Download file to see previous pages...
In this paper, the case involving Eric and Cindy epitomizes a case whereby spouses are in total agreement until they decide to divorce. Both parties share responsibilities at their home and prior to their marriage, they had signed a prenuptial agreement. The wife disclosed much of her assets and the husband agreed to share the responsibilities at home. Nonetheless, since they have agreed to file a divorce and their case is an uncontested divorce, it looks simple. However, the challenge is that there is no clarity as to whether they have agreed on property division, child custody, and support issues. Since they have agreed to part ways, one of the spouses hires an attorney to prepare the obligatory paperwork. In this case, the wife will only be required to read and sign both the waiver and the final decree. Ethically, it is not possible to represent two parties in a divorce when there is a conflict of interest. If one attorney tries to represent the husband and the wife, in this case, he or she may face some problems. If the attorney takes a side and informs one party that the deal would make it possible for him or her to gain financially, it might anger one party. If the attorney manipulates any party to decide otherwise, the case is considered unethical. In fact, one attorney cannot represent two parties with conflict of interest. Getting an annulment is out of questions because it is a court order that a marriage never existed. Annulment could only be granted if the spouse was already married to someone else. Annulments are very rare. In this case, there is no such a case whereby the husband is claimed to have been married to someone else. However, the case indicates that the wife had mental issues, but still the issues never avoided her from agreeing to marry. She was not forced to marry, they all agreed. Annulment, in this case, is not appropriate because after realizing that the wife had mental problems, the husband was willing to continue with the married out of love.
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
The author states that the rights and interest of cohabiting couples and their offspring are no less than those enjoyed by married and civil partners however these rights are not found in the family law. The lack or exclusion of cohabitation relationship in the coverage of family laws should not be regarded as discriminatory.
After all “Marriage can be defined as a socially approved union between unrelated parties that give rise to new families” (Hunter, 1991). In particular “Marriage, whether civil or religious, is a contract, formally entered into. It confers on the parties the status of husband and wife, the essence of the contract being an agreement between a man and a woman to live together, and to love one another as husband and wife, to the exclusion of all others” (SH v.
f present or prospective value. Cox v. Cox 7 H. App. 377, 768 P.2d 243. An issue arises when the individual possessing the CPA license is an employee of a firm and not the owner or partner. In that situation the prospective earnings are valued as are any other wages.
Wanda decided to abandon her career and support her husband Henry in building themselves financially through the successful businesses that he has practiced, a fact that he attributes to Wanda for her support especially in working for him at no amount of money in his veterinary practice.
In considering a nuclear family [father, mother and child] in an arrangement through marriage, each member is affected in a unique way by family. When it comes to disputes that arise within such a family, family law helps to settle disputes in a just manner.
unfortunate part of these incidents, are that the perpetrators of these criminal activities have been the partners, accomplices or close associates of these victims. International law or domestic law does not provide sufficient protection for women, by granting effective
the child has completed the age of sixteen as per section 8 which says that it would be considered a trespass to that person if any surgical, medical or dental treatment is given to that person without his consent. This provision has effectively established that parental