A good family law firm and a good divorce attorney should be able to give you legal advice on customary family law.
The main principle of customary law holds for all tribes in Southern Africa. As there are a number of tribal variations attention is drawn to the fact that all examples are taken from the law of the Cape Nguni tribes including those in the Ciskei and Transkei. Where variations particular to other tribes arise the sources of the law of the tribe in question should be consulted. Statute law on such subjects as the application of customary law and the choice of law is of effect throughout South Africa.
In browsing through Divorce Forms websites I found this very interesting article which would be relevent if you were thinking of Divorcing. The Divorce Lawyers in different countries will all have a different approach and it is important that you seek local advice. But this seems to be an accurate reflection on how the Divorce Law in the Divorce Courts in USA would handle the situation.
It’s very common for couples to fight over of the children but today, more than ever many couples are fighting over custody of their pets. What are the reasons for so many pet custody battles and why the increase in bitter battles for pets? One of the primary reasons is because our society has grown more and more attached and fond of their pets, and so when a divorce occurs, it’s difficult to determine who will or should get custody of the animals.
According to a survey in America by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, in the U.S alone, there are about 74 million pet dogs in 43.5 million households, and 90.5 million cats in 37.7 million households. Based on those numbers, it isn’t hard to see how popular and important pets are to their human companions and the bond that exists between people and their animals. And because of the large numbers of pets, it’s easy to see what can happen to pets when a marriage ends in divorce. For the most part, there are usually three ways a pet situation can go. One scenario is that an animal is displaced, and ends up in a shelter. Other times, people work out the situation so that one keeps the pets. And the last situation is when couples fight over the pet and a custody battle ensues.
For the most part, the law doesn’t see pets any different than the property a couple divides on the basis of equitable distribution. Even on occasion when a judge realizes that a pet has a special place in the family’s life, the law doesn’t respect that recognition. In fact, in most states, pets are simply considered as property and treated as property in a court of law. But that doesn’t prevent couples from fighting bitterly over their pets just as they would if the pet were a child. One after the other high profile cases show the lengths people go to keep their pets with them or away from their ex partners. A few reported cases are as follows:
In 2001, a woman in Texas was sentenced to 30 days in jail for refusing several orders from a judge to turn over the two cats her ex was awarded in the divorce case.
In San Diego County, California a couple waged a two-year battle over their dog, which wound up costing over $146,000.
In another case in Maryland, two years after their divorce, a couple is back in court fighting over their dog. The circuit judge has threatened to sell the animal and split the proceeds between them if they can’t agree on. The wife has spent $20,000 to keep the dog.
In Dallas,Texas a couple has spent $16,000 in lawyer fees fighting over their dog. After he dognapped the animal for nine days, the wife now gets custody and he gets visitation.
It’s very obvious based on these few cases that people have deep love for their pets and will do practically anything to keep them. But sadly, in most cases, judges refuse to address the issue, considering it a waste of the court’s time. Several states across the country treat pets in the same way they would in dividing up a room full of furniture. Plainly stated, the dog is part of the marital property and has to be equitably divided according to its value, if value can be assigned. Receipts must be shown proving which spouse has been the functional owner of the pet. In other words, the spouse that has paid for things such as medical treatment, training, grooming, maintenance and upkeep is the one who is considered the owner and gets to keep the dog. In some rare cases, tests have been administered based on the “best interest” theory for which measures the degree of attachment between pet and human.
While some people don’t realize it, dogs and cats are not devoid of feelings of loss, depression and anxiety. They also don’t understand why the person has left, so it can affect the behavior of a closely bonded animal. Usually, the animal will go through a period where they look for the absent person, obviously saddened they’re not there. But, generally, after a time, most animals adjust to the person being gone. Many dog trainers report getting calls about pet behavior from those who don’t realize that the break-up of the relationship was the cause of the pet’s distress.
According to a poll taken by members of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, the number of pet custody cases is on the rise and until things change according to law, most courts will continue to treat pets as . Based on the law, it’s probably best for a divorcing couple to make every attempt to negotiate pet amicably on their own rather than getting the courts involved.
If you need more help on this subject, just contact us at Divorce Forms and we will be glad to help you.
The Divorce Act , which is the divorce law that came into operation in July 1979 brought about a total reform of the South African Law of divorce procedure and at present the divorce process and its consequences are largely determined by statute. Prior to the coming into operation of the Divorce Act, the common law recognized two grounds for divorce, namely adultery and malicious desertion. Adultery included forms of sexual intercourse such as sodomy and bestiality and desertion court be action or constructive, In addition to these common law grounds two further grounds were added by statute, in curable insanity for a prior of at least seven years and imprisonment for at least five years that resulted from habitual criminality. Except in cases of insanity, divorce was based on the assumption that one of the parties was at fault; in other words the success of plaintiff’s action for divorce depended on proof of the willful commission of a matrimonial offence by the defendant.
In the enquiry that preceded the new divorce law, the South African Law Commission determined both that it was ideologically unsupportable to base the law of divorce on the guilt principle and that it was unrealistic to assume that the fault for marital break-down lay with only one party to the marriage. The application of the guilt principle had resulted in the undesirable situation that by far the majority of divorce actions were dressed up as action based on some form of marital misconduct by the defendant, when all the parties, as well as the court knew that the parties were before the court by common agreement. Furthermore since only the “innocent spouse could sue for divorce, no divorce was possible in situations where the marriage was dead, the guilty party desired a divorce but the innocent spouse refused to co-operate. The commission recognized that in truth the essence of divorce is the candid acceptance on the part of both parties that the marriage has failed. The commission recognized further that the disintegration of marriages resulted from a variety of contributory factors a social problem and was not always or exclusively, due to marital misconduct. Accordingly, the primary aim of a sound law of divorce is to take account of the social reality of marital breakdown, while at the same time providing for the protection of the interest of society in general and for its weaker members in particular. For this reason the commission proposed that where the marital relationship had in fact broken down irretrievably a decree of divorce should be granted. However it was not prepared to support the principle of consensual divorce as this would detract from marriage as a social institution. In the interest of a society which recognized marriage as an institution divorce should be at the discretion of the court and reconciliation should be encouraged; there should be an embargo on the publication of certain particulars relating to the divorce and the interests of the children of the marriage should be recognized and considered when determining whether or not an order for the dissolution of the marriage should be granted.
In the result the Divorce Act stipulates only two grounds for divorce, namely irretrievable breakdown and mental illness or unconsciousness. Both embody the general principle that marriage comes to an end then the consortium that is the core of the marriage relationship no longer exists. With regard to irretrievable break-down as a ground this will generally but not inevitably , be as a result of the conduct of one or both parties to the marriage, while mental illness or unconsciousness will generally arise in circumstances beyond their control. It should be noted that the law pertaining to void and void able marriages is unaffected by the Divorce Act.
Visit Divorce Forms for an Online Divorce which will cost you very little
