In general, no-fault grounds divorce would be simpler and faster in many jurisdictions and court dockets. Because parties would not need many involvement of parties outside of their marriages, e.g. material witnesses, character witnesses, expert witnesses, etc. Typically, the court would need no more than thirty minutes to hear a non-contested divorce case, while a contested divorce case many take a few days, a week or more, which take up a lot of court time and resources. A non-contested divorce case would not only save parties and the court time and resources, but most importantly, it would save parties from personal pain and anguish, particularly if parties fight over the custody of children.
Even the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (§307 …show more content…
Some courts may consider adultery and sexual misconducts would constitute factors in determining the right to alimony as well as child visitation and custody. The trends in recognizing the interspousal torts for intentional infliction of emotional distress, courts may take the unconscionable misconducts into consideration in making final divorce decree. There are situations or cases where spouse’s conducts are so grossly unjust, extreme and outrageous which shock the conscience of the court, the the court may look for an equitable remedy. Most importantly, in a fault-based divorce where one spouse had intentionally and unconscionably mistreated other spouse and children which made him/her an unfit parent; thus, a contested proceeding is needed so all material evidences should be presented to court and/or jury for making a just decision. See Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165; 72 S. Ct. …show more content…
Constitution, Article IV, §1, requires that a state give full faith and credit to the decrees of sister states, provided that the sister state had jurisdiction. In Williams, it was a very interesting case which appeared to the U.S. Supreme Court twice, all the facts and parties were the same; therefore, they were named Williams I and Williams II. In Williams I, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that North Carolina court must give full faith and credit to divorce decree of Nevada, because the decree stated that couple were domiciled in Nevada. The fact was that Mr. Williams eloped with his clerk’s wife to Nevada. After living there for six weeks they were qualified to be resident and able to file for a divorce. A final decree for divorce was granted and they returned to their hometown in North Carolina to live. They were tried and convicted of bigamy. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned their convictions based on the application of full Faith and Credit
Even the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (§307 …show more content…
Some courts may consider adultery and sexual misconducts would constitute factors in determining the right to alimony as well as child visitation and custody. The trends in recognizing the interspousal torts for intentional infliction of emotional distress, courts may take the unconscionable misconducts into consideration in making final divorce decree. There are situations or cases where spouse’s conducts are so grossly unjust, extreme and outrageous which shock the conscience of the court, the the court may look for an equitable remedy. Most importantly, in a fault-based divorce where one spouse had intentionally and unconscionably mistreated other spouse and children which made him/her an unfit parent; thus, a contested proceeding is needed so all material evidences should be presented to court and/or jury for making a just decision. See Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165; 72 S. Ct. …show more content…
Constitution, Article IV, §1, requires that a state give full faith and credit to the decrees of sister states, provided that the sister state had jurisdiction. In Williams, it was a very interesting case which appeared to the U.S. Supreme Court twice, all the facts and parties were the same; therefore, they were named Williams I and Williams II. In Williams I, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that North Carolina court must give full faith and credit to divorce decree of Nevada, because the decree stated that couple were domiciled in Nevada. The fact was that Mr. Williams eloped with his clerk’s wife to Nevada. After living there for six weeks they were qualified to be resident and able to file for a divorce. A final decree for divorce was granted and they returned to their hometown in North Carolina to live. They were tried and convicted of bigamy. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned their convictions based on the application of full Faith and Credit