Inspiration, Encouragement & Strength
join a community of support ›

Community Talk

Community Talk makes it easy for you to find relevant, informative articles from First Wives World's leading contributors, all in one place. All content is hand picked by First Wives World and covers a wide range of topics important to you.

Back to Article List

Filter Articles By:  

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.

Back to Article List

Leave a comment


  • Comment Link Guest Friday, 26 August 2011 00:04 posted by Guest

    Remember...: it's women that want to get married, not men. Don't blame this on anyone but yourselves. Women have this idea of marriage like it is going to complete them somehow, doesn't work like that. Trust me, you don't need that cinderella experience, marriage isn't always what it's cracked up to be. You don't need a piece of paper to get on with your life, no one is holding you back. Just move out, and live.... it's not like you need to get married straight away, or even again for that matter. And please stop writing in numbers, you sound immature. Steve

  • Comment Link Guest Thursday, 25 August 2011 09:46 posted by Guest

    in INDIA ,its the rule that u: in INDIA ,its the rule that u cant even file ur divorce b4 1 year even if ur separation occurs within a few separation occured within 2 months of my husband was a drunkard who made my life miserable within single month.....& i had 2 decide to separate within the the next 1 month....but wen i wanted 2 file 4 a divorce immediately,i was in4med by a lawyer that its againt the indian penal code.....he further advised me 2 try 2 amend my relationship & b more patient.....he further told me that i should hv bin more cautious b4 marriage.....i found that wen a personal problem like a marital one reaches the court, it duznt remain personal outsider like a lawyer can easily comment on it without being in my shoes....

  • Comment Link Guest Monday, 12 October 2009 15:14 posted by Guest

    Agreed: I had those same feelings. Who was some "judge" to say when I could be divorced ? Why was there a prolonged waiting on the official "filing"? That judge didn't know me at all. No judge told me I could not get married or who to marry, why should a judge say "when" or "if" on divorce ? I understand the legal distribution of the assets, but that is about as far as any judge should be involved.