We're just about a year into this financial crisis. Are we seeing the light at the end of the tunnel? I'm not sure. It remains to be seen. But nowhere is the financial crisis more apparent than in the divorce arena. Financial stress always visits problems upon a family, and these scarcely-seen fiscal calamities make things even worse.
Rediff.com has published an article today that examines the reduction in divorce filings that has resulted as the financial crisis has set in during the past year. Some may examine this trend and believe it is a positive development. I disagree.
Here's why: It's not as if I believe that divorce should be encouraged. I'm all for strengthening families and reducing divorce. As a divorce and family mediator, I do exactly that every day in my practice. But some marriages end no matter what I try to do to save them. They sometimes end frivolously, but often they end because they truly need to.
The problem I have is that I do not believe that people should decide not to divorce (even if they need to and should) just because of finances. Think about this -- would you divorce your spouse just because you COULD afford to live wtihout his or her income? Surely not. Divorce isn't something to do just because you have the money. Likewise, staying married isn't something to do just because you don't have the money to get divorced.
Almost all counties have reduced fees or no fees for people who need to file a divorce petition but don't have the funds to pay the filing fee. Many free and low-cost legal clinics and even some private attorneys provide affordable services.
People shouldn't marry because of money, and they shouldn't divorce because of money, either.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Minimum age for marriage?
I read a story today about that little Florida girl, Haleigh Cummings, who is still missing and probably dead. I also realized for the first time today that her father married his current wife not long ago. And here's the kicker: she's only 17 years old.
She's not old enough to smoke. She can't buy a beer or go to a casino. But she can get married. Is that a big deal? I say yes, as aa divorce mediator. My clients have so many important things to understand, from taxes to assets to parenting. Even fully-grown clients are often overwhelmed. It's too much to expect a minor to enter into such a monumental legal contract when she's still at an age at which the law doesn't allow her yo enter mist other legal agreements. Something as serious as marriage shouldn't be the exception to that rule.
She's not old enough to smoke. She can't buy a beer or go to a casino. But she can get married. Is that a big deal? I say yes, as aa divorce mediator. My clients have so many important things to understand, from taxes to assets to parenting. Even fully-grown clients are often overwhelmed. It's too much to expect a minor to enter into such a monumental legal contract when she's still at an age at which the law doesn't allow her yo enter mist other legal agreements. Something as serious as marriage shouldn't be the exception to that rule.
Interstate same-sex divorces
On October 1, District Judge Tena Callahan of Dallas, Texas granted a divorce to a same-sex couple who had been married in Massachusetts and sought a divorce in Texas. This case presents a number of interesting legal issues regardless of whether one supports or opposes same-sex unions.
1. Does a state have to recognize a marriage from another state if the current state's laws do not provide for the same definition of marriage? The concept of full faith and credit requires that states enforce other states' laws and contracts to the extent that they apply to former residents of those states.
2. Was more than just philosophy and ideology at play here? I think so. There's a practical element here, and I think it's the desire not to open the floodgates. Most family court systems are clogged beyond belief already. The filing fee, usually a few hundred dollars, nowhere near covers the time for to produce the forms, have the staff explain how they're filled out, have the court clerks answer questions for sometimes hours, take them down to a judge, have the judge spend his or her time reading the papers, have one or more court hearings involving the paid services of a judge and at least one staff person, and so on and so on. My state, Oregon, could never spare even a moment of its court time. Someone I know was involved in an adoption case in the family courts here for 14 months with over a dozen hearings, all of which were squeezed into the last possible window. Putting politics aside, the court system in many states may not be eager to take on the legal ramifications of a marital relationship that is available in only a few states.
3. Isn't a same-sex divorce a win for opponents of same-sex marriage? (Please at the outset note that I am answering this question objectively, and any one-sidedness in one aspect or another in this question should be balanced by other comments I make, and does not reflect my personal views on this topic or any other). You'd think so at first glance, but not really. People who oppose same-sex marriage believe that marriage as a legal relationship should exist only between one man and one woman. If you're not married, you don't have any legal relationship that needs to be dissolved. Only marriages need to be dissolved by the courts. If I had to guess, I would suppose that opponents of same-sex marriage are just as opposed to same-sex divorce because the very fact of needing a divorce through the courts means that what is being dissolved was a legal relationship to begin with. Same-sex marriage opponents strongly believe that same-sex marriages should not have that legal status.
1. Does a state have to recognize a marriage from another state if the current state's laws do not provide for the same definition of marriage? The concept of full faith and credit requires that states enforce other states' laws and contracts to the extent that they apply to former residents of those states.
2. Was more than just philosophy and ideology at play here? I think so. There's a practical element here, and I think it's the desire not to open the floodgates. Most family court systems are clogged beyond belief already. The filing fee, usually a few hundred dollars, nowhere near covers the time for to produce the forms, have the staff explain how they're filled out, have the court clerks answer questions for sometimes hours, take them down to a judge, have the judge spend his or her time reading the papers, have one or more court hearings involving the paid services of a judge and at least one staff person, and so on and so on. My state, Oregon, could never spare even a moment of its court time. Someone I know was involved in an adoption case in the family courts here for 14 months with over a dozen hearings, all of which were squeezed into the last possible window. Putting politics aside, the court system in many states may not be eager to take on the legal ramifications of a marital relationship that is available in only a few states.
3. Isn't a same-sex divorce a win for opponents of same-sex marriage? (Please at the outset note that I am answering this question objectively, and any one-sidedness in one aspect or another in this question should be balanced by other comments I make, and does not reflect my personal views on this topic or any other). You'd think so at first glance, but not really. People who oppose same-sex marriage believe that marriage as a legal relationship should exist only between one man and one woman. If you're not married, you don't have any legal relationship that needs to be dissolved. Only marriages need to be dissolved by the courts. If I had to guess, I would suppose that opponents of same-sex marriage are just as opposed to same-sex divorce because the very fact of needing a divorce through the courts means that what is being dissolved was a legal relationship to begin with. Same-sex marriage opponents strongly believe that same-sex marriages should not have that legal status.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
