Total Divorce Blog

The Times Picayune is seeking to open the divorce records of a prominent councilman and his ex-wife based on the argument that a district court is violating both the Louisiana and the United States Constitution by keeping those records sealed. Of the 209 items pertaining to the divorce of Jefferson Parish Councilman John Young and former TV personality Mary Lou McCall, 195 of them currently can not be viewed. After being elected to the Parish Council in 2004, Young filed for divorce from his wife and sought that the records be sealed. The Louisiana Supreme Court will only let records be sealed on request when the right of privacy is greater than the public’s right to know and the only information to be sealed is so “sufficiently private” that it outweighs public disclosure. The Times Picayune has contested this second point in relation to this case and has claimed that the 24 District Court in Gentra is legally wrong to seal the records.

The newspaper request comes in the midst of a scandal surrounding Young’s new relationship with state Senator Julie Quinn. McCall has accused Quinn of slapping her eight year-old son that she had with Young. Quinn has denied the charge.

A Canadian judge has entered an unusual order in a criminal case:  the defendant may not “form a romantic relationship of an intimate nature with a female person” for the next three years.

Steven Cranley entered a guilty plea on charges stemming from a violent confrontation wiht his former girlfriend.  During that altercation Cranley reportedly punched and kicked the woman and ultimately stabbed himself with a butcher knife.  Doctors say that Cranley suffers from a dependent personality disorder and is unable to cope with rejection.

Cranley served 146 days in jail, and will undergo counseling while the girlfriend embargo is in place.

Unmarried couples living together are about to get equal rights in divorce. Cohabiting couples who decide to split will be able to make claims for property and alimony. Some American states provide divorce rights for common-law married couples. A couple can only be in a common-law marriage in the U.S. if they actually believe they are married. No such requirement would be necessary under England’s divorce laws.

At present, in the UK, cohabiting partners have no rights if their relationship breaks down, expect for child custody and support. Courts will have discretion in awarding property and alimony. Just like someone who is married, a cohabitee would have to show he or she will suffer financially as a result of the split.

The UK’s divorce reforms for unmarried couples will apply to both opposite and same-sex couples in “an intimate relationship.”

While certainly not the no-fault law that many people have been calling for, the New York State Assembly approved legislation on Wednesday that would shorten the divorce waiting period for people with formal separation agreements from one year to three months. Current New York divorce law is quite complicated and requires one party to blame the other using one of several “fault” grounds. If this does not happen, the couple must agree to a separation agreement and live apart for at least one year. On the other hand, a no-fault divorce law would allow a spouse to divorce by citing “irreconcilable differences” and essentially not require him or her to pit blame on the other party. Some people have called New York divorce laws out of date, and proponents of a no-fault law were not too thrilled with shortening the waiting period.

One no-fault proponent described his fears in a Newsday story that this recently approved legislation would hurt the political movement for a New York no-fault divorce law. On the other hand, Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein of Brooklyn sponsored this bill shortening the divorce waiting period and described it as a start in the right direction. This legislation would also required judges to consider a spouse’s loss of health insurance when determining property division and alimony. A similar bill is in the State Senate, and we’ll keep you updated with any more developments concerning this proposed divorce law in New York.

In one of the more stranger divorce cases in a long time, a California judge ruled against a man’s claims that his marriage was forced upon him by a brutal Cambodian dictator. A Recordnet.com story detailed how Saroeun Sok was married to his wife Sokhanary Ouch in Cambodia in 1978 during the communist regime of Pol Pot, who systematically forced couples to marry with the goal of weakening powerful family structures. Despite having three children with his wife and living with her for more than 25 years, Sok claimed that the marriage was against his intentions. Ouch disagreed with this claim and said that the couple had a romantic courtship which included Sok writing her love letters and choosing her ahead of other girls interested in him. San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Robin Appell called Sok’s claims “almost incomprehensible” and awarded Ouch $250,000 in spousal support and other payments.

Appell wrote that Sok used this false divorce claim to leave his wife “financially destitute.” Before quitting and returning to Cambodia, Sok was a physician at San Joaquin General Hospital and earned $190,000 annually. Ouch earns $8.50 an hour as a housekeeper. Ouch’s divorce attorney Albert Ellis said in the story that Appell’s judgment will cover Sok’s retirement plan to make sure that his client receives the payments. We’ll keep you updated with any more developments with this strange divorce case.

On Tuesday, Total Divorce made a contribution to the Blog Catalog Donors Choose Challenge, matching all donations made during the first day of the challenge.

We’ve received some lovely acknowledgments from elementary school teachers embarking on new projects because of our contribution, and you can too! Some of the projects are very modest, and even small donations from just a few people could reach a lot of children.

The number of children benefitting from the challenge was already nearing 1,000 after the Total Divorce donation, and there’s one day left.

Total Divorce has joined the Blog Catalog’s groundbreaking effort to use social media to generate charitable contributions, matching all donations made during the first day of the challenge.

Total Divorce’s contributions closed out a proposal from an Austin, Texas teacher in a public school where more than 90% of the students are economically disadvantaged, and brought a request for books on tape from an ESL teacher in New York to 98% completion.  (Surely someone out there is willing to follow this link and provide that remaining 2%?)

Please join us in supporting public school students (and their teachers) across the country by following this link to contribute to the project of your choice:  Blog Catalog Donors Choose Challenge

Nearly a week ago, we detailed a proposed Texas law that would discourage divorce by waiving the $30 marriage license fee and 72 hour waiting period to get married in the state for all couples who attend eight hours of premarital education courses. That very same legislation would double the marriage license fee for any couple who does not attend those classes. In a somewhat similar light, Illinois legislation would bolster the marriage license fee by $5 in order to fund domestic violence prevention programs in the state. Illinois marriage licenses range from $15 to $30, depending on which county you live in.

This Illinois legislation was proposed by Senator Kwame Raoul of Chicago and recently moved on to the state House after passing in the Senate by a 36-17 vote. This proposal indicates that the $5 marriage license fee would raise more than $400,000 a year in Illinois, where there were nearly 83,000 marriages last year.

Supporters of this legislation say that the tax is a minimal expense and necessary for vital domestic violence programs that have struggled to get consistent funding from the state’s strapped budget. Some lawmakers still feel the tax is too much while Senator Chris Lauzen wondered why new couples are being punished for problems that other couples may have had. Read one woman’s disdain for this bill at The Divorce Prevention Legislation Blog and stay updated on this legislation right here at The Divorce Blog.

An interesting Associated Press article on TheDay.com details how the Rhode Island Supreme Court will hear a case involving a gay couple who was married in Massachusetts and wants to get a divorce in Rhode Island. Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers were married in 2005 in Massachusetts, where gay marriages are legal. The couple currently lives in Rhode Island and has cited irreconcilable differences as the reason for their divorce. With that said, Rhode Island law is silent in terms of the legality of same-sex marriages; thus leaving the state Supreme Court with the decision of whether a lower court in the state can recognize a same-sex marriage from another state in order to handle a divorce petition.

In December, Chief Family Court Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr. asked the Rhode Island Supreme Court whether he had jurisdiction to handle such a case, which is believed to be the first gay divorce case in the state’s history. After initially requesting more information, the Rhode Island Supreme Court accepted this divorce case on Monday. It will decide whether the Family Court can accept the same-sex marriage for the purpose of handling the divorce petition.

If the Rhode Island Supreme Court comes to a decision that the Family Court can accept such a case, the story said that the matter would most likely be sent back to Jeremiah. However, if the Rhode Island Supreme Court rules in the opposite direction, lawyers in the story said that the two women seeking divorce will likely have to move to Massachusetts and live there long enough in order to get a divorce.

A court date has not yet been set for this case. The Rhode Island Supreme Court will now accept written briefs on or before August 1st and has invited the state’s governor, attorney general and other legislative leaders to file briefs. We’ll keep you updated on the latest developments with this same-sex Rhode Island divorce case.

There’s been a lot of news coverage recently about “fathers” who found out that they weren’t fathers at all, and what happens when child support orders are already in place before that discovery is made.  Both Missouri and Texas have put forth legislation that would address the concerns of these “duped dads”.

The Arkansas Supreme Court this week said protections for “duped dads” in the state’s laws do not apply in divorce cases.  Kevin Martin fought a case for back child support in 2004 by requesting a paternity test.  The test showed that Martin wasn’t, in fact, the child’s father.  The Arkansas paternity statute says that means no liability for child support, but Martin’s child support case didn’t arise under paternity laws. Rather, it grew out of a 1997 divorce.  In the divorce case, Martin had agreed that the child was “of the marriage”.

The Circuit Court found that the original agreed order foreclosed Martin’s right to raise the issue of paternity, and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed, pointing out that the statute that would have shielded him from support payments didn’t apply in divorce cases and that the prior agreement was binding.