Divorce Attorney Cape Town

Facebook ‘Friend’ Offer Exposes Man’s Other Wife


Facebook’s automatic function to connect its users through “friends” they might know recently led two women in the United States to find out they were in fact married to one and the same man, at the same time.

This led to the man being charged with bigamy.

The man married a woman in 2001, separated in 2009, then changed his name and remarried without divorcing his first wife. The first wife first noticed this to her shock when Facebook suggested the friendship connection to wife number 2 under the “People You May Know” feature.

Neither the man nor his first wife had filed for divorce. The man allegedly told wife No. 1 not to tell anybody about his dual marriages and that he would fix it. But wife No. 1 alerted the authorities.

Facebook over the years has played a role in both creating relationships and destroying them. It’s just the latest vessel by which people can stray if they want to.

Bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another. Bigamy is a criminal offense in most western countries, and when it occurs in this context often neither the first nor second spouse is aware of the other. The legal status of the parties is as if they never concluded a marriage, the second marriage is thus void and has no legal consequences and its effect is absolute. It is also unnecessary to obtain a court order, although this may be done for sake of legal certainty.

A void marriage, like in the case where Bigamy was committed means that legally no marriage has come into existence.

Save for in a case of Bigamy a marriage will also be void where the parties have not adhered to some formal or material requirements. Examples of formal requirements that will render a marriage null and void include the following:

  • The marriage was not conducted by a competent marriage officer
  • No witnesses were present at the marriage ceremony
  • A boy under 18 years or a girl under 15 years of age married and did not obtain the consent of the Minister of Home Affairs
  • The parties are related to each other within the prohibited degrees of relationship
  • One or both of the parties were mentally incapable when they concluded the marriage
Advertisements

Consent from both Parents needed regarding a change of schools


The case of Nel v Nel [2011] ZAWCHC 113 dealt with the fact that both parents need to consult each other when a child’s school is being changed. In this matter the mother decided to put the children in a new school without consulting the father.

The Applicant and the Respondent was embroiled in divorce proceedings. The parties had 2 children ages 3 and 8 years of age. In terms of a Court Order issued by Desai J, in the Cape High Court on 23 June 2009, the children were primarily resident with the Respondent subject to reasonable contact being afforded to the Applicant as set out in the order.

The eldest child was a learner at Kenridge Primary school in Bellville, after he attended the pre-school at the same school in 2007, Grade R in 2008 and or 2009 and 2010 he attended Grades 1 and Grade 2 respectively. The eldest child was happy at the school and did not have any problems.

The youngest child attended Pixie Daycare in the same area, and would have attended Fledglings Pre-Primary School, adjacent to Kenridge Primary School in 2011.

When the new school year commenced, it came to the notice of the Applicant that the Respondent had without informing or consulting the Applicant, removed the eldest child from Kenridge Primary School and did not enroll the youngest child as agreed with the Applicant at Fledglings Pre-Primary School in Kenridge, Bellville. This was common cause between the parties.

Section 31(1)(a), read with Section 31(b) (iv) of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 states:

“Major decisions involving child – (1)(a) Before a person holding parental responsibilities and rights in respect of a child takes any decision contemplated in paragraph (b) involving the child, that person must give due consideration to any views and wishes expressed by the child, bearing in mind the child’s age, maturity and stage of development.

(b)    a decision referred to in paragraph (a) is any decision –

(i)    …………………………

(ii)   …………………………

(iii)    ……………………………….

(iv) which is likely to significantly change, or to have an adverse effect on, the child’s living conditions, education, health, personal relations with a parent or family member or, generally, the child’s well-being.”

The Respondent enrolled the children at Islamia College in Rondebosch East. It was also common cause that the Respondent did not advance any reason why she did not inform the Applicant thereof, at that time when this happened.

In later correspondence from her attorneys it emerged that to ease her travelling burden, she took this step. In her Answering Affidavit, she only stated that the children were granted bursaries to attend the new school.

The crisp question was whether, notwithstanding the parental rights of the Applicant, whether the fact that they were removed from one schooling environment to another, was in the best interests of the children.

The Respondent in her papers averred that by moving the children back to their previous schools would not be in their best interests.

It was clear that the actions and conduct of the Respondent was in contravention of the law, and a court will not lightly condone such conduct on the part of a parent, where it is clearly not justified, under the guise that it is in the best interests of the children.

Apart from stating boldly, that by moving the children back to their previous school environment, would not be in their best interest, the Respondent did not give substantial reasons why she believed that it was in their best interests to remove them from Kenridge Primary School or to have the younger child enrolled at Fledgings Pre-Primary School as agreed to with the Applicant.

Both children were at a young age, the older child had been in that school environment since 2007 and the younger child since 2009.

There was clear evidence from the Applicant and the school that the children were happy and content with this environment. The Respondent disturbed the status quo, the onus was on her to show why it would be in the best interests of the children to disturb this and she clearly did not.

There was no objective evidence to suggest that the removal of the children from the one schooling environment to the one the Respondent chose was in their best interests so as to disregard the rights of the Applicant to have been properly informed or consulted about the fact that the Respondent had removed the children from one schooling environment to another.

The court had to deal with the question whether it would have been in the best interests to move the children back to their previous schooling environment.

The court was of the view that having regard to the short time the children had spent at Islamia College and also it being a whole new environment compared to the longer time they had spent at Kenridge which was a known and stable environment to them, there would be a greater harm if they were not moved back to their previous schooling environment.

The court was of the view, that it was dealing with young vulnerable children, and the fact that the school year had basically reached one month, the harm would have been greater to the children had this application not been heard on an urgent basis

The Applicant therefore made out a case why the application should have been heard in terms of Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

After consideration of the papers and after hearing Counsel for both parties, the following order was made:

The Respondent was ordered to immediately return to and/or re-enroll the minor children B N, born on 7 June 2002 and S N, born on 5 September 2006 at Kenridge Primary School and Fledgings, the pre-school facility at Kenridge respectively by no later than Friday the 18th  of February 2011.

The Family Advocate was directed to urgently investigate what school and aftercare arrangements would be in the best interests of the children, pending the finalization of the parties’ divorce.

Parental Alienation, are you guilty?


There are thousands of divorces every year in South Africa…

A sad statistic and topic that is all by itself. But these numbers don’t even come close to reflecting the pain and heartache that divorce brings with it. Most of the time, both spouses feel hurt, anger and possibly even betrayal. If not by their spouse, then by the hopes, dreams and commitment that they once shared.

If you have ever “survived” a divorce you know exactly what I mean. If you haven’t experienced one then you are most fortunate. The emotions, demands and the decisions that need to be addressed while going through and after a divorce are staggering in scope and importance. It’s a wonder any of us survive.

My heart goes out to anyone that has ever had to rebuild a shattered life and dreams because of divorce. The difficult scenario that I’ve just shared describes a husband and wife navigating through this life changing event. I think we would all agree, when children are introduced into the equation the stakes go up considerably for everyone involved. That’s where the potential for “Parental Alienation” rears its ugly head.

In fact, Parental Alienation is so ugly that very few that very few people even want to admit its existence. They would much rather debate whether it should be classified as a “syndrome” or not. Or assign self-serving motives to anyone who dares to shed light on its deadly impact on children.

No matter what you “label” Parental Alienation, it comes down to this. Any parent that deliberately and maliciously attacks their child’s other parent, and does everything they can to destroy the relationship their children have with that parent is abusing that child.

Now I’m not talking about occasionally venting about your ex-spouse (although even that is not healthy for your children), I’m talking about a wilful desire to use your children to “hurt, control or attack” your ex-spouse by turning the children against him or her.

Most of the time these attacks are hidden behind the guise of “protecting” the children from their “father or mother. In reality there are very few situations (although there are some) where the children are in need of protection at all.

What about the children? Do they deserve to be caught up in a deadly game of hate and manipulation just to make one of their parents feel better about themselves or meet their needs? What about our God-given (or at the very least our humane) responsibility for their welfare?

The sad fact is that the same parents that would probably fight to the death to shelter their children from harm end up being a perpetrator that inflicts some of the deepest wounds their child will ever receive. It boggles the mind and daunts the spirit to even consider such a thing! Doesn’t it?

The statistics are bleak concerning children of divorce to begin with. The incidence of depression, fear, anger and feelings of pain directly related to divorce and a “broken” family are significant by anyone’s standards. The statistics for children that have successfully been alienated from a loving parent is even more staggering and alarming!

Can you imagine how horrible it must be for a child to be torn from the loving arms of a parent that has loved, protected and provided for that child since the day they were born? Someone that comforted them, spent time with them and nurtured them for as long as they can remember. Now for reasons they can’t comprehend, that parent is suddenly “the enemy”.

What must it be like to be told (or at the very least strongly encouraged) that they must “hate mommy or daddy” to keep the alienating parent’s love and acceptance. What must go through their fragile little minds when they are taught to call the parent they once looked up to and respected by their first name, essentially taking them out of the role of parent in that child’s life?

How does a child feel when every reference made about one of their parents by the alienating parent to others, is demeaning and cruel. I would speculate that it makes them embarrassed by and resentful of the targeted parent. It makes them hate a part of themselves…

It is trite in family law that the ‘best interests’ of each child is paramount in determining the contact and care of and access arrangements to such child. Such interests have been described as ‘an elusive concept’.

In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the Court must decide which of the parents is better able to promote and ensure his physical, moral, emotional and spiritual welfare. This can be assessed by reference to certain factors or criteria which are set out hereunder, not in order of importance, and also bearing in mind that there is a measure of unavoidable overlapping and that some of the listed criteria may differ only as to nuance. The criteria are the following:

  • the love, affection and other emotional ties which exist between parent and child and the parent’s compatibility with the child;
  • the capabilities, character and temperament of the parent and the impact thereof on the child’s needs and desires;
  • the ability of the parent to communicate with the child and the parent’s insight into, understanding of and sensitivity to the child’s feelings;
  • the capacity and disposition of the parent to give the child the guidance which he requires;
  • the ability of the parent to provide for the basic physical needs of the child, the so-called ‘creature comforts’, such as food, clothing, housing and the other material needs – generally speaking, the provision of economic security;
  • the ability of the parent to provide for the educational well-being and security of the child, both religious and secular;
  • the ability of the parent to provide for the child’s emotional, psychological, cultural and environmental development;
  • the mental and physical health and moral fitness of the parent;
  • the stability or otherwise of the child’s existing environment, having regard to the desirability of maintaining the status quo;
  • the desirability or otherwise of keeping siblings together;
  • the child’s preference, if the Court is satisfied that in the particular circumstances the child’s preference should be taken into consideration;
  • the desirability or otherwise of applying the doctrine of same sex matching;
  • any other factor which is relevant to the particular case with which the Court is concerned.

Source partly from: http://www.keepingfamiliesconnected.org

International abduction of minor children a South African Law Perspective


International abduction of minors a South African Perspective

Article 3(b) of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980), which is incorporated into South African law by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act 72 of 1996 (the Act), provides that the removal or retention of a child is to be considered wrongful if, among others, at the time of the removal or retention, the rights of custody were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

In terms of article 13(b), the authority of the requested state is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body in the other state that opposes the return or retention establishes that there is a grave risk that his return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. In Central Authority of the Republic of South Africa and Another v LG 2011 (2) SA 386 (GNP) the second applicant, the father, and the respondent, the mother, were married and living together with their minor child in the United Kingdom (UK). After several heated arguments the parties agreed to divorce and that the respondent would return to her native South Africa with the child. Alleging that the respondent agreed to return with the minor child to the UK after attending a wedding in South Africa and as she failed to do so she had unlawfully retained the child in this country, the second applicant (with the help of the first applicant, the Central Authority of South Africa) applied for a court order for the return of the child to the UK. The application was dismissed with costs.

Molopa-Sethosa J said the fact that the second applicant was prepared to stay away from the minor child, who was only 17-months-old at the time, for at least six months when the child was in South Africa with the respondent (who was during that time considering whether reconciliation with the second applicant was possible) was not indicative of a close bond between the second applicant and the child. Furthermore, the child would be exposed to the risk of psychological harm if he were to be returned to the second applicant who did not have the best interests of the child at heart. The fact that since the child had been in South Africa his health improved tremendously was of the utmost importance and could not be ignored.

Best interests and views of a child in international abduction matters:

In Central Authority v MR (LS Intervening) 2011 (2) SA 428 (GNP) the court dealt with the best interests of a minor child and her views in an international child abduction matter. After the death of her mother the minor child of some nine years lived with her biological father in Belgium. Subsequently the two relocated to Los Angeles, in the United States of America (USA), because of the father’s professional commitments.

There the two lived with the father’s new wife. After the child visited her maternal grandmother in Hoedspruit, Limpopo, the grandmother prevented the minor child returning to the father in Los Angeles and instituted an ex parte application to keep the child in this country. She sought, pending the final outcome of the family advocate’s investigation, full parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the minor. Meanwhile, the father sought the return of the child to the USA. The court dismissed the father’s application, but ordered the grandmother to pay costs because of the unacceptable way she instituted ex parte proceedings and for not being candid with the court.

Financial Tips for Women Facing Divorce


Financial Tips for Women Facing Divorce

Financial Tips for Women Facing Divorce

While neither gender has an exclusive lock on money management skills, the financial deck is stacked against women. Women earn about three-quarters of what men earn. In a divorce, they get less of the assets and more of the children. They live longer, and one in eight elderly women lives in poverty, compared to one in 12 men, according to  figures from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the same may apply in South Africa. Unfortunately, many women view money and money-related tasks as necessary evils, not opportunities to even the odds.

The divorce rate is beginning to tick upward for couples who have been married for several years, decades or longer.

Recent media reports tell the tale, and it’s easy to point to the divorces of long-time couples like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver, Al and Tipper Gore and others for evidence of what many now consider a growing trend across the world.

Older women who have been in long-term marriages must nowadays confront unique financial issues when they’re facing divorce. Just as younger brides have their own set of concerns to mull over; older women have to pay special attention to a number of financial matters specific to their age and the often sizeable assets that have accumulated over the course of a lengthy marriage.

For example, women who have been married for some time and facing divorce must be particularly vigilant about protecting their:

1.         Business

Even though it may seem incredibly unfair, a divorce can ruin your business –unless you have taken the appropriate steps to “divorce-proof” it (ideally while you were still single).

How can a divorce ruin your business? Consider this:

If you nurtured a business, and it increased in value while you were married, the amount of increased value must usually be included as part of the marital assets that will be divided between you and your husband, unless of course if you got married out of community of property without the accrual. It doesn’t matter who operated the business or how it’s titled.

2.         Retirement funds

Divorce requires the careful scrutiny of all retirement annuities and pension funds. It’s essential for your divorce settlement agreement to clearly spell out how these assets will be split and how those funds will be transferred.

Many women often make the mistake of assuming that a divorce order will fully protect their rights to their portion of their husband’s retirement annuity or pension fund. This is usually not the case, and the settlement agreement need to be drafted in a particular way to include these assets.

3.         Insurance

Most women pay careful attention to their health insurance needs. But, don’t forget: In your new role as a single woman, you’ll need to consider life, property/casualty and disability insurance, as well. What’s more, if you will be receiving child maintenance you will want an insurance policy that protects you financially in the event something happens to your ex-husband.

4.         Short-term and long-term financial stability

Following your divorce, you’ll need financial stability in the short-term, and you’ll have to take the right steps to plan for financial security into your retirement years.  For starters, you must create a budget that will allow you to maintain your lifestyle, pay off debt and increase your savings.

But, what happens if the divorce settlement doesn’t provide enough income to pay your expenses? In that case, you will need to start immediately liquidating assets to maintain your lifestyle.

5.         Assets that he concealed

What happens when you find out 2 years after the divorce of certain assets that your husband did not disclose and which would have had an impact on your initial divorce settlement? A good divorce attorney will know how to deal with issues such as these in a divorce settlement agreement, to allow a claw back to claim any assets that your ex might have hide.

The following steps may be recommended for women in a divorce:

  1. Set a financial goal — be as diligent about money as you are about fitness or your career or about anything else.
  2. Train yourself to be financially independent — don’t allow yourself to become reliant upon your partner’s decisions, and become involved in long-term financial planning.
  3. Buy your own home — don’t wait for Prince Charming to come along and do it for you.
  4. Fund your retirement annuity — an important step for everyone, not just young women.
  5. Opt for long-term planning over crisis management — get serious about money now; don’t wait for trouble to strike.
  6. Start investing — do it now, and don’t be afraid to make mistakes.
  7. Don’t fear risk — women are especially prone to conservative investments; be willing to seek aggressive growth when appropriate.
  8. Don’t go it alone — work with a financial planner to educate yourself and to feel more secure in your decisions.
  9. Know that it’s never too late — remember that you can start late and finish rich.

About the author:

Bertus Preller is a Divorce and Family Law Attorney in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in most sectors of the law and 13 years as a practicing attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com and is frequently quoted on Family Law issues in newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Parenting Plans, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters, international divorce law, digital rights, media law and criminal law.

Grounds for Divorce in South Africa


GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE IN SOUTH AFRICA

Dissolution of marriage and grounds of divorce

A marriage may be dissolved by a court by a decree of divorce and the only grounds on which such a decree may be granted in terms of the South African Divorce Act are

  • the irretrievable break-down of the marriage as contemplated in section 4;
  • the mental illness or the continuous unconsciousness, as contemplated in section 5, of a party to the marriage.

Irretrievable break-down of marriage as ground of divorce

A court may grant a decree of divorce on the ground of the irretrievable break-down of a marriage if it is satisfied that the marriage relationship between the parties to the marriage has reached such a state of disintegration that there is no reasonable prospect of the restoration of a normal marriage relationship between them.

Section 4 (2) of the Divorce Act lays down three circumstances which a Court may accept as evidence of irretrievable breakdown of a marriage and these are that:-

  • the parties have not lived together as husband and wife for a continuous period of at least one year immediately prior to the date of the institution of the divorce action.
  • the Defendant has committed adultery and that the Plaintiff finds it irreconcilable with a continued marriage relationship
  • the Defendant has in terms of a sentence of a Court been declared a habitual criminal and is undergoing imprisonment as a result of such sentence.

This does not mean however that:- the man and wife have to live in separate buildings but in the past our Courts have been unwilling to (even on a undisputed basis), hear the case if the parties are still living in the same house on the date of the application. There must be a reasonable explanation, but even then some judges have refused to grant a decree of divorce.

If the Plaintiff is a party to an adulterous relationship it may be proof of a real break-down of the marriage. If irretrievable breakdown has been proved, the court still has discretion to refuse the divorce.

In terms of section 4(3) of the Divorce Act the Court still has discretion not to grant a divorce order but postpone the proceedings sine die or even dismiss the claim if it appears to the Court that there is a reasonable possibility that the parties may become reconciled through marriage counselling, treatment or reflection. The Summons also usually contains the averment that further marriage counselling and/or treatment will not lead to any reconciliation. This evidence must also be tendered to the Court even on an unopposed basis.

The Court must therefore be satisfied that the marriage has really irretrievably broken down and that there is no possibility of the continuation of a normal marriage, before a final divorce order will be granted.

The court may postpone the proceedings in order that the parties may attempt reconciliation if it appears to the court that there is a reasonable possibility that the parties may become reconciled through marriage counselling, treatment or reflection.

Where the parties live together again after the issue of Summons, it does not necessarily end the underlying cause of the action. If the reconciliation after a few months is seemingly unsuccessful, they can proceed on the same Summons.  Where a divorce action which is not defended is postponed in order to afford the parties an opportunity to attempt reconciliation, the court may direct that the action be tried de novo, on the date of resumption thereof, by any other magistrate/ judge of the court concerned in terms of section 4(4) of the Divorce Act.

A customary marriage may be dissolved only on account of an irretrievable breakdown in the marriage and only if the High, Family or Divorce Court is satisfied that the marriage relationship between the parties has reached such a state of disintegration that there is no reasonable prospect of the restoration of a normal marriage relationship between them.

Mental illness or continuous unconsciousness as grounds of divorce:

A court may grant a decree of divorce on the ground of the mental illness of the defendant if it is satisfied that the defendant, in terms of the Mental

Health Act 18 of 1973; has been admitted as a patient to an institution in terms of a reception order; is being detained as a State patient at an institution or other place specified by the Minister of Correctional Services; or is being detained as a mentally ill convicted prisoner at an institution.

A divorce order may also be granted if such defendant has also for a continuous period of at least two years immediately prior to the institution of the divorce action, not been discharged unconditionally as such a patient,

State patient or mentally ill prisoner; and the court has heard evidence of at least two psychiatrists, of whom one shall have been appointed by the court, that the defendant is mentally ill and that there is no reasonable prospect that he will be cured of his mental illness.

A court may grant a decree of divorce on the ground that the defendant is by reason of a physical disorder in a state of continuous unconsciousness, if it is satisfied that the defendant’s unconsciousness has lasted for a continuous period of at least six months immediately prior to the institution of the divorce action; and after having heard the evidence of at least two medical practitioners, of whom one shall be a neurologist or a neurosurgeon appointed by the court, that there is no reasonable prospect that the defendant will regain consciousness.

The court may appoint a legal practitioner to represent the defendant at proceedings under this section and order the plaintiff to pay the costs of such representation.

The court may make any order it may deem fit with regard to the furnishing of security by the plaintiff in respect of any patrimonial benefits to which the defendant may be entitled by reason of the dissolution of the marriage.

For the purposes of this section the expressions ‘institution’, ‘mental illness’, ‘patient’, ‘State patient’ and ‘reception order’ shall bear the meaning assigned to them in the Mental Health Act, 1973.

The circumstances under which a court may grant a divorce order on the basis of mental illness or continuous unconsciousness is as follows:-

  •  In the case of mental illness the Defendant must have been admitted, in terms of the Mental Health Act, 1973 (Act No 18 of 1973), as a patient to an institution in terms of a reception order, for a period of at least two years and in any case two psychiatrists (one appointed by the Court) must satisfy the Court that there is no reasonable prospect that he will be cured of his mental illness.
  • In the case of unconsciousness the Court will only grant the order if the Defendant was unconscious for a continuous period of at least six months immediately prior to the institution of the action and also after hearing the evidence of two medical practitioners of whom one shall be a neurologist or a neuro-surgeon appointed by the Court who must declare that there is no reasonable prospect that the Defendant will regain consciousness.

In such cases a curator ad litem must be appointed to protect the interests of the Defendant (patient) and to assist the Court.

Bertus Preller is a Divorce and Family Law Attorney in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in most sectors of the law and 13 years as a practicing attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Abrahams and Gross Attorneys Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com and is frequently quoted on Family Law issues in newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Parenting Plans, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters, international divorce law, digital rights, media law and criminal law.

Divorce and the impact of the recession – Sunday Times Article


While financial matters are one of the biggest strains on a marriage and a primary cause of divorce, the divorce rate has declined during the recession.

This, say some experts, is because getting divorced is costly, especially so when times are tough. Moreover, most lawyers require a deposit before they will consider a case.

People would rather hold back on divorce proceedings because of the cost involved. In many cases when there is a strain on the marriage, the main breadwinner will not disclose some sources of income or other financial details, which makes it very difficult for the other spouse to file for divorce. By default, this results in the couple staying married.

Couples have been choosing to separate or to stay together in an unhappy relationship. Most of the complaints, especially by women, are that they cannot afford to get divorced and are unsure whether they will be financially secure after divorce.

The economic climate is not that good, and people still have a lot of debt. Some people can’t afford to get divorced because of that.

Bertus Preller, an attorney at Bertus Preller & Associates, says couples are being coerced into staying together for pragmatic financial reasons.

Maintaining two separate households while relying on the income once used to support a single household can be very difficult when times are tough, he says.

“I also think that our challenging financial climate may have prompted individuals to reconsider the role of marriage by thinking more of it as a quest for financial stability than a quest for finding a soulmate.”

In a US survey in which 1197 married couples were asked how their relationship had changed during the recession, a third said their marriage was at a high risk of divorce through added financial stress, while 38% of couples who had been considering divorce delayed their plans because of the costs, including legal fees and setting up separate households.

About 30% said the struggle of surviving the recession had brought them closer to their partner as they weathered the storm together.

More than half of the 1600 attorneys who are members of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers reported a 40% downturn in their business in 2009, a phenomenon the New York Daily News described as “sleeping with the enemy”.

Those same lawyers are now being inundated with new clients as financial stability returns. The Financial Times reported that, in a signal of economic recovery, the US divorce rate was growing.

A stronger economy, lower unemployment and a housing market that is stabilizing are contributing to a rise in divorce filings.

“There is a definite increase in divorce instructions this year in comparison to 2010,” says Preller.

“From this, one may assume that the economy is slowly starting to pick up and, unfortunately, the divorce rate is too.”

Article by: Adele Shevel – Sunday Times: http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article1064919.ece/Recession-puts-brakes-on-divorce

Bertus Preller is a Divorce and Family Law Attorney in Cape Town and has more than 20 years experience in most sectors of the law and 13 years as a practicing attorney. He specializes in Family law and Divorce Law at Bertus Preller & Associates Inc. in Cape Town. Bertus is also the Family Law expert on Health24.com and on the expert panel of Law24.com and is frequently quoted on Family Law issues in newspapers such as the Sunday Times and Business Times. His areas of expertise are Divorce Law, Family Law, Divorce Mediation, Parenting Plans, Parental Responsibilities and Rights, Custody (care and contact) of children, same sex marriages, unmarried fathers rights, domestic violence matters, international divorce law, digital rights, media law and criminal law.

%d bloggers like this: