An essential aspect of liberty is the freedom to contract. Today, contract can even be formed on a plain white paper, and all the contract sides need to do is to take it to a court to get approval stamp. Both liberal individualism and Biblical traditionalism supported the concept of conjugality as a relationship entered into voluntarily.
It means that women freely sought and accepted the protection of a spouse that gave early Americans some cover for the internal inequalities of the marital relationship. The notion of indissoluble marriage clashed with liberal ideals. States drastically lowered barriers to divorce, in part reasoning that voluntariness was an essential aspect of the marital contract.
Initially, divorce proceedings permitted courts to inquire into the details of the failed marriage. With the adoption of no-fault provisions in divorce statutes, however, the necessity of such inquiries has been drastically curtailed. The state thus continues to oversee dissolution of the marital bond. Yet, the gradual relaxing of divorce laws means that the formal strictures of the marital status have ceded ground to individualism and the right to self-determination.
The conjugal unit is sufficiently important that the state does not want it severed lightly, but the countervailing principle of liberal individualism also requires that the state not impede its citizens’ desire for freedom and self-determination. Couples have limited freedom to alter by contract some of the default rules that govern the terms of their marriage because strong conjugal norms sharply circumscribe this ability.
They have more freedom, however, to alter by contract the financial consequences attendant to the dissolution of their marriage. Even these contracts, however, often are scrutinized by courts to ensure that their enforcement would not offend public policy. my source is the link for you to read. The contract divorce policy cases these days became even the newspapers material, because when it comes to divorce, and the division of the acquired assets, many famous couples really have a lot to divide. And where the money rustle, the public immediately comes to check out the outcome.
However, the concept of pre-martial contract is one legal right for new married couples, that not only protects their funds, but also protects the peace and stability of a marriage, and that is proven many times.
As its name says, this type of divorce is one of the two ways that is absolutely sore simple. The key assumption of this way of divorce is that there is agreement of spouses about, first of all, the will to divorce, but also about main questions in all divorce cases – children and property. As free people, ex spouses have right to make self agreement about everything that comes with divorce process, but when it comes to children, the court will decide if the ex spouses suggestion is the best choice for the children interests.
If they find that it isn’t, the court could suggest some other agreement about the exercise of parental rights, and if that suggestion is not accepted by both ex spouses, so there will not be agreement divorce at all. The process of agreement divorce can be finished on the first hearing, which is, you would say, much easier than being hauled by courts for months and even for years.
The agreement must be made in written form, and signed by both spouses. In the introductory part, spouses expresses the agreement on divorce. In next chapters of the document, the following questions needs to be laboured:
– Parental rights – main question in this chapter is – whom the child will be entrusted upon divorce. After that, it is needed to describe the agreed way of keeping the relation between the children and the parent that will not live with. Use here to read more interesting information. – Child support – this chapter contains the description of the way that parents agreed to support the children. The common solution is that the parent that will not live with the children, is obligated to give some monthly amount to the other parent. – Property relations – this chapter is about the property gotten in marriage. First of all, it is needed to make a list of all things that makes joint property, and then to determine which thing, or part of it, belongs to whom spouse.
Recognition of basic principles of family law is not so simple project. It uncovers the deep structure of family law, and brings closer to us its structure by showing us the common support of all of its components. After we figure its structure, we will be able to understand the family law, including all of its basic principles. This test analysis is just about tpo be done in near future, ad its furlough just delayed any creative thought on family law basics. The classificacion that is developed in here is something brand new in trying to explain basic principles of US family law. At first place, it defines the most important elements, or family law praxis. Further, it analyses that elements that reveal concepts they personalize.
After that, it tests all the routines and figures out that if coupled with modern family law practices, these ways of being personalize the principe of both Biblical Traditionalism and Liberal individualism. This division is brought to the basic US resident division – southerns and northerns.
Firstly it begins with a brief argument of the family law basics. It is made of such rules that intentionally or directly influent on family relations and claims that these rules are nothing but the incarnation of four basic law principles – marriage, privacy ( family or individual), contracts and “ parenspatriae”.
Next thing that should be argued is the concept of family laws in tum personalized two distinct underlying principles-Biblical traditionalism and liberal individualism. It identifies and further describes the concepts that figure in each principle and explains their interrelationships. At the end, this article makes conclusion that both Biblical traditionalism and Liberal individualism each have their faults, and when it comes to acting together, they are incompatible.
The continued accommodation of both in today’s law leads to incoherence and thwarts the achievement of important goals. So, if family laws are to generate outcomes that achieve some level of purposive connection,or, at a minimum, outcomes that do not undercut family law’s more important goals-the continued incorporation of both principles must be consciously and explicitly abandoned.