Go to Source
Author:
Coping with divorce and depression
Marriage break-ups can often be followed by periods of depression and anxiety for divorcing husbands and wives.
And no wonder. The end of a long-term relationship can spark a range of emotions and fears for the future. It is important to remember that this is completely normal. You will have good days and bad days, just as everyone else does.
Below, we have detailed five tips that will help you to build resilience to navigate the process of separation. And remember, marriage takes two, and if one person is unhappy the other will suffer. Try to shift your thinking from “it’s the end of the world” to “it’s the beginning of the new.”
Feel your feelings
Feeling emotions helps you deal with them. It’s completely natural to feel sad, disappointed, angry, scared… sometimes all in one hour. Do not shy away from them. Burying these feelings leads to bitterness and you will not move forward. Don’t carry the undealt negative emotions into the next stage of your life.
Stop thinking you are a failure
Divorce can rock your self-esteem and self-worth. Whatever the circumstances, you will ask yourself, what went wrong? Was it my fault? Am I not good enough? However, remember this is your bruised confidence talking. Of course, your self-esteem takes a hit when a relationship ends, but the way to fill the hole left by divorce is through acceptance of and kindness to yourself. Learn to believe in you again.
Surround yourself with support
Identify your support network and talk to them. This is the best way to stop yourself from becoming isolated. Connect with friends and family who are supportive and boost your mood. This is not the time for judgement. Often people who have been through a break-up themselves and know what you are going through can offer useful advice.
If you prefer to talk to people you do not know, then seek out a counsellor or local support group. There is a list of useful contact numbers at the end of this article.
Meet a new side of you
You are no less by being single. You are just not part of a couple which is okay. Often, in a long-term relationship, you can lose a part of your identity which is normal, but you were your own person before and you will be again. Think about what you like doing but stopped because married life took over. Return to them again, or think about what you have always wanted to do and give it a try.
Be kind to yourself
Take time to do something purely for you. Think about what you enjoy, such as a long walk, a soak in the bath, get out running, practice yoga, read a book or bake for friends and family. Also, remember to cover the basics: eat well, get plenty of sleep and rest when you need to.
Getting help for depression
If you’re struggling with the emotional aspects of separation and are concerned about depression and anxiety there are some useful contacts below. Please do seek professional help and support.
Mind Information, advice and support on all aspects of mental health
0300 123 3393
NHS Provides information on what depression is, its causes, how to spot the signs, where to get help, and treatment.
Samaritans Provides confidential emotional support for those experiencing feelings of distress or despair, including suicidal feelings.
116 123 (Freephone number)
SANE A national helpline offering emotional support and information to anyone affected by mental illness.
0300 304 7000
Hopeline UK Non-judgmental support and advice for children and people under the age of 35 who are experiencing thoughts of suicide.
Call: 0800 068 41 41 / Text: 0778 620 9697
The post Coping with divorce and depression appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: Stowe Family Law
Dealing with an intractable children dispute, Part 1
In early April the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in two private law children appeals, within five days of one another. Between them, I think the two cases have useful things to say about intractable disputes between parents over arrangements for their children, in cases where ‘parental alienation’ is not an issue. I shall deal with the first case in this post, and the second case in my next post.
The first case which, as we will see in a moment, I have previously written about here, is G (Children : Intractable Dispute), which concerned an appeal by a father against the refusal of an application for orders that his two children should live with him or have contact with him, and an order preventing him from bringing any further applications relating to the children for three years, without the permission of the court.
The facts of the case were that the parents lived together for some years, separating in May 2013. They had two children, both girls, now aged 11 and 8. The girls live with their mother. Since the separation there has been uninterrupted litigation between the parents about the children, and other matters (how often do we hear this?).
I couldn’t possibly detail all of that litigation (as far as it relates to the children) here, but these are the main points:
- In August 2014 a fact-finding hearing took place at which the judge made adverse findings against the father, relying in part upon two reports from a social worker, which supported the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse against the father. As I explained here, in 2015 the father succeeded in appealing against the findings, after the social worker was found to be biased.
- A ‘final’ hearing took place in early 2017. The mother wanted the court to make a final order, but the father sought a further psychological assessment of the older child, who indicated she did not wish to see her father. The judge preferred the father’s case, and ordered the assessment, which was extended to the whole family.
- A ‘final’ final hearing took place in April 2018, with judgment being handed down in July. The judge made a number of damning findings against the father, including that he was openly hostile towards the mother, that he was hostile towards the professionals involved in the case, that he was “the main if not principal source of conflict”, that he was unable to prioritise the children’s welfare above his own wishes, and that he had “completely lost sight of the welfare of the children”. In consequence of these findings, the judge refused the father’s application for orders that the children should live with him or have contact with him, and prevented him from bringing further applications without permission for three years.
- The father had had no proper direct contact with the older child since April 2014, and no contact with the younger child since September 2016.
The father appealed to the Court of Appeal, claiming, amongst other things, that the proceedings were procedurally unfair and infringed the children and father’s right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, by virtue either of the absence of contact or the length of the proceedings. It was also claimed that the judge had not pursued all reasonable routes available to him.
Giving the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal Lord Justice Peter Jackson found that there had been no breach of the human rights of the children or the father. Although the length of the proceedings was a matter of concern, that did not of itself amount to a rights infringement. “What is more relevant”, he said, “is that since 2015 the Judge has diligently and sympathetically attempted to revive the father’s relationship with his children but has been forestalled by the mother’s earlier lack of support for contact and by the father’s increasingly extreme attitude.” He went on:
“The father’s self-description as “free of findings, risks or concerns throughout” confirms that he currently has little if any insight into his own difficulties. As time has gone on, his self-defeating stance has become the main obstacle to progress. To be clear, Art. 8 rights are not reserved for irreproachable parents, but a parent who is only willing to participate in the delicate work of family reconstruction on his own uncompromising terms cannot hold others responsible when the work does not succeed.”
As to the routes available to the judge, Lord Justice Jackson said that there were only really two options:
“…the orders made by the Judge or the order sought by the father for the children to live with him, notwithstanding what the Judge described as the lack of any coherent planning for matters such as accommodation. Of these options, only one was realistic in the absence of a finding of severe parental alienation and the Judge’s choice was all but inevitable.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Whilst the father in this case clearly had reason to be aggrieved by how the ‘system’ had treated him, the case demonstrates the futility of continued hostility towards that system, and the other party. If you want the best outcome, then you must put aside any hatred of the other parent, cooperate fully with the ‘system’ and, above all, ensure that you put the welfare of the children above your own wishes.
You can read the full judgment here.
The post Dealing with an intractable children dispute, Part 1 appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: John Bolch
Carbon Sequestration

Greenhouse gas disposal techniques
By now, everyone is well aware of the atmosphere’s rising level of carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as the fact that this is increasing the average global temperature and causing climate change. While nations and corporations debate about whether or to what extent CO2 emissions can be reduced, it’s clear that at least a portion of that unwanted CO2 can be captured and liquefied (for example, as it’s produced by power plants and factories), preventing it from going into the atmosphere. Great, but then what? There’s way too much of it to just store it in giant tanks for eternity.
The process of storing carbon dioxide permanently in such a way that it cannot escape back into the atmosphere is known as carbon sequestration (or, sometimes, carbon dioxide sequestration). You may have heard the term in the news, but what does it really mean? Broadly speaking, there are two places one might put large quantities of unwanted carbon dioxide—in the oceans or underground. Techniques for getting the CO2 to its putative final resting place (and keeping it there) are in varying stages of development.
Ocean Storage
The world’s oceans already absorb unfathomable amounts of CO2; some researchers believe they could hold a great deal more with a little help. The upper part of the ocean typically has a fairly high concentration of CO2 (absorbed directly from the atmosphere), but at greater depths, the concentration is much lower. So one way to dispose of CO2 may be to inject it into deep ocean water. At depths over 3,000 meters or so, liquid or solid CO2 is denser than the surrounding water, meaning that it could sink all the way to the ocean floor. Closer to the surface, it would dissolve into the water, which wouldn’t be great because dissolved CO2 makes the water acidic, with detrimental effects on marine life. Liquid CO2 on the ocean floor may react with minerals there and form relatively harmless solid precipitates—or it may simply kill off organisms already living there. So it’s an idea, but not a risk-free one.
Geological Storage
Well, what about putting it in the ground? Merely burying CO2 is not good enough; in order for it to stay put, it has to be stored very deep in the ground, and somewhere that the gas cannot escape into the atmosphere. Some possibilities include:
- Saline Aquifers: An aquifer is a porous layer of rock that holds a large quantity of water—often saltwater. Inject CO2 deeply enough into an aquifer, and the surrounding pressure keeps it in liquid form. Meanwhile, an impermeable layer of solid rock above prevents the gas from being released back into the atmosphere. Although aquifer storage is expensive, it is likely to have less impact on the environment than ocean storage—and the CO2 can remain safely underground, theoretically, forever.
- Oil and Gas Reservoirs: If you can put carbon dioxide into an aquifer, you can also put it into a depleted gas or oil well. In fact, the technology to deliver CO2 into such wells has been in use for decades; pump CO2 into an oil well, for instance, and you can push out extra oil that would otherwise be unreachable. (Of course, that oil, when burned, will also contribute to CO2 overload, but the net effect should be positive.) As long as the CO2 is stored deep enough, it will remain as a liquid.
- Coal Seams: Most of the world’s coal deposits are located too deep in the ground for mining to be practical. When CO2 is injected into coal seams, the coal absorbs the gas. Meanwhile, in a manner similar to enhanced oil recovery, the process also pushes out methane gas, which can be used as a fuel (again, one that puts back some greenhouse gases back in the atmosphere—three steps forward, two steps back).
And then, of course, there’s a natural CO2 storage apparatus: forests. Trees are incredibly effective at absorbing carbon dioxide and creating oxygen, so planting (or replanting) millions of acres of forest could go a long way toward solving the CO2 problem—no drilling or high-tech research required. This is not technically sequestration, as you wouldn’t manually inject previously collected carbon dioxide into a tree—but it does have essentially the same net effect.
Carbon sequestration is not a magic bullet—it will help, sure, but as long as we keep pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, we’re still making the problem worse. Furthermore, although all the potential terrestrial CO2 storage spots show some promise, the safety, capacity, and long-term effectiveness of carbon sequestration is ultimately unknown. At best, it will address only a small portion of the atmospheric CO2 surplus; at worst, we may find that something we thought we buried comes back to haunt us. (If you want to be really sure carbon never escapes again, you could compress it all the way into diamonds. That’s possible, but requires too much energy to be feasible.)
Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on December 17, 2004.
Image credit: LeJean Hardin and Jamie Payne – derivative work: Jarl Arntzen [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell
Juli’s Gluten Free Pasta Salad
Have you ever hear anyone say “Necessity is the mother of all invention”? This recipe is proof of that. I had little left in the house one night and didn’t want to make a
Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting
5 Classic Coffee Drinks That Are To Die For
Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting
The emotional stages of divorce
Divorce can often be followed by periods of depression and anxiety for separating husbands and wives. So, in honour of Mental Health Awareness Week, we have created a short video on the journey through the six emotional stages of divorce.
Based on the five stages of grief identified by the psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler-Ross back in 1969 in her book On Death and Dying, the end of a marriage or relationship is a bereavement: a loss of the life you once had and of the future, you believed you would have.
Understanding the emotional stages will help you to deal with them.
You can read the whole article here.
The post The emotional stages of divorce appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: Stowe Family Law
A clean break conditional on a Jewish religious divorce – right or wrong?
As a Jewish businessman criticises the Family Court for putting him in a catch-22 situation that allegedly traps him between family law and religious law, Julian Hawkhead, Senior Partner joins us on the blog to look at the case in more detail.
“A recent article in the press told of a Jewish “property millionaire” husband Mr Alan Moher who was denied a clean break by the Court. This left him required to pay his wife, Mrs Caroline Moher, ongoing maintenance despite her being awarded £1.6m until he granted his wife a Get (Jewish religious divorce). He protested to the Court of Appeal that he was being discriminated by being denied the clean break because he had religious faith-based objections to granting his wife the Get.
The decision of the Court of Appeal is awaited but the article throws up some interesting questions. Why should the Court make a clean break award conditional upon the husband granting his wife the religious divorce she seeks? Why should money and the full legal and religious termination of the marriage go hand in hand?
A Get is a Jewish certificate of divorce granted by the husband to his wife which will permit her to remarry in a Jewish religious ceremony and returns her rights to her that a husband holds on marriage. It is essential to a woman who holds Orthodox Jewish beliefs. A Get must be given of the husband’s free will.
In this case, the husband has argued that the conditional discharge of a maintenance order upon him granting his wife a Get means that he is not acting of his own free will. As a result, he does not consider the Jewish religious authorities would accept the Get he presented as valid in any event.
According to the article, the husband’s counsel Brent Molyneux QC was quoted as saying that the Get “is something which has to be given freely, after financial ties between the parties have come to an end” and “ The husband is thus left in a position where, due to the element of compulsion placed on him by the order of the court, he is unable to grant a valid Get.” By way of a summary of the husband’s case he said: “It is wrong for the wife to receive a financial benefit and the husband a financial penalty by virtue of their religious beliefs.”
However, was this just clever wordplay? Religious divorces are not rare. The pronouncement of a Decree Absolute is the certificate of the Courts of England and Wales that the marriage has been legally dissolved. However, in certain faiths and indeed in some countries, a legal certificate of divorce is not enough to fully dissolve all marital links between husband and wife. The Get is one such example.
Why then is a religious divorce withheld in this way? It can be for several different reasons. In some instances, the party who withholds the issuing of the religious divorce has such fundamental beliefs based on their religion that they feel a marriage cannot be ended. So, whilst they can do nothing ultimately to stop the legal divorce, if the ability to grant the religious divorce remains within their power then they will hold onto it. This will prevent their spouse from being able to remarry within the same faith in the future.
Sometimes withholding has financial motives: that the spouse who could grant it uses their ability to do so, to try to secure a better financial settlement knowing that their spouse is so desperate for the religious divorce that they would make financial sacrifices to obtain it. Others are just being obstructive, knowing it will cause their spouse the most amount of upset.
In other situations, when it is the husband who wants the legal divorce, but the wife is concerned that he will not grant the Get or another religious divorce, it is possible for the Court to make an order holding up the pronouncement of Decree Absolute until that religious divorce has been granted.
Charlotte Newman, Solicitor from the Stowe Family Law office in Leeds office comments
“It is true to say that the Orthodox Jewish divorce law, rests power with the man. However, the Beth Din have, and continue to work with many women being denied a Get and unable to move on with their lives.
These women have often been termed ‘Agunot,’ which translates to chained women. The effects of being in this situation can be more far-reaching than being unable to remarry within the faith; the children of the new marriage may also find themselves in difficulty marrying in an Orthodox Synagogue.
As such, the Beth Din has seen the refusal of a husband to provide a Get a form of abuse and caseworkers work with wives to ‘unchain’ them, allowing them to live freely. I personally second this view and (reluctantly) agree that a financial consequence may be the only way to ensure that the husband, in this case, stops using religion to justify his behaviour and perhaps as a wider issue, distract the court from his other behaviour within the proceedings”.
There will be different opinions on the husband’s motives, the wife’s counsel Sally Harrison QC indicated that the option to link the termination of the husband’s maintenance obligations with the granting of a Get was the option of last resort. He had been asked to simply promise to the Court that he would do so, and he had apparently refused. This would suggest that the husband’s account of his reasons for not granting the Get are disingenuous however the Court of Appeal is yet to make its own determination.
What we do see here though is that the Court will do what it can to support the vulnerable party, accepting creative ways to protect them or ensure that they get what they need to secure an autonomous future for themselves.
The issue over the Get is part of a wider appeal made by the husband against the financial award made in favour of his wife. Indeed, the quantum of the maintenance order of £1,850 is small amount when compared to the costs the parties will have incurred in proceeding to the Court of Appeal (probably running into the hundreds of thousands of pounds) in which case why is this issue even being pursued.
Looking at the wider commentary on the case it would seem the husband had failed to provide financial disclosure or to co-operate with the Court process. As a result, it was not possible to get a full picture of his financial resources. Nevertheless, the husband claims that the award of £1.6m represents 85% of the overall wealth.
But is this true? The husband’s conduct was described as “appalling and contemptuous”. Such dishonest behaviour never finds favour with the Court and I cannot count the number of people who have thought they could mislead the Court by hiding or transferring assets and failing. Dishonesty is probably the worst trait to take into Court with you as it tarnishes everything you try to persuade the Court about. I suspect that this is another litigant who has tried and failed.
We have a team of expert lawyers who specialise in untangling complex financial situations and dealing with difficult divorce scenarios. If any of the issues I have commented on in this article affect you, whether it is a dishonest spouse, or you are stuck in a marriage and do not know what your options are to get out of it, do get in touch with me to discuss your situation.”
The post A clean break conditional on a Jewish religious divorce – right or wrong? appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: Julian Hawkhead
The President’s annual ‘state of the nation’ address
I wrote here yesterday about the latest edition of the View from the President’s Chambers, the periodic update by the President of the Family Division upon the latest developments in the field of family law, and his views thereon. My post concentrated on the announcement by the President of a transparency review. What else did the President talk about?
Well, the first thing to say is that this View is rather more special than others. As the President explains at the outset, it comprises his annual ‘state of the nation’ address, delivering his perspective on the current state of affairs so far as the Family Justice system is concerned.
And what, apart from that transparency review, is happening within the nation? Here is a summary of some of the main points:
Firstly, the President is continuing his stately progression around the 44 Designated Family Judge Family Court Centres in England and Wales (together with some additional courts), “in order to understand just how the current unprecedented burden of work was being experienced at each place and, hopefully, to learn something of the causes of the rise in caseload and to identify strategies that may improve our ability to cope with this volume of work.” The President reports that he has thus far visited 24 courts, and aims “to complete this initial ‘drains-up’ familiarisation with the system by October, or early November.” He says that the visits have shown that different courts seem to approach common tasks in very different ways, and that such diversity provides useful information as we try to identify what does, or does not, ‘work’ in terms of efficient and effective case progression. The visits have “provided a rich harvest of information and ideas”, which have been fed into two central working groups that he has established, to focus on Public Law and Private Law. The two groups are shortly to publish interim reports looking at process and practice in both areas.
Moving on, the President reported briefly upon the piloting of specialist financial remedy courts, although I don’t think he told us anything we did not already know.
He also reported briefly upon the failure of the eleven regional divorce centres to provide an adequate service for the progress of divorce petitions and the making of Financial Remedy consent orders. He says that the centres are being phased out during the current 12-month period, and replaced by an online system based in the new national Civil and Family Service Centre at Stoke on Trent, although my understanding is that the Ministry of Justice has not yet made a final decision upon the fate of the centres. He says that he is “confident that the senior staff at HM Courts and Tribunals Service [‘HMCTS’] are entirely clear that the unacceptable service levels currently experienced from the paper-based centres is not to be repeated as Stoke gradually takes on more and more of this work.” He says that he has already visited the new centre at Stoke and, while he was impressed by what he saw there, he intends “to keep a continuous and keen eye on the process as it moves forward.”
Moving on again, the President says that: “The HMCTS Reform Programme continues to develop and is, increasingly, producing online processes which will in time include every aspect of the work of the Family Court.” He also says that, irrespective of the progress of ‘Reform’, he considers that the Family Court should be making full use of the current technology to conduct short, without notice, hearings by telephone, typically at the first hearing of a Family Law Act injunction application.
Lastly, the President concludes with one further observation from the court visits he has made, and I shall set it out in full:
“It is simply to acknowledge my appreciation for the HMCTS Staff who keep our system running to the best of their ability in a period that has been made difficult for them, not only by the rise in the number of cases, and not only by the need for the staff to take on board new systems of working that are gradually being rolled out as part of the Reform Programme, but also to undertake their work having been informed that, in due course, a consequence of ‘Reform’ will be a reduction in staff levels at each court centre. I have been extremely impressed by the commitment to the work and the good humour that I have experienced on meeting very many staff members all over the country and, in closing this ‘View’, I simply wish to record my thanks to each and every one of them.”
I’m sure we would all agree with those sentiments.
You can read the full View here.
The post The President’s annual ‘state of the nation’ address appeared first on Stowe Family Law.
Go to Source
Author: John Bolch
The Crypt of Civilization

Museum in a time capsule
On July 4, 1976, bicentennial celebrations took place all over the United States. I was nine years old at the time, and along with my five-year-old sister, I went to a special gathering just a few doors down from our house near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A local funeral parlor, in a highly publicized event, was going to bury a time capsule (instead of a coffin) in a corner of its parking lot. Memorabilia from the community would be kept there until the capsule was unearthed, as I recall, 50 years later. Children were particularly urged to come, in order to sign a replica of the Declaration of Independence that would be included in the capsule. By the time my sister and I had made our way to the front of the crowd, the page was completely full, so someone brought out extra sheets of paper to hold the rest of the signatures. I remember being both excited to have my signature in a time capsule and annoyed that I had to sign a stupid blank piece of paper.
The capsule was filled with nitrogen to preserve its contents, buried, and covered with a small monument that included a plaque explaining what was inside and when it was to be opened. On a couple of occasions since then, I’ve visited that monument, which is now pretty dingy and largely forgotten. And I’ve thought to myself: Will anyone actually remember to dig this thing up in 2026? The people who buried it will be long gone. And who knows what will have happened to that property by then? If I’m alive and I show up for the disinterment, will I have to bring my own pickaxe? And if someone does remember, will we actually learn anything interesting from those 50-year-old artifacts?
Museum for the Future
The idea of burying something to be found by future generations goes way, way back. But the modern notion of a time capsule didn’t appear until at least the 19th century, if not more recently. The first serious attempt to preserve a large collection of information and artifacts for the distant future is also, to date, the most elaborate: the Crypt of Civilization, sealed in 1940 at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, Georgia.
The idea for the Crypt came to Oglethorpe University president Thornwell Jacobs in the 1920s, and he solidified it into a plan in 1936. Jacobs realized that the information left to us by ancient civilizations is spotty at best, and he wanted to do a favor for historians and archeologists of the future. So his idea was to collect a vast storehouse of information and objects representing all of human history to that point—including science, technology, entertainment, and every aspect of popular culture—and consolidate it into a multimedia museum, specially preserved for millennia.
While Jacobs was supervising the three-year collection process, his project got a lot of publicity, and similar (though smaller-scale) efforts began to spring up elsewhere. The Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company decided to create a torpedo-shaped container of artifacts to be buried during the 1939 World’s Fair (and opened 5,000 years later). They called their container a “time capsule,” and that term was soon adopted for nearly all such projects. All except the Crypt, that is—even though it was, in a way, the prototypical time capsule, its scope was so much larger that the word “capsule” wasn’t appropriate.
Pooling Resources
In fact, the Crypt is a room that was once a swimming pool. Located on the lower level of Oglethorpe University’s Phoebe Hearst Hall, it is a chamber measuring 20 feet long by 10 feet wide by 10 feet high (6 x 3 x 3 m). Because it was originally a pool, the bottoms and sides of the chamber were already waterproof. It rests on bedrock and has a thick layer of stone above it. In other words, the room will survive nearly any catastrophe outside. It underwent extensive renovations to further reinforce and seal it; and the most delicate items inside are hermetically sealed in specially designed containers. The chamber itself can be entered only through a heavy stainless steel door that was welded shut on May 25, 1940.
The Crypt contains many hundreds of items, from the sublime to the mundane. Among the contents are copies of over 800 books of all kinds, stored on both microfilm and metal plates; audio recordings; newsreels; a radio; electric light fixtures; games and toys; a typewriter; plastic samples; and a container of beer—to name just a few. There are microfilm readers and projectors; the archivists also thoughtfully included a wind-powered generator in case electricity is not available when the Crypt is opened. And—my favorite part—the first thing one will see on entering the Crypt is a machine to teach basic English, so that the rest of the materials can be understood even if English is long dead.
If you’re thinking that sounds like the Crypt was destined to be sealed for a long, long time, you’re absolutely right. Most time capsules are intended to be opened in 50 or 100 years. The Crypt of Civilization, however, is not “scheduled” to be opened until 8113. This seemingly arbitrary date was 6,177 years from the time the Crypt was designed in 1936—which was, in turn, 6,177 years from the first date for which we have historical records (4241 BCE, when the Egyptian calendar began). Thus, the Crypt should contain a fairly good record of the first half of human history as of the date it’s opened.
Pass It On
Considering how much the world has changed in the last 6,000 years, it would be foolish to assume that Hearst Hall, Oglethorpe University, or even the city of Atlanta will still be around when the Crypt is supposed to be opened. After so many generations, it would be quite surprising if someone actually knew the location and nature of the Crypt when the time came. As it is, the Crypt was all but forgotten just a few decades after it was sealed. In 1970, a student exploring an off-limits area of Hearst Hall with a flashlight came upon the mysterious sealed door. That student, Paul Hudson, later became a history professor and co-founded the International Time Capsule Society (ITCS) in 1990. The organization’s sole purpose is to track all the time capsules buried around the world and pass that information on to future generations, so that each one can be found and opened at the proper time.
The ITCS estimates there are about 10,000 time capsules buried worldwide, most of which are “lost”—that is, no one knows the capsules’ exact locations. I don’t know whether the bicentennial capsule with my signature in it is on their list; their registry is not available to the general public. Although I can understand that making information like this public might increase the likelihood of theft, it would also improve the odds that the time capsule will be remembered—and that is (or was), after all, the organization’s mission. However, I have some doubts about that mission’s likelihood of success. A note that appeared on their website in 2016 and is still there today says:
Note: Although the ITCS continues to accept time capsule registrations, it currently is not active.
What does “not active” mean for the future? Perhaps a history student centuries from now will stumble upon an old computer from the ITCS and somehow figure out how to extract its list of time capsules! I kid, but surely any effort to collect and maintain this information is better than nothing.
Meanwhile, Back at the Crypt
The people who bury a time capsule—since they usually will not be the ones to open it—must rely on the goodwill of future generations to follow their instructions as to when the capsule should be unearthed. There’s no authority that can ultimately prevent the people of, say, the year 3936 from opening the Crypt of Civilization if they feel like it—or if the instructions for when it should be opened have been lost. If history has shown us anything, it’s that buried treasure (even if the treasure is simply knowledge) has a habit of escaping.
Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on April 30, 2005.
Image credit: Oglethorpe University Archives. Used by permission.
Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell