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

Divorce: how long does it take?

Kim Kardashian separated from Kris Humphries after 72 days of marriage, but 365 days later, the divorce proceedings are still inching towards trial.

As reported in the Vancouver Sun:

Superior Court Judge Stephen Moloney told attorneys for Kardashian and NBA player Kris Humphries to return to court in mid-February to set a trial date to either dissolve or annul the couple’s 72-day marriage. He didn’t set a deadline for depositions and other pre-trial investigation to be completed, but indicated a trial could be held early next year if it is ready by Feb. 15.

 So how long does it take to get a divorce?

Legal time requirements for divorce are different in different countries.  In Canada, the Divorce Act sets out that a court can grant a divorce if there has been a breakdown of the marriage.    A breakdown of a marriage is described in Section 8 of the Divorce Act as:

8(2) Breakdown of a marriage is established only if

  • (a) the spouses have lived separate and apart for at least one year immediately preceding the determination of the divorce proceeding and were living separate and apart at the commencement of the proceeding; or
  • (b) the spouse against whom the divorce proceeding is brought has, since celebration of the marriage,
    • (i) committed adultery, or
    • (ii) treated the other spouse with physical or mental cruelty of such a kind as to render intolerable the continued cohabitation of the spouses.

So, in Canada, you have to have lived separate and apart from your estranged spouse for one year prior to a divorce being granted unless there has been adultery or cruelty (as a note, if you are proceeding on adultery or cruelty there are specific evidentiary requirements that must be met).  After the year of separation, the process of getting the actual divorce usually between a couple of weeks and a couple of months if it is uncontested.  A breakdown of the timeline and steps can be found on JP Boyd’s family law resource.

Also, the Divorce Act sets out that a court in a province may only grant a divorce if one of the spouses has been ordinarily residence in that province for one year immediately preceding the commencement of divorce proceedings.

If a divorce can be finalized after one year of separation, why are my divorce proceedings entering year three?

The answer is, quite simply, if you agree on everything, and you file all of the right paper work, correctly filled out, at the  correct time and in the correct place, your divorce will move along quickly.

As summarized by the Ministry of Justice:

A divorce is relatively easy to get if your reason for the divorce is that you have been separated for a year or more and:

  • you both agree that you want a divorce, and you are not asking the court to settle any other issues, such as custodyaccess or support (this is usually called an “uncontested” divorce), or
  • you both agree that you want a divorce and agree on all other details, such as custody and support (this is called a “joint divorce action”), or
  • you alone are asking for a divorce and for the court to settle other issues, such as custody and support, and your spouse does not dispute the divorce or any of the issues.

A divorce is more complicated to get if your reason for the divorce is cruelty or adultery or your spouse decides to dispute the divorce or any other issues. This is often called a “defended” divorce.

It is when there are issues of disagreement that a divorce can span out longer periods of time.  For example, in the 2008 British Columbia Court of Appeal decision, Laxton v. Coglon, deals with a case in which divorce proceedings had been ongoing since 2001.

New Yorker Cartoon by Tom Cheney

 

Each family is different.  The length of time it takes to resolve the issues involved in your divorce will vary from others you know.

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!