No Fault Divorce? Hah!

You don't really think we have "no fault divorce" in Texas, do you? I am convinced the Texas Family Code is drawn up by the same folks who write the impossible-to-read or understand IRS Code - oh wait! It is - lawmakers! Do I sound anti-lawyers? Forgive me if I do. They really are not my favorite group of people in the world, and I must regrettably admit I am somewhat biased against them and think the so-called "LAW" should be more user friendly to those who wish to pursue a matter on their own behalf (otherwise known as the pro se litigant). Not only does the law not do much to help the pro se litigant, in some cases courts are downright hostile toward them, when they should applaud them; they are our U.S. Constitution in action. And who better to represent you than .....you?

The problem with letting a lawyer handle custody issues is that a lawyer is just an extension of the husband and wife. The fight continues, only through the lawyers, who can generally keep it going until someone cries uncle (runs out of money), and a winner emerges. The fight has a theme: His faults versus her faults. What happened to "NO FAULT?" Who makes these laws anyway? Oh yeah, we already established that. Those they benefit the most, the lawyers (there's that nasty little bias again).

Let's face it. We do not have no fault divorce in Texas. Fault, not law, is used to determine a nunber of things in divorce. Division of property and custody awards are both determined in large part by who can prove the other is more responsible for the breakup. In other words, who is most at fault for the failure of the marriage?

I heard a story just last week about a couple who both got drunk and in the throes of their drunken stupor, the wife ran the husband down with a car (not quite Clara Harris style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburban_Madness because he lived). He got out of the hospital, and in typical alcoholic fashion, it all got swept under the rug. He refused to press charges, and they are getting along just fine ('til next time). She broke the law but cannot be prosecuted because he's her husband and refuses to testify against her. If they ever divorce, he's free to use it as evidence. Most of you are probably saying the same thing I am - Well I would too! Of course, we all would. My point is this. Husbands and wives do all manner of terrible things to one another they will never talk about - until divorce. And then they use it to gain legal advantage.

Unfortunately most divorces are heard by only 1 person, the judge. He or she is the trier of facts. In a jury trial, the jury is the trier of facts and the judge is the interpreter of the law. I think it is dangerous when you have just 1 trier of facts, especially when the lives of children weigh in the balance. Judges are human. They err. They can be biased, or tired, or bought, or screwed up in the head, or you can have the unfortunate dilemma of reminding them of an ex-inlaw they hate. They can be myopic in their view of the facts, so you may never get all your evidence in. They can be mysoginistic, so if you are a woman you're just out of luck because the law won't decide the fate of your children; a woman-hating world view will. Conversely, your case may be decided by a judge who just thinks the kids should always go to the mom, no matter what. Sorry, dad; you're left out in the cold.

No, the law has to change. We the citizens have to find a way to become loud enough so that the lawmakers can no longer ignore us.

Yours for a responsible judiciary,
Anna