specific legal process described is the English one, the advice usually transcends jurisdiction.

虽然这本书主要针对英国读者，具体的法律流程也是建立在英国法律条款的基础之上，但是书中的建议并不局限于法律范畴。

The book's British tone and tilt might make American readers most uncomfortable when it gets down to the hard-core etiquette stuff—like how to word the children's wedding invitations when the parents have remarried. ("Mr. John Robinson and Mrs. Edgar Forsythe request the pleasure of your company at the marriage of their daughter Caroline.") Some Americans will roll their eyes at such formalities while others will memorize them religiously, and many will do both. Most will be simply bewildered by passages like this one: "When a peeress (i.e. a duchess, marchioness, countess, viscountess or baroness) obtains a divorce, the general rule is that she places her forename before her title, for example, Mary, Duchess of Hampshire."

这本书的风格偏英式，也更贴近英国文化，在触及到核心的礼仪问题时，可能会令美国读者感到为难。譬如，父母都已经再婚的情况下，在孩子的婚礼请柬中如何措辞（“约翰·罗宾逊先生和埃德加·弗西斯夫人恭请您参加小女卡罗琳的婚礼。”）有些美国人面对这种礼节会不屑一顾，有些人则会虔诚地记在心里，而许多人可能两种心理兼而有之。大多数美国人可能会为这样的段落感到困惑不已：“贵族夫人（即公爵夫人、侯爵夫人、伯爵夫人、子爵夫人或男爵夫人）离婚后，一般规则是她把自己的名字放在头衔前面，例如，玛丽，汉普郡公爵夫人。”

I wouldn't recommend this book to Ron Perelman, but for pragmatic decouplers navigating divorce for the first time and trying to keep the interests of their children paramount, it could prove useful, comforting, and even wise

我不会向罗恩·佩雷尔曼（露华浓化妆品公司的掌门人，曾经多次离婚）推荐这本书，但会推荐给第一次离婚并尝试保护孩子利益的人。这本书对于他们来说非常有用、令人宽慰，甚至可以说是睿智。