Lessons from the Katie Price-Peter Andre Divorce

Reality show stars Peter Andre and Kate Price are embroiled in a messy, sensational divorce in their native England. As much as the celebrity cases are fodder for the tabloids, they are also effective teaching tools for the public because they exemplify relevant concepts in divorce law.

The case presents at least five important issues for people of all backgrounds to consider:

1) Ms. Price fled the country with her two young children. Every divorce agreement should have a clause addressing how far each parent may move or travel with the children. When Ms. Price left the country with the children, it should have alarmed Mr. Andre, and I imagine it did.

2) Mr. Andre alleged that Ms. Price was drunk and had flirted with another man in a bar. Fault does not enter into the equation. Mr. Andre will get a divorce if he wants one. If Ms. Price’s fault motivated him to leave and file for divorce, fine. But it doesn’t change the outcome in court. You are equally entitled to seek and receive a divorce whether or not fault has occurred.

3) Ms. Price said she was committed to Mr. Andre and did not want the separation. In a no-fault jurisdiction, it doesn’t much matter what one spouse wants. If one person wants out, that person gets out. Between 1970 and 1985, every state except New York adopted a form of no-fault divorce. In a no-fault jurisdiction, anyone who no longer wants to be married can get a divorce. The fact that Mr. Andre wants a divorce is enough to get him out; it doesn’t make any difference whether or not Ms. Price agrees. Even if she is committed to him, he has to be committed to her in order to stay married. Based on his divorce filing, it would appear that he is not.

4) England appears to be a community property jurisdiction, as Mr. Andre is seeking 6 million pounds from Ms. Price, which represents exactly half of what she has earned during the four years of their marriage. In an equitable distribution jurisdiction, such as most of the states in the United States of America, a judge can fashion an award that may not be a 50-50 split of the assets, if the circumstances require an unequal distribution in order to make it equitable. Even in an equitable distribution state, it is typical that the husband and wife share equally in what was amassed during the marriage and then, depending on the length of the marriage and other factors, the premarital assets and liabilities of each spouse may or may not remain entirely with that spouse.

5) Mr. Andre claimed that the children were to blame for the divorce because they had ruined his sex life. This comment strikes me as idiotic, immature or both. Children are never the cause of a divorce. There have been a lot of divorce books written by quacks who claim to know what they’re talking about when they really do not. But even those books agree on the cardinal principle that no child is ever responsible for his or her parents’ marital problems or divorce. Are some children hard to raise? Sure. But they didn’t ask to be born, and the parents are always older and usually more mature than the children. Perhaps not in this case, however.