California Family Law Divorce Irreconcilable Differences Marriage Dissolution Marital Breakdown Lawyers Attorneys
December 7, 2010 by Divorce Bin
Filed under divorce stats
California Family Law Divorce Irreconcilable Differences Marriage Dissolution Marital Breakdown Lawyers Attorneys
Free Online Articles Directory
Why Submit Articles?
Top Authors
Top Articles
FAQ
AB Answers
0 && $.browser.msie ) {
var ie_version = parseInt($.browser.version);
if(ie_version Hello Guest
Login
Register
Hello
My Home
Sign Out
Email
Password
Remember me?
Lost Password?
Home Page > Law > Health and Safety > California Family Law Divorce Irreconcilable Differences Marriage Dissolution Marital Breakdown Lawyers Attorneys
California Family Law Divorce Irreconcilable Differences Marriage Dissolution Marital Breakdown Lawyers Attorneys
Posted: Oct 11, 2010
|
]]>
California Family Law Divorce Irreconcilable Differences Marriage Dissolution Marital Breakdown Lawyers Attorneys
About the Author
The SRIS Law Group is a law firm with offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts. The law firm assists clients with criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration, civil litigation, bankruptcy & military law. The law firm has Virginia offices in Fairfax County, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun County, Prince William County & Fredericksburg, Virginia. The Maryland offices are in Montgomery County & Baltimore. The Massachusetts offices are in Boston & Cambridge. The New York office is in New York City. The North Carolina Office is in Charlotte, NC which is in Mecklenburg County. The California office is in Orange County, CA.
The law firm has more than 11 offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, California, North Carolina & India to serve the clients of the SRIS Law Group.
(ArticlesBase SC #3449028)
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/ – California Family Law Divorce Irreconcilable Differences Marriage Dissolution Marital Breakdown Lawyers Attorneys
In re the Marriage of ROBERT LYNN and NORMA JANET WALTON. ROBERT LYNN WALTON, Respondent, v. NORMA JANET WALTON, Appellant
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two
The parties were married on or about August 7, 1948 and separated approximately 21 years later on August 7, 1969. On October 6, 1970, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of irreconcilable differences which have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage (Civ. Code, § 4506, subd. (1)). On October 12, 1970, Wife filed her response seeking legal separation on the same ground, irreconcilable differences which have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage (Civ. Code, § 4506, subd. (1)). Prior to trial Wife moved the court to dismiss Husband’s petition on grounds that certain provisions of the Family Law Act enacted in 1969 (Stats. 1969, ch. 1608), particularly Civil Code, sections 4506, subdivision (1) and 4507, are violative of the California and federal Constitutions on several bases. The motion was denied, the matter proceeded to trial, and the court rendered an interlocutory judgment of dissolution of the marriage placing custody of the minor children of the parties with Wife, providing for spousal and child support and dividing the marital property.
ISSUES:
Whether granting Husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of irreconcilable differences as specified in Civil Code, section 4506, subdivision (1) is violative of article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution and article I, section 16 of the California Constitution.
Whether granting Husband’s petition for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of irreconcilable differences is violative of the constitutional guarantees of due process of law.
DISCUSSION:
Marriage is much more than a civil contract; it is a relationship that may be created and terminated only with consent of the state and in which the state has a vital interest. Even if marital obligations were treated as contractual obligations protected by the constitutional prohibitions, a statutory change in the grounds for divorce would not constitute an unconstitutional impairment thereof. Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the Legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effects upon the property rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution. When persons enter into a contract or transaction creating a relationship infused with a substantial public interest, subject to plenary control by the state, such contract or transaction is deemed to incorporate and contemplate not only the existing law but the reserve power of the state to amend the law or enact additional laws for the public good and in pursuance of public policy, and such legislative amendments or enactments do not constitute an unconstitutional impairment of contractual obligations.
The granting of a husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of irreconcilable differences as prescribed in the Family Law Act, Civ. Code, § 4506, subd. (1) did not constitute a retroactive application of law depriving the wife of a vested right in violation of federal and California constitutional due process guarantees. Where a husband sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of irreconcilable differences and the wife sought separate maintenance on the same ground, the wife was foreclosed, on appeal of the grant of the husband’s petition, from contending that she was by statute wrongly prevented from presenting evidence that irreconcilable differences did not exist. Allowing dissolution of marriage on the ground of irreconcilable differences, is not unconstitutionally vague nor uncertain. The due process clauses of the California and federal Constitutions require civil as well as criminal statutes to be sufficiently clear to provide a standard for uniform application. The contention that the Family Law Act is unjust and unfair in that it permits a spouse guilty of morally reprehensible conduct to take advantage of that conduct in terminating the marriage against the wishes of an entirely unoffending spouse presents no issue cognizable in the courts.
JUDGMENT:
The judgment of the trial court granting respondent husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage was affirmed because the impact of the Family Law Act on appellant wife was not unfair or unjust as marital rights and obligations were not contractual rights and obligations within the meaning of the California or United States Constitutions.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
(ArticlesBase SC #3449028)
Atchuthan Sriskandarajah -
About the Author:
The SRIS Law Group is a law firm with offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts. The law firm assists clients with criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration, civil litigation, bankruptcy & military law. The law firm has Virginia offices in Fairfax County, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun County, Prince William County & Fredericksburg, Virginia. The Maryland offices are in Montgomery County & Baltimore. The Massachusetts offices are in Boston & Cambridge. The New York office is in New York City. The North Carolina Office is in Charlotte, NC which is in Mecklenburg County. The California office is in Orange County, CA.
The law firm has more than 11 offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, California, North Carolina & India to serve the clients of the SRIS Law Group.
]]>
Rate this Article
vote(s)
0 vote(s)
Feedback
RSS
Print
Email
Re-Publish
Article Tags:
california family law divorce irreconcilable differences marriage dissolution marital breakdown lawyers attorneys
Latest Health and Safety Articles
More from Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
DC Christian Charities Threaten to Deny Service to Gays
As christian charities threaten to deny service if gay marriage laws pass, StuartProductions brings you this interview with a DC homeless woman. (05:59)
Getting Along with Your Mother In Law
WARNING: Do not watch this video with your mom! In this segment the Dads ask the authors of “Babyproofing Your Marriage” why some women find it so hard to get along with their mother in law. Not that anything like that happens in our families. (04:23)
The Mother-in-Law – DadLabs Ep 222 – The Lounge
WARNING: Do not watch this video with your mom! in this segment the Dads ask the authors of "Babyproofing Your Marriage" why some women find it so hard to get along with their mothers-in-law. Not that anything like that happens in our families. We just heard it happens…in…you know…other people’s houses. Distributed by Tubemogul. (04:24)
Over 43 percent of marriages end in divorce. Stefanie Schaeffer gives you a quick guide to avoiding some of the legal traps involved. (02:14)
How to Make Your Marriage Thrive
Dr. Sylvia Gearing shares the secrets of the top psychologists around how to make your marriage thrive and make love last forever. (02:59)
Paul Chehade – Morality And Ethic – Love Until the End of Time – Solidary Foundation
Love is the emotion of strong affection and personal attachment. In philosophical context, love is a virtue representing all of human kindness, compassion, and affection. In religious context, love is not just a virtue, but the basis for all being (“God is love”), and the foundation for all divine law (Golden Rule).
By:
Alberto Stellpflugl
Law>
Health and Safetyl
Dec 06, 2010
we can help the people who works as the federal employees
By:
pramodl
Law>
Health and Safetyl
Dec 03, 2010
Immigration Assistance via Immigration Law Clinics Helping You Build a Life in the United States
In a globalized world of today, immigration has become a global phenomenon. America could, in particular, be called the land of immigrants with almost 40% of its population being immigrants.
By:
Versfeld Hugol
Law>
Health and Safetyl
Dec 03, 2010
Birth Defects from Computer Industry Chemical Exposure
Individuals who work or were previously employed by the semiconductor chip industry from 1986 to 2000 are at an increased risk of developing serious life-threatening injuries due to their exposure to toxic chemicals and other substances.
By:
Sara Goldsteinl
Law>
Health and Safetyl
Dec 02, 2010
Police CRB Check – Creating a Safe and Secured Society
Police CRB Check is carried out to know the past record of an individual who wish to work with children or adult. This check is carried out under the guidance of government executive agency and is designed to find out the involvement of an individual in any criminal or court case so that such employees is restricted from securing a job in UK organizations.
By:
Article Managerl
Law>
Health and Safetyl
Dec 02, 2010
How to Choose a Workers’ Compensation Lawyer
If you are injured on the job or become sick due to the type of work you perform and can no longer work, you are probably worried and even frightened that you may not be able to provide for you and your family. If you were the “breadwinner,” then you surely are wondering how the bills will get paid now that you are injured or too sick to work.
By:
Sara Goldsteinl
Law>
Health and Safetyl
Dec 01, 2010
Suing for Bad Medical Treatment
The mere fact that you or someone in your family had what the doctors call a “bad result” does not mean that you can sue your doctor or hospital. But if the bad result is caused by negligence or by what the law calls “medical malpractice”, you can sue and obtain money damages for your injuries. There are some things you should bear in mind when deciding whether you have a valid claim.
By:
Adaml
Law>
Health and Safetyl
Dec 01, 2010
Patients Worldwide Adversely Affected by DePuy Hip Replacement Recall
More than a month has passed since DePuy Orthopaedics issued a worldwide recall of two hip replacement devices, the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System.
By:
Katherine Russell
Law>
Health and Safetyl
Dec 01, 2010
Fairfax County Reckless Driving Ticket – Can I Really Go To Jail In Virginia For Speeding
Fairfax County Judges are very strict when it comes to reckless driving tickets. In Virginia, reckless driving is a criminal offense. A ticket for reckless driving is not a simple traffic offense. A reckless driving ticket is a class 1 misdemeanor.
Need Help With A Reckless Driving Ticket In Virginia
In Virginia, a reckless driving ticket is a class 1 misdemeanor. A Virginia class 1 misdemeanor carries a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail, maximum fine of $2500 and six points on your Virginia driving record. Also, the judge can suspend your license for up to 6 months.
Child Pornography Penalty In Virginia Possession Code 18.2-374.1:1
Possession of child pornography is a very serious crime in Virginia. The statute that codifies possession of child pornography in Virginia and the penalty for possession of child pornography is 18.2-374.1:1
Virginia Norfolk Child Pornography Possession In Internet Cache Prosecution
Defendant made a motion to dismiss pending charges of possession of child pornography in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1. Defendant also made a motion to suppress.
The Circuit Court of the City of Danville, Virginia, denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and convicted him of carnal knowledge of a minor, statutory rape, two counts of sodomy, participating in child pornography, possession of child pornography, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Defendant appealed.
Northern Virginia Collaborative Law Divorce & Child Custody Lawyers
Parties seeking to divorce in Virginia have the option of pursuing a collaborative divorce. Collaborative divorce is an alternative to traditional litigation. In Virginia, if parties choose to use the collaborative option, each party must retain a collaborative attorney. Collaborative divorce attorneys in Virginia must have specialized training in the collaborative method as well as in mediation.
Law>
National, State, Locall
Nov 15, 2010
Virginia Collaborative Law – Divorce & Discovery In VA
Collaborative Virginia divorce, unlike traditional litigation, does not involve formal discovery. Discovery is the process through which the parties gather information to build, support, and defend their case. Formal discovery may include interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions, and depositions.
Law>
National, State, Locall
Nov 15, 2010
Virginia Collaborative Law Divorce Coach – Keeping Costs Low
When engaging in collaborative divorce in Virginia, parties have the option of choosing to involve other collaborative professionals as needed. These professionals may include divorce coaches, financials, and child specialists.
Law>
National, State, Locall
Nov 15, 2010
Submit
Your Articles Here
It’s Free and easy
Sign Up Today
Author Navigation
My Home
Publish Article
View/Edit Articles
View/Edit Q&A
Edit your Account
Manage Authors
Statistics Page
Personal RSS Builder
My Home
Edit your Account
Update Profile
View/Edit Q&A
Publish Article
Author Box
Atchuthan Sriskandarajah has 506 articles online
Articles Categories
All Categories
Advertising
Arts & Entertainment
Automotive
Beauty
Business
Careers
Computers
Education
Finance
Food and Beverage
Health
Hobbies
Home and Family
Home Improvement
Internet
Law
Marketing
News and Society
Relationships
Self Improvement
Shopping
Spirituality
Sports and Fitness
Technology
Travel
Writing
Bankruptcy
Copyright
Criminal
Cyber Law
Health and Safety
Immigration
Intellectual Property
Internet Law
National, State, Local
Patents
Personal Injury
Regulatory Compliance
Trademarks
]]>
Need Help?
Contact Us
FAQ
Submit Articles
Editorial Guidelines
Blog
Site Links
Recent Articles
Top Authors
Top Articles
Find Articles
Site Map
Webmasters
RSS Builder
RSS
Link to Us
Business Info
Advertising
Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy | User published content is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Copyright © 2005-2010 Free Articles by ArticlesBase.com, All rights reserved.
The SRIS Law Group is a law firm with offices in Virginia, Maryland & Massachusetts. The law firm assists clients with criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration, civil litigation, bankruptcy & military law. The law firm has Virginia offices in Fairfax County, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun County, Prince William County & Fredericksburg, Virginia. The Maryland offices are in Montgomery County & Baltimore. The Massachusetts offices are in Boston & Cambridge. The New York office is in New York City. The North Carolina Office is in Charlotte, NC which is in Mecklenburg County. The California office is in Orange County, CA.
The law firm has more than 11 offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, California, North Carolina & India to serve the clients of the SRIS Law Group.
