A fresh perspective on divorce, spousal support, child support, parenting after separation and everything family law

Divorce: Shouts & Murmers

 The last few weeks have been full of interesting news items about divorce.  Here are a couple to check out:

Nick Downes - Published in the New Yorker January 17, 2000

The New Yorker:

In a recent “Shouts & Murmers” Cora Frazier wrote about divorcing in exchange for working  from home and getting rid of the daily commute.  It is a hillarious read, especially on your daily commute to work (after a morning of bickering with your spouse):
5% of [Americans] surveyed said they would actually be willing to divorce their spouse if that meant they could stop commuting and work from home instead.
Mainstreet.com.

You see, this was the choice the survey offered me, as I understood it: I could continue to take a forty-seven-minute train ride (or a thirty-eight-minute ferry ride) and a twelve-minute subway ride to and from work every day while remaining your wife, or I could work from home and cease to be married to you. I have chosen the latter.

You probably have a few questions, as I did. For example, will this home be our home, where you also live? Given the fact that we will no longer be husband and wife, this is a complication. I asked the surveyor this question, but she had already moved on to “Would you give up manicures if it meant you didn’t have to commute?” (No.)

www.perezhilton.com:

Perez Hilton always posts interesting tidbits about celebrity divorces.  Kim Kardashian’s divorce is proceeding with depositions, and Kris Humprhies is set to testify.  Winnie Cooper is getting a divorce (not from Kevin Arnold) and has given some reasons why.

 Supreme Court of British Columbia:

mentioned  earlier this month, the case of  Aquilini v. Aquilini is proceeding in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.  A decision was published yesterday, penned by the Honourable Madam Justice Stromberg-Stein, on the application of Francesco Aquilini to seal the  court file in his divorce proceedings including, but not limited to, reasons for judgment, court orders, affidavits, and transcripts.

Ms. Aquilini argued that the public interst in having open court proceedings should override the privacy interests of Mr. Aquilini and family.  A leading court decision in this regard is Edmonton Journal v. Alberta, which  states:

In summary, the public interest in open trials and in the ability of the press to provide complete reports of what takes place in the courtroom is rooted in the need (1) to maintain an effective evidentiary process; (2) to ensure a judiciary and juries that behave fairly and that are sensitive to the values espoused by the society; (3) to promote a shared sense that our courts operate with integrity and dispense justice; and (4) to provide an ongoing opportunity for the community to learn how the justice system operates and how the law being applied daily in the courts affects them.

 In this case, an interim order was granted sealing the file, pending the outcome of a two day application for a permanent sealing order (to be heard in August 2012), to protect personal and financial information fo Mr. Aquilini, that he believes may otherwise be open to competitors and news outlets.

 Let me know if you run across any interesting divorce articles to share!

 

Divorce: how do I pop the question?

Have you seen Issac’s lip-dub marriage proposal?

To date, over 13 million people have seen this choreographed lip-dub marriage proposal.

In response, the people at Second City have come up with the first ever live lip-dub divorce proposal.

What do you think of the lip-dub divorce proposal?

Generally, you should not broach the topic of divorce through a lip-dub divorce proposal (unless your spouse has a really, really, really great sense of humor).

So how do you broach the topic of divorce (if you do not think the YouTube musical theater approach is appropriate)?

In Harriet Lerner, Ph.D’s book “The Dance of Connection: How to Talk to Someone When You’re Mad, Hurt, Scared, Frustrated, Insulted, Betrayed, or Desperate” she provides some guidance:

To say, “If these things don’t change, I’m not sure I can stay in this relationship, ” is to voice the ultimate bottom line. People threaten to divorce or break up in the heat of anger, which isn’t helpful or fair. Nor should you bring up divorce as an attempt to punish, scare, shape up, or shake up the other person. And surely you shouldn’t feel compelled to mention divorce simply because it passes through your head now and then. Many married folks entertain fantasies about divorce yet are far from acting on it.

That said, talking about divorce is important if you’re thinking seriously about it — even ambivalently. If you’re going back and forth about it in your mind, you need to consider sharing your struggle with your partner. If you do eventually terminate the marriage, a partner will be better able to handle a loss that can be anticipated and planned for. Everyone has the right to know just how high the stakes are if they choose to continue to behave as usual. You owe your partner honesty about a matter that so deeply affects both of you.

The book gives some food for thought about how to deal with difficult conversations, and also a few important caveats:

Obviously , we should never mention divorce (or anything else for that matter) if there is any possibility that a partner will become violent or out of control. In such a case, we first need to seek appropriate help and ensure our physical safety. Nor is it wise to begin a serious talk about divorce if we suspect that a partner might do something sneaky with money that would jeopardize a fair and equitable financial settlement. In such a case, it’s wise to first consult an attorney. Finally, if you’ve already made up your mind to leave, it’s not fair to involve your partner in conversations that imply you’re still willing to work on the marriage.

In terms of serving a partner with a Notice of Family Claim (a.k.a. divorce papers) the same goes – it is generally best to broach the subject of the court action prior to serving your spouse with the documents (unless the above caveats apply).

Divorce: google my divorce

Often when people are faced with a question the first place they go is google for a quick, easy and accurate answer.

For example…if I am looking for a great all you can eat sushi restaurant in Vancouver, a movie time, or a good month of year to travel to Hawaii…I would google it.

So can family law questions be answered as easily through google?

The answer is generally no… you should not google your divorce questions for answers – the information that comes up is often inaccurate, not relevant to your jurisdiction, and/or just not good advice!

For example, if I google “separation” one of the first results that comes up is a website about the procedure for getting a legal separation in Canada.  The problem is, the information this website gives is not correct – it does not explain the fact that there is no “legal separation” you can file for British Columbia/Canada.

Another example, if I googled “how do I win my divorce”, a number of advice websites come up.  One website, states:

Do not assume your husband will be fair, divorce is war and you must be prepared for battle…

This might not be the best mindset to get into when you are preparing for a divorce.

It is important to be fully informed, confident and empowered…the best way to do this, to prepare for battle (or an amicable parting of ways), is not to make assumptions about how [poorly] your spouse will act, it is to inform yourself about the law and become aware of your rights and what a reasonable outcome is.

Luckily, in British Columbia and Canada, there are lots of easy to use, accurate and free websites on the internet that can help you understand your family law matters.

Resources you can refer to for reliable information, include:

General Family Law Information:

Child Support Information:
Spousal Support Information:
Procedural Information:

Remember, consulting with a website is not a substitute for legal advice from a lawyer who practices in the area of family law – but it does give you an idea of what issues you should be looking for and what you can expect.

 

Written Notice: what constitutes written notice of a breakup these days?

Guest Blogger Jane Marsden

By Guest Blogger: Jane Marsden, Articled Student, Hart Legal

Any true Sex and the City fan will know that one of the harshest ways to be broken up with is by a Post-it-Note.

When the “Post-it-Note Episode” aired, my friends and I were outraged (yes, we know it’s only a show…).  In this episode, Carrie Bradshaw’s boyfriend, Jack Berger, sneaks out in the middle of the night, leaving a post it note in his place which reads: “I’m sorry. I can’t. Don’t hate me.”

 However, maybe Berger’s breakup method wasn’t so callous after all…

"Perfect for the office romance?"

Although anything short of a face-to-face conversation seems like an incredibly rude and gutless way of breaking up with someone, these days a Post-it-Note almost seems like a personal, or, at the very least, private way of breaking it off.  

While the Post-it-Note Episode aired less than ten years ago, a lot has changed in that short amount of time.  Since then, Facebook, MySpace and Twitter have become, for many, primary means of communication; they have added a whole new dynamic for people trying to navigate relationships and love.

According to my Google search (“facebook breakups”), and stories from friends, it’s all too common.

Social networking sites raise a number of interesting legal issues, including, does a Facebook status change constitute written notice of a breakup?

For example, it is not uncommon for unmarried couples to enter into cohabitation agreements before they start living together, or before they get married.  Couples enter into these agreements for a variety of reasons, such as having children from a previous relationship, wanting to protect assets, or setting out each other’s expectations for the day-to-day workings of the relationship.

A common clause in the cohabitation agreement provides that the parties’ relationship will be deemed to have ended on the first of the following events to occur:

  1. the parties live separate and apart as a result of a breakdown in the relationship for a continuous period of more than 90 days;
  2. the date a court grants an order recognizing that the parties have no reasonable prospect of reconciliation with each other; or
  3. the date a party delivers a written notice to the other that the relationship is terminated.

So the question is: is it enough for your partner to change his or her Facebook status from “in a relationship” to “single” for this to constitute “written notice” that the relationship has come to an end?

Although Canadian courts have yet to explore this specific issue, we do know that social networking sites have come up in matrimonial cases; usually around evidentiary issues.  In one recent case, W.M.W. and K.C.M. v. J.W. and M.M., Judge T.S. Woods considers Facebook evidence to show the nature of  a relationship:

 I must acknowledge in this connection that there is evidence to show that Biological Mother JW is in a new, live-in relationship with the individual to whom I have referred as “Boyfriend JG”.  However, the evidence also shows that that relationship has had its volatile moments.  A printout of messages published on Biological Mother JW’s Facebook page reveals that as recently as October 30-31 of this year (shortly before the hearing), she considered that Boyfriend JG had unceremoniously “dumped” her. 

The Guardian cited a 2010 survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers which states that four out of five lawyers have reported that increasingly, divorce cases have relied on evidence taken from social networking sites.

It seems to be only a matter of time then before the courts will be called upon to decide whether someone’s change of Facebook status change is enough to constitute written notice that the relationship is over.