Anyone filing for divorce must become familiar with the documents required in the jurisdiction where the action happens. Every state has somewhat different paperwork requirements. The best way do start is to check the county’s family court website, speak to the court clerk or consult with a family law attorney, and learn what documents must be filed. Uncontested actions lend themselves to pro se filing.

The route to an uncontested divorce is normally much shorter and smoother than one where one spouse files a reply contesting the action.

Many divorces that begin contested become uncontested as the action proceeds. While the names of the documents may vary, here are the documents that a normally filed in a divorce action:

> The Petition. The petition starts the action. The petitioner (who may be called the plaintiff) states the grounds for the divorce based on the state’s law. Often, in on-fault actions, the grounds are “irredeemable breakdown” or “incompatibility.” The petition also authenticates that the petitioner meets the residency requirement of the jurisdiction. It may include terms for the division of property, spousal and child support, and visitation. In some places, both spouses can file the divorce petition as part of a summary action.

> The Summons. The summons informs its respondent (who may also be called the defendant) of a scheduled court hearing in which attendance is expected, or gives him or her time to respond the petition. Usually when a party files a divorce petition, he or she also provides a partially completed summons, and the clerk fills in information such as the case number and the date of the hearing. Unless the petition was filed jointly, the filer must serve a copy of the petition and summons served on the other spouse in accordance with the service of process laws of the state.

> The Answer. Normally, the respondent – the party who receives the petition – files answer, which is sometimes called a reply. In the answer, the respondent agrees to the terms of the divorce or contests them. The answer serves to let the court no that he or she has received service and, in the event of a contest, that there is disagreement about the divorce, which must be settled according to the court rules and procedure.

> Financial Disclosures. After an answer is filed, the case may be slated for a variety of hearings. Pending this, both the petitioner and the respondent complete forms detailing individual and joint assets and liabilities, income and expenses. Financial disclosures determine the marital estate and to aid in its division. The format of these forms varies from one jurisdiction to another, but they normally require a variety of papers, such as tax returns, pay stubs, credit card statements and bills. If minor children are involved, even more documents may be required.

> Motion for Temporary Orders. The spouses and their attorneys may begin negotiations with each other, and one may ask the court for temporary rights, such as child custody or alimony, while the action works it way through the courts. This required motions requesting these specific temporary orders. The family law division of the court provides forms for these purposes; a family law attorney can also help draft them.

> Marital Settlement Agreement. Eventually, the couples reach an accord, which is called the marital settlement agreement. This spells out the terms and condition of the division – the division of the marital estate, spousal and child support and visitation. The marital settlement agreement is the agreement between spouses and becomes a court order. The court may have a form for this document, or it can be drafted separately.

According to Herb Guggenheim (who advanced the idea in a Mensa newsletter), there are only two social strategies that people use to negotiate: reciprocal altruism, which is an application of the Golden Rule to dispute negotiations, and what he terms “I’m Only in It for Myself,” which explains itself.

The reciprocal altruists abide the French saying, “You send the elevator up to me and I’ll send it back down to you.” The “I’m Only in It for Myself” are social Darwinists who “believe that while the inferior, weak people are busy being nice to each other, they will swoop down and take what they want, when they want, no matter what the consequences may be.”

In the strum und drung of divorce negotiations, the altruist and the Darwinist war within a party even as he or she negotiates with his or her partner.

In a divorce, a couple (and their lawyers) must at some point negotiate the terms and conditions of the settlement – the division and distribution of property and liabilities, alimony and child support, custody and visitation. Couples who can negotiate with each other save a great deal of time and money because negotiations conducted by lawyers become very expensive very quickly. Courts normally approve any settlement that is fair and reasonable.

That said, divorce negotiations often have a very low ignition point. Ideally, a couple negotiates when each spouse’s emotional temperature is equal; that is, both have accepted the divorce. Negotiations are not the time for assigning blame for the marital failure.

During negotiations, the spouses do well to remember the wisdom of a Pennsylvania family court judge who said that a fair settlement is one where neither party comes out happy. Another version of this is a fair settlement is not where neither party is happy but both can live with the result.

Sometimes, despite a person’s best effort, he or she becomes locked into foolish positions. For example, it makes very little sense to argue about a set of dishes that have been locked up in self-storage bin for years.

“If both parties use Reciprocal Altruism, the divorce can be settled rather handily,” writes James G. Gross, a Maryland lawyer. “If both are using I’m Only in It for Myself, then it seems they are destined to have a long and costly litigation. What happens if they are each using a different strategy? It seems to me, the I’m Only in It for Myself strategist will walk all over the Reciprocal Altruism strategist and end up with the better part of the marital assets.”

Back in the bad old days of fault-only divorce, when state legislatures incubated what became known as no-fault, some social conservatives objected to no-fault divorce because they said it would give men a free pass to escape marriage. It didn’t turn out that way.

Today, women initiate two-thirds of all divorces. According to sources, “some of the reasons for this may be women’s tendency to monitor the marriage relationship more closely than their husbands, and the likelihood that men are involved in problematic behaviors such as drinking.”

In their 2000 study, These Boots Are Made For Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women, two law professors, Margaret Brinig from Notre Dame University and Douglas Allen from Iowa, studied 46,000 divorce cases filed in four states—Connecticut, Virginia, Montana and Oregon—to find out why women file for divorce. The study concluded that women are 66 percent more likely to file for a divorce than men; however, the reasons why has proven unexpected.

Brinig and Allen say woman file because they are confident they will prevail in custody questions. Statistically, Brinig says, women who filed for divorce most often felt confident they would receive advantageous custody agreements. “The question of custody absolutely swamps all the other variables,” Brinig said. “Our study found that children are the most important asset in a marriage and the partner who expects to get custody is by far the one most likely to file for divorce.” Brinig adds that not only are women certain they will get custody, they divorce specifically in order to “gain full control over the children.”

Many of the other assumptions about why woman initiate divorce proved wrong.

Contrary to expectations, divorcing to escape domestic violence was not prevalent, according to Brinig and Allen. In Virginia, for example, only 6 percent of the divorce cases showed violence as a cause for the divorce.

Brinig and Allen found that adultery on the part of the husband was also not a major cause of divorces filed by wives against husbands, nor was infidelity on the part of the wife.

While the wives’ feelings of being “too good” for their less financially or socially successful husbands (”I’m tired of him living off my back financially”) was cited in 20 percent of the divorce cases studied, Brinig and Allen found that even this reason–did not account for a significant majority.

In this age of women’s independence, divorce often is an escape for women who simply do not want to be married anymore. Some women just don’t feel they need marriage any longer to feel complete or be successful, according to author and researcher Ashton Applewhite in his book Cutting Loose: Why Women Who End Their Marriages Do So.

Women today often decide to divorce their husbands because they have simply outgrown them, according to author Carol Ann Wilson in her book “ABCs of Divorce for Women.” Wilson, a professional counselor for women in financial issues, says that many more women are simply realizing that they have new career and personal growth opportunities. Wilson says that wives who married young especially develop new perspectives over the years, perspectives that outdistance their husbands’ ability to keep pace.

Back in the 1960s, when pressure was building for divorce laws, many argued that liberalized divorce would be a free pass for man to walk out on marriage, but it turns out, the women do the walking.

Here are six areas to consider as a test the financial compatibility of a man and woman:

Talk money without arguing. The couple can openly discuss finances without arguing and blaming each other.

Not controlled. One partner does not control the other when it comes to finances.

A good look at the other’s credit report. Sharing a credit history is a huge sign of financial trust in a relationship. It’s unavoidable, when buying or even renting a home together, and a good place to get equal footing.

Paying the bills on time. Prompt payment of bills is a sign of financial maturity.

No fears about the future. It takes time to really get to know how another person views the future, particularly money management through the years. How two people management money often determines the success or failure of the relationship.

Handle the worst. Knowing how a person handles a financial crisis says a lot about that person.

Here are reasons woman initiate divorces:

Relief From a Bad Marriage: A woman’s happiness is no longer tied to whether or not she is married. There was a time when, to be happy a woman though she had to be married. Such a mindset led women to believe they were “stuck” in a marriage that had gone bad.

Escape Domestic Abuse: Women are less likely to stay in an abusive marriage today. At one time a woman had no choice but to stay.

Fewer Women are Financially Dependent on a Husband: Women are more likely to have their own career. Even stay at home moms have college decrees and marketable skills.

Women are Less Tolerant of Infidelity: Due to her financial security and her ability to identify what makes her happy, women’s expectations of their husband are higher. One of those expectations is fidelity and today, fewer women are willing to accept infidelity.

Women Want More Out of Marriage: A generation ago, women wanted to be supported, to become mothers and cheerleaders for their husband’s career. Women put their needs on the back burner for the sake of the marriage. Today women want their needs met.

Women Loose Their Identity: Some wives spend so much time focused on raising children helping their husband further his career and putting their needs last that they lose sight of who they are and what they want out of life. It is not unusual for a woman to hit middle age and go into a midlife crisis. She will begin to question the life she has led and wonder, “Is that all there is?” She may file for a divorce in order to explore life on her own in the hope of finding out who she is and what she wants out of life.

The trend known as “silver divorce” affects couples in their sixties who are newly-retired and realize two to three decades ahead of them with the same partner might not be their retirement dream.

The rise in “silver divorce,” the increase in divorce amongst couples in their 50s and 60s, suggests that the stigma of divorce has more or less gone. People have greater longevity, financial security and often view retirement as a new beginning, rather than an end. In certain cases, people suffer from boredom with their spouse and decide that they don’t want to spend another 20 years with them.

Marilyn Stowe, a United Kingdom family lawyer, said that the rise of silver divorce cases hasn’t been dramatic, but it has been noticeable. Ten years ago, the firm hardly saw any clients from this age group. To her, silver divorce is particularly sad for the spouse left behind, who may have been looking forward to a shared retirement. According to one source, the number of over-60 divorces increased from less than 9,000 in 2006, to more than 14,000 in 2009.

Most people don’t want to jump right from divorce into another committed relationship. There is nothing wrong with this, but for those who come out of long-term marriages seem take it for granted that just because they have not spent years sleeping around they are safe from sexually transmitted diseases. When they begin to date and enjoy the company of the opposite sex, casual dating leads to casual sex because older divorced folks are dating older divorced folks. There is a dangerous assumption that just because someone is older and was in long- term marriage that there is no need to use protection when engaging in a sexual relationship.

Women past child bearing years are especially at risk for sexually transmitted diseases because they feel that since they can no longer become pregnant that a condom isn’t needed. They fail to realize that it isn’t about becoming pregnant. When a person sleeps with someone, he or she is sleeping with every partner his or her partner had.

Casual sex is unsafe at any age. In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago it was found that nearly 60 percent of unmarried women ages 58 to 93 said they didn’t use a condom. On Ohio University stud found hat about 27 percent of HIV-infected men and 35 percent of HIV-infected women over the age of 50 sometimes have sex without using condoms.

It pays to play it safe according to those statistics.

Divorce reform advocates at the Coalition for Divorce Reform think making divorces harder to obtain would save the government billions of dollars. A story in the Washington Times reports that the Coalition for Divorce Reform makes the case for a legislative plan that will attempt to reduce divorce rates by a full third in just five years. The Coalition maintains that more Americans want to make divorce more legally difficult than the number of people who think divorce should be easier and that just one single parent family resulting from divorce can cost the government about $25,000 a year, making the annual toll an expense of between $33 billion and $112 billion a year.

Although state divorce reform legislation is uncommon these days and very few couples are expected to voluntarily enter into more restrictive marriages, most states have tried to make divorce easier in the past decade as evidenced by New York’s recent passage of no-fault divorce laws. Reformers at the Coalition for Divorce Reform say the societal consequences of divorce are obvious factors indicating the need for more restrictive laws. The Coalition points out that studies have shown the children of divorced parents are handicapped economically and prevented from reaching higher-income levels. It also cites research from Pennsylvania State University that shows if America had the same level of divorce as it did in 1960, there would be 70,000 fewer suicides, 600,000 fewer children undergoing therapy, 500,000 fewer acts of teenage delinquency, 750,000 fewer children repeating grades, and 1.2 million fewer school suspensions each year.

Although the Coalition for Divorce Reform says that the savings to taxpayers would be dramatic, it is very likely that the organization is going to have a tough time selling its plan to make divorce more difficult and restrictive in the current weakened economy.

Lawmakers from the Party of the Democratic Revolution in Mexico City recently proposed a controversial new bill that would allow temporary marriage licenses, which can be discarded or renewed after a minimum two-year period. 



If the legislation allowing temporary marriages is fully approved, it would allow Mexican couples to get a marriage license with an expiration date of a minimum two years. The bill would then allow couples to terminate the marriage if they do not renew their marriage contract. Couples could also opt to renew their contracts and continue to stay married. 



Proponents of the bill point out that half of all marriages end already now end in divorce in Mexico City, and the new proposal would simply eliminate the need for couples to get a costly formal divorce unless they wanted to end their marriage before the two year limit was up. The Party contends that when the two-year trial period is up, if a relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract would simply expire and eliminate the need of divorce. The Party added that because two years is the minimum amount of time it takes to know and appreciate what life is like as a couple, those who did renew their contracts would have a better understanding of their partners.

Not everyone is thrilled with the new proposal. A spokesman for the Mexican archdiocese said the proposal is absurd and that it contradicts the nature of marriage. Other critics say it would promote a culture of disposability in a predominantly Catholic country where pre-marital sex is not looked on with favor. The critics contend that the concept of getting married for just two years could be an open invitation for men who have no long-term commitments in mind to try out a number of different sexual partners that they see only as temporary wives.

A one-year divorce waiting period is among the recommendations of a study by the Institute for American Values as a way of reducing preventable divorce.

The study — Second Chances: A Proposal to Reduce Unnecessary Divorce, — is Intended for state lawmakers. The study not only reveals new research that is certain to dramatically change the debate surrounding this issue, but also offers concrete recommendations aimed at policy makers for modest ways to reduce unnecessary divorce.

The principal investigators of Second Chances are William J. Doherty, Professor of Family Social Science at the University of Minnesota, and Leah Ward Sears, partner at Schiff Hardin LLP and former chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court.

Doherty and Sears describe two widespread misconceptions that currently exist when it comes to divorce: First, the majority of divorces happen after many years of conflict and misery, and secondly, that once a couple files for divorce, they don’t consider the idea of reconciling. Both of these popular notions are wrong.

Second Chances builds upon a growing body of scholarly research that suggest most couples who divorce are actually very similar to couples who stay married. Longitudinal research over the past decade shows that a majority of divorced couples actually report average happiness and low levels of conflict in the years prior to the divorce. Moreover, about 40 percent of U.S. couples already well into the divorce process say that one or both of them are interested in the possibility of reconciliation. In this, Doherty and Sears say that those U.S. divorces today that are most likely to harm children are precisely those divorces that appear to have the greatest potential for reconciliation.

The major findings of Second Chances include:

> About 40 percent of couples already deeply into the divorce process report that one or both spouses are interested in the possibility of reconciliation.

> A modest reduction in divorce would benefit more than 400,000 U.S. children each year.

> A modest reduction in divorce would produce significant savings for U.S. taxpayers.

Based on their research, Doherty and Sears propose a Second Chances Act for U.S. State Legislatures to consider. It would provide married couples that are thinking about divorce the time and educational resources necessary to make reconciliation a viable option. Second Chances offers three specific recommendations:

> Extend the waiting period for divorce to at least one year, with a voluntary early notification letter individuals may use to let their spouses know their intentions without necessarily filing for divorce.

> Require pre-filing education for parents of minor children considering divorce, with a module on reconciliation and a module on a non-adversarial approach to divorce.

> Create university-based centers of excellence to improve the education available to couples at risk of divorce.

“Both of us sincerely believe that the modest reforms contained in our proposed Second Chances Act can contribute measurably to reducing unnecessary divorce in the United States,” said Doherty and Sears.