Talk:Divorce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do you think about divorce and its effects in general, and what alternative exist for troubled couples?




Some Wikipedians are assessing interest in a new project dealing with close relationships. Editors of this article may be interested in participating in the project. Please check out the project proposal page and sign up if you are interested in participating.


Contents

[edit] Article Destruction

Someone, identified only by their IP address, deleted enormous chunks of this article. I have reverted the changes. This article should probably be cleaned up, but not by deleting half the article on a whim. Such major changes should be discussed first. My apologies to those who have made changes since the last decent copy of this article. --God's Webmaster 02:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

In complete agreement about the "this article is a total mess." IMHO it has serious neutrality problems as well (I got the distinct feeling the article had been written by a recently divorced father). As such, I've added tags to both

The page is a bit schitzoid I think, less than un-neutral, with some bits that lean one way, and some bits the other, some bits that look like they need substantiation, and some bits that need cropping, and mostly looking like it needs a good edit.--Fish-man 19:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I hate the following sentance from the lead section and want to fix it because it definitely has a point of view that sounds more like opinion, so I am going to post it here and look for proposed changes: In addition, acceptance of the single-parent family has resulted in many women deciding to have children outside marriage as there is little remaining social stigma attached to unwed mothers.

My issues:

  • First, not sure how much more accepted single parent families are nowadays.
  • Second, not sure this is a primary reason for increased single-parenthood.
  • Third, can we actually put some numbers on increased single-parenthood, and mince out how many of these were by choice?

Clearly single parenthood is up, and I think we can substantiate that, and our society has adapted a little to single parent families. Can we say more than that?--Fish-man 15:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Redisca has done a Huge amount of work on this page, and I think we are much improved. So I have removed the Neutrality tag. If someone things it needs to be re-added, then poke it back on and we can discuss, but if anything, I think the male pov is under-represented, and if we are careful going forward, I think we will be OK. We still need more substantiating statistics, and those are available... I may be able to put some of those in some time soon--Fish-man 20:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


I think that the discussion of single parent families is so biased in (at least) the USA that it may be impossible to get a neutral viewpoint. Discussions of crime or criminals often include the information that the criminal grew up in a single parent family( if, indeed, that is the case). Crime is very commonly attributed to the criminal being raised in a single parent family. This society has a very different attitude toward a single parent family in which one of the parents has died, a single parent family as the result of divorce, and a single parent family in which the parent was never married. A single parent family can also be the result of a single person adopting a child or children. Is a widowed grandparent raising grandchildren a single parent? Are the children of a married couple who are not living together because one of the parents is deployed as a soldier living in a single parent family? We do not seem to have a uniform definition of "single parent family." This is serious problem for anyone who is labeled a single parent. Any behavorial abnormality in the children of the single parent is commonly assumed to be caused by the fact that there are not two parents. Unless we are able to figure out how to discuss (and live with) variations in family structure without bias, I think that the issue should be deleted from the article on divorce. Or, perhaps mentioned only to clarify that it is a controversial issue about which we do not seem to have unbiased statistics. Antigone2 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

--- Does anyone have any statistics for marriage and divorce. These generalizations do not look very precise. Alex756

How's that for a start on a statistics section? US only so far. --zandperl 14:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've gone through the stats section and revised and condensed it, trying to weed it down to relevant conclusions directly supported by the data. (Much of what was there when I found it misinterpreted the data or made claims far beyond what the data linked to supported; in some cases because someone apparently had an axe to grind.) I did try to preserve the links to relevant external studies, though, and tried to be more precise about what they actually said. (I added a study of two as well to fill in some gaps.)
This did eliminate a couple of potentially relevant numbers, such as how often the wife or the husband got custody of children. But I didn't see any solid data for them at a national level in the studies that were cited. If someone finds some solid, reliable stats from studies that *directly* speak to this issue, please add them. -- 130.91.116.49, 08 Apr 2005

What's an "Anglo-American" jurisdiction? Sounds like a South African company (see Harry Oppenheimer). Tiles 05:24 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Don't think English speaking is a good change, Indian might be considered English speaking and I don't think that the divorce trends there are similar to Anglo American countries (US Canada and United Kingdom). The term Anglo-American is used when discussing common law systems (though some like Indian are perhaps mixed systems as India does incorporate Hindu law into its jurisprudence). How 'bout western English speaking? Alex756

I'm not too concerned. I just thought that Anglo American was supposed to mean "English speaking". I note the use of commonwealth which goes well beyond the western English speaking world.

BTW is the stuff about France correct? I find it hard to believe that people with children avoid marriage or that French law was influenced by the Catholic church (Ireland I could believe).Tiles 04:56 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Sure, it sounds questionable. I removed a part "In countries such as France, people who have romantic relationships or children tend to avoid marriage, thus, divorce rate has remained low." I wrote this simply from my memory. Maybe we can put it again after we or anyone can show good evidence. -- Taku 05:15 May 10, 2003 (UTC)


Yes, the world has changed much in the twentieth century. There was a famous case that is often quoted in French private international law treatises dealing with the concept fraude à la loi -- it was known as the Princess Bauffremont affair decided by the Cour de cassation [Civ. 18 mars 1878, S.78.1.193 (note Labbé)]. She obtained citizenship in Germany for the purpose of obtaining a divorce there and then remarried returning to France. (I think it was some kind of inheritance issue) The validity of her remarriage was called into question as divorce was not recognized in France, her remarriage was declared null as a fraude à la loi. Similar things happened in common law jurisdictions when people left to go to another country (or state) to get divorced because it was illegal in their country (the so called quickie Dominican divorce was an example of this). In common law conflict of laws it is known as evasion of the law. Alex756 05:23 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks. That seems pretty conclusive on the legal issue. I agree that we should park the social issue here until there is more evidence. Tiles 05:38 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Henry VIII wanted a *divorce* ?

Didn't Henry VIII want an annulment, not a divorce ? Especially as the sentence says he wanted it on the grounds of affinity -- I don't know that it makes any sense to say he wanted a divorce on the grounds of affinity.

[edit] recent Japan deletions

The comment on the Aug 31 edit was quite biased. Im not sure why it is relevant whether a contributor is having a custody problem in japan or not, nor how FWBOarticle would know whether that is true. Was the information deleted inaccurate, off topic, or biased? If not, which is my view, perhaps it should stay. Instead of deleting relevant information, I have referred to the site indicated and rewritten the section, as would have been a better way to edit it in the first place. If you (FWBOarticle) don't like the presentation, go ahead and fix it up in a more neutral manner. If you (FWBOarticle) disagree with the content, say so, and update it with more accurate content or in a more unbiased way. Simply deleting it implies that you, (FWBOarticle) are promoting an agenda and simply deleting information you do not like. Lets try to be more objective here, ok?

Ill try to find some statistics on divorce in Japan. Should be around since its a hot topic these days, with the rate going way up in recent years.

Jpnwatch Aug 31, 2004.

There is nothing wrong with presenting fact thought sticking to topic is prefered. Only problem is your source. It help if you can provide citation not from agenda site. You have to find two souce. One is to say some country doesn't recognise Japanese divorce. The other is to show that the reason for this non recognition is due to problem with Japanese divorce procedure. FWBOarticle 08:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and it help if you can provide source for the case of forgery.

I have also removed links. However, I have no objection for listing those links as external. In Wikipedia, that is much prefered way as some external links disappear afterward. FWBOarticle 08:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Certainly some content depends on the subject knowledge of contributors. And in such cases, it may be equally your responsibility to disprove things you don't agree with, based on your own expertise. This "agenda site" has unique information not found elsewhere, and quite honestly, it would help if you would read thru the site before challenging issues. At some point you need to trust the expertise of the people who put that site together. That said, here are several references that come up in a quick google search that may answer some of your concerns:

Divorce By Mutual Consent not accepted by all countries

Forging signatures on divorce forms and anti-divorce form

And here is a reference to someone who proved a forged signature in court. The person mentioned in the article is the founder of another organization and his case is well know. Youcan contact this organization to get in touch with him personally. crcjapan.com

So Im going to put back the original information. If you dont like it, please find some of your own evidence to disprove it before making further edits.

And finally, if you disapprove of external links in the text, you should be consistent. There are quite a few other external links in there also. I speculate that you did not removethem also since they do not appear to be on your "agenda." A constructive way to approach your concern would be to remove ALL external links and rewrite them appropriately in the external links section. Since I am following the existing format in this article, Ill leave that task up to you.

Ah, I have no problem with the facts that forgery occurs in Japan or elsewhere. Problem with your sentence is that you try to link that with the fact that particular type of divorce in Japan is not recognised internationally. This you fail to provide any source except your speculation. Wikipedia is not really a place to advance individual POV. Rather it is place to introduce readers to various general opinion with proper attribution. Also, it is you who assert certain existence of fact. Burden of proof is on you not on me. As of me deleting link to your web page. I actually have no objection for your web page and information it provide. Just that it is much better if it is separated as external links as reference. Oh, for you not being able see your kids, that I sympathise. FWBOarticle 10:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As of external links, firstly it is generally discouraged however it is not explicitly prohibited. It is usuall being let off when it is linked to stable site such as BBC or government website. Small website is considered much less reliable and that is why it is better to be listed as separate link. However I have no objection for the link to be listed immediately after the section rather than at the bottom of the page. FWBOarticle 10:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And one more thing, trying to promote particular website is not something which is encouraged. FWBOarticle 10:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph

Contributed on September 10:

One cause considered, while not conclusive, arises from studies[1] described in Kristen O'Hara's book Sex as Nature Intended It. The book explains that relationships, which rely on strong levels of intimacy, may fail in part due to the physical effects of circumcision on sexual intercourse. Described in detail by Ronald Goldman's work [2], divorce rates in various nations are compared and strongly linked to male circumcision rates just 25 years prior. O'Hara's book describes that, in the case of circumcised intercourse, levels of satisfaction may fall over the years of marriage. This effect may have been known as early as the 12th century, as described by the philosopher Moses Maimonides. Among other factors, this factor may contribute to some couples divorcing due to loss of sexual fulfillment in one or both spouses.

Circumcision as a cause for divorce? That explains why divorce rates are so high, I suppose.  :-) --Ardonik.talk()* 15:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Some people believe loss of fulfillment contributes to divorce (not the sole cause as you imply). The US is quite high in both statistics. If you would bother to read the books mentioned, they are only one perspective with clear historical references. You are welcome to add more to the article if you wish. I am not against the theory that there is no connection, but I believe both sides have merit. DanP 16:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Of course you do. For you, circumcision is one of the world's great evils, and you'll seize any chance to denigrate it.
If a scientific study can provide evidence of a positive correlation between circumcision and divorce rates, adding a mention and a cite will be fine, but all you have provided is a link to an informal survey. A subsection in Genital Integrity entitled ==Circumcision and divorce== or ==Societal impact of circumcision== would in my opinion be more suitable for this.
No more free rides, DanP. The circumcision wars are over. --Ardonik.talk()*
I respectfully disagree. Goldman's work was also mentioned, which I would hope you'd find time to read, even if you disagree with it. Scientific studies of divorce, eh? That's a pretty tough standard to explain human relationships. I would ask you to replace this particular paragraph though, as it's one matter which I am very familiar. It was never presented as an absolute statement of scientific fact. DanP 22:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We need tough standards! Without them we get POV. Speculation without any evidence that circumcision has any effect on divorce has no place in this article. I don't believe both sides have merit at all. i don't see any merit whatsoever in the "circumcision causes divorce" argument. The US is also quite high on gun ownership. If I were to put forward the 'theory' that gun ownership causes divorce should it go in the article? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 21:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. I didn't say the merit was irrefutable, but I have seen more than one relationship fall apart. To go extreme with forcing a tough standard would require deleting most of the article. Take the statement: "In some countries, women need to wait longer than men before remarrying to avoid confusion about paternity." That is presented with zero scientific evidence as to paternity being the reason. The article is full of what one person thinks and what another might do. NPOV only asserts that nobody is absolutely right in their chosen view, and Goldman's book is more than a tiny shred of evidence that the opinion exists. If there is a way to "water down" my paragraph to be NPOV, saying other people believe this theory is wrong or sheer coincidence, please do so without just deleting the whole paragraph. Regarding gun ownership, many people believe it's tied to crime rates. I don't believe that at all and find it an unjustified tactic, but the gun politics article clearly says some believe "that gun control legislation may reduce violent crime". It's just a statement of perspectives that exist, and I do not judge that. I support such statements being in Wikipedia, despite my strong disagreement with the underlying assertion, because they are presented as a "sociological theory" and no more. DanP 16:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
But there is some evidence to back those claims up. The violent crimes rates of the UK can be compared to that of the US. Now since the UK and the US are broadly similar societies, with similar non violent crime rates then it is reasonable to conclude that that differences in violent crime rates are due to different gun regulations. I'm pretty sure this comparision has actually been done but i dont know the actual results, and anyway i don't want to stray too far off topic. As far as I am aware, there have been no actual comparisions of divorce rates between similar groups of men where one group were circumcised and the other not. As far as I can tell the 'theory' is out and out speculation, with no evidence whatsoever. As such it should not go into the article. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 21:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Then please explain why the majority of the divorce article goes without that standard? The vast majority is pure speculation, including the paragraph prior to the disputed one which I, in fact, entered. The disputed paragraph was listed with repeated evidence, both historical and contemporary, with regard to this viewpoint. For the guns issue, no it's not reasonable to make that leap - it's POV. One counterexample POV is that violent crime has suddenly gone up in many places where guns were restricted, and that violent crimes prevented by guns never get counted in official reports. I really don't care who is "right" on that, because both sides have explained their completely unproven conclusions in Wikipedia. Encouraging multiple perspectives is a standard NPOV has. Deleting the disputed paragraph in this article because my evidence perceived as weak, yet permitting the prior paragraph which I submitted with zero evidence, is rather POV isn't it? I think divorce is linked enough to long-term fulfillment in the bedroom. At least it is in some people's minds, and I think that merits some attention here. Even if circumcision is not specifically mentioned, we do not live in a society where sex and divorce are so separate that it requires empirical data to link them. Maybe we need a discussion about the POV "women are generally the financial victims of divorce" under the Social and psychological issues section of this article. Not one shred of evidence or neutrality there. But I didn't just delete it. DanP 18:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a mess

Hello:

Is it just me or is this article a mess?

Unfortunately I don't have the time or energy to do some research on my own on divorce law and clean this mess up. My specialty isn't family law.

It seems like we have a whole bunch of laypeople working on this article, including several pissed-off divorced fathers, and relatively few law-trained people.

I suspect the reason no family law people have bothered to clean this up is because they are too busy dealing with their crazy clients. Family law is well-known among lawyers as the most stressful type of law. Most legal disputes can be reduced to awards of money, but it's hard to do that with kids or with property that may be of great sentimental value to both spouses.

--Coolcaesar 08:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the write-ups on other countries, but the US section is terrible. The author obviously knows very little about law and wrote, it seems, from his own limited experiences and convictions. First of all, the ABA is a non-governmental organization, which does not have the power to enact statutes, overhaul courts, or otherwise "introduce" anything. It can and does engage in lobbying, but so do numerous other groups. The jumbled statement about the supposed dealings between the ABA and the NAWL is mystifying.

Second, not all states delegate divorce proceedings to "Family Law section in the courts". New York, for example, has Family Court, but it is the Supreme Court which maintains jurisdiction over divorces. In any event, the article creates a vague impression that family courts serve special interests, but does not explain their significance.

Third, the use of legal terminology and the discussion of legal concepts in this section of the article is hopelessly muddled and inaccurate. There is an apparent confusion, for example, between divorce and separation; between divorce-for-fault and covenant marriage; and between the dissolution of marriage and collateral issues. It is worth noting that some states provide for neither no-fault divorce nor covenant marriage. I am surprised and dismayed that, knowing as little as he does about divorce, the author had the gall to characterize certain proceedings, outcomes, etc. as "typical".

I think the US section needs to be completely re-written by someone who actually possesses legal knowledge and expertise.--Redisca 22:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's been more than eight months and this article is still a mess. Well, I'm too busy to clean this up (I'm in the midst of a massive rewrite of Lawyer at the moment). --Coolcaesar 09:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Six more months and this article is as bad as ever. So it's been 14 months since my first note above. I'm still too busy with Lawyer since the key issue with the failed featured article nomination was the lack of history of the profession. So I'm looking for relevant sources on that issue, and I'm busy with work, etc. Guess this confirms my suspicion that everyone in family law is just too busy to help write a decent article on their biggest source of business! --Coolcaesar 08:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Document Specimens

The document specimens on the page are, I believe, ludicrous fakes. No document articulating the rights of parties to litigation would be handwritten with scribbles and crossed-out items such as these. The existence of what may be a clerk stamp is not sufficient to convince me.

Additionally, there are substantial privacy violations if, contrary to my suspicion, the documents are indeed genuine. There are in several jurisdictions substantial limitations on the release of records relating to child custody matters.

I think the documents should be removed in favor of neutral specimen documents which might be available through court websites.

I regret to inform you that you are wrong about the handwriting and scribbles. There are some judges that require that court orders, judgements be written up in their presence longhand while the attorney(s) are present to expedite the process - especially, I believe, in orders for seizure of property and so on, where time is of the essence. I have in my posession one such order, which I cannot share for privacy reasons. The particular family judge in question had all her judgements done in court, by hand, in front of her.--Fish-man 19:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Displaying unredacted court documents is clearly a problem. In most US jurisdictions, records of divorce and custody proceedings are confindential and cannot be publicized without the consent of both ex-spouses (and, where the identity of a minor is an issue, even that may not be enough). In the documents shown in the article, the names are clearly visible. Apart from being the author's pathetic attempt at a revenge of some sort (which, of course, violates the site's neutrality rules), it is also very unethical, and very likely illegal, as well.--Redisca 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I am contacting Mark about the documents and attempting to redact personal names, exact dates, docket numbers and the like. They have already been reviewed for deletion once, and apparently passed muster. I note that some information (numbers, family names) has already been redacted. These are apparently the uploader's own orders. Your comment about the repression of this information without consent is interesting and could add to this page when it gets rewritten. Can you provide any further citations on that? And please, no personal invective. In my humble opinion 'Pathetic' is uncalled for, especially in reference to someone who apparently is now a very occasional visitor in his own house.--Fish-man 17:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

IMO, the filled-out forms don't really add much to the article, especially to the intro where they appear. Can we agree to delete them? I searched for some online blank forms. There's a government site at http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/ssc/forms/fc_drda8.asp with forms for requesting a divorce, and with a blank decree. How about swapping those in, thus solving most of the issues raised above (since the forms are blank)? Sderose 14:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

Someone just added a "bias" flag to section 5 (medical and sociological effects). Oddly, they have posted nothing here about why. They also used only a numeric IP address, and didn't give a comment with their edit. Since nearly every claim in that section has a specific citation, and given that the anonymous editor hasn't mentioned any particulars or suggestd any way to reduce whatever bias they perceive, it seems to me we should either figure out what they mean and address it, or else delete the bias flag. As is, it looks like somebody just doesn't *like* the cited facts; by itself that doesn't make the article biased. Sderose 15:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't read the mind of whoever orignally complained, but I noticed a good deal of bias in that section, too. The bias comes from the one-sided quoting of studies without mentioning their flaws. The silencing of criticism hides the fact that many of these studies suffer from the problem of distinguishing causation from correlation. In particular, what they take as consequences of divorce are often causes.
Take the example of children of divorce being more willing to get divorced. This is explicitly stated as a consequence of divorce, yet it can be more simply accounted for. Religiously and socially conservative parents are less likely to divorce, no matter how bad their marriage is, and are more likely to teach this die-hard attitude to their children. More liberal parents — including those who never divorce — are instead more likely to view divorce as an acceptable solution if the marriage is beyond saving. Therefore, the children of divorce represent a self-selected sample, not a random one.
Now, this isn't my OR, it's what's been written by critics over and over again. The only question is why there's no mention of this here. Alienus 06:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still seems biased

Don't get me wrong. I completely agree with the opinion that males are underrepresented and often-mistreated when it comes to child custody on a variety of levels, but here I am trying to write a paper to that effect, and I can't use wikipedia as a reference, because the quotes are just _TOO_ good. And so are some of the external links. I can't use this stuff without undermining my own credibility, because this article has undermined it's own credibility. It's doing a good thing, educating and disseminating information on how we can improve this facet of society. But. Well. It still aint neutral. --134.114.183.163 16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oral and Anal Divorce

212.138.113.12 added the following text:

Sexual behavior seems to have an affect on the rate of divorce cases. Although sexual behavior of basic biological importance, it also has central social importance. A study was conducted in 1991 investigating the relationship between sexual behavior and divorce. Of the two samples selected 90% of divorced respondent couples had oral and anal sex as part of sexual intercourse on a regular basis, while only 20% of married couples interviewed had both on regular basis. It was concluded that there is a rapport between sexual behavior and the tendency to have a divorce.

I removed it for a few reasons. 1) It lacks citation. Unnamed studies are worthless, because anyone can invent them. 2) It's bad sociology. I bet that people who have anal and oral sex, and are willing to admit to it, are less likely to be social conservatives. Social conservatives are less likely to see divorce as an acceptable option, even when the marriage is a mess. In short, the correlation in no way suggests causality. (unsigned by Alienus)

  • User:212.138.113.12's 07:35, 14 December 2005 edit was made from an IP now blocked as an open proxy, and apparently at least suspected as such prior to those edits. This does not prove the intention to place false information, but IMO it should arouse suspicion.
I'm also pretty sure that using "rapport" to describe either correlation or causation is not something that stems from reading competent marital research. It sounds more like what i'd expect of the kind of faith-based research that goes thru professional research articles looking for one statistic that can be twisted as this one presumably is, and cites it as supposed evidence of what one's medieval upbringing advocates, while ignoring the conclusions to the contrary that are stated in the end as result of professional analysis of all of the data.
But that aside, my impression is that a single behavioral variables that can split a population into groups that differ by 70 %age points as to another behavioral variable, without everyone saying, "Well, duh, you had to do research to figure that out?" are very few and far between. Deception, at least to the extent of deliberate distortion, is my guess. (Look for religious-right propaganda that cites WP as source of those numbers that were in main-namespace for 14 hours, and you'll have an idea of what domain the proxy was concealing.) And i've got a baseball cap that i'm setting aside for a snack on the day when that IP's paragraph is verified as based on a reputably peer-reviewed article that fails to explain the result away.
--Jerzy•t 16:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Can we cut down on the references. There are so many that they are no longer useful. Wikipedia is not a bibliography or a list of links. If someone wants to save them, move them to Wikisource. If I dont hear complaints. I will start paring them down to general reference works on divorce. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting a divorce from another country & the law and procedure in countries that may be called "divorce mills" by some

Something that has become more popular in the United States; I have added information about this as I have recently gone through a divorce and thoroughly investigated all my options. It's one of my first contributions to this site, so let me know if there are any serious problems with it. --Nephalim 01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


Information on the specifics on the laws of both contested and uncontested divorces in Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic would be helpful forDivorces obtained by US couples in a different country or jurisdiction, and also for Divorce mill Nephalim 11:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visitation violations

I noticed this statement:

Currently in the US, federal law makes non-payment of child support a felony, whereas refusal to honor court-ordered visitation decision is not, and seldom results in any punishment or compulsion to change

I appreciate that refusal to honour court-ordered visitation is generally treated less seriously than non-payment of child support but I wonder if it's realy true it seldom results in any punishment or compulsion to change (although of course one violation of a visitation order is unlikely to cause as much damage as one violation of child support can). AFAIK (I'm not an American or a legal expert) it can be considered contempt of court and although the person who's visitation rights are violated probably obtains little help from the police and it might take quite a lot of time and money, I suspect in most cases if they are able and willing to put in the money and time to take the issue to court it will result in at least some compulsion to change. I'm not saying this is fair, simply pointing out that the statement there is seldom any punishment or complusion to change is probably misleading as currently written Nil Einne 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal needed

This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law - - Kittybrewster 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce

I notice the line "though the Qur'an itself mentioned no particular limit." has been removed. Any chance of an explanation? Is divorce specifcally mentioned in the Qur'an, or not, or is it just that the piece of information is considered irrelevant? Gretnagod 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I removed that sentence. Divorce is mentioned in the Qur'an. The statement here refers to the number of wives a man can have. I'm not sure about whether this is mentioned in the Qur'an or not but the removed line when taken with the rest of the sentence (A man may have up to four wives under Sharia law, (though the Qur'an itself mentioned no particular limit)), conveys the idea that the Qur'an is the only source from which the Sharia is derived. That's factually incorrect. Adding the sentence doesn't give any additional information but might cause some misunderstanding. Therefore it is at best irrelevant. --Nkv 15:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Jesus and the Woman with Five Husbands and One Non-husband

I am removing this part: "It was also shown the lack of a marriage is not a problem for Jesus, as shown in John 4.18-19 that Jesus don't have any problem of a woman without a husband cohabitating with a man who is not her husband."

Here's why. The scriptures cited demonstrate that Jesus knew of her remarriages and cohibatation. They do not indicate that he "don't have any problem of a woman ... cohabitating with a man who is not her husband." He merely showed the woman, who was a stranger to him, that he had personal knowledge of her life, which no ordinary stranger would have. He later claimed to her to be the messiah sought by both the Jews and the Samaritans (verse 26). Thus, his display to her of spiritual power, by demonstrating knowledge of her which no ordinary stranger could have, backs up that claim.

Thus, the statement is blatantly false and is being deleted. --BPMoldovan 03:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting into a protracted debate on religion or cohabitation here. However, my personal discussion page has some further thoughts on this subject, on the off chance that anyone's interested.--BPMoldovan 04:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence deleted

I deleted this sentence:

Furthermore, the 50/50 split holds even if the richer spouse commits adultery or iniates the divorce even though arguably the richer spouse should equally get less in these cases if they are grounds to reduce the percentage for poorer spouse.

on the grounds that it seems POV, but I do think it may make a valid point (I'm not entirely sure what it's saying) and would like to see it returned if anyone can properly revise it. Emmett5 04:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious/cultural attitudes to divorce

I am editing this section to make it cleaner and less of a "bully pulpit" for one interpretation, but rather stick to what the Scripture says on the subject. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a personal website.--God's Webmaster 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This section was "messed up" again. I cleaned it up, and also removed the "cleanup" tag as it is no longer needed. The other section should not be reverted back; it has serious POV and neutrality problems. --God's Webmaster 00:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

All right; after having my cleanup reverted again, I am looking for input. Does anybody have objections to the cleanup I had done? Ohnoitsjamie called the current information "sourced material". I disagree -- there are no references as to the "Any Cause" divorce interpretation. I see no reason to promote one particular, minority viewpoint (I'd never heard of this one before) on divorce as the major Christian viewpoint. As I said before, this article should not be a bully pulpit. I also think this section should be marked as having neutrality problems. If nobody raises any objections, I will put back my edits. Please speak up if you have problems with editing what's there now. --God's Webmaster 23:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the diff in question. I agree that the section I restored needs some work, but I think your replacement of that section with an decidedly singular perspective ignores the fact that there are different interpretations. Perhaps other editors who are better-versed (no pun intended!) in the Bible could chime in? OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur. To avoid inadvertently inserting original research (in violation of WP:NOR) in such a difficult matter of textual interpretation, it would be better to cite to analyses published by theologians from several denominations. --Coolcaesar 19:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one has helped out; in fact, it's even worse now. I think it would be best to take it back to what it was about six months ago, prior to the insertion of the section beginning "Recent research shows...". At least that would be better than the mess that is there now. In fact, just about anything shorter would be better than what's there now. God's Webmaster 20:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I just did what I mentioned above. Please edit it, rather than reverting, if you don't like it the way it is now. It is no more POV than it was before, considering that what I put in was already there. God's Webmaster 20:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Should keep this part. The answer that Jesus gave corresponded with the question from the Pharisees. (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9) The Pharisees only asked about a man putting away a woman. Jesus only answered about a man putting away a woman. The disciples acknowledged this by referring to "the case of the man". (Matt 19:10) There is no reason to apply this language to women putting away men. There is no reason to misappropriate the language. The language obviously pertains to Jewish males putting away their wives in Matt 19. and Matt. 5. This was the first century Jewish cultural attitude about divorce in a male dominated society. There is no historical dispute about this. Christian 00:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The section that was added has a lot of speculation: "Some suppose", "probably", etc. Plus, in my view at least, it violates Wikipedia:No original research guidelines. God's Webmaster 20:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Jesus, the greatest authority on Judaism I know, did not recognize no-fault divorce. He was a Jew. Hillel recognized no-fault divorce. Shammai accepted unchastity as a reason for divorce. Jesus recognized divorce for the reason he gave that corresponded with Deut 24:1-4. I am glad you qualified that "Judaism" always recognized no-fault divorce. (However, you did not specify which parts of Judaism always recognized no-fault divorce. This is inaccurate and too brief.) Christians who suppose that Matt 5:32 (where Jesus addressed the open ended no-fault divorce being taught in verse 31 by the Pharisees in opposition to Jesus and Mal. 2) and Matt 19:9 (where Jesus addressed a question from the Pharisees about no-fault divorce) often apply these verses to themselves and ignore the Jewish audience. Jesus did not evidently agree with the prevailing Jewish position. Christians abuse "set theory" because when the Pharisees asked Jesus "Is it lawful for a (Jewish) man to put away his (Jewish) wife for every cause (no-fault)?" they were asking Jesus about their Jewish no-fault divorce and not about a "Christian" no-fault divorce. Universal terms such as "man" and "whosoever" often apply to "all of those of a particular set" when the audience is appropriately considered. In this case, Jesus was addressing "all Jewish husbands". (Incidentally, "Jewish wives" did not have the same rights as their "Jewish husbands". This is a "cultural" point which you also have not included.) (See Agunah.) To expand the audience of Jesus to include all husbands past and future (Jewish or not) without reference to "Judaism" violates "set theory" and history or the cultural setting. Therefore, I commend you on your rewrite and your use of the term "Judaism". However, I wish you would point out that Jesus was a Jew and that he was speaking to Jews and not to "Christians". This would appropriately reflect the "historical" and "cultural" setting at the time Jesus was speaking. However, many Christians appropriating Jewish customs (Judaizers) do not accept this historical fact and apply these "Jewish" teachings to "Christians". This is very "anachronistic". I think you are perhaps seeing this Jewish culture from the eyes of a Christian and ignoring many cultural aspects? (This is just my protest that you did not specify which parts of Judaism have always recognized no-fault divorce when you did your rewrite. Was it Hillel, Shammai, Jesus or Rabbi Aqiba? (Gittin 9:10 of the Mishnah) Was it the later Rabbinic Judaism? Please be more complete and more specific. Thanks. (Incidentally, do you consider the scriptures an authoritative and reliable source? In my opinion, on these subjects, the scriptures should be considered the most authoritative. They are more authoritative than the teachings of one denomination Christian 23:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


By the way, I did not add the section on Judaism; it was already there. That fact is that Jesus did address women divorcing their husbands in Mark 10. To say that Jesus was not speaking to Christians is wrong; Jesus' words are directly relevant to Christians. If we throw out everything he said to Jews, we have to throw out all four Gospels.

The Bible is THE final authority for Christian doctrine. What man says is pretty much irrelevant if it does not line up with the Scriptures.

I am not a Jew, so I will defer to someone else in editing the Judaism section.

I am not interested in discussing this topic further here. I do not have the time or inclination to "duke it out" to no purpose.

By the way, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

God's Webmaster 20:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to sign. I really don't expect you to "duke it out" with me here. However, if you are going to write on subjects such as divorce, I (and perhaps others) expect you to defend your positions and not just assume your biases and blanket statements are automatically correct. Sorry, I thought you wrote the part on Judaism. (I know you deleted the very small qualification I made to one of your blanket statements.) My mistake.

I will take the time to insert a few remarks and will let you be the judge about purpose. I don't accept your blanket statement "If we throw out everything he said to Jews, we have to throw out all four Gospels". This is a very erroneous statement as well as an over simplification. Jesus made many futuristic remarks about the characteristics of a coming Kingdom. (He also gave more complete and more detailed teaching to his disciples.) However, I also believe he addressed current well-known Jewish issues as well. It is not too difficult to discern his audience and the kinds of issues he addressed. Furthermore, many of the underlying principles of truth, justice and mercy Jesus taught can obviously apply to anyone. However, when Jesus addressed Jewish issues of his day, I don't necessarily assume that he is talking to me. As a Gentile Christian, I don't go by the "Law of Moses". I am interested (but not too concerned) when Jesus asks Jews questions such as "What did Moses command you?" (That is, what did he command you Jews? I know he wasn't asking what Moses commanded me since I am a Gentile Christian.) However, it's nice to know what Moses commanded them for informational purposes. But I don't think it is an absolute requirement for Gentile Christians such as myself. I also think Jews who convert to Christianity are free from the Law of Moses. However, if I were a Jew living in the time of Jesus, I would think it would be an absolute requirement to know what Moses commanded me. For example, when Jesus told the lepers he cleansed "Go shew yourselves unto the priests", I recognize that not even Jews can do that today. This command simply does not pertain to me.

Incidentally, I personally think what Jesus said to Jewish women (that may seem to have been a superfluous reminder) in Mark 10 was very relevant. Some Jews were being assimilated by other cultures. (Jesus was not being assimilated because he was a strict Jew.) Some of their Jewish women, such as Herodias, were actually divorcing their husbands. John the Baptist lost his head because of that practice. Jewish women were not allowed to divorce their husbands under Jewish law. (Jewish women could not directly initiate a divorce like we find in Deut 24:1-4.) (See Agunah.) Some Christians think in Mark 10 Jesus was just giving a more complete doctrine to his disciples "in the house". Whatever. This was not part of his answer to the Jewish question asked by the Pharisees in Matt. 19. It was also not part of his response to the open ended no-fault divorce the Jews were teaching in Matt 5:31--which was based on their understanding of Deut. 24:1-4. You failed to consider the circumstances in Mark 10. I consider this to be an unreasonable blanket approach to the subject. I think you have painted this subject with too broad of a brush.

(Why do Christians fail to recognize that Jesus functioned as a Jew in a Jewish culture and he was not always addressing future Christians? Some Christians have a very Christian centric attitude. I am concerned when Christians assume they must comply with and conform to Jewish law. Whoever wants to be justified by the Law of Moses is fallen from grace—Gal 5:5. It is a very serious matter when Christians try to appropriate Jewish doctrines--at least Paul thought it was. It rules out grace. Therefore, it matters for me to know when Jesus is speaking to me. Since I don't try to keep parts of the Law of Moses, I don't consider myself a debtor to do the whole thing--Gal 5. But I consider you a debtor to keep the whole thing because you are trying to bind Matt 19:9 and Matt. 5:32 on me, on yourself and on other Christians. I know you can't be one of the original apostles. Only authorized disciples of Jesus could bind and loose. Note the "apostles' doctrine" in Acts 2:42. Note keys to the kingdom in conjunction with binding and loosing in Matt. 16:18 and Matt. 18:18. In Matthew 18, Jesus spoke to his disciples of discipline, future doctrine (binding and loosing), and assembling in his Name. Do you think you can keep the entire Law of Moses? If not, then don't try to bind it on me.) Christian 23:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Close Relationships template

I have added a Close Relationships template to the article. If the consensus is to remove the template because of the already large legal template, I am okay with that. (Kelly 04:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

It does make a rather large "blob" at the top of the page. --God's Webmaster 00:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about the "blob." It looks fine to me on 1024*768. — Coelacan | talk 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No-fault divorce not well defined here

The article talks about "no-fault" divorce several times without explaining well what this means. A link to No-fault divorce would be useful earlier in the article, as the first such link appears 2/3 of the way through this long article, under "United States." I'd put it in but the organization of this article has confused me enough that I'm not sure where it should go. Any takers? — Coelacan | talk 19:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

==

[edit] Section "Who Initiates divorce?"

Please forgive me if this is old ground, but I can't see anything above. Loneranger4justice added this section and Onedayoneday deleted it, with the edit summary "remove loneranger4justice biased views and I know him and he is biased against women" After reading the two sources referred to, I have reinserted the section, and added links to the sources which as far as I can tell back up the section. Certainly, the first para is straight from US government statistics. If the second para is selective in its reading of the paper (presented at the 11th Annual Conference of the Children's Rights Council), then a fuller selection ought to be given. If the paper is unreliable then critical sources ought to be given. Mr Stephen 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still a mess

It's been over a year and a half since I first pointed out this article is a mess. Wow. I guess I was right about people in family law being too busy to help out Wikipedia because they are too busy dealing with their crazy clients. Anyway, I'm too busy fighting off vandals in State Bar of California and Lawyer to help out here. --Coolcaesar 08:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce rate statistics

It seems to me that the adage "half of marriages end in divorce" is misleading. I would be very interested as to what percentage of first-time marriages end in divorce in the U.S. I have been looking for this data but I cannot find it. Anyone? ---

[edit] A useful external link

I would like to propose addition of one more external link. The link is www.washingtondivorceonline com The afore-mentioned website provides complete information about divorce laws, divorce issues, etc. in Washington State. Please consider.

It's a state-specific, commercial service, and as such it's not appropriate. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Divorce is in general a state-specific issue in the United States. The website provides a wealth of information about divorce issues, articles about divorce as well as information about divorce laws. Please also see the website for other useful information such as directory of all local courts in Washington State. All of this information is not readily available anywhere else. This is an appropriate website as an external link.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianjones10 (talk • contribs) .

It's a commercial service. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/v/Talk%7EDivorce_d9cf.html"