firstwivesworld - The Law and Love Don't Mix - Comments

Canadian Divorce Act

Guest — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:45:09 -0400

Divorce is a federal responsibility in Canada and all provinces are subject to the same law. Divorce is a right after one year separation. The only thing the judge is required to confirm is that financial arrangements are made for any children of the marriage. However if the corrollary relief is not settled. Support, Child support, custody, then under the rules in Ontario (and most likely other provinces) a motion to sever is required. That is the right to go ahead with the divorce even though the other matters are not settled. These motions are always granted. the only basis for arguing against the severance is if the wife will lose access to health benefits. This is not a reason for preventing the divorce just delaying it until the support issues are clarified. There may be jurisdictions where the property and child issues have to be dealt with before the divorce will be granted even though they are no fault. Also the no fault divorce has not necessarily been a benefit to women. There is some research which indicates that spousal support has decreased since no fault divorce because women could bargain for higher support to give the husband his freedom.

Then Why Do People Still Think So?

JulieSavard — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:40:39 -0400

That's interesting to learn... and my thought is that if no-fault divorce is common in the United States, why do so many American women that I speak to believe that a judge decides?

No-Fault divorce...

Cathy Meyer — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:41:49 -0400

There are no judges in the U.S. who tell you whether you can or can't divorce. Nevada is a no-fault state as are most other states. Incompatibility is the number one reason given for divorce in Nevada and it isn't judge who decides whether the two of you are compatible. The days of having to go to court and ask if you can divorce are long gone here in the states. That all ended in the early seventies. No forced marriage here.

The Law and Love Don't Mix

JulieSavard — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:00:05 -0400

I have trouble understanding how the law and relationships mix. In Quebec (my home province), couples form and dissolve, most often without a marriage to seal the deal. Common-law relationships are the way to go in La Belle Province.

I asked a friend of mine from Nevada about her divorce. "You have to go to court and the judge tells you whether you can divorce or not."

Wait a second. A judge, someone who has no idea who you are, what your troubles are or who your partner is, decides whether you have to continue a marriage you don't want to? This makes no sense to me.

Dividing assets, I understand. Someone has to decide who gets the car or the kitchen table, and it's tough to make decisions like that when you're angry.

Child custody, I get. It's important that children stay where they want to and where they need to be with a person that can take care of them properly. And in separations, kids are often jammed in the middle between two parents who fight over custody like vicious dogs.

But some person who doesn't know you should have no right to decide who you have to live with and be joined to. The law and relationships don't mix.

A judge isn't going to be able to make your partner be nicer to you. A court of law can't make you feel whole or repair hurt feelings. It makes no sense to force a person who doesn't want to be with someone else to continue a farce.

I have no idea if the law in Quebec says the same — that a judge must approve the breakup. Perhaps that's the rule, and if so, it's no wonder why people simply don't get married. You can't force love. Paper doesn't make it happen.

If you want out, you should have the right to get out. Period. And if you want someone to stay, and they don't want to, then you have no right to force them to remain in a place they don't want to be.