AZ Court of Appeals Issues Decision Re: Are Mormons Christian?

[smac97]

Huh:

Quote

From In re Ball v. Ball, decided yesterday by the Arizona Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Paul J. McMurdie, joined by Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined:

Quote

Mother and Father married in November 1999 and have two minor children. In December 2017, Mother petitioned for dissolution. The parties represented themselves during the initial dissolution proceedings, and the court entered a default decree ("Decree"). Filed simultaneously with the Decree was a parenting plan, signed by both parents, that they prepared using a court-provided form ("Parenting Plan"). The court adopted the Parenting Plan's terms as part of the Decree. The Parenting Plan provisions relevant to this appeal are as follows:

Approximately one year after the divorce, Father joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Father's Church"), and the children occasionally joined him at meetings. After Mother learned the children were accompanying Father to his church, she petitioned to enforce the Parenting Plan, claiming Father's Church is not Christian. Mother also asserted other violations of the Parenting Plan.

The superior court held two hearings on the enforcement petition. During the second hearing, Mother called a youth ministry leader from her church to testify that Father's Church is not Christian. After taking the matter under advisement, the superior court held that the Parenting Plan directs that "the Children shall only be instructed in the Christian faith" and that Father's Church was not "Christian" within the meaning of the Parenting Plan. For these reasons, the court held that Father could not take the children to Father's Church's services. The court also found that Father had violated other Parenting Plan provisions and granted Mother an award of attorney's fees….

 

You may be able to see where this is going...

Quote

Father appealed, and the court ruled in his favor. First, it concluded that the parenting plan didn't require the parents to raise their children Christian, but merely allowed it:

Quote

The first clause of the religious-education section of the Parenting Plan unambiguously states that "[e]ach parent may take the minor children to a church or place of worship of his or her choice during the time that the minor children is/are in his or her care." This language permits Father to take the children to any "place of worship," be it "Christian" or "non-Christian." Nothing in the second clause explicitly limits or narrows this authority…..

Adopting Mother's assertion that the second clause limits the parents' rights under the first clause would render the first meaningless because the parents could no longer take the children to a church or place of worship of their choice. Instead, the second clause is permissive and ensures that the "children may be instructed in the Christian faith." This interpretation gives effect to both clauses in the Parenting Plan's religious-education section.

But the court went on to add:

Quote

Even if the second clause might constrain Father's right under the first clause, we would nonetheless vacate the superior court's holding because the court violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution when it ruled that Father's Church is not Christian or part of the Christian Faith…..

The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment … "preclude civil courts from inquiring into ecclesiastical matters." …. "[E]cclesiastical matters include 'a matter which concerns theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of members of the church to the standard of morals required of them.'" …. "[D]epending on the circumstances, civil courts can resolve at least some church-related disputes through neutral principles of law so long as the case is resolved without inquiry into church doctrine or belief."

Here, the court dove into an ecclesiastical matter by addressing whether Father's Church is part of the Christian faith. That very question has long been a matter of theological debate in the United States. A secular court must avoid ruling on such issues to prevent the appearance that government favors one religious view over another.

Moreover, although the question was presented within the context of interpreting the Parenting Plan, the court did not resolve it through neutral principles of law but instead engaged in the exact type of inquiry into church doctrine or belief that the First Amendment prohibits. At the second evidentiary hearing, the court: (1) described the issue as "what is or is not within the definition of Christianity"; (2) allowed Mother to present testimony from a minister from her church claiming that Father's Church was not part of the Christian faith; and (3) admitted into evidence a chart purporting to compare the tenets of Father's Church with Christian beliefs. The court's order specifically found "that Mormonism does not fall within the confines of [the] Christian faith."

Courts are not the appropriate forum to assess whether someone who self-identifies as "Christian" qualifies to use that term. If the superior court's order could stand, the "harm of such a governmental intrusion into religious affairs would be irreparable." "Such a judgment could cause confusion, consternation, and dismay in religious circles." Accordingly, the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine applies with full force in this case, and we vacate the superior court's order on that basis.

In so holding, we observe that a parenting plan's religious-education provision may be enforced without violating First Amendment principles if the dispute does not require a court to wade into matters of religious debate or dogma….. But parents who wish to address aspects of their children's religious education in a parenting plan should take great care to ensure those provisions are as specific and detailed as possible. Failure to do so may impermissibly entangle the court in religious matters should a dispute ever arise.

This case provides a potent example of this possibility made real. The ambiguities surrounding the phrase "the Christian faith" thrust the court directly into a matter of theological controversy in which it could not take part. Accordingly, we vacate the court's order regarding religious education also because the First Amendment precluded the court from addressing whether Father's Church is part of "the Christian Faith." …

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. specially concurred, concluding that the court shouldn't opine on the constitutional questions.

I'm glad, but not particularly surprised, that the Arizona Court of Appeals reached this conclusion.  I was quite surprised that the trial court made the mistake in the first place.  I'm curious as to whether Father's attorney objected to the testimony from the minister, or to the entirety of the trial court's inquiry into whether Latter-day Saints are "Christian."  If I had been there, I would have strenuously objected under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Emily]

I would love to know the name of the judge for the original trial. If they ever reach the point that I can vote to remove that judge from a position, I would definitely vote against them. It's sloppy thinking and judges should not be such sloppy thinkers.

 

[Kenngo1969]

The instructions say "Choose ONE " and they mark ... TWO.

So, why doesn't the case turn on the failure to understand and to execute simple math?

I'm sorry.    I can't help but ask such questions. 

I'm just FUNNY that way!

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Emily said:

I would love to know the name of the judge for the original trial.

He is named in the opinion from the Court of Appeals: The Honorable Michael S. Mandel

Here is his judicial biography.  It looks like he was "Commissioner, Maricopa County" from 2013 to 2017 (handling divorces, I think), and then became a superior court judge in March 2018.

He graduated from law school in 1998, and got his BS (Summa Cum Laude) in 1991.  So he's not a spring chicken.

2 hours ago, Emily said:

If they ever reach the point that I can vote to remove that judge from a position, I would definitely vote against them. It's sloppy thinking and judges should not be such sloppy thinkers.

I dunno.  He made a mistake of law, yes.  Even a fairly substantial one.  That happens.  That is why we have appellate courts.

He will have learned a big lesson from this.  I imagine he's spent huge amounts of time and money and effort to get his undergraduate degree, then get a law degree, then practice for years, then get on the bench.  Unless he has a track record of seriously screwing up (unlikely, since he's been on the bench less than 3 years), I would hope that we let him learn from this and carry on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Emily]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I dunno.  He made a mistake of law, yes.  Even a fairly substantial one.  That happens.  That is why we have appellate courts.

He will have learned a big lesson from this.  I imagine he's spent huge amounts of time and money and effort to get his undergraduate degree, then get a law degree,

I disagree, appellate courts should handle cases that are so complicated they really need more than one opinion. Not something as basic as a judge ignoring, "This says "May" not "Must"" and separation of church and state. 

This was so egregious I can only assume, given that other complaints were upheld, that the judge was probably doing some kind of blanket handslap and approving everything without much thought. But again, that's sloppy thinking and sloppy judging.

He cost both parents huge amounts of money having to appeal the decision.  And they probably don't have a lawyer's or judge's salary to mitigate the pain. I would not vote to retain him.

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

Thankfully the appeals court came to the right legal conclusion - it isn't the court's job to adjudicate who is and isn't a Christian.

Like you, I find it strange that they would have even gone down that road to begin with.

Especially the bit about allowing into evidence testimony from the Mother's religious leader about whether or not Mormons are Christian? Really? Very strange indeed - especially if there was no opportunity for the Father to provide countervailing evidence. 

That being said, if you consider the parental agreement to be like any other contract - where there needs to be a meeting of the minds - then it probably would have been just fine for the Mother to have introduced (or attempted to introduce) evidence that, at the time, both she and the Father didn't consider the LDS faith to be Christian (say, for example, if they had written something to that effect here on our message board).

That would be pretty difficult thing to prove in a court of law, but I think the court could probably conduct such an inquiry without running into any of the entanglement issues that they stepped their foot into here. 

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The instructions say "Choose ONE " and they mark ... TWO.

So, why doesn't the case turn on the failure to understand and to execute simple math?

I'm sorry.    I can't help but ask such questions. 

I'm just FUNNY that way!

 Most Christian faiths outside of Catholicism, ours, Orthodox faiths, and a few others are pretty independent. Writing Christian invites disputes and forcing the court to possibly rule on which fit. Basically the form is bad.

As a technical writer it is also badly designed. The blank line is too short to put in a more specific church if needed and the form is structured so it is easy to check off multiple boxes. There needs to be a better indicator to check only one. I would put CHECk ONE above the boxes and not as part of the main line. The ONE is emphasized but it is next to larger text so the emphasis is lost.

The second line probably shouldn’t be there at all unless it is used to specify a specific church and not include generalities such as Christian or Buddhist or whatever because there is a lot of variety in there. I would not be happy if I were divorced and my ex had Christian written down and decided to take my kids to a snake handling service.

Then again I have dealt with court paperwork and there is a LOT of it so I am not sure if cleaning it up would help at all. When I did CASA cases I had to go to the agency and read the case file. They were usually 300 pages or so long and a lot of it was repetition or boilerplate stuff that doesn’t vary from case to case. I have no idea how bad divorce paperwork is by comparison but I would assume it varies by state.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Thankfully the appeals court came to the right legal conclusion - it isn't the court's job to adjudicate who is and isn't a Christian.

Like you, I find it strange that they would have even gone down that road to begin with.

There is no indication that the father's attorney failed to preserve the constitutional issues for appeal.  To me that signals that the attorney did his job and pointed out the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to the trial judge, who apparently was unconvinced, and who proceeded to biff it big time.

Quote

Especially the bit about allowing into evidence testimony from the Mother's religious leader about whether or not Mormons are Christian? Really? Very strange indeed - especially if there was no opportunity for the Father to provide countervailing evidence. 

The very notion of a civil judge allowing a minister to be called and provide in-court testimony about whether or not another religion is "Christian" should have raised all sorts of alarm bells.

Quote

That being said, if you consider the parental agreement to be like any other contract - where there needs to be a meeting of the minds - then it probably would have been just fine for the Mother to have introduced (or attempted to introduce) evidence that, at the time, both she and the Father didn't consider the LDS faith to be Christian (say, for example, if they had written something to that effect here on our message board).

I dunno.  Adjudicating the Church as not "Christian" is, I think, per se beyond the authority of the court.

Quote

That would be pretty difficult thing to prove in a court of law, but I think the court could probably conduct such an inquiry without running into any of the entanglement issues that they stepped their foot into here. 

I have my doubts.  Here's why.

1. The Court of Appeals would have had a unanimous decision had they not addressed the constitutional issues.  The concurring justice felt that the constitutional issues should not have been reached since there were non-constitutional grounds to reverse the trial court.  However, the other justices acknowledged that reaching the constitutional issues would normally not be appropriate, but that they did so here because of "the potential for the issue to arise again" (paragraph 20).  In other words, the trial judge screwed up big time in stepping into "the entanglement issues" you reference, and they are concerned others might do the same.

2. The Court of Appeals also noted that the constitutional issue was not a constitutional challenge to a statute, and also was not a "novel question of constitutional interpretation," and instead involved a "straightforward application of a well-settled constitutional doctrine" (paragraph 20).  

3. The Court of Appeals also noted that it was "concerned with a potential violation of the separation between religious matters and the judiciary guaranteed by the First Amendment," and that failing to address the ecclesiastical abstention issue " could risk tacitly endorsing a foray into religious disputes the judiciary simply has no place in resolving. That cannot be."

Look at these sections of subsequent paragraphs:

Quote

¶25 Here, the court dove into an ecclesiastical matter by addressing whether Father’s Church is part of the Christian faith. That very question has long been a matter of theological debate in the United States.  A secular court must avoid ruling on such issues to prevent the appearance that government favors one religious view over another.
...
¶26 Moreover, although the question was presented within the context of interpreting the Parenting Plan, the court did not resolve it through neutral principles of law but instead engaged in the exact type of inquiry into church doctrine or belief that the First Amendment prohibits. At the second evidentiary hearing, the court: (1) described the issue as “what is or is not within the definition of Christianity”; (2) allowed Mother to present testimony from a minister from her church claiming that Father’s Church was not part of the Christian faith; and (3) admitted into evidence a chart purporting to compare the tenets of Father’s Church with Christian beliefs. The court’s order specifically found “that Mormonism does not fall within the confines of {the} Christian faith.”

¶27 Courts are not the appropriate forum to assess whether someone who self-identifies as “Christian” qualifies to use that term. If the superior court’s order could stand, the “harm of such a governmental intrusion into religious affairs would be irreparable.” McCarthy v. Fuller, 714 F.3d 971, 976 (7th Cir. 2013). “Such a judgment could cause confusion, consternation, and dismay in religious circles.” Id. Accordingly, the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine applies with full force in this case, and we vacate the superior court’s order on that basis.

Oh, man.  This sounds lofty, but this is the Court of Appeals taking that trial judge to the woodshed.  I imagine the presiding judge in Maricopa County is going to have a very serious chit-chat with Judge Mandel.

For pete's sake!  This case took place in Maricopa County, Arizona.  The Church is the second-largest religious denomination there (after the Catholics), with "242,732 LDS Mormons with 503 congregations."  6.5% of the population (see here and here).  Judge Mandel has lived for decades in a state where more than 1 in 20 of his neighbors is a Latter-day Saint.  Does he know nothing about us?  And how on earth could he have thought it appropriate to adjudicate “what is or is not within the definition of Christianity” and conclude “that Mormonism does not fall within the confines of {the} Christian faith.”

The more I think about this, the more I think Emily may have a point.  It is a very serious error of law.  And I have a hard time believing it was inadvertent, either. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 11, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Emily said:

I disagree, appellate courts should handle cases that are so complicated they really need more than one opinion. Not something as basic as a judge ignoring, "This says "May" not "Must"" and separation of church and state. 

This was so egregious I can only assume, given that other complaints were upheld, that the judge was probably doing some kind of blanket handslap and approving everything without much thought. But again, that's sloppy thinking and sloppy judging.

He cost both parents huge amounts of money having to appeal the decision.  And they probably don't have a lawyer's or judge's salary to mitigate the pain. I would not vote to retain him.

If you read the decision, you'll see that the Court of Appeals doesn't criticize the trial judge for "sloppy thinking."  Rather, they take him to the woodshed for utterly incorrect thinking.  

You may have an overall point, though.  The more I think about this, the more I dislike it.  The father's attorney raised the constitutional issues at the trial court, and the trial court didn't care.

I don't live in that jurisdiction, so I have no voice.  But if I did I would give serious consideration to voting against him because of this.  I would feel the same way if he had disregarded the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine as pertaining to Catholics, or Baptists, or any other religious group.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Huh:

You may be able to see where this is going...

I'm glad, but not particularly surprised, that the Arizona Court of Appeals reached this conclusion.  I was quite surprised that the trial court made the mistake in the first place.  I'm curious as to whether Father's attorney objected to the testimony from the minister, or to the entirety of the trial court's inquiry into whether Latter-day Saints are "Christian."  If I had been there, I would have strenuously objected under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m no attorney, but I can clearly grasp that religious beliefs are not the province of litigation and judges. 

[Amulek]

On 12/11/2020 at 4:19 PM, smac97 said:

I dunno.  Adjudicating the Church as not "Christian" is, I think, per se beyond the authority of the court.

I agree. The court has no business deciding whether or not a particular church is Christian.

However, if the court is interpreting a contract which contains the term "Christian," it would conceivably be acceptable for the court to consider evidence demonstrating that, at the time the contract was formed, each party understood the term "Christian" to not include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Like I said before, I think trying to prove as much in court would be terribly difficult under most circumstances. You might have a shot if the couple happened to be Jerald and Sandra Tanner, both of whom had published statements about the Church falling outside the bounds of Christianity, but I believe such situations would be rare.

But, even then, the court wouldn't be adjudicating that the LDS church isn't Christian - though, no doubt, that is how detractors would try to spin it - it would only be determining that the parties involved didn't believe the Church was Christian at the time they entered into the contract. 

This is why these sorts of parental agreements can be so sticky. Without being carefully thought out and worded, they might become impossible for a court to enforce. Had the agreement said something like, 'both parents agree that the children will be raised in a religion which is recognized by the [fill in the blank religious organization: Southern Baptist Convention, Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Jewish Synod (not sure that that last one is even a thing, but you get the idea)].' then that would likely be enforceable by a court. Because, given such an agreement, the court wouldn't have to be making a theological determination - only a factual one (e.g., that the LDS church isn't, in fact, recognized by the RCC).

 

[Kenngo1969]

On 12/11/2020 at 3:19 PM, smac97 said:

There is no indication that the father's attorney failed to preserve the constitutional issues for appeal.  To me that signals that the attorney did his job and pointed out the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to the trial judge, who apparently was unconvinced, and who proceeded to biff it big time.

The very notion of a civil judge allowing a minister to be called and provide in-court testimony about whether or not another religion is "Christian" should have raised all sorts of alarm bells.

I dunno.  Adjudicating the Church as not "Christian" is, I think, per se beyond the authority of the court.

I have my doubts.  Here's why.

1. The Court of Appeals would have had a unanimous decision had they not addressed the constitutional issues.  The concurring justice felt that the constitutional issues should not have been reached since there were non-constitutional grounds to reverse the trial court.  However, the other justices acknowledged that reaching the constitutional issues would normally not be appropriate, but that they did so here because of "the potential for the issue to arise again" (paragraph 20).  In other words, the trial judge screwed up big time in stepping into "the entanglement issues" you reference, and they are concerned others might do the same.

2. The Court of Appeals also noted that the constitutional issue was not a constitutional challenge to a statute, and also was not a "novel question of constitutional interpretation," and instead involved a "straightforward application of a well-settled constitutional doctrine" (paragraph 20).  

3. The Court of Appeals also noted that it was "concerned with a potential violation of the separation between religious matters and the judiciary guaranteed by the First Amendment," and that failing to address the ecclesiastical abstention issue " could risk tacitly endorsing a foray into religious disputes the judiciary simply has no place in resolving. That cannot be."

Look at these sections of subsequent paragraphs:

Oh, man.  This sounds lofty, but this is the Court of Appeals taking that trial judge to the woodshed.  I imagine the presiding judge in Maricopa County is going to have a very serious chit-chat with Judge Mandel.

For pete's sake!  This case took place in Maricopa County, Arizona.  The Church is the second-largest religious denomination there (after the Catholics), with "242,732 LDS Mormons with 503 congregations."  6.5% of the population (see here and here).  Judge Mandel has lived for decades in a state where more than 1 in 20 of his neighbors is a Latter-day Saint.  Does he know nothing about us?  [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] And how on earth could he have thought it appropriate to adjudicate “what is or is not within the definition of Christianity” and conclude “that Mormonism does not fall within the confines of {the} Christian faith.”

The more I think about this, the more I think Emily may have a point.  It is a very serious error of law.  And I have a hard time believing it was inadvertent, either. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps he does, or at least he thinks he does, the reason being (this is speculation on my part; of course, I know nothing of the judge's religious background) that he, himself attends a church that fosters similar attitudes toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members: that the Church and its members are not Christian.  It would have been interesting if someone had offered testimony [perhaps expert testimony] to contradict that offered by the minister called by the mother, say, someone like the author of this book.

[smac97]

Two more news items on this story (actually, it looks like they are the same story published on two separate websites) :

Tucson.com: Appellate judges say court ruling on whether 'Mormons are Christians' was inappropriate

Arizona Capital Times:  Religious matters forbidden for courts, judges rule

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

On 12/11/2020 at 7:19 AM, smac97 said:

If I had been there, I would have strenuously objected under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

If I had been there, I would have strenuously objected and then would have probably been found to be in contempt of that court.

And that such a judge should be considered honorable... fagetaboutit !!!

[Damien the Leper]

What a strange case. The amount of petulance on behalf of the mother is astounding. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

What a strange case. The amount of petulance on behalf of the mother is astounding. 

I've been litigating in real estate and business disputes in state and civil courts for 16 years.  On very rare occasions, I dip my toe into family law, and pretty much every time come away with regrets.  I admire those attorneys that can deal with the endless drama, anger, vindictiveness, etc. that seems to be part and parcel of divorce and post-divorce proceedings.  I just don't have the stomach for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I've been litigating in real estate and business disputes in state and civil courts for 16 years.  On very rare occasions, I dip my toe into family law, and pretty much every time come away with regrets.  I admire those attorneys that can deal with the endless drama, anger, vindictiveness, etc. that seems to be part and parcel of divorce and post-divorce proceedings.  I just don't have the stomach for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe it, Smac. I don't think I could either.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I've been litigating in real estate and business disputes in state and civil courts for 16 years.  On very rare occasions, I dip my toe into family law, and pretty much every time come away with regrets.  I admire those attorneys that can deal with the endless drama, anger, vindictiveness, etc. that seems to be part and parcel of divorce and post-divorce proceedings.  I just don't have the stomach for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

What do you regret?  People get divorced because (at least) one of them gives up on the other one, being unfaithful and/or undevoted to the other in some way. It's a simple (albeit usually sad) breach of contract, in lawyerly terms. 

[Bob Crockett]

On 12/11/2020 at 5:05 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m no attorney, but I can clearly grasp that religious beliefs are not the province of litigation and judges. 

You'd think.  But in my legal work for religious institutions I see many opinions on religion in family law courts.  The typical scenario:  A divorcing couple agrees to raise their children as Christians.  The mother joins the Jehovah's Witnesses.  The father hires an expert to say the Witnesses are not Christian.  I've see this with ultraorthodox Jews and Mormons and Pentacostals.  The court has to make a decision to enforce the agreement.  

Now I would argue that such agreements should not be enforceable, but state family courts try to enforce them.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Quote

I've been litigating in real estate and business disputes in state and civil courts for 16 years.  On very rare occasions, I dip my toe into family law, and pretty much every time come away with regrets.  I admire those attorneys that can deal with the endless drama, anger, vindictiveness, etc. that seems to be part and parcel of divorce and post-divorce proceedings.  I just don't have the stomach for it.

What do you regret? 

Litigating family law disputes.

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

People get divorced because (at least) one of them gives up on the other one, being unfaithful and/or undevoted to the other in some way.

Yes.  And they often become embittered against each other during and after the divorce.  I just don't have the stomach for coping with the drama, vindictiveness, etc.

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It's a simple (albeit usually sad) breach of contract, in lawyerly terms. 

But the "real world" cost is much more than that.

I have spent the last decade in consumer finance litigation.  I have been involved in many hundreds of foreclosures and evictions, and virtually none of them bother me.  The emotions can run high, but in the end what is being lost is . . . a house or an apartment.  A breach of contract based on a person having borrowed money to buy a house, or having failed to pay rent for an apartment, is painful in the moment, but then life goes on.  You find another house or another apartment.  And the breach is between a bank and a borrower, or a landlord and a tenant.  There's no love lost when the deal goes sideways.  It's just a business transaction.  

In contrast, a divorce is a very emotional "contract."  And kids can be involved, or breaches of trust, or various kinds of neglect or abuse, or some combination of these.

I guess I'm something of a softy.  I just don't have the wherewithal to cope with the destruction of families on a day-to-day basis.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I've been litigating in real estate and business disputes in state and civil courts for 16 years.  On very rare occasions, I dip my toe into family law, and pretty much every time come away with regrets.  I admire those attorneys that can deal with the endless drama, anger, vindictiveness, etc. that seems to be part and parcel of divorce and post-divorce proceedings.  I just don't have the stomach for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

When I got married my real estate lawyer friend told me that I could have one free divorce: provided we didn't have any children or property.  

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

When I got married my real estate lawyer friend told me that I could have one free divorce: provided we didn't have any children or property.  

My first year out of law school I handled a divorce/annulment for a family friend.  The marriage had lasted a few weeks.  Why it ended, and who was responsible for the break-up of it, and their motives, and their treatment of my client, bother me to this day.  A lot.  It was demoralizing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Litigating family law disputes.

Yes.  And they often become embittered against each other during and after the divorce.  I just don't have the stomach for coping with the drama, vindictiveness, etc.

But the "real world" cost is much more than that.

I have spent the last decade in consumer finance litigation.  I have been involved in many hundreds of foreclosures and evictions, and virtually none of them bother me.  The emotions can run high, but in the end what is being lost is . . . a house or an apartment.  A breach of contract based on a person having borrowed money to buy a house, or having failed to pay rent for an apartment, is painful in the moment, but then life goes on.  You find another house or another apartment.  And the breach is between a bank and a borrower, or a landlord and a tenant.  There's no love lost when the deal goes sideways.  It's just a business transaction.  

In contrast, a divorce is a very emotional "contract."  And kids can be involved, or breaches of trust, or various kinds of neglect or abuse, or some combination of these.

I guess I'm something of a softy.  I just don't have the wherewithal to cope with the destruction of families on a day-to-day basis.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, I certainly don't have any desire to try to give you the idea that you should feel okay if a couple decides they no longer want to remain a loving partner of the other throughout the remainder of eternity.  I would see it as an opportunity forsaken while hoping that each of them would eventually find a partner to have a lasting and righteous relationship with.  I think each of us wants that kind of relationship with someone else and some people just have a harder time knowing how to create it and keep it going as it should when both truly love each other as they should.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Ahab