A defect in the language used in certain Church of England wedding ceremonies over the last thirty years reportedly may invalidate some one million marriages due to a legal technicality.

It seems that the Church’s ceremonial language was updated.

However, the prior ceremonial language was mirrored in a British statute regulating procedures for valid marriages …

And the statutorily-mandated language was not amended to conform to the updated ceremonial language.

An attorney for the Church of England denied the invalidation of any marriages due to the technical defect in the updated church ceremony though, citing a “savings clause” in the statute applicable to marriages entered in “good faith” by the intended husband and wife.

But other Church attorneys, as well as secular divorce law attorneys and family law attorneys in the UK expressed doubts.

Perhaps the most interesting issue raised by this gaffe is:

can the ceremonial defect be raised as a defense in divorce cases, in an effort to avoid support obligations or property division under divorce law and child support law?

Whatever the interpretation of the existing British statute, a properly crafted future amendment to the statute may address the concerns.

Read more in this [UK] Daily Mail article: Revealed: A million marriages are ‘invalid’ because of Church of England blunder.

Canadian Mother and Father have four children together.

Three of the children live with Mother and one with Father.

Mother has been on and off public assistance for years, but has been working of late.

And earning about $11 per hour.

With the three children to support.

Father, her ex, for reasons unstated, does not work.

Father, and their child who lives with him, are on public assistance.

And because Father receives public assistance, the government is requiring Father to seek child support from Mother or risk loss of his public assistance.

The court will rule on Father’s petition for support in a couple of months.

Meanwhile, the stress of the support case has overcome Mother, who is now on leave from her job.

The amount in dispute in Father’s case is approximately $60 per month.

There is no indication whether Father pays Mother any support for their three children who live with her.

It is common for US states to pursue child support from noncustodial parents as well when the custodial parent receives public assistance.

Read more in this [Montreal] CTV News article: Single mom facing child-support squeeze.

Indian Husband and Wife marry in a Hindu wedding ceremony.

Husband and Wife have two Sons together.

Family lives in Malaysia.

Husband unilaterally converts to Islam during marriage.

Husband converts young Sons to Islam without Wife’s agreement – or knowledge.

Husband and Wife separate.

Wife takes Sons to live in Australia.

Wife brings a constitutional case over Husband’s secret conversion of Sons, seeking custody of them.

Malaysian Court enters temporary timesharing order requiring Wife to bring Sons to Malaysia so that Husband may exercise visitation with Sons.

Wife allegedly does not comply with temporary order.

Husband presses Wife’s contempt and objects to her case being heard because of it.

Malaysian Court holds that Wife has no right to put on her case, because she is in violation of the court’s order by withholding Husband’s access to Sons. Wife must return to Malaysia to earn the right to press her case … or her case will be dismissed.

Read more in
this MSN article: Shamala cannot be heard as she breached visitation rights and
this Malaysian Digest article: Federal Court Dismisses Shamala’s Referral Application.

Boy, five years old, lives in Indiana. He is not living with Mother.

Mother allegedly abducts Son and takes him to California.

After four months, Mother is arrested in California on charges of custodial interference.

Son is taken into child protective custody pending pickup by Son’s legal guardian.

US marshals played a key role in finding Mother and Son.

Read more in this San Jose Mercury News article: Woman arrested in Dublin in connection with child abduction

Florida Husband and Wife’s marriage is troubled.

Wife files for a domestic violence restraining order of protection against Husband.

Late that night, Husband awakens from a nightmare and confesses to Wife that he had dreamed of killing himself.

Husband asks whether Wife still loves him.

Wife replies in the negative.

Husband then removes a gun from underneath Wife’s pillow.

Husband tells Wife he cannot live without her.

Husband allegedly shoots at least one bullet into their bedroom ceiling.

Wife calls the police. Wife is not looking to have Husband arrested.

Instead, Wife wants to have Husband Baker Acted, that is, psychologically evaluated for posing a danger to himself and others.

Husband reportedly suffers from mental illness and is prescribed medication for same.

Husband gets his hands on a second gun.

Husband warns Wife that he will shoot at any police officers who come to their home.

Husband allegedly tries to kill himself.

Wife tackles Husband and manages to gain control of one of the guns.

Husband is arrested for discharging a weapon in a dwelling, a felony.

Husband is confined.

Husband is a Daytona Beach police officer. Wife is a former Deland police officer.

Read more in this Daytona Beach News-Journal article: Shot fired in marital discord between Daytona policeman, wife.

Lesbian Couple have two Children via artificial insemination. They are and have been the Children’s primary caregivers.

But Bio Father, the sperm donor, has had shared parental responsibility for Children.

Bio Father, who is gay, now seeks timesharing with Children, although he had represented to the Lesbian Couple that he “require[s] little involvement”.

This year, when the Children are nine and seven years old, the UK trial court awards Bio Father equal timesharing with Children.

Lesbian Couple appeals.

And the UK appellate court has taken the high profile, politically charged case under advisement.

Read more in this Australian news article: Lesbian mother, gay father in court over children.

Davenport, Iowa apparently thinks so. The City has a local ordinance that holds a parent accountable if their child breaks the law or causes a third party harm.

Accordingly, the ordinance imposes punishments for their children’s infractions on parents.

Parental punishments progress with each succeeding infraction, from a mere warning, to attending mandatory parenting classes at a parent’s expense, to monetary fines starting at $750.

As written, the ordinance requires an “accused” parent to prove that the parent has not been negligent in supervising their child. Failing that, if the City deems the parent responsible, the punishment stands.

Son is arrested for having “pot” and violating the local curfew.

The City of Davenport “punishes” Mother.

Mother takes the matter to court.

At trial, the court rules in Mother’s favor, and awards Mother significant attorney’s fees.

The City of Davenport appeals.

Iowa’s highest court then holds that some of Davenport’s ordinance is unconstitutional, because it deprives parents of due process.

In particular, the court strikes the ordinance provision that relieves the government of having to prove that the parent was negligent and, as written, unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof to a parent to prove that they were not negligent.

And the appellate court upholds Mother’s victory at trial.

Otherwise, the ordinance stands though and the court approves, conceptually, holding parents accountable for their children’s misdeeds.

But now the law will require the government to put on affirmative proof of the parent’s negligence and, presumably, that that negligence “caused” the child’s misconduct. So, the ordinance no longer stacks the deck in favor of government … and, arguably, now stacks the deck in favor of parents.

Read more in this [Davenport, IO] Quad-City Times news article: Parental responsibility law takes hit from Iowa court and this Des Moines / Ames WOI-DT 5 ABC TV news article: Parts of Parental Responsibility Law Struck Down.

Quebec Man and Woman cohabitate, but never marry.

Man is a billionaire.

Man and Woman break up.

Woman seeks alimony. Woman’s claim is denied.

Quebec appellate court rules that provincial alimony law discriminates against cohabitants, and strikes that provision.

One-third of Quebec couples are in cohabitant relationships rather than legal marriages.

And the rest of Canada allows alimony to the needy partner when cohabitating couples separate.

Quebec appellate court allows the Quebec legislature one year to cure the constitutional defect in the alimony law.

So, Man and his billion seem to be off the hook.

But the next one might not be so lucky …

Read more in this Winnipeg [Canada] CTV News article: Quebec court paves way for common-law alimony.

UK bio Mother has Child through artificial insemination.

At the time, Mother, a lesbian, is in a committed relationship with Girlfriend.

Mother and Girlfriend raise Child together.

Until Child is ten years old.

When Mother and Girlfriend break up.

Court awards parental decisonmaking rights to Girlfriend.

Now Mother seeks child support from Girlfriend…

And the Court denies child support.

The applicable UK law on child support at the time provided that child support is owed only by a legal “parent”, that is, a biological parent or a legal adoptive parent.

Technically, Girlfriend is neither.

Although she has parental decisionmaking rights.

Inconsistent rulings. Incapable of being reconciled.

Which is why UK law recently changed.

Now, both homosexual parents may be recognized as legal parents, with access rights and financial responsiblities, under UK law.

Read more in this [UK] Bio News article: Lesbian mums in dispute: fertility law, child maintenance and what makes a parent.

The Chinese province of Sichuan ranked seventh among Chinese provinces in number of couples granted divorces last year.

Sichuan province climbed in rank to first position this year.

Why the dramatic change?

1. Some experts attribute it to a powerful, life-altering earthquake there in 2008. It reportedly inspired an attitude that “life is too short” to remain stuck in an unhappy marriage.

2. Other experts attribute it to revised legislation simplifying the divorce process. (Couples wishing to divorce are no longer required to produce “letters of introduction” from their “work units” or “neighborhood committees”.)

3. And still other experts attribute it to increased social mobility.

Of course, most likely, a combination of all of them drove the growth in divorce in that province.

All are universal and have influenced divorce rates in the US and elsewhere, to one degree or another, in one place or another, at one time or another.

Read more in this [India] Sify news article: Earthquake blamed for divorce rise in southwest China.