Taking Sides in a Divorce, Chasing Profit

This is more Feminazi nonsense. Sad case of Male Bias once again surfaces, how many of these Investment companies will fund a Husbands law suite against his wife? Its aways the Man who is the Piggy Bank, and free ATM. This is called, Shylock business, taking a pound of the Mans flesh.  
 I would like to know how many Men can get a single penny out of a Women these days, so that is proof enough that these companies are Male BIASED? 
 Divorce Attorneys are, to put it in one word, "PARASITES."

Dec 4, 2010

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Michelle Pont and her husband amassed millions of dollars in properties and investments from a freight-hauling business that they started with a single stake-bed truck in 1991. They bought a four-bedroom home, then a second home, a vacation home, a motor home and half a dozen cars.

But when Ms. Pont decided to seek a divorce last year, she quickly ran out of money. She had no job. Her husband controlled the family’s investments. A few months of legal bills maxed out her credit cards and drained her retirement account.

She wrestled with accepting a smaller settlement than she considered fair. Then a lawyer referred her to Balance Point Divorce Funding, a new Beverly Hills lender that offers to cover the cost of breaking up — paying a lawyer, searching for hidden assets, maintaining a lifestyle — in exchange for a share of the winnings.
In October, Balance Point agreed to invest more than $200,000 in Ms. Pont’s case.

“It’s given me hope,” Ms. Pont said. “I don’t view it as a loan; I view it as an investment in my future. They are helping me to get what is rightfully mine.”

With some in the financial world willing to bet on almost anything, it should be no surprise that a few would see the potential to profit from the often contentious and emotional process of ending a marriage.

So far, the number of companies investing in divorce is small — Balance Point is one of the few that do it exclusively. But other businesses are gearing up. A New York start-up, Churchill Divorce Finance, also is planning to enter the business. The company’s chief executive previously co-founded a publicly traded Australian company, ASK Funding, that has invested tens of millions in divorce cases there.

While this business is in its infancy, Balance Point is part of a bigger trend — the growing industry that invests in other people’s lawsuits, arming plaintiffs with money to help them win more money from defendants. Banks, hedge funds and boutique firms like Balance Point now have a total of $1 billion invested in lawsuits at any given time, industry participants estimate.

Lawsuit lenders initially focused on personal injury cases, but over time they have sought new frontiers, including securities fraud cases brought by disgruntled investors, whistleblower claims against corporations and property development disputes.

Stacey Napp, a lawyer by training who has spent her career in finance, founded Balance Point last year with money from her own divorce. Since then, she has provided more than $2 million to 10 women seeking divorces. She says she is helping to ensure both sides can defend their interests.

“Everybody knows somebody where at the end of the day, the divorce was not equitable,” she said. “We want to help those people, the underdog, to make sure they get their fair share.”

Divorce cases may be a promising niche for lenders because costs can mount quickly — some top lawyers in Los Angeles charge more than $500 an hour — and because state laws uniformly require plaintiffs to pay lawyers upfront, rather than promising them a contingency fee, or a share of any winnings, as is common in other civil cases.

The state laws were written to make people think twice before pursuing a divorce. But Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, a New Jersey lawyer who serves as a vice president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, which sets ethical standards for divorce lawyers, said she welcomed the use of divorce financing as a workaround because, in her view, society also has an interest in helping people who are determined to separate.

“It furthers the concept of putting both spouses on an equal playing field,” she said.
Ms. Napp developed the idea for Balance Point during an eight-year legal battle with her former husband, which she paid for with loans from family and friends. She filed to divorce David Napp in 2001 after 13 years of marriage. Mr. Napp, an investor in mobile home parks, agreed to pay $500,000 and allow her to keep the family home. But shortly after the deal was finalized, Ms. Napp was stunned to discover that Mr. Napp was about to sell his stake in the parks for $5.7 million. She asked the court to reopen the settlement, setting off a legal dispute that lasted until the spring of 2008, when an Arizona judge ruled in her favor.

“Somewhere along the way a light bulb went off,” Ms. Napp recalled. “I said, ‘I’m kind of a perfect storm. I know how to find assets, I understand litigation, I have resources — what happens to people who are missing even one of those elements?’ ”


She decided to seed a business with some of the money she had won in Los Angeles, the city of fleeting marriages. Balance Point has since raised additional money from private investors. Ms. Napp said she expected the first case to be resolved later this fall, providing her first profit.

Her customers fall into a pattern. They are women. They generally do not have jobs. They often are raising small children. And their husbands run their own businesses, making it tough to obtain financial information.
A stay-at-home mother with three children spent 16 months trying to compel her husband to produce current financial statements for his solo law practice. She was running out of money when Balance Point agreed in August to provide financing.

A woman who signed up in January has used the backing to build a case that she is entitled to share the value of 17 properties her husband put in a trust for the benefit of his children from a previous marriage. Both women declined to be identified.

Then there is Ms. Pont, who is battling her estranged husband, Jeffery D. Pont, over the value of their trucking company. The couple met in 1990. The next year, he bought his first truck with Ms. Pont’s tax refund of $2,300, she said. He started a small business carrying ink and printing supplies. Mr. Pont and his lawyer did not return calls for comment. By 1996, the couple had married and the company had rented an 1,100-square-foot warehouse. Ms. Pont said she answered the phones while nursing their first child.
By the late 1990s, there was enough money flowing in for Ms. Pont to stay home with the child. And the company has continued to prosper. The main warehouse is now 150,000 square feet.

But she moved out in the spring of 2009 and filed for divorce. The estranged couple has since spent several hundred thousand dollars on lawyers, accountants and investigators. The judge overseeing the case has warned that the total could exceed $1 million if the two sides cannot reach a compromise.

Ms. Pont said the money from Balance Point would allow her to sustain the case for as long as necessary. Balance Point does not charge interest; instead, clients pay the company a percentage of their winnings.
Lawyers who finance other civil cases generally keep at least a third of the winnings. Ms. Napp said Balance Point required a “substantially smaller” share from clients, though she declined to be more specific.

The company wants to focus on people with marital assets between $2 million and $15 million, a bracket Ms. Napp described as “the lower end of the high end.” She said that investing in smaller disputes was not worthwhile. Wealthier people, she said, seemed to resolve divorces more easily — perhaps because they still felt wealthy in the aftermath. “Anything south of $15 million, when you divide that in half and take out the legal fees, you’re not in the same house, you’re not taking the same trips — your life is different,” she said. “You can’t maintain that same quality of life that you’re used to.”

Ms. Napp says she urges clients to set aside emotions and negotiate a settlement. Indeed, she says she will not take clients who seem unwilling to compromise, fearing that their pursuit of justice will undermine Balance Point’s pursuit of profit. She cannot compel clients to settle.

But Ms. Napp concedes that clients are attracted to Balance Point in part because she did not settle her own case. Most lawsuit lenders avoid any role in the management of cases, seeking to disarm critics who worry that lenders seeking profits will corrupt the pursuit of justice. Ms. Napp, by contrast, sells the benefit of her own experience.

Ms. Napp said that as she decided to create Balance Point, she realized that she could not settle her own case. “I had to win,” she said. “Because I don’t know that, if you don’t have a happy ending, that people are going to think it’s such a fantastic idea.”

Source: NYTimes

RECOMMENDATIONS Third Monitoring & Evaluation Report 2009 on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

The M&E of the implementation of the PWDVA has reached another milestone in its third year. With the experience of having undertaken a nationwide evaluation of data with a primary emphasis on adequacy of infrastructure in the previous two years, the focus this year has shifted to a comprehensive assembling and analysis of the KAP of key stakeholders. Hence, in addition to finding continuing evidence of the need for effective and adequate infrastructure, the data analysed this year also points to the need to review certain aspects of the substantive and procedural law. Specific suggestions with regard to effective capacity-building of implementing agencies, towards ensuring adequate infrastructure, and creating a system of accountability for all the stakeholders have also been put forth.

Although a definitive conclusion as to the nature of amendments required in the PWDVA cannot be made at this nascent stage, recommendations highlighting the areas that require in-depth evaluation in the coming years have been provided in this chapter. In the next two years, LCWRI and ICRW seek to track these issues through data collection and analysis in order to suggest specific amendments to the PWDVA. The recommendations in this chapter have been provided with the understanding that the Law in order to be effective, ought to be responsive to the needs of its users and practices of the stakeholders.

Definitions and Coverage

Definitions

(1) There is a clear gap in the understanding of domestic violence as defined by the Law. While most stakeholders recognise emotional and verbal abuse as forms of violence under the Law, physical violence, which is visible in nature, appears to takes precedence over other forms. Sexual violence within marriage is clearly not recognized as a form of violence. This selective interpretation of domestic violence will and does influence the subsequent implementation of the Law by various stakeholders.

Trainings with stakeholders should be undertaken to clarify that domestic violence can take various forms and is not restricted to physical violence alone. The trainings must focus on sexual, emotional and verbal abuse as key components of the definition of domestic violence and undertake an in depth examination of these aspects so that women facing sexual, emotional or verbal violence receive as much attention from stakeholders as women facing physical domestic violence.

(2) Analysis of orders indicates that a combination of various forms of abuse are experienced and reported by the AP. This is consistent with our experience with Third Monitoring & Evaluation Report 2009 women who say that they face multiple forms of domestic violence, and is reiterated by the POs who say that domestic violence co-occurs1. The most common forms of abuse seem to be economic and physical (either singly or in combination with others). The predominant form of economic abuse reported is dispossession or the threat of dispossession of the AP from the shared household and refusal to provide maintenance.

This trend strengthens the case for equitable distribution of matrimonial property and underscores the continuing relevance of the issue of dowry and the need to strengthen the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(3) The right to reside remains an area of major concern for women. There is much confusion amongst the implementing agencies as to the scope of the definition of right to reside. Many POs and Police officials were unable to distinguish between the right to reside and the right to share in the property. Many felt that the Act gives the AP a right of ownership over property, which it does not. The right to reside is most affected by the Supreme Court judgment in Batra v Batra. The analysis of orders show that this judgment has been used to deny Residence Orders to married women and widows by providing the reasoning that since the premises belong to the mother-in-law and fatherin- law, and not the husband the home is not a shared household. However, what is encouraging is that in both Delhi and Maharashtra, the courts have distinguished the facts of the cases before them from that of Batra. They have upheld the AP’s right to reside, on the ground that in Batra v Batra, the husband’s claim to have left the house of his parents was false and done with the intention of denying the right of the wife.

There appears to be a clear need to further explain the scope of “shared household”under the Act and the right to reside as providing a right of residence, irrespective of ownership, title, or interest in the premises

Coverage: Aggrieved Person and Respondent

(4) As recorded in the previous M&E Reports, married women continue to remain the primary users of the PWDVA followed by widows. While the information gathered from order analysis shows that applications by daughters were limited, mothers have used the Law in a number of instances. However, by and large there appears to be a perception that the Act is predominantly a matrimonial law. A fair level of misunderstanding exists with regard to key concepts such as the definition of AP2 and of Respondent3. In the case of the AP, it arises mainly in the case of a mother-in-law wanting to fi le a complaint against her daughter-in-law. With regard to the Respondent, there seems to be general clarity that it is ‘any adult male person;’ the husband is shown to be the sole Respondent in a majority of orders examined. However, the confusion arises with regard to female relatives of the ‘adult male’ and is prevalent amongst the Judiciary as well.

Whilst trainings and awareness creation can help reduce the confusion with regard to these definitions, there still remains a need to revisit these definitions in the PWDVA. Perhaps a clarification is needed, that, female relatives of the husband/male partner come within the purview of the Act

Practices and Procedures

Pre-Litigation

(5) Counselling at the pre-litigation and litigation stage of proceedings have completely different objectives and requirements, which are rarely understood by all the relevant stakeholders. At the pre-litigation stage, counselling should be provided to the AP to restore her self-esteem, provide emotional support and assist her in making an informed decision as to whether she wants to initiate legal proceedings. As far as the Respondent is concerned, the focus should be on helping them acknowledge their past acts of violence and counsel them to stop further violence. The objective of court directed counselling at the litigation stage is mainly to prevent violence, and where the woman so desires, attempt settlement. It is difficult to gauge who is providing counselling services at the pre-litigation stage. However, findings have made it clear that women need pre-litigation counselling in  addition to pre-litigation advice as provided under Section 5 of the Act. The courts appear to continue to rely heavily on counselling and mediation. However, the concern here remains whether the courts are able to distinguish between counselling, mediation and settlement.

Therefore, there is a need to understand counselling as mandated by the Law and its intent, in order to counter practices that might work against that intent. Findings clearly indicate that the meaning and objective of counselling under the Law, by whom and at what stage, need further elaboration. Hence, counselling needs to be defi ned and its objective at both the pre-litigation and litigation stages needs to be clarifi ed through appropriate amendments to the provisions on counselling under the Act and Rules.

(6) The objective and purpose of the DIR, of serving as a documentary record/evidence of violence and simplifying the procedural requirements in accessing courts, has not translated into practice. Findings have indicated that POs neither fi ll out a DIR each time a woman approach them, nor do they maintain any other record of the woman’s complaint or visit. This could have negative implications in case the woman decides to fi le a case in court at a later stage as no record of the history of violence would be available. Better understanding with regard to the purpose of the DIR is required. Perhaps practice directions from relevant High Courts clarifying this issue would help achieve uniform interpretation and usage.

Litigation

(7) Findings from order analysis in Delhi lend credence to the fact that in the absence of a DIR to accompany the application fi led before the court, it is the woman whose interest gets compromised. In practice, the courts appear to interpret the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act to mean that a DIR needs to be recorded by the PO or that they must necessarily consider the information contained in the DIR before passing any order under the Act. This problematic interpretation by the courts may therefore make a difference between availability of speedy reliefs and delays in proceedings. One of the most disturbing observations has been the lack of information/limited reference made to the role played by POs in the process of litigation.This finding needs to be tracked and verified in the coming years to develop a better understanding about the role of POs within the litigation process.

(8) In most states, the practice of POs seeking assistance from Police in the discharge of specific functions under the PWDVA is gradually emerging. However, usually, it is  only upon court direction that such assistance is provided. This can be attributed to the common misconception amongst the Police that as the PWDVA is a civil law; they have a limited or no role to play in its implementation. Therefore, clarity on the role of the Police in the implementation of the PWDVA, perhaps by way of trainings or directives is essential to ensure consistency in the nature of assistance provided by them. Both the Police Department and the Judiciary are ideally placed to provide such directions.

(9) As in the previous M&E Reports, reliefs that are most commonly sought and granted are Maintenance Orders, Protection Orders and Residence Orders, with Maintenance Orders being the most commonly granted, followed by Protections Orders and then Residence Orders. The relief of maintenance sought is primarily on refusal to maintain the wife and children as well as desertion or dispossession from the shared household. The number of ex-parte/ad-interim orders being granted is extremely low. This is a negative trend as it defeats the purpose of granting immediate relief to the woman facing domestic violence and extricating her from a violent environment. Hence, it is strongly recommended that the courts do not hesitate to grant ex-parte or ad-interim orders where there is a prima facie case and where the denial can, and often does, lead to imminent harm or danger. Interim orders are being granted in Delhi and Maharashtra and Maintenance Orders are the most frequently provided interim relief. However, more emphasis needs to be placed on the significance of immediately granting interim orders. They should be granted as a matter of routine whenever the AP can prove a prima facie case in her favour, without going into technicalities of procedure. 

(10) The PWDVA vests the Judiciary with discretionary powers with regard to procedure to be followed when dealing with domestic violence cases. This was done

with the intention of allowing the Judiciary space for creative interpretation and initiative. However, in certain instances, it appears that this discretionary power is resulting in a lack of uniformity in procedures being followed. Therefore, it may be recommended that there is a need for guidance with regard to procedures. In the absence of amendments to the Act, this could be provided by High Courts in order to address the confusion or delays but at the same time, care must be taken to ensure that the directions provided do not defeat the intention and object of the Law.

(11) By and large, the procedure being adopted by the court is that at the interim stage, decisions are based on affidavits in Form III while at the final stage, Section 125 CrPC procedure is followed. A unique but disturbing trend of a large number of compromises or settlements has emerged9 in Gujarat. Although it was not possible to determine the reasons for this trend, perhaps in many of these cases compromises are imposed on women in the name of maintaining family, which in the process expose her to continued and/or even greater violence. In view of the fact that a similar finding emerged in case of Himachal Pradesh in the Second M&E Report, it is essential to undertake a detailed analysis of this development in states where such high rates of settlement and compromise have been observed over a period of time, to understand the factors that encourage such high rates of settlements. 

(12) Order analysis has revealed a trend where a majority of appeals are being preferred at the interim stage of the proceedings as opposed to being made against final orders. This is of concern as the execution of the interim order passed gets stalled during the appeal proceedings. Thus this practice should not be allowed and encouraged as it defeats the purpose of providing immediate reliefs to the woman in order to extricate her from the violent environment. It is recommended that the Act should be amended to the effect that appeals are disallowed at the interim stage in domestic violence cases and are disposed of within a stipulated time frame so as to prevent prolonged proceedings that defeat the very purpose of immediate reliefs mandated under the Act.

Post-Litigation

(13) Filing complaints for breach under Section 31 the PWDVA remains the predominant method of enforcement of orders. However, one of the problematic aspects that require the immediate attention of the higher Judiciary as well as policy makers is that, in a majority of cases, no direction for enforcement/compliance of orders is included in the orders themselves. This acts as a barrier for the woman who must approach the court separately for such a direction. It is recommended that a direction for enforcement be contained in the order and in addition the courts direct the Police to assist the POs in the enforcement of the order should the need arise. Further, a mechanism, to track orders passed by courts and their subsequent execution, needs to be set up.

(14) Findings10 indicated that the court is failing to provide updates to the Pos regarding the proceedings of the case and copies of orders from the court are also not being forwarded to them. This acts as a barrier in the implementation of the PWDVA, as POs are expected to enforce orders.

Infrastructure

(15) There has been a gradual increase in the appointment of independent POs on a full-time basis over the past 3 years. Whilst it is desirable that a cadre of independent, full-time POs with the requisite qualifications and gendered perspective be appointed, they would not be effective without adequate infrastructure and budget such as allowance for transport, mobile phone, private office space, and official letterheads and so on. Thus, what is needed is not merely infrastructural aid but institutional status as well. There is a need to review and perhaps ensure some uniformity in the qualifications of POs, particularly in view of the need to appoint a full-time cadre of POs to effectively implement the Law. However, a defi nitive conclusion as to what the qualification and role of the PO ought to be can only be arrived at following a separate study which includes comprehensive data collection and analysis of practices in this regard across the states. Regular and systematic assessments and reviews should be undertaken by states with regard to the type of support being given to POs. This will facilitate an assessment of whether or not suffi cient support is being given to the POs to enable them to perform the role that is envisioned under the Law. If it is the case that support is lacking, then this can be looked into and rectifi ed. If it is the case that despite the support being given, the PO is still unable to perform his/her duty,then the state can consider what other types of support should and could be made available to the PO .

(16) Ambiguity surrounds the issue of who is to serve notice, the limitations faced by POs when they are required to do so, and the resultant difficulties faced by women litigants. Hence, there is a clear need to address this issue and provide the requisite personnel/assistance to POs or in the alternative, designate the Police/court process servers to undertake this responsibility. The High Courts of Delhi and Andhra Pradesh have set a good example by bringing clarity and consistency through their practice directions.

(17) The collation of national infrastructure data highlighted the fact that three years after the coming into force of the Act, nodal departments of most states were still unable to provide detailed information about the role of SPs, Shelter Homes and Medical Facilities as it is still not clearly visible. Hence, there is a need for coordination between stakeholders and the adoption of a uniform practice of reporting to nodal departments regarding their structure and functioning, as discussed further in the Monitoring and Accountability section below.

Budgetary Allocations

(18) To date, it has been reported that 17 states have made budgetary allocations for the implementation of the PWDVA. However, there is no systematic basis for making these allocations, and much is left to the discretion of the individual states. There is a definite need to increase budget for support and for allocation of funds to implement the Act. It is suggested that a scheme should be formulated to ensure a regular annual flow of a specified amount every year with ongoing financial monitoring.

Awareness Creation and Capacity Building

 

(19) The findings of this Report highlight the fact that knowledge of the Law and attitudes of the stakeholders hold equal importance as an imbalance of either can hinder or frustrate the objective of the Law. Further, it is clear that there are gaps in the understanding of the PWDVA and its coverage amongst Police, POs and Judiciary which need to be addressed. Trainings undertaken by LCWRI have demonstrated that there is a significant level of positive change that can be achieved even through limited (in terms of length and exposure) interventions, if there is comprehensive coverage of the Law and a gendered approach is adopted. This leads to the assumption that for all stakeholders to be covered and for the impact to be sustained, there is a critical need for systematic and more intensive trainings. In order to achieve this, trainings must be institutionalised and the primary responsibility must vest with nodal departments and training academies. As a first step, states should undertake systematic orientation training on the PWDVA, thereby having a trained and sensitised body of implementers of the Law from the outset. This should particularly be ensured every time a cadre of POs, new batches of Police Officers and Judges are inducted into their respective services. This ought to be followed up with special refresher programmes for in-service officers. Professionals and persons with expertise in the area of gender and domestic violence should be invited to conduct these training programmes. In fact, the training interventions conducted with the Judiciary, made it clear that Judges respond well to professional experts such as medical professionals, Lawyers etc. At the same time, a specific component of gender sensitisation with a specialist exploring the attitudes of the Judges is crucial.

(20) The LCWRI model of capacity building or Training Interventions to bridge gaps and ensure effective implementation of the Law works effectively, as indicated by our findings. It is recommended and hoped that the participants trained will take on the responsibility of further training and sharing information and knowledge gained with their colleagues and juniors. However, this is an aspect that would require some time and tracking in the years to come.

(21) There are gaps in awareness and knowledge amongst the POs on specific  procedures to be followed in general and with regard to the fi lling of DIRs, serving of notice and reporting of breach in particular. With regard to the Police, findings are clearly indicative of gendered perceptions. As the Police are often the first to be approached by women facing domestic violence, these gendered perceptions, if not addressed through appropriate training and sensitisation workshops can be impending barriers to women accessing the law. Hence, training programmes with the POs, Police and other relevant stakeholders need to be conducted to address this issue in a comprehensive manner.

Monitoring and Accountability

(22) The existence of varied practices and lack of adequate infrastructure, budget and trainings across the states reiterates the need to institutionalise the M&E of the implementation of the PWDVA. The State needs to adopt a comprehensive system for the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the Law on an annual basis as recommended in the First and Second M&E Reports.

(23) To date, there is no system of mandatory reporting to the nodal department by all stakeholders. In fact, the information provided by the nodal departments show that it is only the POs who report to them. Therefore, over a period of time, a misconceived assumption has developed; that it is mainly the PO who is responsible for the implementation of the PWDVA and that other stakeholders do not have much of a role to play. Hence, there is an urgent need to ensure accountability through developing a robust system of mandatory reporting on specific indicators15 for all stakeholders, including the Judiciary. As the Judiciary follows a distinct reporting structure, it is recommended that there is regular sharing of information regarding the PWDVA between the higher Judiciary and the nodal departments.

(24) Currently, performance in cases fi led under the PWDVA does not form a part of the criteria against which the Judiciary is evaluated. Provision of information as to the exact nature of the cases is left to the discretion of the individual Judge. The issue of domestic violence should be given the priority and focus it deserves. Therefore, it is recommended that cases fi led under the PWDVA should be included as part of the duty performance system of the Judiciary. A similar approach can also be followed in case of POs, with the development of an incentive-based performance and appraisal system to facilitate accountability and better implementation of the Law.

(25) A major obstacle in the identification of the total number of cases fi led before the courts under the PWDVA, arises due to the existing system of registering and labeling cases. In some courts it is a miscellaneous application, while in some, it is registered as a criminal case or a domestic violence case. Uniformity in the description and registration of the cases under the PWDVA in the Court Registry is a much needed requirement.The First M&E Report identified three models of implementation of the PWDVA. This year’s M&E Report has not been able to track the existence of these models, across all states due to the specifi c focus on a few states. However, these models continue to exist in the 3 states studied this year, Andhra Pradesh (Public Model), Rajasthan (Private Model) and Delhi (Mixed Model). Tracking these models continue to remain relevant in the years to come.

PWDVA – PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT

LCWRI- LAWYERS COLLECTIVE WOMENS RIGHTS INITIATIVE

PO – PROTECTION OFFICERS

FOR THE REPORT PLS DOWNLOAD

http://www.unifem.org.in/PDF/Staying%20Alive%20Third%20M&E%20Report%202009%20%28final%29.pdf

Divorce, the Death of a Marriage. How Do You Find Closure?

Having a Funeral for a Divorce

Unfortunately many of us have experienced divorce. It is probably one of the most painful things that one can go through. When someone dies and anyone who is married will someday experience either leaving someone behind

 if they stay married, or they will be left widowed. Neither prospect is a thrilling thought.

I have experienced divorce from my first husband of fifteen years. I have been remarried for twenty-one years and it is a good marriage. My first marriage the last three or four years were really bad. We were way too young when we married, and we neither had good examples of what marriage is all about. In fact we had horrible examples of what marriage is. We were going to be different. We were going to have a happy healthy marriage. That is really hard to do if you never learned how. We both drank and when I quit my ex-husband didn't. He became abusive and terrifying. We had three kids together and they were going through hell too.

If I had it to do over again I would have handled it differently. Unfortunately we don't get a second chance. I did know that if I left him he would stalk me. I also didn't have as much control over the damage that my kids would go through. Back then there wasn't that much protection for women and children. It wasn't until the Lisa Bianco incident where her husband came out of jail without her knowing about it, and he bludgeoned her to death, that the laws began to change. I knew that he would also have visitation rights and he would have them on weekends. I shuddered to think about what they would go through. The court said that I had to let him have visitation unless they refused. They loved their dad and as children of alcoholics they had a loyalty to him that overshadowed their own safety.

When I would call the police when he would come over to the house, after he left me, they wouldn't come over until after the damage was done. They were pretty much useless. When I said I wanted to press charges the

 policeman said I would have to go to a neighboring town to press charges. This meant leaving work, and going way out of my way, losing money from work. I did this and when I filed my complaint they informed me that he would be warned not to do it again. Nothing happened to him except he got a warning. He broke in my bathroom and backhanded me, and knocked the telephone out of my hand. He roared around inside my house and I had to leave with my terrified little girl. My sons felt guilty because they let him in the house and didn't call the cops when he refused to leave.

When he moved in with his girlfriend, her kids and our kids were exposed to things that no one should have to be exposed to. She committed suicide later after beatings, intimidation and hopelessness. She was only in her late twenties.

I am getting off of track. I have talked to others who have experienced both divorce and death of a spouse. I told this lady that I hadn't experienced the loss of a husband not through death but through divorce. So I couldn't tell her that I knew what she was going through. She informed me that death was easier. Why?

Think about this. When a spouse dies there is dignity. Usually, I am not saying this is always the case. But in general when a spouse dies, there is closure. There is a funeral, and people are sympathetic. People are offering condolences. You have support the death is through no fault of your own.

When you go through a divorce, there is a sense of failure, even if it was not your fault. It is the death of a dream. There are all the messy situations afterward. The heartbreak of seeing them with someone else. I remember the first time my ex pulled in the driveway with his girlfriend. She was sitting all cozy next to him. The kids felt guilty and sad, and were trying to protect me from the pain. It wasn't their place but they still felt bad and were trying to deal with their own pain and sadness. I felt like my heart was going to break. I literally felt raw with pain.

You have to see them and it is like a vital organ has been torn from your body. In the Bible there is a verse that says that when a man and woman marry they become as one flesh. I know what they mean after experiencing divorce.

This is just a brief synopsis of what happened and how divorce affected me. I know that not all divorces are that dramatic. I know some are worse. What I am suggesting is that if you go through a divorce or if you are close to someone who is hurting from one, that there are things that you can do to help with closure. Of course you want people who are sympathetic with you and not blaming you for it. Even if you are to blame you need support.

I think it would be good to have a gathering. I wouldn't want to call it a party. Something where you have some family and friends, hopefully someone close to you would do it for you. It would be similar to a funeral or

 a wake. You could have pictures of you and your spouse and even the children if you feel it is appropriate. Talk about your feelings and maybe even bury a photo of the two of you together. I don't suggest getting rid of all your mementos. That is a part of your life, and hopefully you will be able in the future to look back on some of the good times. You just need something symbolic to help you through the grief process.

I never did this, but I look back and think that it would have been a great healing ritual for me to have something like this. People often avoid you because they don't know what to say to you. This would give all a chance to heal. I know having had friends who divorced it was very difficult because I grieved over the loss of them as a couple too. It is especially difficult if one seems to be gleefully enthused about the divorce and has moved on to greener pastures at least in their own minds. The other one may still be inconsolable with grief and you feel anger toward the one who is insensitive to the others pain.

I am interested in what you think about this idea. If you think it is stupid please tell me. If you have found ways that have worked for you please share them. I think that it would help many people who have or are experiencing this very devastating loss.

4 in 10 1st marriages end in divorce: report (Canada)

Oct, 4, 2010

The Ottawa-based Vanier Institute has published a study on Canadian families based on the 2006 census.

The traditional definition of family is changing in Canada, with four in 10 first marriages ending in divorce, according to a new study.
For the first time in Canadian history, there are more unmarried people than legally married people age 15 and over in this country, says the study from the Vanier Institute of the Family released Monday in Ottawa.
It was based on data from the 2006 census, and some of the information has been reported in the years since.

P.O.V.:

Do you think marriage is still important in modern society? Take our survey.

"Marriage is still a vitally important part of the experience of families in the fabric of our country and most young people do aspire to marriage," said Clarence Lochhead, executive director of the Vanier Institute, adding that even people who have divorced or separated will end up partnering up again.
"We just have to come to grips with the diversity that actually is within our experience. Then we need to find ways to address and take on the challenges that face families, but do it in an inclusive way that makes sense for the reality and not some ideal notion of what a family is or ought to be."
According to Statistics Canada, about 38 per cent of all marriages taking place in 2004 will have ended in divorce by 2035. The total divorce rate was down slightly from its peak of about 41 per cent in the mid 1980s, but slightly higher than the rate of about 37 per cent recorded in the mid 1990s.
Newfoundland and Labrador had the lowest rate of divorce at 21.6 per cent — while Quebec had the highest at 48.4 per cent.

Top 8 reasons people marry

1. Feeling that marriage signifies commitment
2. Moral values
3. Belief that children should have married parents
4. It is the natural thing to do
5. Financial security
6. Religious beliefs
7. Pressure from family
8. Pressure from friends

Top 5 reasons couples separate or divorce

1. Different values and interests
2. Abuse — physical and emotional
3. Alcohol and drugs
4. Infidelity
5. Career-related conflict

Source: Vanier Institute of the Family

The highest proportion of married people was in Newfoundland and Labrador where 54.3 per cent were married, while Quebec had the lowest proportion of married couples with only 37.5 per cent of adults falling in this category.
For the first time in Canada, there were more couples without children than with children, and this was true throughout the country, with families with children representing a minority of families in all provinces and territories.
For married families with children, 18.6 per cent of children live with only one parent. Common-law families are growing faster than any other type of family with one in 10 Canadians living in such relationships and 14.6 per cent of children living with common-law parents.
The 2006 census was the first to report on same-sex marriages and 16.5 per cent of same-sex couples now marry.
The recent economic downturn has proven to be a stressor for families. The higher cost of living means most families now require two income earners to achieve an average standard of living.
More families are also struggling with debt and poverty. Men are also working longer hours and spending less time with their families.

Women's Rights Ignored by Latin American Courts

 Some interesting articles from South America. Women should go to India where Divorce is under Criminal Law and your entire family can end up in Prison on a False complaint. 
South America is one extreme, and India is on another. There should be a middle ground everywhere.

November 30, 2001

Though international treaties on women's rights are recognized in Latin America and laws are on the books, courts in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru don't always uphold them. Chile is the worst; Colombia better, a new study says.


BOGOTA, Colombia (WOMENSENEWS)--One court in Chile ruled that a female soccer referee couldn't continue working because her job was too dangerous. Another tribunal in Mexico made it logistically impossible for a raped womanto obtain an abortion. Another in Peru refused to grant a woman a divorce on the grounds of abandonment, even though her husband had left her 10 years earlier.

Judicial decisions of high courts in five countries of Latin America in the last decade show that macho attitudes continue to permeate jurisprudence, even as governments in the region have adopted progressive legislation, saysa recently published study.

The research, conducted by law faculties and nongovernmental organizations in Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico and coordinated by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, compared judicial decisions concerning women's rights from 1989 to 1998 and cited the most important decisions of 1999 and 2001.

"The most conservative country is Chile and in Mexico, the conception of men's honor influences the decisions of sexual freedom of a woman. The most liberal country is Colombia, Argentina has mixed results and the courts in Peru are weak after the authoritarian government of (former President Alberto) Fujimori," said Luisa Cabal, coordinator in Latin America and the Caribbean for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
Researchers on the five countries, meeting in Bogota in mid-November for the launch of the study published in the book "Body and Law," said they were encouraged that these countries have adopted legislation to protect the reproductive and sexual rights of women. These countries are home to 65 percent of the Spanish-speaking population of the region.

In the 1990s three international conventions recognized the rights of women to control their sexuality and reproduction. These were the conventions in Vienna on human rights in 1993, in Cairo on population and development in 1994 and in Beijing on women in 1995. The Rome Statute of 1998 on the International Criminal Court referred to rape as a crime against humanity.

Study: Laws on the Books Not Always Applied

Most of these international instruments have been adopted by Latin American countries, but the region's judiciary has too many times ignored the underlying principles, the lawyers said.

This comparative study, the first ever to focus on judicial decisions as well as legislation, showed that even if the laws are on the books, they are not always and consistently applied.Lidia Casas, one of the authors of the study and professor of law at Universidad Diego Portales of Chile, said that her country's judges need to be educated on women's rights issues and the laws on the books need to be updated and amended.

Chile, she said, remains the only country in the region that doesn't permit divorce. Nor does it have statutes prohibiting sexual harassment.

Pregnant woman in Chile are still occasionally expelled from school and college because, as Casas explained, the relevant legislation contains no effective sanctions for violating women's rights.

She also criticized the Chilean laws that give men the legal right to manage some of women's property.In Argentina, the judicial decisions vary between the more progressive decisions in Buenos Aires and the more conservative practices found in the provinces, said Maria Jose Lubertino, president of the Social and PoliticalInstitute of Women and professor of the University of Buenos Aires.Even though all the provinces in Argentina have included laws against family violence and the criminal code was reformed in regard to sexual crimes, violence often goes unpunished, the report said. One of the remaining legal inequities in Argentina--that if a rapist married the woman he attacked, he was not liable for prosecution--was recently modified.

Argentina’s courts also denied the legal existence of a homosexual non-profit organization because they don't consider the organizations healthy for society, the report said. The legal existence of the association eventually was recognized by the executive branch because of political pressure.

Mexico: Courts Discouraged Raped Woman From Getting Legal Abortion

In Mexico, women's rights are seen through the lens of men's honor, as in the case of a low-ranking military officer who lost his job for sleeping with the wife of his superior. The court upheld the firing on grounds the sexual liaison had tainted the senior official's honor.
The report cited a well-known case reflecting conservative attitudes in Mexico where a young woman who was raped and impregnated was pressured by the courts not to have an abortion, though abortion is legal in such cases and she had sought one. The baby was born.

"The court is still the pillar of conservatism, even though the laws havechanged," said Isabel Vericat, founder and coordinator of the ONG Epikeia, an organization whose Greek name means justice with equity.

In Peru the courts have been weakened by the 10-year authoritarian government of self-exiled President Alberto Fujimori, now living in Japan. However, the women's movement is strong and well-organized, said researcher Giulia Tamayo. She is coordinator of the Action and Public Information program of the Spanish section of Amnesty International and professor at the Universidad Catolica del Peru.

The women's movement fought against government-sponsored sterilization programs, which aimed to reduce the birth rate in poor communities. Insome cases, sterilization was done without the woman's consent.
Of all the five countries, Colombia has the best record of courts defending and upholding women's rights, in accordance with the Constitution of 1991 that created the Constitutional Court, said Julieta Lemaitre, professor of Universidad de los Andes.

"Maybe the only important step that is left in the defense of women's rights is the fight against the absolute criminalization of abortion," said Lemaitre.

Abortion is illegal in all Latin American countries except Cuba, Puerto Rico and Guyana.
Cabal, the coordinator of this effort to make the judiciaries more responsive to women, said the battle for women's rights is only beginning.

"If this (these violations of womens' rights) is what we have seen in the high courts that have direct contact with the legislation adopted in theinternational treaties, it's worrying what might be happening in the lower courts with decisions that never reach higher instances," Cabal said.

Philippine legislators file divorce bill despite objections from Catholic Church

May 13, 2005

Manila, Philippines - A bill legalising divorce has once again been filed in the Philippines which is one of only two countries in the world besides Malta that does not have a divorce law.

The country's influential Catholic Church had thwarted all previous attempts, but the women pushing for this latest divorce legislation say prospects of it being accepted are better this time.

Josephine Nueno lived with her husband for 10 years.

Throughout this time, she said there were regular beatings, long absences and numerous infidelities.

When she decided to take her children and leave him, her priest advised against it but Josephine believes it was with God's blessing.

Josephine Nueno said: "I would pray night after night for him to come home. Maybe God responded by making me come to my senses. God answered my prayers by letting my love for my husband wane, so my self-respect could return. So I could love myself instead of him."

It is for many women like Josephine that Liza Maza, a legislator from the Gabriela Women's party, filed the latest bill legalising divorce in the Philippines.

But Ms Maza says there are many people in failed marriages, not just women, that present law doesn't respond to.

Under the Philippines Family Code, only annulment restores a married couple to single status, allowing each to remarry.

But that entails proving in court that a marriage is void to begin with because of a pre-existing condition - physical or psychological - that makes one incapable of performing essential marital obligations.

In other words, marriages that were valid at the start only to break down later technically do not qualify for annulment.

Besides, it's an expensive, complicated process beyond reach for most Filipinos.

Josephine Nueno said: "Even when women are beaten and abused, we can't leave because we can't divorce!"

Congresswoman Maza says she designed her version of the bill to answer many of the traditional arguments to divorce - with enough safeguards to prevent it from becoming a common recourse.

She also points out that other bastions of Catholicism - Spain and Italy - allow divorce but have among the lowest divorce rates in the world.

Liza Maza, Gabiela Party List Representative, House of Representatives, said: "Perhaps these societies have a self-regulating mechanism. And religion is one of them. So if we really are confident of our religiosity, then why should we be afraid of divorce?"

Father Lito Jopson, Archdiocese of Pasig, said: "The Church is not really concerned with opinions or the stand of different countries. The stand of the Church is still against divorce because it is against the law of God."

Ms Maza says that despite the Catholic Church's objections, popular opinion will push the bill through Congress.

Though probably not soon.

Liza Maza said: "We are prepared for a long fight. Gabriela is an organisation that is not known for backing out from struggles."

But a struggle it will no doubt be.

Not just to overcome the Church's influence on the state but to convince more lawmakers that Filipinos want and need to get divorce.

Philippines Divorce

COUPLINGS AND UN-COUPLINGS IN A LAND WITHOUT DIVORCE

It's funny, but in a land with no divorce, Aida has married three times. The first time was when she was 16. It was 1936, and Aida's parents had agreed with Delfin's well-to-do parents to wed their children, especially since Delfin, madly in love, wouldn't have it any other way.

Fast-forward to around the outbreak of the Filipino-Japanese war. Aida and Delfin had a son, Rudy. Delfin had, by then, a habit of frequenting nightclubs and seeking the company of other women. After endless quarrels, Aida and Delfin agreed to divorce as this was allowed under the Japanese occupation.

Upon her lawyer's advice, Aida did not ask for alimony to improve her chances of getting sole custody of their son, which she was eventually granted. She moved to Manila with her baby and allowed Delfin to take him out on weekends. One weekend, Delfin kidnapped the 3-year old Rudy and took him to the province. The next time Aida saw Rudy again was when he was 15, and had gone to Manila in search of her.

Aida, however, already had three other children by Ricky, who she had met through friends and who courted her intently. One night, after a party, he offered to take her home. She agreed. He took her to a motel instead and forced himself on her. It took Andrea, Aida's mother, to get Aida out of that motel room. But Aida became pregnant.

In her mind, and apparently everyone else's around her, to live with Ricky was the next logical step. They had two other children but didn't marry because Ricky could not hold down a steady job and continued to have dalliances with other women. Aida eventually agreed to marriage after she realized that she was denying her three children legitimacy.

Tony -- the lawyer who had assisted Aida in her first divorce -- became Aida's and Ricky's close friend. From the beginning, Tony, who was also married, was in love with Aida and when he saw she had become thoroughly disenchanted with Ricky, he courted her. For the first time in her life, Aida fell in love. They left their spouses, flew to California, and were wed by a judge.

They returned to the Philippines, lived together for 17 years, and had five children. They, however, also had a stormy relationship. Tony continued to see other women, and they eventually separated.

In 1994, after 24 years of separation, Aida and Tony were married by a judge in Manila, with their children as witnesses. Right after a celebratory lunch, Tony and Aida went to their separate homes. They married not because they loved each other, but because their legal spouses had died and they wanted to legitimize their children under Philippine laws.

Aida and Tony are my parents.

Now that the Senate Bill filed by Rodolfo Biazon and its counterpart House Bill filed by Bellaflor Angara Castillo, which push for the legalization of divorce, are being debated in congress, I find it all rather academic. The reality is, with or without a law, a significant number of Filipinos are forging unions, separating and forming new unions. My mother's story is simply a case in point.

According to Evalyn Ursua, former Executive Director of the Women's Legal Bureau, feminist lawyer and advocate of women and children's rights, the separation of couples is so common that many lawyers, in fact, have built their practice and earn lucrative incomes simply from handling cases involving the declaration of nullity of marriages. "People will separate regardless of what the law says," she avers, "when a marriage is over, it is over and no law can make it otherwise."

Atty. Ursua goes on to say that we, in fact, have a de facto divorce law in Article 36 of the Family Code. This provision states that a marriage can be voided if one of the contracting parties is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations, even if this incapacity surfaces only after the marriage is contracted. The Supreme Court has come up with guidelines on the interpretation of Article 36, but the law is subject to abuse because of the broad concept of psychological incapacity.

Atty. Ursua shares that some members of the Philippine Psychiatric Association have, in fact, expressed concern about how the field of psychiatry has been corrupted by the forensic requirements in Article 36 cases. According to her, the concept of psychological incapacity, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, doesn't exist in psychiatry, but psychiatrists are made to, and do use it, to nullify marriages. Little wonder then that some psychiatrists refer to Article 36 as the cottage industry of their colleagues.

Yet, according to Atty. Ursua, Art.36 has given a lot of people another chance at happiness as it is the only way in the Philippines to legally get out of a marriage. Although not many people can afford to go through Art. 36 proceedings (payment for both a lawyer and the psychiatric evaluation cost quite a sum), it has provided couples, particularly abused women, a remedy.

One basis for divorce as spelled out in the pending House Bill is repeated physical violence directed against the petitioner or the common child -- a relatively common occurrence, according to existing data.

Two organizations working with abused women -- Lihok-Pilipina and Combat-VAW (Violence Against Women) -- estimate that domestic violence affects 6 out of 10 women in the Philippines. A 1994 nationwide survey reports that 10% of interviewees had been physically harmed by someone close to them, while 3% were physically harmed while pregnant.

President Arroyo and Cardinal Sin, however, have strongly called for the rejection of the divorce bills, claiming them to be "un-Filipino, immoral, unconstitutional and a danger to the Filipino family."

The good Cardinal adds, "The strength of the nation is in the family. Destroy the family by a bill like divorce and all other values will come crumbling down ... Divorce will bring more spiritually impoverished children because their spiritually impoverished parents do not like to keep their marital commitments."

Atty. Ursua has a different take. She says, "I believe the harm on children is even worse when two people are at each others' throats, obviously very unhappy, but stick together for the sake of the institution of marriage. I believe they can be better parents if they confront their issues -- especially if these seem to be irreconcilable. But good parenting should not stop with marital separation or divorce. In fact, it can even be enhanced."

On the charge that divorce is un-Filipino, Rep. Castillo has pointed out that divorce has historical precedence and has been practiced by various ancestral tribes in the Philippines such as the Tagbanwas of Palawan, the Gadangs of Nueva Vizcaya, the Sagadas and Igorots of the Cordilleras, the Manobos, Blaans, and Muslims of the Visayas and Mindanao. .

Atty. Ursua also pursues this point and argues, "In a position paper drafted on this issue, we talked about unequal protection before the law. Muslims have divorce under the Muslim Code of Personal Laws but we non-Muslims don't. If the Philippines is a secular, pluralist state, why is it that it recognizes and protects the beliefs of Muslims but imposes a single religious standard on non-Muslims?"

"I think the problem with the Philippine government is that it forgets that we are no longer under the reign of the Pope via the Spanish crown," she continues. "It insists that it remain the guardians of our souls although stated in political terms. The government should leave the moralizing to the church and objectively address the reality of marriages breaking up, of countless Filipinos having families outside of marriages, and all the social issues related to this phenomenon."

Toinette, daughter of my mother, seemed to have imbibed the reality of separation of couples only too well. Growing up in a tight network of families where brothers and sisters have different parents, Toinette decided that, in spite of the fact that she married a good man, marriage for her can only happen in a context where divorce is possible. Thus, she married in the United States.

Toinette and her husband, who have no children, have managed a cross-Atlantic marriage for the last ten years -- he based in the States, she in the Philippines -- with a lot of visits for each of them in between. But they are both proud of their marriage. "I think my marriage is one example that, despite the option of divorce, if two people love each other and are responsible enough to commit, they stay together, " she says.

Aida, who has raised ten children and has outlived all her three husbands, is now 79. A devout Catholic, she has this to say, "Divorce should be allowed in the Philippines because it gives all of us another chance at happiness without sacrificing the legitimacy of our children."

When asked how she reconciles this belief with the contrary stand of the Catholic Church, she says, "I believe that our God is a very understanding and loving one. He wouldn't wish unhappiness on any one of us. If you have been abused, why stay in a marriage?"

Knowing whereof she speaks, how can anyone argue with that?