Sentences with phrase «fault divorce more»

These two characteristics make a fault divorce more attractive to some people.

However, if time is your concern, you can usually get a no - fault divorce more quickly.

Not exact matches

But there is no reason to believe that the widespread reenactment of fault or more restrictive divorce laws by itself would produce beneficial results.

The theory behind this partial resumption of fault divorce is that if it becomes more difficult to divorce, there will be fewer divorces.

They lack the social capital, and so will be more likely to become victims of the new regime of legal drugs, just as they've become victims of no fault divorce and the sexual revolution more broadly.

As the libertarian blogger Megan McArdle once pointed out, that possibility is more likely than it sounds: With the advent of no - fault divorce and the extension of welfare benefits to unmarried mothers, the late twentieth century demonstrated that marriage is both more important and more fragile than reformers had thought.

No - fault divorce has done more to fuel this crisis than any other factor.

The legal costs of actually getting a divorce vary a great deal as well, with some states allowing no - fault divorces and others demanding more complicated proceedings to show some wrongdoing by one spouse.

Leading divorce lawyer firm Moore Blatch is calling for legislation that will allow «No fault divorces» as it would mean many divorces have a more harmonious outcome, something that is critically important where children are involved.

A recent survey published by Liz Trinder at the University of Exeter suggested that 62 % of petitioning parties and 78 % of respondents said that using fault - based grounds had made the divorce process more bitter.

Proponents now want to make the course a prerequisite of filing in the hopes that it will be more effective at keeping families together - not a surprising goal, perhaps, for one of the last US states to embrace no - fault divorce, and one with a substantial Mormon population.

While shedding further light on an aspect of the law seldom visited, highlighting the risks involved in filing documents in a manner which can not be tracked / traced and illustrating the types of complication with which the courts will increasingly have to deal with ever more litigants in person, the case is perhaps most striking for what it highlights about the current fault - based divorce system.

A no - fault divorce is also referred to as «separation divorce» and the grounds can be met by the spouses showing that they have lived separate and apart for more than one year without cohabitation.

A «no fault» divorce from the bond of matrimony may be awarded upon a showing that for more than one year one of the parties intended to and the parties have continuously lived separate and apart without any cohabitation.

Although the laws in all states permit either spouse to file for divorce without having to establish the other at fault for the breakdown of the marriage, some states may award a greater portion of the marital property or more alimony to the spouse that can prove the other guilty of adultery.

What's more, given today's no fault divorce laws, your spouse can get divorced based on irreconcilable differences whether you agree or not.

No - fault makes divorce less expensive by reducing or eliminating legal battles, and because of this, a more civil environment to make support and property settlement decisions.

Once you've satisfied the separation requirement and filed for a no - fault divorce, it may take the court a few more weeks to issue the divorce decree.

Filing on no - fault grounds typically means your divorce will move along more quickly.

Cost may lead you to file for a no - fault, uncontested divorce rather than a more costly fault, contested one.

Thus, the law has intentionally stepped away from that which many people getting divorced often seek, namely, to have fault in the breakup of the marriage be the central theme of the case so that the party (more) at fault is «punished» somehow by the judge in the judge's ruling following trial.

Obviously this is far more than just semantics; it encourages the idea that marriages break up because somebody is at fault, despite the fact that every state has at least one ground for divorce that does not require a determination of marital fault.

Proving fault may lead to a more favorable divorce settlement, and Georgia law provides some protection to victims of domestic violence while the divorce is pending.

Even in jurisdictions where fault remains an option, more and more divorces are uncontested.

In some, less common situations, a divorce can be granted because one spouse is at fault for engaging in adultery, domestic abuse, abandonment, imprisonment for more than 18 months, or substance abuse.

The judge will divide the marital estate «equitably» without regard to why the divorce is happening or who is more at fault.

New York State has a «no - fault» divorce law, so one spouse can get a divorce even if the other is reluctant or opposed, as long as the moving party can say, under oath, that the marriage has been irretrievably broken for six months or more.

Proving one of the fault grounds for divorce can be difficult, meaning your divorce could cost more money and take more time.

Having seen my Uncle (who is more like an older brother) go through a horrific divorce where there was fault on both sides but ultimately he was denied the ability to be able to co-parent.