Posted on 01/29/2005 11:03:45 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
For the first time in decades, a divorce order was reversed last week. Texas' Appeals Court said, "The judgment of the trial court is reversed" and ordered a new trial. This was a victory for attorney David Moody, one of a handful of lawyers fighting to preserve marriage, on behalf of his client, Doak Runberg. This is a stunning development. Since "No-Fault Divorce" or unilateral divorce became the norm in the 1970s, those who file for divorce always win. Divorce law is a scandal. In divorce cases, there is no "due process" as supposedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
So, now what? Can the three of them make a go of it?
"So, now what? Can the three of them make a go of it?"
LOL, I was tempted to post this article, but it all started to sound a little wacky to me. Can you really get a divorce in Tx in just 2 months? Do they really hold "secret trials" to thrwart those who are the defendants? And, is this woman now in trouble for being a bigamist?
Mostly, it sounds like a long advertisement for that one atty.
Yes, as long as it's completely uncontested.
Do they really hold "secret trials" to thrwart those who are the defendants?
No way.
When my first wife decided she wanted out, my lawyer told me there was nothing that I could do to prevent the divorce. I could only make it more expensive.
One person should not be held hostage by the will of another.
"No way."
Well that's a relief.
Ultimately, if one person doesn't want to be in a relationship, then there isn't a relationship worth preserving.
'No Fault Divorce' has definitely harmed the mindset of what marriage is and should be, no question.
But if one person really wants out, or two people want out, keeping them married as a matter of law is silly.
Lets hope this idiocy doesn't spread beyond Texas!
Those three-way things are annoying and expensive.
OF course they can't be FORCED to remain married, but if one of them blows of their vows, la-de-da, there should be some penalty and they certainly shouldn't get alimony. Althought there is no alimony in Texas.
What kind of pantywaist atheist liberal are you? </sarcasm>
That women are property to be kept by a man, until he's ready to cast them out?
two months? geeze why so long?
I can do an uncontested divorce without children for a client in one week.
No, that's certainly not what I meant nor suggested. That thought sprang from your fertile mind - I didn't mean to suggest it. If you got that impression, I am sorry, I was not clear.
I was thinking the idea that marriage is a lifelong commitment and should be taken more seriously than many people take it. I know many people who consider marriage as something they should opt out of if it feels right, if they 'fall out of love,' etc. I think that's an immature expectation, and No Fault and easy divorces encourage that thinking.
That has nothing to do with considering women property, I am sorry to dissapoint you.
Its not what it seems. It is just a ruling on the lack of notice to the soon-to-be-ex.
Divorce is a two part process.: 1. is the marriage over based on one person's sworn statement and 2. what is the cash value of the marriage and how will that value be divided.
The only real provision for saving a marriage which is under most states which have adopted a model code version of divorce law, is a provision for abating proceedings if BOTH parties want to try marital counceling.
I dunno - if one blows the vows, that's a reason to dissolve the marriage. But as far as alimony goes (as distinguinsed from child support), I think it is hard to justify in any circumstance.
Women are well represented in the work force. I don't see any reason why a woman who has been rejected by her husband, for whatever reason (even if he is the one breaking the vows), is somehow entitled to continued support by him.
I have no problem with dividing marital property, etc, but the continued support thing is based on an outdated notion. The woman can support herself, I think, and that makes sense if she is has done wrong in the marriage, if nobody has done wrong in the marriage, or if the husband has done wrong in the marriage. Makes sense to me.
Not in Texas you can't.
why so long? it it a scheduling issue or is it a requirement?
Sixty days is dictated by statute. This is a bare minimum. It can take much longer, even without kids. Been there, done that, unfortunately.
As someone else said, by dragging it out, you just make it cost more. My ex did this to me, and receive a whopping $2,000 extra in the settlement. I believe it cost her that much extra in fees to get it. What's the point.
In a couple states, if it is uncontested, a divorce is nothing more than something like two pages that you mail to the court offices. No fuss, no muss, a mail-order divorce. You both sign the papers in front of a notary, mail it, and some judge rubber stamps it and sends you back a copy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.