I became agitated reading this article from the Times Of India where a husband was granted a divorce because his wife had an abortion. Could a judge grant a divorce because the wife had abortions without first informing her husband?

I always thought women had control over their bodies and had the right to choose. The judge in India decided the wife's decision to have an abortion without her husband's consent amounted to cruelty.

In normal circumstances, a woman would discuss the possibility of abortion with her husband or partner, although she would still have the final say. In this case, the husband and wife lived separately for over eight years out of a 14-year marriage. There didn't seem to be much time to discuss the situation.

I'd like to know when the abortions took place. Was the couple in a continual relationship despite living apart? The court noted that there were numerous feuds between the parties over "trivial matters." The judge mentioned the allegation that the wife took money and jewelry from the husband's parents.

I don't buy the court's rationale. This fuzzy reasoning was also found in my earlier report of an Indian judge who granted a husband a divorce because his wife was HIV-positive. In the abortion case, the wife claims the charges were concocted and not true. She was interested in returning to her matrimonial home and didn't want to divorce.

read more »

Yesterday, I wrote about the judge in India who granted a divorce solely on the grounds that his wife was HIV-positive. Since that was my first impression of the case, I searched to find other places where divorce was based on HIV infection. I found no related cases.

In Africa, AIDS-infected husbands often force wives to have sex without a condom. This could constitute the basis for a divorce. So far in the U.S., there are only a handful of court cases linking the disease and divorce. Chiefly these revolve around child custody and visitation rights of the AIDS-infected spouse. Because of the possible stigma, 90% of AIDS-related divorce cases nationwide are settled out of court.

I don't think the precedent of the India court should be widely followed. That decision is unique since the judge was punishing the wife for not informing the husband prior to the marriage that she had AIDS. In 1998, the Supreme Court of India ruled that persons who are HIV-positive must inform future spouses. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, women can obtain a divorce if their husband suffers from any venereal disease in a communicable form. Should this law — intended to protect women — be applied to men as well?

With over three million infected, India ranks third in the world for the number of AIDS patients — right after South Africa and Nigeria. Men alone are not responsible for fueling the epidemic since promiscuity among women is rising. Husbands in lower socio-economic classes have been generally "considerate and supportive."

read more »

For the first time on record, a court in New Delhi, India, granted a divorce to a man because his wife is HIV-positive. The judge allowed the divorce petition on the grounds that "marriage without sex is anathema."

Few facts have been revealed and I find this case troubling. I question the reasoning for the divorce and the public policy implications. Does this divorce send the right message to other couples experiencing similar medical situations?

This couple were married in October 2000, and it's implied that they never had a "cordial" sexual relationship. The wife became pregnant in March 2001 and her doctor advised that she undergo the HIV-1 and Elisa tests. The Elisa test showed she was HIV-positive.

The wife, who worked at a hospital, claimed the test results were erroneous and said she would get tested again in the seventh or eighth month of her pregnancy. The husband objected and persuaded her to undergo another test. The second test also showed she had HIV/AIDS. She had an abortion in July 2001. The husband tested negative, so she was not infected by him.

The judge found the wife guilty of cruelty by not disclosing her status. The court proclaimed that the husband "cannot be reasonably expected to live with her and lead a happy married life."

I thought that marriage was a commitment for better or for worse. While the wife may have been deceitful, if she knew before the marriage that she was infected, there's no evidence to prove it. Was she previously married? Did she have a blood transfusion? Did she work in a laboratory of the hospital?

read more »

In Texas, a divorced woman has lost her legal battle for three frozen embryos which are destined to be destroyed.

Here's the gist of it: Augusta Roman tried for several years to have a child before resorting to fertility treatments. The day before the embryos were to be implanted, her husband, Randy, told her he wanted to wait until they had resolved their problems. After six months of counseling, they divorced.

The dispute escalated as the fertility lab consent form clearly stated that in the event of divorce, the embryos would not be implanted and would be discarded. Augusta sued and was granted control of the embryos in the Trial Court but her husband appealed the case; the Appeals Court unanimously reversed the lower court. Augusta then appealed to the Texas Supreme Court which recently refused to hear the appeal, thus upholding the Appellate Court's decision.

The case raises a moral and legal dilemma for August, 45, who regards the embryos as her unborn children. She said she would sign away any support responsibility for the divorced husband. Her attorney attempted to distinguish this consent form from an enforceable contract.

While I commiserate with Augusta's sincere desire to become a mother, it would be bad public policy to ignore the clear meaning of the consent form. In fact, the form had an option, if chosen by both parties, for releasing the embryos to either spouse. But neither made that choice and instead, checked the option to discard the embryos.

Andy didn't want a child after the divorce and even though Texas law protects anonymous sperm donors from child support, this is a different case. There is legal precedent for sperm donors to be liable for support. Family courts could award financial support despite the waiver by the wife.

read more »

I noticed that the New York State Assembly recently enacted legislation signed by the governor that requires notice be given in divorce cases about the potential loss of health insurance when covered by a spouse's plan.

Judges are obligated to notify parties of the termination of coverage when they issue a divorce settlement. They're authorized to grant a 30-day continuance in the divorce proceedings, so parties have an opportunity to obtain their own health policy.

But we shouldn't jump for joy at this development because it's civil and decent to notify your former spouse that he/she will no longer be insured. New York hasn't gone half as far as the New Hampshire requirement that employers must continue the coverage of the divorced spouse for up to three years unless they remarry.

New York is only preventing exes from being blindsided. My question is this: Is 30 days sufficient to shop around the maze of complicated health plans? Probably not. With 46 million Americans uninsured, we certainly don't want to add to that number. It may be difficult for divorced women to secure individual health insurance plans if they have pre-existing health conditions.

In New York, a spouse is eligible for COBRA if they become divorced but they will have to pick up the actual costs, plus a small additional percentage to obtain up to 36-months of coverage.

One day society will recognize that health care is a universal need and right. While the notice of loss of insurance is a benevolent idea, New York should go further and join New Hamphire in providing extended group insurance coverage under the employer's plan following a divorce.

 

Should ex-spouses continue to be covered by health insurance paid for by the employer of the working spouse? The New Hampshire Legislature said "yes" and passed such a law.

Divorced or separated spouses, women and men, are eligible for health coverage for up to three years, unless either party remarries. Coverage will also end if health care arrangements are provided in a final decree of divorce.

In an op-ed piece, the conservative, Manchester Union-Leader newspaper loudly groused about the "continued spread of European-style socialism into New Hampshire..." This mandate is a heavy burden on businesses and insurance companies, the newspaper proclaimed.

I don't think this is an excessive burden on employers. To eliminate this coverage because of a divorce would shift the burden to society and taxpayers who would have to pay for medical care for those without insurance.

The New Hampshire law may be one small step for society to recognize the need for universal medical insurance. Employers should see the importance of keeping workers and their families healthy. Continuing to insure divorced or separated spouses is extremely helpful in easing a difficult transition.

This is an excellent model of public policy which more states should follow. The implications are huge, given that about 46 million in the U.S. have no health coverage. States in New England may take the lead in not adding to that figure. It's appropriate that the "financially independent party" in a divorce, continue to provide some protection for the ex-spouse. The Manchester Union-Leader lamented that conservative Gov. John Lynch signed the legislation. But is this "socialism" or merely protecting the common good? I think the latter.

Click here for more.