Physical estrangement, or living apart, is a necessary element of many legal grounds for divorce as it provides
proof of abandonment, irreconcilable differences, or the separation necessary to qualify for no - fault divorce.
Proof of abandonment is evidence, but it still might not be enough.
Not exact matches
Using Facebook's retargeting technology with social
proof might be the secret ingredient to turning incidents
of visitor
abandonment into paying leads.
Yet New York law has one big catch: unless the parties have signed a formal separation agreement it requires
proof of cruelty, adultery or
abandonment, whereas other states allow «irreconcilable differences» as grounds for a divorce.
Proof of the biological parent's
abandonment of the child and «intent to reject parental responsibilities» is necessary for the transfer by the judge
of parental rights and responsibilities from the biological parent to the adopted parents.
In the Supreme Court
of British Columbia, McEachern CJ stated that «no doubt Aboriginal activities have fallen very much into disuse in many area», but concluded that because the onus
of proof rested upon the Crown to show
abandonment, «it would be unsafe and contrary to principle to apply the principle
of abandonment to such an uncertain body
of evidence» [69] McEachern CJ also observed that many «do indeed still hunt and fish and pick berries in season», and the «Court can not permit the Crown to pounce too quickly when there are gradually changing circumstances by treating every absence as an
abandonment» [70].
Such an approach to the ultimate burden
of proof in relation to cessation is consistent with the onus placed by the common law in relation to assertions
of abandonment of possession and easements upon the party setting up an
abandonment [71].
(c) the burden
of proof in relation to cessation
of native title (whether by expiry,
abandonment or extinguishment), once a claimant group has adduced evidence as to its current observance and acknowledgment
of traditional laws and customs, and as to the connection with the land or waters; and
The Commission seeks leave to submit that the provisions
of the NTA which affect the concept (itself not statutory)
of abandonment, the concept
of traditional laws and customs, the requisite connection with the claimed land or waters, the burden
of proof in relation to cessation, and the role
of oral testimony in native title claims, amongst others sub-sec 223 (1), must be construed consistently with human rights standards relating to equality before the law [1], the rights
of indigenous minorities to practise and revitalise their culture [2], and freedom
of religion [3].