A divorce may be granted in Pennsylvania divorce law using either “Fault” or “No-Fault” grounds.
Fault grounds include:
(1) adultery;
(2) bigamy;
(3) imprisonment for two or more years;
(4) confinement for incurable insanity for 18 months;
(5) willful desertion for one year;
(6) cruel and inhuman treatment endangering the life of the spouse;
(7) personal indignities.
No-Fault grounds include:
(1) Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage with the spouses living separate and apart without cohabitation for two years;
(2) irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the spouses have both filed affidavits they consent to the divorce, and 90 days have elapsed from the date of filing. “Separate and apart” means complete cessation of any and all cohabitation, whether living in the same residence or not, according to Pennsylvania divorce law.
Of these, the “No-Fault” grounds are the most straightforward and easiest to prove.
Annulment
In Pennsylvania divorce law, the court declares the marriage contract broken; in an annulment, the court says that there never was a marriage. Annulment is much more difficult to prove — and is much rarer — than divorce. If you want to go this route, you will definitely need to speak to a divorce attorney. Of course, if you want an annulment for religious reasons, you’ll need to consult with your priest, minister, or rabbi as well.
Documentation
You’ll need to provide your divorce lawyer with the following documentation, in order to proceed with your dissolution under Pennsylvania divorce law. Start gathering everything together as soon as possible so that you can find out what might be missing and submit any requests for duplicates.
Personal Data
- Full addresses and phone numbers of both parties.
- Full names, birth dates, and addresses of all children of the marriage, their school and grade.
- Information about any prior marriage of either spouse, including a certified copy of the divorce decree.
- A copy of any domestic contracts (e.g. a prenuptial agreement).
- Information about any previous legal proceedings between the spouses or involving any of the children.
- Dates and particulars about any previous separations, attempts at reconciliation, or marriage counseling.
Financial Data
- Your previous year’s income tax return, and any related data from the IRS.
- Information about your current income, e.g. a current pay slip.
- A list of substantial assets and liabilities of both spouses.
Filed under: Divorce, Pennsylvania Law , Divorce, General Family Law, Pennsylvania divorce
September 14, 2007 • 9:48 pm
PhillyBurbs.com reports that a judge in York County, Pennsylvania has invalidated a marriage performed by a “minister” who was ordained over the internet by the Universal Life Church (the same outfit discussed in a New York Times article to which I linked in a previous post). Pennsylvania law specifies the categories of people authorized to conduct a valid marriage ceremony: mayors, judges, and ministers, priests or rabbis “of a regularly established church or congregation.” The “minister” in question testified that he did not have a congregation with which he met regularly, did not have a place of worship, and was not a member of the Universal Life Church before his ordination. Given those facts, the likelihood that this decision will be overturned on appeal is, in my view, close to nil. Evidently the Universal Life Church is mulling an appeal of the decision. I can understand this – I would assume that the Church does not want to leave the door open to the argument that it is not a church as that term was intended in the Pennsylvania statute. That is an argument, I would say, best left for another day, and about which I express no view one way or the other. My advice – if you want your friend or relative to conduct your marriage ceremony, and he or she is not a mayor, judge or priest minister or rabbi in an acknowledged, mainstream religious denomination, do your due diligence, lest you make a big mistake.
Filed under: General Family Law, Marriage, Pennsylvania Law
The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a Pennsylvania man’s appeal that raised the question of whether grandparents should be required to show that keeping children away from grandparents would be harmful to the children as a condition for granting the grandparents visitation rights. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled, in Fausey v. Hiller that no such showing is required. In denying Shane Fausey’s petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court declined the opportunity to clarify an area of the law that they left fairly muddled the last time they considered the issue in a case that resulted in a badly splintered Court and multiple opinions.
Filed under: Appellate practice, Families, Grandparent visitation, Pennsylvania Law, Visitation
A recent decision from the Pennsylvania Superior Court highlights the fact that disputes over the disposition of a decedent’s remains did not begin and end with Anna Nicole Smith and Howard K. Stern. In Kulp v. Kulp the Superior Court considered whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the division of the cremated remains of the son of a divorcing couple where the couple could not agree as to the disposition, and where the husband objected todivision of the remains. In what I believe was a very well reasoned opinion, the Superior Court found that the trial court did in fact abuse its discretion, and remanded the case to the trial court for a determination with regard to disposition.
Filed under: Divorce, General Family Law, Pennsylvania Law
For those of you in Pennsylvania, I highly recommend Dustin Jones’ blog All Things Pennsylvania Family Law. Dustin regularly posts informative and extremely helpful information on Pennsylvania family law. I highly recommend his blog.
Filed under: Blogs, General Family Law, Pennsylvania Law
February 1, 2007 • 10:02 pm
Dustin Jones recently posted the following helpful discussion concerning the modification of child support obligations on his blog All Things Pennsylvania Family Law:
Here is a factual situation which is not atypical:
Mother pays child support to Father, based upon earnings of $100,000 per year. Mother loses her job, and takes a lower paying job earning $50,000. Then she files a Petition to Modify her Support Order.
What are the considerations in a case like this? A recent Superior Court Opinion, Grigoruk v. Grigoruk, 912 A.2d 311(Pa. Super. 2006), sets forth a concise review of the considerations. The Court’s discussion includes the following queries which must be resolved:
- Under Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d), a party voluntarily accepting a lower paying job is not entitled to a reduction in support. However, if a parent is fired for cause, the court should look to the party’s attempt to mitigate the lost income in deciding if a reduction in support should be allowed.
- The court should look to the factual circumstances to determine if the subsequent job search was sufficient.
- The court should look at the party’s employment immediately prior to the request for modification, and not the highest paying job the parent had 4 years ago.
- A higher earning capacity may be assigned if the court finds that the reduction in income was the result of a parent’s misguided choice.
- A parent may accept a lower paying job where it was the only job offered after a reasonable search.
- A parent does not necessarily have an ongoing duty to mitigate the lost income by conducting an ongoing job search. However, this also would be a determination based upon the facts.
In this case, the Superior Court relied upon several other cases to support its position, or to distinguish its position, including:
Ewing v. Ewing, 843 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Super. 2004)
Novinger v. Smith, 880 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2005)
Woskub v. Woskub, 843 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2004)
Dennis v. Whitney, 844 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 2004)
Baehr v. Baehr, 889 A.2d 1240 (Pa. Super. 2005)
Samii v. Samii, 847 A.2d 691 (Pa. Super. 2004)
Source for post: All Things Pennsylvania Family Law
Filed under: Child Support, Pennsylvania Law
