July 19th, 2009 at 03:01am
Under Divorce Law
Nobody goes into a marriage looking at the reality of divorce a few years down the road, but it happens with many marriages these days. The first thing you need to do is make sure that both you and your spouse have agreed that divorce is your best option. In some states, divorce law mandates that both of you attend marital counseling sessions before divorce proceedings can start, so be aware of the requirements in your state.
If both you and your spouse agree that divorce is your best option, and that marital counseling is just going to delay the inevitable, then you may be a candidate for what is known as an uncontested divorce. Are any and virtually all assets that you jointly own able to be easily divided, where you and your spouse can mutually agree on how to divide them? If so, then an uncontested divorce might be your easiest option and your most cost effective option.
But one of the things that you must make sure you fully understand is the divorce is final. It is not like a trial separation where a couple separates for awhile to understand how life works for them without the other one around. Sure, you can change your mind before the proceedings are finalized, but that is going to cost you even more money, not to mention the personal time you will have used to get to this point.
The other thing you need to fully understand is exactly what is meant by the term uncontested divorce. Generally speaking, it means that both parties agree that a divorce is their best option and nothing will be argued about, either in terms of the divorce itself or in the division of assets. Typically, a couple who is doing an uncontested divorce may have already split their assets and may not even be living together, so the divorce for them is almost just a formality.
Should you do it yourself or consult with a divorce lawyer? A lot of the answer to that question is how far you trust your spouse. If it is truly uncontested and you are 100% confident that no skeletons will jump out of the closet during the proceedings, then you can probably do it yourself and save some money. But if you do not have that level of confidence, even though on the surface it would seem that the divorce would be uncontested, you may want to protect yourself by consulting with a divorce lawyer first.
A good divorce lawyer may be just a consultation or two, where the lawyer lets you know what your rights are and what you can expect. If you truly expect the divorce NOT to be uncontested, you may want to consider actually hiring the lawyer to be with you every step of the way. While the latter option is of course going to cost you more, consider how much more it may cost you if your spouse pulls a rabbit out of the hat during the proceedings, where you are not prepared for something which is going to definitely turn out to NOT be an uncontested divorce. This is a judgment call on your part, but especially in financial terms, it may be better to err on the side of caution to ensure that you do not get hosed in the process.
If you do use a lawyer, do your research carefully. Make sure that the lawyer you choose is familiar with divorce law in your state, and has experience with what was expected to be an uncontested divorce and actually turns into something else. Every situation is different, so be cautious of divorce lawyers who suggest a cookie-cutter approach.
Since you are considering divorce, things have not been good up to this point. Make sure that you do everything you can to make your divorce go smoothly and allow yourself to restart your life on the right foot.
By Law Article
July 13th, 2009 at 09:01pm
Under Divorce Law
It was always believed, in most parts of the civilised world, that if any two individuals are not being able to lead a happy and contended life together, if their differences seem insurmountable, then they should be granted the opportunity to disengage themselves from their partners.
Thus, as has already been clarified, divorce was not unknown in ancient human societies. However, most marriages in those times were arranged marriages. They had social sanction and the approval of elders.
In such circumstances, a divorce meant social disapproval. It was not termed a healthy practise to follow. The couples also took all possible precautions to make their marriages work. They went out of their way to keep marital harmony intact.
Fear of social disapproval and the reactions from family and friends, fear of even the possibility of being socially ostracized also had its effect on the couples of yore. Thus, even though divorce as such was not unknown, yet it was definitely uncommon.
So, it was that even if the marriages failed to fructify into harmonious relationships, most of the couples chose to still grin and bear it rather than face social ridicule. As a consequence, the divorce rate was very low. Separation from a spouse was also not a common thing.
However, as human society evolved, so did all the laws governing it. The increased participation of women in the workforce translated into greater clout for women. It was soon followed by the women’s liberation movements.
They advocated not only that greater amount of freedom should be granted to women but also that laws should also be made favourable to them. These movements had a great impact on the society and culture of their times.
As a consequence of the above mentioned factors and a more liberal attitude of both the governments and society, the divorce laws were also relaxed. The word divorce no longer had the same kind of stigma attached to it as was the case in the past.
Over the passage of time, the now relaxed divorce related laws were relaxed even further. It was opined that if the couple is not able to face the trials and tribulations of married life together, then they should be provided an honourable way out of their marriage.
The pain and difficulties faced by divorcing couples on account of lengthy and extended divorce proceedings were also a factor in prompting simpler divorce procedures. We had a situation where if the couple wanted to divorce then they could do so with ease.
The era of contested divorce was coming to an end. More and more divorce cases were collaborative in nature and only a miniscule minority of the cases was contested. This continues to be the situation even today.
As more and more single parent families started becoming the norm in British society, the stigma attached to the word divorce also decreased considerably. Today, divorce is no longer looked down upon in society and is an established part and parcel of the same.
Unfortunately though, all the above mentioned factors have given rise to a rather piquant situation. As the divorce laws have been relaxed to a great deal, to help the divorcing couples, marriage as an institution has come under assault.
In today’s day and age, an ever increasing number of marriages are ending in divorce. Most of the marriages break down in the first two years. The couple simply decides to go in for a collaborative divorce and the easier laws help them it through it.
All this is leading to a large number of disrupted families which have been torn apart on account of divorce. This is having a very negative impact on society as a whole. This is not what was initially visualised while relaxing the divorce procedures.
Perhaps time has come to once again tighten the laws and to make divorce a difficult proposition for married couples. This should definitely go a long way in checking the lop sided impact on the society, so that divorce may be granted in extreme cases only.
By Law Article
July 13th, 2009 at 03:01pm
Under Divorce Law
Such self appointed arbitrators of moral values and ethics believe that it is their duty to protect the bothersome legal procedures existing in our domestic law that pretend to save the so-called sanctity of marriage. No heed is paid to the marital issue in question and the circumstances governing it.Historical Perspective
One major reason for this dilemma is the interference of religious ethics in the emerging social issues. During the Roman times, family and marriage came within the ambit of comprehensive state laws with no religious or mystical appendages tagged to them. The establishment of Roman Catholic Church in Europe was marked by an increased interference of the Church in personal and family matters.
Though Protestant reformation in the 1500s supported the bifurcation of the Church and legal matters, still, the Anglican Church carried on with the policies of its Catholic predecessors. So strong was the grip of the clergy in domestic affairs that between 1669 and 1850, only 229 divorces were granted in England.
But now, the time has come to accept that we are a modern, secular society and to sort out the complications created by religious influences in domestic law. Tyrannical divorce laws can no more be tolerated.Divorce and Accompanying Hassles
Any individual who has faced a contested divorce suit is painfully aware of the fact that legal procedures are always accompanied by massive expenditures in terms of time, money and efforts. Lawyers and judges are seldom concerned about the emotional state of people involved in such a feud and their sense of justice compels them to focus on the more logical issues such as alimony, custody, visitation and division of assets. The irony is that two adult people can sort out these issues in a much more amicable atmosphere, without going through the bother of attending court proceedings. The only impediment in the way of this streamlined approach is the arcane and strict divorce law that is in effect.
Uncountable numbers of lawyers are earning their livelihood through people facing marital problems and a whole industry has developed around such a personal issue called divorce. Even friendly spouses are forced into leveling charges and faults against each other to satisfy the tough legal requirements for getting a divorce. Large amounts of money are wasted in procuring decisions about one’s personal life. People often go bankrupt while pursuing a bitterly contested divorce suit. Do we still have to continue with such nonsense in the name of the law? Does it make any sense to enforce such legal modalities in such a private and sensitive matter as divorce?Women and Children
It is especially difficult for women who are being divorced to manage the entire affair and not be short-changed. The sense of hurt generated by a divorce situation is further worsened by the mandatory legal hassles. The scars left by a hotly contested divorce suit make the possibility of a successful post divorce rehabilitation and positive co parenting almost impossible. Children have to bear with the consequences of unwholesome domestic affairs in the form of lengthy court hearings. Many a time, they are sucked into the divorce case, giving testimony. The existing divorce laws should be restructured to be in line with the latest developments in the area of conflict resolution and child psychology.Special Issues
Special marital scenarios marked by emotional abuse, violence, drug addiction and alcoholism do deserve speedy justice in the courts of law. Practically it has been seen that months are spent in establishing and proving the charges against an abusive spouse, resulting in untold suffering and harassment for the victim. Had the existing divorce laws been rational and pragmatic, a lot of victimized spouses would have been saved the trauma of bearing with an abuser because of legal glitches. Justice delayed is justice denied. Hence such stringent divorce laws amount to the denial of justice.Conclusion
Divorce laws should certainly be made easier and more relaxed so that people who want to split can do it quickly, efficiently and with their dignity intact. A divorce is supposed to be a solution to a problem. What is the fun of continuing with the laws that make the divorce procedure in itself a big problem?
By Law Article
July 13th, 2009 at 09:01am
Under Divorce Law
Complicated laws entangle the divorcing couple into legal hassles and aggravate their unhappy state. Unable to solve through the judicial issues, separating spouses get forced to hire expensive solicitors and fight out long-drawn court battles. This compels the entire family into the court room. Children and other relatives get sucked into the case giving testimony. Moreover, hiring divorce lawyers drains the already sparse family resources. Families slip into extreme economic difficulty following the separation.
Such a situation is extremely difficult for both the spouses, more so for the woman who is a respondent in the divorce case. The unexpected marital termination and managing the entire divorce affair all alone will expose her to the risk of being short-changed.
To prevent victimisation of the aggrieved party and development of such difficult situations, it is necessary that divorce laws be made more easy and relaxed. People intending a split should be enabled to do so quickly and efficiently with their dignity intact. Liberalise Divorce Laws
‘Marriages are for life’ — every person tying the knot believes so, and aspires for it. However, practical life is much different from lofty beliefs or ideal scenarios.
Usually, people marry (the first time) when they are in their late 20s or early 30s and a few marry young. When they ultimately find it incompatible to live with their spouse, they should be given the freedom to get out of the situation, though divorce laws will leave them trapped in an unsuccessful marriage, and force them to suffer for the next half of a century (General life expectancies in the UK are 79.4 years.).
Stringent laws not only affect the suffering spouses, but also they emotionally damage the children. These innocent victims who live in an environment made despondent by regular insults, fear, and sadness will turn emotionally insecure and develop adjustment problems. Research has proved that if children grow with single parents, in an environment devoid of such negativity, they mature into healthy individuals.
However, at the other end of the spectrum lies an entirely different view-point. Many people fear that if divorces are made extremely easy, people will lose interest to invest adequately in a marriage. They will be less inclined to help their spouse succeed professionally or deliberate long term plans that financially benefit the entire family. Some, therefore, argue against making laws easier and such opponents presumably outnumber the advocates. Liberal Divorce Laws and Enhanced Divorce Rate
Adversaries of liberal divorce laws also believe that if divorce becomes easier to obtain, married people will contemplate it at the first hint of trouble.
These arguments appear biased. People, who opt for a divorce, are much aware of the negative consequences of their decision. Rarely does anyone terminate a marriage just because the law easily enables them to do so.
Divorce laws must be relaxed so that unhappy marital partners are not made to suffer just because they married wrong. However, to prevent couples from terminating low-conflict marriages, a few measures must be implemented.
Every divorce (where domestic violence is absent) should be granted after ascertaining that couples have tried out marriage counselling. Such sessions develop the communication and problem solving skills of conflicting couples and teach them the value of compromise.
Separating spouses should also be encouraged to evaluate the consequence of their choice on their children, career, financial status and even their health. Such insistence prevents divorce in haste, for those who divorce thus repent in leisure.
Divorce laws should not only be made easier, they should also aim at preventing contested divorces. Families can be safeguarded from the evils of contested divorces by legalising prenuptial agreement for one of the most contended issues during divorce is financial settlement. It should also be made mandatory for all couples to undergo divorce counselling before contesting their case.
Such measures, if implemented, will rid society of the evils associated with divorce. Merely making laws more stringent will only turn families unhappy, and this will harm not only the society but even the nation at large.
By Law Article
July 12th, 2009 at 03:01am
Under Divorce Law
In the case where you are considering divorce, almost regardless of the reasons behind your decision, it is important that you be aware of just what is involved in obtaining a divorce in the US.
In general, the laws of each state set out specific reasons for a divorce which have to be proven before the court is allowed to grant it. This can be under a no-fault heading, an all-fault heading, and a summary heading. In recent years some less adversarial ways to approach to divorce settlements have emerged, like mediation and collaborative divorce, to negotiate mutually acceptable resolutions to conflicts for a couple.
At-fault divorces were originally the only way to dissolve a marriage, and people who had differences or problems were only able to separate, and were prevented from legally remarrying afterward. The state of New York is the only one which still requires fault to obtain a divorce. In an at-fault divorce, one party usually brings divorce proceedings against the other due to some breech of marriage regulations like adultery, abandonment or cruelty.
Comparative rectitude is the name given to a doctrine used to determine which spouse is more at fault in divorce proceedings when both spouses are found to be guilty of breaches. This kind of divorce can affect the distribution of property, and will allow an immediate divorce, especially in states where there is a waiting period required to obtain a no-fault divorce. A defense for this type of divorce can turn out to be expensive and is not usually practical since most divorces are eventually granted anyway, especially when a society comparable to that in the US is not interested in forcing people to remain married any longer. Remember, marriage in the US also has legal ramifications, so if you do not want to be married anymore, you need to get divorced, it is much more than simply taking the mental attitude of no longer being married.
Under a no-fault divorce set of rules, a marriage partner does not need to show that the other marriage partner did anything, or was at fault in order to obtain a divorce. Many common reasons for no-fault divorce can be incompatibility, irreconcilable differences, and irremediable breakdown of the marriage. In the United States, currently 49 states have adopted no-fault divorce laws.
In states that grant no-fault divorces, there may be a waiting period of up to a year before the divorce is considered final. Other requirements include mandatory counseling to see if reconciliation can be achieved if one party does not agree to the divorce, either dependent on an amount of time set by the court, or for a predetermined amount before the divorce may even be applied for,
A summary (or simple) divorce, available in some jurisdictions, is used when spouses meet certain requirements for eligibility, or can agree on important issues beforehand like if it was a marriage lasting under 5 years, there were no children (or, in some states, the couple have resolved custody and set payments for child support), there was minimal or no real property (there was no mortgage on a house or condo), the property owned by the married couple is under a threshold (around $35,000, not including vehicles), and the personal property of each spouse is under a set threshold (typically the same amount as marital property). A simple divorce where both couples agree on how the divorce should be handled and assets divided is also known as an uncontested divorce.
It is estimated that in the US upwards of 95% of all divorces are uncontested, since the two parties are able to come to an agreement (with or without lawyers/mediators) about the property, children and support issues. When the parties are able to agree and present the court with a fair and equitable agreement, approval of the divorce is almost certain. In the case where the two partners cannot come to an agreement, they may ask the court to decide how to fairly split property, deal with children and custody issues, and so forth.
Residency requirements to file for a divorce vary from state to state. In some states, like Colorado, residency requirements are very liberal to accommodate military personnel who have to move often for tours of duty, while other states, like New York, require that you live in them for a minimum of a year with the intention of making this your permanent state of residence. A spouse may separate, move to a state with divorce laws of their choice, establish residency, and file. However, this typically does not change the state in which property and other issues are decided, and it is possible for a court to decide not to hear a petition for divorce if it decides that it does not have legal jurisdiction to do so based on residency issues.
A final consideration to be made when considering where/if to file for divorce is the laws concerning the distribution of property and division of assets. States like Alabama are considered to be an “equitable distribution” state which means that all property acquired during the marriage is divided equally among the two parties. In other states, like California, assets can be awarded to a spouse from the other based on economic need, and in still others, like Alaska, even though it is an equitable distribution state, in some jurisdictions in the state, women have little or no rights to marital property. In some states, alimony is awarded to the stay-at-home spouse, where in others, alimony is paid by the spouse making the most to the spouse making the least, despite the one needing to get child support because they have actual custody.
By Law Article