Dictionary and translator for handheld
New : sensagent is now available on your handheld
A windows (pop-into) of information (full-content of Sensagent) triggered by double-clicking any word on your webpage. Give contextual explanation and translation from your sites !
With a SensagentBox, visitors to your site can access reliable information on over 5 million pages provided by Sensagent.com. Choose the design that fits your site.
Improve your site content
Add new content to your site from Sensagent by XML.
Crawl products or adds
Get XML access to reach the best products.
Index images and define metadata
Get XML access to fix the meaning of your metadata.
Please, email us to describe your idea.
Lettris is a curious tetris-clone game where all the bricks have the same square shape but different content. Each square carries a letter. To make squares disappear and save space for other squares you have to assemble English words (left, right, up, down) from the falling squares.
Boggle gives you 3 minutes to find as many words (3 letters or more) as you can in a grid of 16 letters. You can also try the grid of 16 letters. Letters must be adjacent and longer words score better. See if you can get into the grid Hall of Fame !
Change the target language to find translations.
Tips: browse the semantic fields (see From ideas to words) in two languages to learn more.
1.separate into parts or portions"divide the cake into three equal parts" "The British carved up the Ottoman Empire after World War I"
2.part; cease or break association with"She disassociated herself from the organization when she found out the identity of the president"
3.get a divorce; formally terminate a marriage"The couple divorced after only 6 months"
1.(figurative)the legal dissolution of a marriage
1.(MeSH)Legal dissolution of an officially recognized marriage relationship.
1.force, take, or pull apart"He separated the fighting children" "Moses parted the Red Sea"
DivorceDi*vorce" (?), n. [F. divorce, L. divortium, fr. divortere, divertere, to turn different ways, to separate. See Divert.]
1. (Law) (a) A legal dissolution of the marriage contract by a court or other body having competent authority. This is properly a divorce, and called, technically, divorce a vinculo matrimonii. “from the bond of matrimony.” (b) The separation of a married woman from the bed and board of her husband -- divorce a mensa et toro (or a mensa et thoro), “from bed and board”.
2. The decree or writing by which marriage is dissolved.
3. Separation; disunion of things closely united.
To make divorce of their incorporate league. Shak.
4. That which separates. [Obs.] Shak.
Bill of divorce. See under Bill.
DivorceDi*vorce", v. t. [imp. & p. p. Divorced (?); p. pr. & vb. n. Divorcing.] [Cf. F. divorcer. See Divorce, n.]
1. To dissolve the marriage contract of, either wholly or partially; to separate by divorce.
2. To separate or disunite; to sunder.
It [a word] was divorced from its old sense. Earle.
3. To make away; to put away.
Nothing but death
Shall e'er divorce my dignities. Shak.
A Happy Divorce • A New Cure for Divorce • A Royal Divorce • Child of Divorce • Children of Divorce • Christian Law of Divorce in India • Christian views on divorce • Christianity and divorce • Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes • Courtship, marriage, and divorce in Cambodia • Dard Divorce • Divorce (Insanity and Desertion) Act 1958 • Divorce (United States) • Divorce (conflict of law) • Divorce (conflict of laws) • Divorce (conflict) • Divorce (conflicts of law) • Divorce (conflicts) • Divorce (disambiguation) • Divorce (film) • Divorce Act • Divorce American Style • Divorce Busting • Divorce Court • Divorce His, Divorce Hers • Divorce Italian Style • Divorce Magazine • Divorce Me C.O.D. • Divorce Me, Darling! • Divorce and the Daughter • Divorce bill • Divorce demography • Divorce in Cambodia • Divorce in Montevideo • Divorce in the United States • Divorce mill • Divorce of same-sex couples • Divorce party • Divorce your Car! • Divorce, Italian Style • Divorce-Italian Style • Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce • Electronic Divorce • Gay Divorce • Get (divorce document) • Grounds for Divorce (song) • Grounds for divorce • Haitian Divorce • Hollywood Divorce • How to Break Up a Happy Divorce • I Want a Divorce • Implications of divorce • Infidelity and Divorce • Italian divorce referendum, 1974 • Jewish divorce • Judgement of Martin Bucer Concerning Divorce • Law and divorce around the world • Le Divorce • Mexican divorce • Milton's divorce tracts • My Brilliant Divorce • New York divorce law • No fault divorce • No-fault divorce • Our Worlds Divorce • Praline divorce • Probate and Divorce Court • Quickie (divorce) • Religion and divorce • Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce • The Divorce • The Divorce EP • The Divorce of Lady X • The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce • The Great Divorce • The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 • Tom's Divorce
Couples, Family and Household, Family Characteristics, Family Demography, Family Life Surveys, Family Size, Family Size, Average, Family Size, Completed, Family Size, Desired, Family Size, Expected, Family Size, Ideal, Generations, Head of Household, Households, Matriarchy, One-Person Household, Patriarchy - General Social Development and Population, Sociology[Hyper.]
Divorce (n.) [MeSH]
fait de se déplacer (fr)[Classe]
get a legal separation; divorce; get a divorce; separate[ClasseHyper.]
divorce, get a divorce, get a legal separation, separate[Nominalisation]
divorce (n.) [figurative]
action, motion, move, movement - movement - mover, moving company, public mover, removal company, removal firm - mover - movable, moveable, transferable, transferrable, transportable - movable - disunite, divide, divorce, part, separate - breakup, detachment, separation - partitive, separative - divisible - partitive[Dérivé]
go, go along, locomote, move, travel[Domaine]
get a legal separation; divorce; get a divorce; separate[ClasseHyper.]
divorce (v. tr.)
séparer - grouper (fr)[ClasseOppos.]
que l'on peut diviser (fr)[Classe]
matériel (concret) (fr)[Classe]
bob; cut; trim; carve; cut up[ClasseHyper.]
(splitting; splitting up; division; separation), (part; detach; sever; disconnect; segregate; divorce; dissociate; divide; split; split up; separate; dissever; carve up), (separate; part), (fencing; fence), (splitting; splitting up; division)[Thème]
coudre (opérations diverses) (fr)[DomaineCollocation]
change - separation - construction, structure - systematist, taxonomer, taxonomist - part, percentage, portion, share, slice - cut, intersect - accede to, associate o.s. with, enter, fall in, get together, go in with, join[Hyper.]
carve up, detach, disconnect, dissever, dissociate, divide, divorce, part, segregate, separate, sever, split, split up - divisional - partition, zone - partition, partition off, separate up - divide, separate - divide, fraction - divide, part, separate - divide, separate - carver, cutter - conjugation, jointure, unification, union, uniting[Dérivé]
bob, carve, cut, cut up, trim[Analogie]
divorce (v. tr.)
breakup, dissolution - fission, schism, split - legal separation, separation - breach, break, falling out, rift, rupture, severance - breakup, detachment, separation - separationist, separatist - decouple, disjoin, dissociate, separate - disassociate, disjoint, dissociate, disunite, divorce[Dérivé]
divorce (v. tr.)
se marier (fr)[Classe]
breakup, dissolution - fission, schism, split - legal separation, separation - breach, break, falling out, rift, rupture, severance - breakup, detachment, separation - separationist, separatist - divorce, split up - marriage, marriage ceremony, wedding, wedding celebration, wedding party, wedlock - married[Dérivé]
divorce, get a divorce, get a legal separation, separate[Nominalisation]
divorce (v. tr.)
|Entering into marriage|
|Legal states similar
|Dissolution of marriage|
|Issues affecting children|
|Conflict of laws|
Divorce (or the dissolution of marriage) is the final termination of a marital union, canceling the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage and dissolving the bonds of matrimony between the parties (unlike annulment, which declares the marriage null and void). Divorce laws vary considerably around the world, but in most countries it requires the sanction of a court or other authority in a legal process. The legal process of divorce may also involve issues of alimony (spousal support), child custody, child support, distribution of property, and division of debt. Where monogamy is law, divorce allows each former partner to marry another; where polygyny is legal but polyandry is not, divorce allows the woman to marry another.
Between 1971 and 2011, several countries legalized divorce, the last one being Malta in 2011. The majority Catholic Philippines is the last officially secular country that does not have civil divorce for the whole population; Muslims, however, are granted divorce rights as per their religion. Vatican City, a ecclesiastical sovereign city-state, also has no procedure for divorce.
"Divorcing one's parents" is a term sometimes used to refer to emancipation of minors.
In some Western jurisdictions, divorce (legally referred to as 'dissolution of marriage') does not require a party to assert fault on the part of their partner leading to the breakdown of their marriage. Prior to the onset of 'no-fault' statutes, a party would have to prove a ground, typically 'desertion,' 'abandonment,' 'cruelty,' or 'adultery.' The requirement of proving a ground was revised (and withdrawn) by the terms of 'no-fault' statutes, which became popular in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 'no-fault' jurisdictions, a simple, general allegation of 'irreconcilable differences,' or 'irretrievable break-down' with respect to the marriage relationship, sufficed to establish the end of the marriage.
In jurisdictions adopting the 'no-fault' principle in divorce proceedings, some courts may still take into account the behaviour of the parties when dividing property, debts, evaluating custody, and support—facts that almost always have considerable weight in fault proceedings. This is particularly true in custody cases, where the courts might consider many factors that mirror 'fault' grounds, such as drug abuse, alcoholism, violence, cruelty, instability, neglect, and possibly the preference of an intelligent, mature child.
Despite this, in some countries (or states of the United States), the courts will seldom apply principles of fault, but might willingly hold a party liable for a breach of a fiduciary duty to his or her spouse (for example, see Family Code Sections 720 and 1100 of the California Family Code).
In most jurisdictions, a divorce must be certified (or ordered by a Judge) by a court of law to come into effect. The terms of the divorce are usually determined by the courts, though they may take into account prenuptial agreements or post-nuptial agreements, or simply ratify terms that the spouses may have agreed to privately (this is not true in the United States, where agreements related to the marriage typically have to be rendered in writing to be enforceable). In absence of agreement, a contested divorce may be stressful to the spouses. Contested divorces mean that one of several issues are required to be heard by a judge at trial level—this is more expensive, and the parties will have to pay for a lawyer's time and preparation. Less adversarial approaches to divorce settlements have recently emerged, such as mediation and collaborative divorce settlement, which negotiate mutually acceptable resolution to conflicts. This principle in the United States is called 'Alternative Dispute Resolution' and continues to gain popularity.
In some other countries, when the spouses agree to divorce and to the terms of the divorce, it can be certified by a non-judiciary administrative entity. The effect of a divorce is that both parties are free to marry again.
The subject of divorce as a social phenomenon is an important research topic in sociology. In many developed countries, divorce rates increased markedly during the twentieth century. Among the nations in which divorce has become commonplace are the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, Scandinavia, and the United Kingdom.
Though divorce laws vary among jurisdictions, there are two basic approaches to divorce: fault based and no-fault based. However, even in some jurisdictions that do not require a party to claim fault of their partner, a court may still take into account the behaviour of the parties when dividing property, debts, evaluating custody, and support.
Laws vary as to the waiting period before a divorce is effective. Also, residency requirements vary. However, issues of division of property are typically determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which the property is located.
Under a no-fault divorce system, divorce requires no allegation or proof of fault of either party. The barest of assertions suffice. For example, in countries that require "irretrievable breakdown", the mere assertion that the marriage has broken down will satisfy the judicial officer. In other jurisdictions requiring irreconcilable differences, the mere allegation that the marriage has been destroyed by these differences is enough for granting a divorce. Courts will not inquire into facts. A "yes" is enough, even if the other party vehemently says "no".
The application can be made by either party or by both parties jointly.
Prior to the late 1960s, nearly all countries that permitted divorce also required proof by one party that the other party had committed an act incompatible to the marriage. This was termed "grounds" for divorce (popularly called "fault") and was the only way to terminate a marriage. Most jurisdictions around the world still require such proof of fault. In the United States, no-fault divorce is now available in all 50 states.
Fault-based divorces can be contested; evaluation of offenses may involve allegations of collusion of the parties (working together to get the divorce), or condonation (approving the offense), connivance (tricking someone into committing an offense), or provocation by the other party. Contested fault divorces can be expensive, and not usually practical as eventually most divorces are granted. Comparative rectitude is a doctrine used to determine which spouse is more at fault when both spouses are guilty of breaches.
A summary (or simple) divorce, available in some jurisdictions, is used when spouses meet certain eligibility requirements, or can agree on key issues beforehand.
It is estimated that upwards of 95% of divorces in the U.S. are "uncontested", because the two parties are able to come to an agreement (either with or without lawyers/mediators/collaborative counsel) about the property, children, and support issues. When the parties can agree and present the court with a fair and equitable agreement, approval of the divorce is almost guaranteed. If the two parties cannot come to an agreement, they may ask the court to decide how to split property and deal with the custody of their children. Though this may be necessary, the courts would prefer parties come to an agreement prior to entering court.
Where the issues are not complex and the parties are cooperative, a settlement often can be directly negotiated between them. In the majority of cases, forms are acquired from their respective state websites and a filing fee is paid to the state. Most U.S. states charge between $175 and $350 for a simple divorce filing. Collaborative divorce and mediated divorce are considered uncontested divorces. In the United States, many state court systems are experiencing an increasing proportion of pro se (i.e., litigants represent themselves without a lawyer) in divorce cases. In San Diego, for example, the number of divorce filings involving at least one self-representing litigant rose from 46% in 1992 to 77% in 2000, and in Florida from 66% in 1999 to 73% in 2001. Urban courts in California report that approximately 80% of the new divorce filings are filed pro se.
Collaborative divorce is a method for divorcing couples to come to agreement on divorce issues. In a collaborative divorce, the parties negotiate an agreed resolution with the assistance of attorneys who are trained in the collaborative divorce process and in mediation, and often with the assistance of a neutral financial specialist and/or divorce coach(es). The parties are empowered to make their own decisions based on their own needs and interests, but with complete information and full professional support.
Once the collaborative divorce starts, the lawyers are disqualified from representing the parties in a contested legal proceeding, should the collaborative law process end prematurely. Most attorneys who practice collaborative divorce claim that it can be more cost-effective than other divorce methods, e.g., going to court. Expense, they say, has to be looked at under the headings of financial and emotional. Also, the experience of working collaboratively tends to improve communication between the parties, particularly when collaborative coaches are involved, and the possibility of going back to court post-separation or divorce is minimised. In the course of the collaboration, should the parties not reach any agreements, any documents or information exchanged during the collaborative process cannot be used in court except by agreement between the parties.
Neither can any of the professional team retained in the course of the collaboration be brought to court. Essentially, they have the same protections as in mediation. There are two exceptions: 1) Any affidavit sworn in the course of the collaboration and vouching documentation attaching to same and 2) any interim agreement made and signed off in the course of the collaboration or correspondence relating thereto. The parties are in control of the time they are prepared to give their collaboration. Some people need a lot of time to complete, whereas others will reach solutions in a few meetings. Collaborative practitioners offer a tightly orchestrated model with meetings scheduled in advance every two weeks, and the range of items to be discussed apportioned in advance of signing up as well as the more open ended process, the clients decide.
Divorce mediation is an alternative to traditional divorce litigation. In a divorce mediation session, a mediator facilitates the discussion between the two parties by assisting with communication and providing information and suggestions to help resolve differences. At the end of the mediation process, the separating parties have typically developed a tailored divorce agreement that can be submitted to the court. Mediation sessions can include either party's attorneys, a neutral attorney, or an attorney-mediator who can inform both parties of their legal rights, but does not provide advice to either, or can be conducted with the assistance of a facilitative or transformative mediator without attorneys present at all. Divorce mediators may be attorneys who have experience in divorce cases, or they may be professional mediators who are not attorneys, but who have training specifically in the area of family court matters. Divorce mediation can be significantly less costly, both financially and emotionally, than litigation. The adherence rate to mediated agreements is much higher than that of adherence to court orders.
Polygyny is a significant structural factor governing divorce in countries where this is permitted. Little-to-no analysis has been completed to explicitly explain the link between marital instability and polygyny which leads to divorce. The frequency of divorce rises in polygynous marriages compared to monogamous relationships. Within polygynous unions, differences in conjugal stability are found to occur by wife order. There are 3 main mechanisms through which polygyny affects divorce: economic restraint, sexual satisfaction, and childlessness. Many women escape economic restraint through divorcing their spouses when they are allowed to initiate a divorce.
Some of the effects associated with divorce include academic, behavioral, and psychological problems. Although this may not always be true, studies suggest that children from divorced families are more likely to exhibit such behavioral issues than those from non-divorced families.
Research done at Northern Illinois University on Family and Child Studies suggests that divorce can have a positive affect on families due to less conflict in the home. There are, however, many instances where the parent-child relationship may suffer due to divorce. Financial support is many times lost when an adult goes through a divorce. The adult may be obligated to obtain additional work to maintain financial stability. In turn, this can lead to a negative relationship between the parent and child. The relationship may suffer due to lack of attention towards the child as well as minimal parental supervision
Studies have also shown that parental skills decrease after a divorce occurs; however, this affect is only a temporary change. “A number of researchers have shown that a disequilibrium, including diminished parenting skills, occurs in the year following the divorce but that by two years after the divorce re-stabilization has occurred and parenting skills have improved” 
In a study done by the American Psychological Association on a parents’ relocation after a divorce, found that a move is a long-term affect on children. In the first study done amongst 2,000 college students on the effects of parental relocation relating to the well being if their children after divorce, researchers found major differences. In divorced families where one parent moved, the students received less financial support from their parents compared with divorced families where neither parent moved. These findings also imply other negative outcomes for these students such as more distress related to the divorce and did not feel a sense of emotional support from their parents. Although the data suggests negative outcomes for these students whose parents relocate after divorce, there is not enough research that can alone prove the overall well-being of the child A newer study in the Journal of Family Psychology found that parents who move more than an hour away from their children after a divorce are much less well off than those parents who stayed in the same location
Children who have experienced a divorce frequently have lower academic achievement than children from non-divorced families In a review done on family and school factors related to adolescents’ academic performance, it noted that it is two times more likely for a child from a divorced family to drop out of high school than a child from a non-divorced family. These children from divorced families may also be less likely to attend college, resulting in the discontinuation of their academic career
Many times academic problems are associated with those children from single-parent families. Studies have shown that this issue may be directly related to the economical influence of divorce. A divorce may result in the parent and children moving to an area with a higher poverty rate and a poor education system all due to the financial struggles of a single parent.
Sociologists and psychologists have researched to show that the effects of divorce heavily depend on the child’s age at the time the divorce occurs. The child’s gender, personality, the amount of conflicts with the parents and support of family and friends all contribute to the effects of divorce on a child 
Although infants may not understand the exact conflict, they do react to the difference in their parent’s mood and energy change. Some effects an infant may have include a loss of appetite and an increase in spit up 
Children this age range from 3–5 years old and may often mistake the divorce as their own fault. At this age, children may feel as though they are alone and fear the thought of abandonment. Some of the effects for children at this age may include baby-like behavior such as old toys, a baby blanket, or even wetting the bed. They also may become depressed, uncooperative, or angry
Children at this age have more of a difficult time adjusting to the parental divorce than younger or older children. At this age, children are able to understand the pain they feel due to the separation of their parents’ but are too young to control how they respond to the pain. Many times children experience feelings of anger, grief, and embarrassment. In order to deal with the situation and cope, it is important that children become involved in activities with other kids. It is very common for children this age to hope that parents will eventually get back together
Teens experience some of the same feelings as school-aged children. They feel anger, fear, depression, loneliness, and guilt. Some teens feel as though they must take on new responsibilities such as new chores and taking care of siblings. Teens may also doubt his or her ability to get married or stay married
According to a New York Times article, “More Americans Rejecting Marriage in 50s and Beyond”, in the past 20 years, the divorce rate has increased over 50% amongst the baby boomers. More and more adults are staying single and according to an analysis of census data conducted at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, they say the divorce numbers will continue to rise. The article also states that baby boomers that remain unmarried are five times more likely to live in poverty compared to those who are married. According to the statistics shown in the New York Times article, it will also be three times as hard to receive food stamps, public assistance or disability payments
Sociologists believe that the rise in the number of older Americans who are not married is a result of factors such as longevity and economics. Women, especially, are becoming more and more financially independent which allows them to feel more secure with being alone. In previous generations, being divorced or single was seen differently than it is now. This has resulted in less pressure for baby boomers to marry or stay married. Demographers say that several baby boomers that remain unmarried will face more financial struggles than those who are married
On average, first marriages that end in divorce last about eight years. Of the first marriages for women from 1955 to 1959, about 79% marked their 15th anniversary, compared with only 57% for women who married for the first time from 1985 to 1989. The median time between divorce and a second marriage was about three and a half years.
In 2009, the divorce rate declined.
In 2001, marriages between people of different faiths were three times more likely to be divorced than those of the same faith. In a 1993 study, members of two mainline Protestant religions had a 1 in 5 chance of being divorced in 5 years; a Catholic and an Evangelical, a one in three chance; a Jew and a Christian, a 40% chance.
While cohabitation has been shown to be associated with higher divorce rates, a study indicates that divorce-prone couples tend to first cohabit, and not that cohabitation by itself increases the likelihood of divorce. In Saskatchewan, Canada, cohabitation as spouses is treated identically in Family Court to civil marriage.
Success in marriage has been associated with higher education and higher age. 81% of college graduates, over 26 years of age, who wed in the 1980s, were still married 20 years later. 65% of college graduates under 26, who married in the 1980s, were still married 20 years later. 49% of high school graduates under 26 years old, who married in the 1980s, were still married 20 years later. Population studies have found that in 2004 and 2008, liberal-voting states have lower rates of divorce than conservative-voting states, possibly because people in liberal states tend to wait longer before getting married. In 2009, 2.9% of adults 35–39 without a college degree were divorced, compared with 1.6% with a college education.
The National Center for Health Statistics reports that from 1975 to 1988 in the U.S., in families with children present, wives file for divorce in approximately two-thirds of cases. In 1975, 71.4% of the cases were filed by women, and in 1988, 65% were filed by women. It is estimated that upwards of 95% of divorces in the U.S. are "uncontested", because the two parties are able to come to an agreement without a hearing (either with or without lawyers/mediators/collaborative counsel) about the property, children, and support issues.
A 2008 study by Jenifer L. Bratter and Rosalind B. King conducted on behalf of the Education Resources Information Center examined whether crossing racial boundaries increased the risk of divorce. Using the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (Cycle VI), the likelihood of divorce for interracial couples to that of same-race couples was compared. Comparisons across marriage cohorts revealed that, overall, interracial couples have higher rates of divorce, particularly for those who married during the late 1980s. The authors found that gender plays a significant role in interracial divorce dynamics: According to the adjusted models predicting divorce as of the 10th year of marriage, interracial marriages that are the most vulnerable involve white females and non-white males (with the exception of white females/Hispanic white males) relative to white/white couples. White wife/black husband marriages are twice as likely to divorce by the 10th year of marriage compared to white/white couples, while white wife/Asian husband marriages are 59% more likely to end in divorce compared to white/white unions. Conversely, white men/non-white women couples show either very little or no differences in divorce rates. Asian wife/white husband marriages show only 4% greater likelihood of divorce by the 10th year of marriage than white/white couples. In the case of black wife/white husband marriages, divorce by the 10th year of marriage is 44% less likely than among white/white unions. Intermarriages that did not cross a racial barrier, which was the case for white/Hispanic white couples, showed statistically similar likelihoods of divorcing as white/white marriages.
A 2011 study found a 1% increase in the unemployment rate correlated with a 1% decrease in the divorce rate, presumably because more people were financially challenged to afford the legal proceedings.
One study estimated that legal reforms accounted for about 20% of the increase in divorce rates in Europe between 1960 and 2002.
One in every three marriages between 1995 and 2010 ended in divorce. The rate of divorce had been dropping this century. In 2007 the divorce rate in England and Wales was recorded at 11.5 people per every 1000 ( less than 1.2%) of the married population. This was the lowest divorce rate since 1979. In 2010, divorce rates rose 5% over 2009.
In Australia, nearly every third marriage ends in divorce. After reaching a peak divorce rate of 2.7 per 1000 residents in 2001, the Australian rate declined to 2.3 per 1000 in 2007.
In Japan, divorces were on a generally upward trend from the 1960s until 2002 when they hit a peak of 290,000. Since then, both the number of divorces and the divorce rate have declined for six years straight. In 2010, the number of divorces totaled 251,000, and the divorce rate was 1.99 (per 1,000 population).
Although marriage had been defined as a legal union between one man and one woman, over the past decades, several states began to consider adopting or have adopted legislation which legalizes same-sex marriage. States which have done so, include New York and Massachusetts.
Once legally married, same-sex couples are entitled to the same degree of financial security as their hetero-sexual counterparts including, but not limited to the right to receive their spouse’s death benefits, health insurance, life insurance and other protections. For same-sex couples, divorce law is in its infancy and is less than clear on how such unions may be legally dissolved. For example, if a same-sex couple is married in a state that recognizes gay marriage but returns to reside in a state that does not, they might find themselves in a situation where their own state, in failing to recognize their union will also fail to enable them to divorce. In addition, splitting up the couples financial resources may prove to be legally difficult and well as determining which spouse is entitled to the custody of their children.
Although same sex-married couples who divorce should be in a position to have their property divided under the same laws that apply to heterosexual couples, legal questions persist as to whether years that same-sex couples were together prior to entering into marriage should be taken into account for purposes of determining what property each spouse is entitled to acquire. In addition, dividing up marital property is not easy to legally sort out when same-sex married couples wish to divorce in states that do not recognize a legal marriage that the couple entered into in another state.
Upon dissolution of a same-sex marriage, legal questions remain as to the rights of spouses to custody of the biological children of their spouses. Unresolved legal questions abound in this area.
Since same-sex marriages are not recognized in a multitude of states, couples who are married in states that do recognize same-sex marriages will find themselves in a position of being precluded from dissolving their marriages in the states in which they live. When this happens, legal questions will remain unanswered as to which state laws will be applicable to determine the rights of each divorcing partner. In addition, special problems will present themselves when same-sex couples cannot be divorced in states that do recognize same sex marriage because they are not residents of such states.
The ancient Athenians liberally allowed divorce, but the person requesting divorce had to submit the request to a magistrate, and the magistrate could determine whether the reasons given were sufficient.
Divorce was rare in early Roman culture but as their empire grew in power and authority Roman civil law embraced the maxim, "matrimonia debent esse libera" ("marriages ought to be free"), and either husband or wife could renounce the marriage at will. Though civil authority rarely intervened in divorces, social and familial taboos guaranteed that divorce occurred only after serious circumspection. The Christian emperors Constantine and Theodosius restricted the grounds for divorce to grave cause, but this was relaxed by Justinian in the sixth century.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, familial life was regulated more by ecclesiastical authority than civil authority. By the ninth or tenth century, the divorce rate had been greatly reduced under the influence of the Church, which considered marriage a sacrament instituted by God and Christ indissoluble by mere human action.
Although divorce, as known today, was generally prohibited after the tenth century, separation of husband and wife and the annulment of marriage were well-known. What is today referred to as "separate maintenance" (or "legal separation") was termed "divorce a mensa et thoro" ("divorce from bed-and-board"). The husband and wife physically separated and were forbidden to live or cohabit together; but their marital relationship did not fully terminate. Civil courts had no power over marriage or divorce. The grounds for annulment were determined by Church authority and applied in ecclesiastical courts. Annulment was for canonical causes of impediment existing at the time of the marriage. "For in cases of total divorce, the marriage is declared null, as having been absolutely unlawful ab initio." The Church held that the sacrament of marriage produced one person from two, inseparable from each other: "By marriage the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being of legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything." Since husband and wife became one person upon marriage, that oneness could only be annulled if the parties improperly entered into the marriage initially.
After the Reformation, marriage came to be considered a civil contract in the non-Catholic regions, and on that basis civil authorities gradually asserted their power to decree a "divorce a vinculo matrimonii", or "divorce from all the bonds of marriage". Since no precedents existed defining the circumstances under which marriage could be dissolved, civil courts heavily relied on the previous determinations of the ecclesiastic courts and freely adopted the requirements set down by those courts. As the civil courts assumed the power to dissolve marriages, courts still strictly construed the circumstances under which they would grant a divorce, and now considered divorce to be contrary to public policy. Because divorce was considered to be against the public interest, civil courts refused to grant a divorce if evidence revealed any hint of complicity between the husband and wife to divorce, or if they attempted to manufacture grounds for a divorce. Divorce was granted only because one party to the marriage had violated a sacred vow to the "innocent spouse". If both husband and wife were guilty, "neither would be allowed to escape the bonds of marriage". Eventually, the idea that a marriage could be dissolved in cases in which one of the parties violated the sacred vow gradually allowed expansion of the grounds upon which divorce could be granted from those grounds which existed at the time of the marriage to grounds which occurred after the marriage, but which exemplified violation of that vow, such as abandonment, adultery, or "extreme cruelty".
In the Edo Period (1603–1868), only husbands could divorce their wives by writing letters of divorce. But actually, their relatives or marriage arrangers often kept these letters and tried to restore the marriages. It was not allowed for wives to divorce their husbands. Some wives were able to gain sanctuary in certain Shinto "divorce temples" for several years, and were able to obtain a divorce thereby. In 19th century Japan, at least one in eight marriages ended in divorce.
There are four types of divorce in Japan: Divorce by agreement in which the divorce is mutual, divorce by mediation which happens in family court, divorce by decision of family court that takes place when a couple cannot complete a divorce through mediation, and divorce by judgment of district court.
On an all-India level, the Special Marriage Act was passed in 1954, and the Hindu Marriage Act, in 1955 which legally permitted divorce to Hindus and other communities who chose to marry under these acts. Divorce can be sought by husband or wife on certain grounds, including: adultery, cruelty, desertion for two years, religious conversion, mental abnormality, venereal disease, and leprosy. Divorce is also legal based on mutual consent of both the spouses, which can be filed after at least one year of separated living. Mutual consent divorce can not be appealed against, and the law mandates a minimum period of six months (from the time divorce is applied for) for divorce to be granted.
Official figures of divorce rates are not available, but it has been estimated that 1 of 100 or another figure 11 of 1,000 marriages in India end up in divorce.
Various communities are governed by specific marital legislation, distinct to Hindu Marriage Act, and consequently have their own divorce laws:
An amendment to the marriage laws to allow divorce based on "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" (as alleged by one of the spouses) is currently under consideration in India. In June 2010, the Union Cabinet of India approved the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010, which, if cleared by Parliament, would establish "irretrievable breakdown" as a new ground for divorce.
In Islamic law and marital jurisprudence, divorce is referred to as talaq. Khula is the right of a woman in Islam to divorce or separate from her husband. The triple talaq is a mechanism for divorce which exists in Sunni sect of Islam while rejected by the Shia sect. Talaq (conflict) deals with the relationship between religious and secular systems for terminating the marriage in the conflict of laws.
According to Yossef Rapoport, in the 15th century, the rate of divorce was higher than it is today in the modern Middle East, which now has generally low rates of divorce. In 15th century Egypt, Al-Sakhawi recorded the marital history of 500 women, the largest sample on marriage in the Middle Ages, and found that at least a third of all women in the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt and Syria married more than once, with many marrying three or more times. According to Al-Sakhawi, as many as three out of ten marriages in 15th century Cairo ended in divorce. In the early 20th century, some villages in western Java and the Malay peninsula had divorce rates as high as 70%.
An annual study in the UK by management consultants Grant Thornton, estimates the main proximal causes of divorce based on surveys of matrimonial lawyers.
The main causes in 2004 were:
According to this survey, husbands engaged in extramarital affairs in 75% of cases; wives in 25%. In cases of family strain, wives' families were the primary source of strain in 78%, compared to 22% of husbands' families. Emotional and physical abuse were more evenly split, with wives affected in 60% and husbands in 40% of cases. In 70% of workaholism-related divorces it was husbands who were the cause, and in 30%, wives. The 2004 survey found that 93% of divorce cases were petitioned by wives, very few of which were contested. 53% of divorces were of marriages that had lasted 10 to 15 years, with 40% ending after 5 to 10 years. The first 5 years are relatively divorce-free, and if a marriage survives more than 20 years it is unlikely to end in divorce.
The age at which a person gets married is also believed to influence the likelihood of divorce; delaying marriage may provide more opportunity or experience in choosing a compatible partner.
In some countries (commonly in Europe and North America), the government defines and administers marriages and divorces. While ceremonies may be performed by religious officials on behalf of the state, a civil marriage and thus civil divorce (without the involvement of a religion) is also possible. Due to differing standards and procedures, a couple can be legally unmarried, married, or divorced by the state's definition, but have a different status as defined by a religious order. Other countries use religious law to administer marriages and divorces, eliminating this distinction. In these cases, religious officials are generally responsible for interpretation and implementation.
Islam allows divorce, and it can be initiated by either the husband or the wife. However, the initiations are subject to certain conditions and waiting periods, which are meant to force the initiating party to reconsider. Dharmic religions do not allow divorce. Christian views of divorce vary, with Catholic teaching allowing only annulment, but most other denominations discouraging but allowing divorce. Jewish views of divorce differ, with Reform Judaism considering civil divorces adequate. Conservative and Orthodox Judaism require that the husband grant his wife a divorce in the form of a get.
The Millet System, where each religious group regulates its own marriages and divorces is still present in varying degrees in some post−Ottoman countries like Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and Greece. Several countries use sharia (Islamic law) to administrate marriages and divorces for Muslims. Thus Marriage in Israel is administered separately by each religious community (Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Druze), and there is no provision for interfaith marriages other than marrying in another country. For Jews, marriage and divorce are administered by Orthodox rabbis. Partners can file for divorce either in rabbinical court or Israeli civil court to have the household divided.
|This section requires expansion.|
According to a study published in the American Law and Economics Review, women currently file slightly more than two-thirds of divorce cases in the United States. There is some variation among states, and the numbers have also varied over time, with about 60% of filings by women in most of the 19th century, and over 70% by women in some states just after no-fault divorce was introduced, according to the paper. Evidence is given that among college-educated couples, the percentages of divorces initiated by women is approximately 90%.
A study has found that White female-Black male and White female-Asian male marriages are more prone to divorce than White-White pairings. Conversely, unions between White males and non-White females (and between Hispanics and non-Hispanic persons) have similar or lower risks of divorce than White-White marriages.
Regarding divorce settlements, according to the 2004 Grant Thornton survey in the UK, women obtained a better or considerably better settlement than men in 60% of cases. In 30% of cases the assets were split 50-50, and in only 10% of cases did men achieve better settlements (down from 24% the previous year). The report concluded that the percentage of shared residence orders would need to increase in order for more equitable financial divisions to become the norm.
Some jurisdictions give unequal rights to men and women when filing for divorce.
For couples to Conservative or Orthodox Jewish law (which by Israeli civil law includes all Jews in Israel), the husband must grant his wife a divorce through a document called a get. If the man refuses, the woman can appeal to a court or the community to pressure the husband. A woman whose husband refuses to grant the get or who is missing is called an agunah, is still married, and therefore cannot remarry. Under Orthodox law, children of an extramarital affair involving a married Jewish woman are considered mamzerim (illegitimate) and cannot marry non-mamzerim.
|Look up divorce in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.|
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Divorce|