Faultless Divorce is a divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage requires no false action by either party. Laws that provide for unexplained divorce allow a family court to grant a divorce in response to a petition by one of the parties of marriage without asking the applicant to provide evidence that the defendant has breached the marriage contract.
Video No-fault divorce
History
The first modern no-fault divorce law was enacted in Russia in December 1917 after the October Revolution of the same year. Regarding marriage as a bourgeois institution, the new government transferred the divorce jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church to the state court, which could give it to the application of one spouse. The new family code was passed in 1926.
With laws adopted in 1969, California became the first US state to allow divorce without error. The California law is framed in contemporary parallel efforts of non-governmental organizations National Conference Commissioner on Uniform State Law, which began drafting a model of the statutory legitimate divorce laws for states to consider in 1967.
Australia established an indefinite divorce in 1975, with the sole reason for divorce being an irreversible marriage detail, as evidenced by the twelve-month splits. Canada effectively permitted anonymous divorce in 1986 by reducing the period of separation into one year.
Maps No-fault divorce
Controversy
Arguments for anonymity
Several studies have looked at the effects of a nonsurgical divorce on divorce rates in the United States. Studies typically find improvement in short-term rates, but few long-term causal relationships. The most frequently given explanation is that older law is ineffective and not followed, although there are several different points of view. Economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, based on findings in their research, argue that domestic violence and women's suicide decline in states that legalize divorce are innocent. In particular, they report that "countries adopting an unfair divorce experience an 8 to 16 per cent reduction in the suicide rate of wives and a 30 per cent reduction in domestic violence." They also argue that their research proves that there is no permanent effect of the law of improper divorce on the divorce rate.
Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history at Evergreen State College, stated that "in the years since the divorce did not exist it became almost universal, the national divorce rate has fallen, from about 23 divorces per 1,000 married couples in 1979 to below 17 per 1,000 on 2005. "He added that" once you allow the court to determine when a person's desire to leave is legal, you pave the way to arbitrary decisions about what or should be tolerated in a relationship, made by people who have no interest in real life, stay. "
The 2010 Editorial New York Times says that New York is "the only country where the court should find fault before divorce unless a spouse is separated for the full year under a formal separation agreement - a proven formula for inviting false testimony , endless litigation and generally make the divorce far more painful than it should be. "Later that year, New York became the last country to allow for improper divorce. Lawyer LM Fenton stated that "The feminist power over the New New divorce bill does not understand how family law affects women today," adding: "It also confuses me that couples can still, even in 2010, be forced to stay married to someone who refuses to let go. "He added:
Error-based foundations usually include mental cruelty, but actual mental cruelty has psychological components that can make it difficult for couples who are abused to articulate the abuse. More importantly, the abused partner may be afraid to describe the relationship on paper and testify about it in court. And of course, the controlling partner will always choose the path that is most resistant to anything the other partner wants.
The state adopted an unfair divorce by the end of that year.
Arguments on anonymity
The National Organization for Women opposes the introduction of an innocent divorce in New York State because it will allow actual parties guilty of obtaining a divorce in which "benefits, maintenance [and] property division" will be determined without a judge. considering "the facts, behaviors and circumstances that led to the breakup of marriage".
A paper published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, written by Douglas Allen, on same-sex marriage economics, argues that the introduction of anonymous divorce led to a six-fold increase. in just two years, after a century of somewhat stable divorce rate. Also, the law increases the rate at which women enter the workforce, increase the number of hours worked in a week, increase the feminization of poverty, and increase the age at which people marry.
Stephen Baskerville, a political scientist at Howard University, believes that no divorce mistakes reward the perpetrators of wrongdoing, reduce the need for contract treaties that bind marriage to public expenses, and help women take custody of their children at the expense of husbands in many cases in which Man has done nothing wrong. He also added that the divorce ban would not work, because people would break away and be in permanent adultery, or they would create a hostile home environment for children.
Legal by country
Australia
Australia's law on divorce and other family law issues was overhauled in 1975 with the enactment of the Family Law Act of 1975, which established a no-fault divorce in Australia. Since 1975, the only basis for divorce is the irrevocable marriage details, as evidenced by the twelve-month splits. However, the remaining "error" elements remain in relation to child custody and property settlement issues.
Canada
Before 1968, the only reason for divorce was adultery or cruelty. However, in 1968, the Divorce Law was amended to allow for divorce for other reasons, including physical and mental cruelty and separation for at least 3 years. The Divorce Act was amended in 1986 to reduce the period of separation into one year, without the requirement to prove a "mistake" by one spouse. The reasons for mistakes for divorce are also available.
China
China has permitted an indiscriminate divorce since the adoption of the New Marriage Act in 1950. The unpaid divorce has become much more common since the 1980s. The current marriage law states that a divorce will always be granted if sought by a husband and wife. Divorce is also granted if one party can present evidence of non-conformity, such as separation for at least 2 years.
Divorce may be granted either by the court or by the marriage registration office. The latter can only be done when both parties have reached agreement on child custody and property settlement.
Malta
The Maltese law allowing for improper divorce took effect in October 2011, following a national referendum on the issue. This is the first Maltese law to allow any form of divorce.
Mexico
In Mexico City, this type of divorce is legally known as the divorce incausado o sin expressionÃÆ'³n de causa and colloquial as a divorce discourse . The law was passed for the first time in Mexico City in 2008 and was held constitutionally by the Supreme Court, which in 2015 stipulates that the state law that requires to prove a divorce case is unconstitutional.
Russian
A fleeting division was introduced by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution of 1917. Before the Revolution, religious institutions tended to define family life. It is an ecclesiastical law of various denominations that control families, marriages, and divorces. For example, the official enlistment of birth, death, marriage, and divorce is the responsibility of the parish church. Under this non-secular law, divorce is severely restricted (but always available, since no major religion in Russia completely prohibits divorce).
The 1918 Decision on Divorce abolished the religious marriage and underlying ecclesiastical law, replacing it with civilian marriages which were imposed by the state. Divorce is obtained by filing a joint consent document with the Russian Registration Office, or by a one-sided request from one party to the court. The divorce law under the Bolsheviks does not punish the husband with allowances, child support, or debtor prison for not paying, because everyone must be provided by the state as well. Both partners are completely free from their legal obligations to each other after the divorce.
Spanish
In Spain, this type of divorce is legally known as divorce incausado or unilateral divorce and colloquially as divorce divorce .
Swedish
Swedish legislation does not include the provision of errors for divorce. Couples may file for divorce or one party may file for itself. If either party does not wish to divorce or if they have children under 16 who live at home, there is a period of contemplation required for 6 to 12 months. During this period, they remain married and requests must be confirmed after the waiting period of the divorce takes place.
United States
California is the first US state in violation of divorce law no mistake. The law was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan, a former film actor who divorced and remarried, and entered into force in 1970. New York was the last country to issue a lawless divorce law; the law was passed in 2010.
Before anonymous divorce is available, it is common for couples seeking divorce to state the wrong reasons for divorce. Removing incentives for false swearing is one of the motivations for the no-false movement.
In the states of Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Nebraska, Montana, Missouri, Minnesota, Michigan, Florida, Colorado, and California, a person wishing to divorce is not allowed to accuse land-based errors (eg adultery, neglect or cruelty).
Requirements for divorce before divorce without error
Before the advent of an indefinite divorce, divorce is processed through a hostile system as a civil act, which means that divorce can be obtained only through showing one (i one) (and one) fault of the party in marriage. This requires a couple to plead that the other has committed adultery, neglect, criminal acts, or other actions that are considered guilty. However, other couples can defend defenses, such as accusations (basically accusations of "so are you"). A judge may find that the respondent did not take an alleged action or the judge can accept the defense of the charges and find a partner guilty of dysfunctional nature of their marriage. One of these two findings is enough to defeat the act of divorce, which means that the parties remain married.
In some states, the terms are even more stringent. For example, under the original constitution (1819), Alabama does not only require court approval for divorce (and only "in cases provided by law"), but equal to two thirds of both houses of divorce. state legislature. This requirement was imposed in 1861, when the state adopted a new constitution at the beginning of the American Civil War. The necessary ballot in this case is even tighter than necessary to cancel the governor's veto in Alabama, which requires only a modest majority of the two assemblies of the General Assembly.
Method to ignore requirements that indicate an error for divorce
This requirement can be a problem if both partners are at fault or if the spouse does not take a legally guilty act, but both partners want a divorce with mutual consent. Lawyers are beginning to advise their clients on how to create legal fiction to pass legal requirements. One popular method in New York is referred to as "collusive zina", where both parties deliberately agree that his wife will be home at a certain time and find her husband committing adultery with a "mistress" gained for the event. The wife will then swear falsely to the carefully crafted version of facts in court (thus performing a false oath). The husband will recognize the same version of the facts. The judge will punish the husband of adultery, and the couple can divorce.
In many other countries, especially California, the most popular accusation for divorce is cruelty (which is not available in New York). For example, in 1950, the wife pleaded for "cruelty" as the basis of 70 percent of San Francisco's divorce cases. Wives will regularly testify about the same fact: their husbands cursing them, beating them, and generally treating them very highly. This procedure is described by California Superior Court Judge Stanley Mosk:
Every day, in every supreme court in the state, the same melancholy plays are played: an "innocent" couple, generally the wife, will stand and, accompanied by the frenzied cries and puffs of the nose, testifies under deft guidance. from a lawyer to a husband and wife behavior that he considers "cruel."
A simpler practice for people living in states where divorce is difficult to obtain is to go "forum shopping." This means either party will move to another country where no-fault divorce is available, stay there long enough to become a resident, then file a divorce there. Nevada is very popular for this purpose because its residency period is only six weeks. For some couples, if there is no problem in solving their marital problems, weekend trips to Mexico are also an option. Or in some cases, a party decides that they want to marry someone else can combine new divorce and marriage applications in a trip to Mexico. Since there is no near universal error, the need to use Nevada or Mexico to avoid rigid divorce laws is becoming increasingly unnecessary.
Advocate to remove display appearance requirements for divorce
Many American lawyers and judges have objected to the legal fictions used to meet the requirements for divorce, which effectively make vows insignificant and threaten to undermine the integrity of the American justice system by making perjury into ordinary events. As early as the 1930s, a treatise on American family law complained:
In divorce proceedings it is known that parties often seek to avoid legal restrictions and thus there is the danger of perjury, collusion, and fraud.... In many cases no defense is interrupted, and often when the case is contested, the contest is not waged with zeal or goodwill.
In addition, advocates for improper divorce argue that the law should be changed to provide a clear procedure for ending marriage, rather than forcing uncooperative couples to choose between living together in "marital hell" or lying. under oath in an open court. The most prominent supporter of this position is the feminist law professor Herma Hill Kay (who later became dean of UC Berkeley School of Law).
At a convention in 1947, the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) voted to draft and promote a bill that would realize the ideals of an indiscriminate divorce and explained the effort to promote the enactment of an unpaid divorce law as "the largest NAWL project ever undertaken. "
Other countries are slower to adopt an improper divorce. For example, Pennsylvania did not introduce an indefinable divorce until about 1980.
California California Family Law Act of 1969
California adopted a non-violent divorce by the Family Law Act of 1969, effective January 1, 1970. The law abolished California's act of divorce and replaced it by continuing the dissolution of the marriage on the basis of irrevocable differences. The basis of irreconcilable differences is accepted as true, and can be based on the statement of one of the parties in the marriage.
Marriage and Divorce Laws
At about the same time that California adopted anonymous divorce, the National Conference of Uniform State Law Commissioners (NCCUSL) appointed the committee to draft uniform marriage and divorce laws for consideration by the state legislature, and the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association requested to appoint committees to work with committees of NCCUSL. The initial draft of the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act written by the NCCUSL committee will direct the judge to grant the applicant's request to end the marriage if a judge finds that the marriage is "irreversible", a term not defined by this design. Since the term "non-recoverable" is not defined, the committee of the American Bar Association's Family Law Division (ABA) does not approve of this Uniform Marriage and Divorce Law. In response, the NCCUSL committee added a 180-day separation requirement for the judge to find that the marriage has been irreparably damaged. However, the NCCUSL committee also added a language to allow judges to grant applicants a divorce if "there is a marriage dispute that seriously affects one or both parties to marriage." A further problem with "irreversible" is that it seems to assume that certain fragments are acceptable if they can be taken back, even if they are not reassembled.
The Committee of the Family Law Division of ABA objected to the ability of an applicant to avoid the 180-day separation requirement by stating "serious marital disputes". In his letter recommending that the American Bar Association of House Delegates not approve the amended draft proposed by NCCUSL, Arnold J. Gibbs, head of the ABA Family Law Division, stated that the draft proposed by NCCUSL created a rubber stamp type of divorce procedure. He writes: "The making of one" rubber stamp "type of divorce procedure will not be in the best interest of the family, individual members, and society at large."
Copies of recommendations to reject the amended NCCUSL draft law were granted to the National Conference of Law Uniform Commissioners (NCCUSL), the Youth Attorney Division and the National Women Lawyers Association (NAWL). The NCCUSL Committee refused to further amend the draft Law on Unmarried Marriage and Divorce.
At the mid-winter meeting of 1974 of the American Bar Association in Houston, members of the Family Law Section Board showed dissatisfaction with the public image it gained from its opposition to the NCCUSL draft on Uniform Marriage and Divorce. In a policy statement, the ABA Family Law Division voted "to recognize the separation as merely a conclusive proof of marital damage and not as a non-binding test," implying that "any other type of evidence would be accepted to establish the damage as well."
Adoption of divorce law without state interruption
By 1977, nine states had adopted the law of improbable divorce, and by the end of 1983, every state but South Dakota and New York had adopted some form of improper divorce (though some forms were not as easy as getting it as in California). South Dakota adopted anonymous divorce in 1985. Until August 2010, New York still has no divorce law without a unilateral separation; under New York divorce law, only if both parties execute and recognize separation agreements and live separately for one year can a judge turn her into a divorce. New York Governor David Paterson signed an innocent divorce bill on August 15, 2010. In October 2010, no-false divorce was allowed in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.
See also
- Feminist movement
- Father's rights movement
- Male rights movement
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments