Can a person effectively refuse to grant their spouse a divorce?

[Gfactor]

@Anaamika

I’m assuming the cruelty is because of battery and the like.

Cruelty can be mental or physical:

(1) The cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff by the defendant such that the conduct of the defendant so endangers the physical or mental well being of the plaintiff as renders it unsafe or improper for the plaintiff to cohabit with the defendant.

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_york/new_york_grounds_for_divorce

A favorite example of a crazy mental cruelty claim comes from an Ohio case that I encountered at the library one day. In Hunt v. Hunt, 63 Ohio App. 3d 178; 578 N.E.2d 498; 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 2364, the Ohio Court of Appeals rejected an appeal from a denial of a divorce petition:

In Pearson v. Pearson, supra, we applied the abuse of discretion test set forth in Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 5 OBR 481, 450 N.E.2d 1140. That test is whether the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. In Pearson, we concluded that the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff had proved grounds was within the trial court’s discretion. In that case, there was evidence to support a conclusion by the trial court that the plaintiff had been humiliated by being forced frequently to attend adult movies with her husband, even though she found them to be extremely offensive, and that the defendant husband had neglected his marital duties by expending substantial sums in gambling at cards, thereby causing his minor children to go without. We noted that the trial court could, based on that evidence, conclude that the defendant husband had, through his acts and omissions, caused the marital situation to be intolerable.

In the case before us, Mr. Hunt testified as to numerous grievances. Some of these, such as Mrs. Hunt’s having installed a “closet organizer” in a closet that she used, against his expressed better judgment, frankly appear to be rather trivial. Others, such as his wife’s having given away the ten-year-old car that he had purchased for her, after his son had expressed an interest in purchasing the car for his own use, are less trivial, but were disputed. In her cross-examination testimony, Mrs. Hunt denied that she was aware that Mr. Hunt’s son had expressed an interest in purchasing the automobile. Also, she testified concerning Mr. Hunt’s having purchased a truck shortly before then, without having consulted her, when, because of her employment, it could be expected that she could have obtained a much better price for the truck.

[miamouse]

How do the courts view drug abuse by one of the spouses? Typically as a mental disorder, or as mental abuse?

[Gfactor]

@miamouse

How do the courts view drug abuse by one of the spouses? Typically as a mental disorder, or as mental abuse?

Intentional refusal by a spouse to have sexual relations may be considered cruel and inhuman treatment where it actually has a physical effect upon you. Alcoholism or drug addiction, or substance abuse by itself, usually is not a sufficient basis for divorce, unless your spouse becomes violent or abusive when under the influence so that you fear for your health and safety.

http://www.brandeslaw.com/grounds_for_divorce/grounds.htm

Some jurisdictions simply inlcude substance abuse as one of the statutory grounds. http://www.divorcesource.com/info/divorcelawsgr/ohio.shtml
http://www.divorcesource.com/info/divorcelawsgr/arizona.shtml
http://www.divorcesource.com/NJ/ARTICLES/oflanagan2.html

[chorpler]

@Gfactor

http://www.brandeslaw.com/grounds_for_divorce/grounds.htm

“Intentional refusal by a spouse to have sexual relations may be considered cruel and inhuman treatment where it actually has a physical effect upon you.”

I’m puzzled by this. What does that mean? When does not having sex have a physical effect on somebody? Does this mean if, for example, a man wanted to divorce his wife because he was dissatisfied with their sex life, he would have to say “My wife won’t have sex with me, and it’s causing me agonizing prostate pain as detailed in this deposition I got my my Uncle Cecil” or something to that effect? Or does it mean something else?

“Alcoholism or drug addiction, or substance abuse by itself, usually is not a sufficient basis for divorce, unless your spouse becomes violent or abusive when under the influence so that you fear for your health and safety.”

Some jurisdictions simply inlcude substance abuse as one of the statutory grounds. http://www.divorcesource.com/info/divorcelawsgr/ohio.shtml
http://www.divorcesource.com/info/divorcelawsgr/arizona.shtml
http://www.divorcesource.com/NJ/ARTICLES/oflanagan2.html

Wasn’t there a thread a month or so ago where somebody told of their experience in law school, where it was asserted during a mock trial or something that his “client” was automatically able to be divorced because he was a drug addict, and that the law therefore automatically considered him unable to have sexual relations? I searched, but didn’t see it.

[Rubystreak]

What if the petitioner in a divorce case where the other person is resisting the divorce submitted evidence that he had committed adultery or was an alcoholic or had an incurable mental illness or something (in a state like NY)? IOW, can you rat yourself out as being “at fault” in order to get a divorce if the other person doesn’t want to give you one? What’s the down side to doing that? I’m assuming there is one or it would be easy enough to get the divorce regardless of your partner’s wishes.

[Gfactor]

§ 170. Action for divorce. An action for divorce may be maintained by
a husband or wife to procure a judgment divorcing the parties and
dissolving the marriage on any of the following grounds:
(1) The cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff by the defendant
such that the conduct of the defendant so endangers the physical or
mental well being of the plaintiff as renders it unsafe or improper for
the plaintiff to cohabit with the defendant.
(2) The abandonment of the plaintiff by the defendant for a period of
one or more years.
(3) The confinement of the defendant in prison for a period of three
or more consecutive years after the marriage of plaintiff and defendant.
(4) The commission of an act of adultery, provided that adultery for
the purposes of articles ten, eleven, and eleven-A of this chapter, is
hereby defined as the commission of an act of sexual intercourse, oral
sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct, voluntarily performed by the
defendant, with a person other than the plaintiff after the marriage of
plaintiff and defendant. Oral sexual conduct and anal sexual conduct
include, but are not limited to, sexual conduct as defined in
subdivision two of section 130.00 and subdivision three of section
130.20 of the penal law.
(5) The husband and wife have lived apart pursuant to a decree or
judgment of separation for a period of one or more years after the
granting of such decree or judgment, and satisfactory proof has been
submitted by the plaintiff that he or she has substantially performed
all the terms and conditions of such decree or judgment.
(6) The husband and wife have lived separate and apart pursuant to a
written agreement of separation, subscribed by the parties thereto and
acknowledged or proved in the form required to entitle a deed to be
recorded, for a period of one or more years after the execution of such
agreement and satisfactory proof has been submitted by the plaintiff
that he or she has substantially performed all the terms and conditions
of such agreement. Such agreement shall be filed in the office of the
clerk of the county wherein either party resides. In lieu of filing such
agreement, either party to such agreement may file a memorandum of such
agreement, which memorandum shall be similarly subscribed and
acknowledged or proved as was the agreement of separation and shall
contain the following information: (a) the names and addresses of each
of the parties, (b) the date of marriage of the parties, (c) the date of
the agreement of separation and (d) the date of this subscription and
acknowledgment or proof of such agreement of separation.

Legislative Information - LBDC

You’ve pretty much got to be the plaintiff (the one seeking the divorce) and complaining about the defendant’s conduct.

[Gfactor]

By the way, the divorce by agreement bit is sort of new itself. I’m not sure of the precise timeline, but there was a time when the fact that both parties agreed they didn’t want to be together was not enough. Back then, couples would file collusive lawsuits, sometimes using staged photos, according to Friedman in A History of American Law Amazon.com

and see, http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fam15.htm

[Cunctator]

@acsenray

In a no-fault divorce system, however, I don’t think there is anyway for one spouse to effectively deny the divorce.

That’s pretty much the case here. There are very few grounds on which a spouse could contest a divorce. One would be to question whether the Family Court of Australia actually had jurisdiction. The other obvious one would be to argue that the spouses had not yet been separated for the twelve month period required to prove that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. And even if this were the case, the contesting spouse could only get the divorce application deferred, not blocked permanently.

[A.R.Cane]

Things change. I separated from my first wife in the late 60’s. She wouldn’t agree to divorce because she was catholic, but also because she was deluding herself that I would reconcile. About 5-6 years later she relented, but insisted I file and pay for everything, including her lawyer. She then almost backed out when she read the (standard) wording in the filing. I finally convinced her it was just legal jargon, not a personal attack, and was necessary if she wanted me to be the complaintant and pay the bill.
Finally it was done. A very expensive mistake indeed.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Paul in Saudi writes:

> Not quite the same thing, but I understand Ted Kennedy’s wife refuses to do
> whatever she must do to let the RC Church grant an annulment.

You’re thinking of Joseph Kennedy II, I suspect:

Joseph P. Kennedy II