Month: December 2024

North Korea Divorce Requirements

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

North Korea, similar to many countries, has requirements to initiate a divorce proceeding. Just as many U.S. states have requirements before filing for divorce, North Korea has its requirements too. Frustrated by the number of divorces, the Supreme Leader of North Korea has just added a new requirement: any couple that divorces will now be sent to labor camps.

North Korea Divorce

Your North Korean Divorce

Kim Jong Un, at 42 years of age, is North Korea’s “Supreme Leader”. He is also the “general secretary of the Worker’s Party”, and the “marshal of the Korean People’s Army”. Kim Jong Un follows in his father’s and grandfather’s footsteps and rules the socialist paradise of North Korea.

As “Comrade General Secretary”, Kim Jong Un recently declared that dissolving your marriage demonstrates anti-socialist sympathies, which therefore warrants punishment. This declaration from the “Marshal of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” represents a toughening of existing divorce laws, which previously only punished the party seeking the divorce — even in cases of physical abuse.

The “Sun of Juche’s” new divorce law, in an effort to protect the family structure, requires that spouses be imprisoned once the divorce is finalized. As one resident of the northern Ryanggang province reportedly said:

“I went to the Kimjongsuk County People’s Court … where 12 people received divorce decrees. Immediately after the verdict, they were transferred to the county labor training camp. Until last year, when a couple divorced, only the person who first filed for divorce was sent to a labor training camp. Starting this month, all divorced couples will be sent to labor training camps.”

According to Kim Jon Un, who is sometimes known as the “Only and Unique Successor and Leader of the Juche Revolution”, the act of divorce is not only considered an affront to socialism, but also to the Confucian values that tie into the thinking of those in the north and south.

Florida Divorce Requirements

I have written on divorce jurisdiction issues, such as residency and other requirements to obtain a divorce, many times before. Similar to North Korea, Florida has its own requirements to obtain a divorce. For example, Florida has a six-month residency requirement before filing for divorce.

Durational residency – as a pre-condition to divorce – has been considered by many courts and upheld as a valid requirement. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently recognized the unique status of marriage and has left the entire field of marriage and divorce laws to the individual states.

Florida has a compelling state interest in requiring a durational residency so that Florida avoids intruding on the rights and interests of other states that might otherwise be paramount. There is another important reason.

Domicile of a divorcing party is essential, not merely because of technical jurisdictional rules, but because a divorce can be obtained ex parte, by constructive service of process which can have permanent future effect on the lives and property of third persons as well as the rights of sister states.

Accordingly, U.S. states must go slow, must be careful, and owe a duty to other states and other affected parties to make a record in support of a divorce final judgment that can withstand collateral attack and which will merit full faith and credit by other states.

Stigmatizing Divorce

The foundation of North Korean-style socialism, with its emphasis on the people and the masses, depends on whether family cells are managed effectively. That’s why – to North Korea’s “Brilliant Comrade” – divorce is considered an abnormal event and the breakup of the family.

Broken families are classified as social problems, and the children of these families often do not get along with other children and suffer various forms of discrimination, such as not being called on in school.

The socialist party’s firmly held position is that revolutionizing the family is equivalent to revolutionizing society and that improving the members of the family is equivalent to improving members of society. As a result, government officials who are divorced are considered to have failed to revolutionize their family, and are often unable to rise in rank or hold important positions.

Notwithstanding the “Beloved Father’s” efforts, reports from North Korea show divorce rates increased on the back of the Covid-19 lockdown. Initially, the “Father Marshal” started an education campaign to prevent, specifically women, from getting divorces.

To prevent divorces, lectures were given to members of the Socialist Women’s Union, the largest women’s organization in the country, under the theme:

“Let’s thoroughly eliminate the phenomenon of divorce and build a harmonious family, the cell of society.”

When that didn’t work, the “Supreme Leader of our Party, State and Armed Forces” tried other deterrents. The most obvious deterrents, publicly shaming the parents of divorcees, and publicly shaming the officials of  state owned companies responsible for high divorce rates among the workforce, were applied.

Surprisingly, given the socialist party’s campaign and other deterrents, divorces did not significantly decrease. So, the “Respected Comrade Supreme Leader” had no real choice but to act even more punitively by sending divorcing couples to forced labor camps. As one resident is reported to have said:

My brother divorced after three years of marriage. His wife first submitted a divorce application to the court and received a divorce ruling. She was sent to a labor camp for six months, while he has to do one month.

The London Evening Standard article is here.

Syrian Dictator and Divorce Jurisdiction

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

When you are the Wife of a Syrian dictator living in Russia, and mass graves are found in your home country, divorce jurisdiction may become a big issue. According to press reports, the former first lady of Syria, Asma al-Assad, the wife of the deposed Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, has filed for divorce in England while living in Russia.*

Divorce Jurisdiction

Syrian Saga

Asma Fawaz al-Assad is the former first lady of Syria. She has been the wife of Bashar al-Assad during his tenure as president-for-life from 2000 until he was overthrown December 2024. She was born to Syrian parents in London, she was also raised in London, and holds dual British and Syrian citizenship.

Bashar al-Assad is a the ousted Syrian dictator who has ruled Syria since 2000 after the death of his father, president-for-life, Hafez, who ruled Syria from 1971 until 2000. In November 2024, a coalition of Syrian rebels mounted a military offensive in Syria. Earlier this month, as rebel troops entered Damascus, the Assads fled Syria to Russia, and were granted asylum.

According to international press reports, Asma al-Assad is seeking to leave Moscow for England. Because she holds both British and Syrian citizenship, she is rumored to have started consulting with a family law firm in England.

There are also reports that Asma al-Assad has already filed for divorce from Bashar al-Assad in a Russian court, and has requested special permission to leave Moscow for London to pursue her divorce there.

Florida Divorce Jurisdiction

I have written about jurisdiction before. Generally, jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear a certain controversy, like a divorce. If the court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the parties to the divorce, any final judgment entered can be void or voidable and unenforceable.

Florida has jurisdiction to act in a divorce case if one of the parties has been a resident of Florida for six months before the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage. In addition to jurisdiction over the subject matter, a court will need to have personal jurisdiction over the parties to the divorce.

One cannot simply  stipulate to the court’s jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court must actually have jurisdiction over the subject matter.

When children are involved, jurisdiction requires additional steps under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The general purposes of the Act are to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflicts with other courts in child custody matters; promote cooperation with other courts; ensure that a custody decree is rendered in the state which enjoys the superior position to decide what is in the best interest of the child; deter controversies and avoid re-litigation of custody issues; facilitate enforcement of custody decrees; and promote uniformity of the laws governing custody issues.

No Depo in Aleppo

Although the Assads sought refuge in Russia after they fled Syria, Bashar Assad’s situation in Russia remains tightly regulated. Russian authorities have imposed strict restrictions on him, such as preventing him from leaving Moscow or engaging in any political activity. His request for a special permit to leave the capital is currently under review.

The Kremlin has also taken significant economic measures by freezing his assets and wealth held in the country, a move that strengthens Russia’s control over the movements of the Assad family while limiting their future influence. Russian authorities have frozen 270 kilograms of gold, $2 billion, and 18 apartments in Moscow.

The situation is particularly complex for Maher al-Assad, Bashar’s brother, whose asylum request is still pending. He and his family are currently under house arrest awaiting a decision. The possible departure of Asma al-Assad, who may be suffering from cancer, could further weaken the already perilous situation of the family in Russia.

The Albawaba article is here.

*  The Kremlin recently denied reports that Asma al-Assad sought a divorce and wanted to leave Russia.

Marital Settlement Agreements and Divorce Agreements

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Marital settlement agreements are a matter of course in a divorce ending in settlement. However, a divorce agreement is not the same thing as a marital settlement agreement. A court in China has to decide whether an agreement to divorce is valid after a mistress paid a wife to divorce her husband, but the wife kept both the money and the husband.

Divorce Agreements

鱼与熊掌，不可兼得 (You can’t eat the fish and the bear’s claw too)

In December 2013, a man named Han married his wife, Yang, with whom he had two daughters whose ages remain undisclosed. Han started an affair with a colleague, a woman named Shi. They also entered into a business partnership and welcomed a son together in November 2022.

In an attempt to “replace” Han’s wife, Shi confronted Yan with a proposal. Shi offered to pay the Wife 2 million yuan ($280,000) if the Wife agreed to divorce her husband Han. As a down payment, and to initiate the agreement, Shi transferred 1.2 million yuan to the Wife at the end of 2022.

But incredibly, more than a year later, the Wife still had not consented to a divorce. Frustrated, the mistress demanded her money back and then filed a lawsuit to recover the 1.2 million yuan after the wife refused to return it.

Over a year after receiving the money, Yang still had not agreed to a divorce, prompting the mistress to take her to court. In the lawsuit, Shi claimed there was a “verbal agreement” that the payment was contingent upon Yang divorcing Han and requested the court to order Yang to return the money along with overdue payment interest for breach of contract.

Florida Marital Settlement Agreements

I have written about marital settlement agreements before. Most family law cases are resolved by agreement, not by trial. A Marital Settlement Agreement is the method to resolving all of the issues, and is the final product of the negotiations.

A marital settlement agreement puts in writing all the aspects of the divorcing parties’ settlement. Topics covered in the Marital Settlement Agreement include the parenting plan and timesharing schedule, the division of the parties’ assets and liabilities, alimony, child support, and any other items to which the parties have agreed.

A marital settlement agreement entered into by the parties and ratified by a final judgment is a contract, subject to the laws of contract. The enforceability of contracts in Florida is a matter of importance in Florida public policy.

A marital settlement agreement is recognized as conducive to marital tranquility and public policy. But contracts intended to promote a divorce will be declared illegal as contrary to public policy. The reason for the rule lies in the nature of the interest of the State. The state’s interest in the preservation of marriage is the basis for the rule that a divorce cannot be awarded by consent of the parties.

胸有成竹 (Be confident)

Back in China, the Shishi People’s Court in China ruled against Shi’s request, stating that the payment violated societal moral standards and public order as it was intended to disrupt a lawful marriage. Additionally, it was determined that Han and Yang had already signed a divorce agreement and were in a “cooling-off period”, which meant that the payment did not meet the legal conditions for a refund.

This “cooling-off” period, imposed by the Chinese government in 2021, requires couples to wait 30 days after submitting a divorce application before the separation is finalized. It has also been revealed that during his marriage, Han spent over 6 million yuan ($825,000) on Shi without his wife’s knowledge.

The court denied Shi’s refund petition, stating the payment violated societal morals and public order by aiming to disrupt a lawful marriage:

“Any significant assets acquired by a married man during the affair, without his wife’s consent, are considered jointly owned by the couple. The wife has the legal right to demand the return of her share from the third party.”

It remains unclear whether Han might face legal repercussions for potentially committing bigamy by living with and having children with someone else while still legally married. The case has sparked lively discussion on Chinese social media, with many describing the outcome as “justice served”.

The South China Morning Post article is here.

Hague Convention and the Mature Child Exception

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A  common international custody issue under the Hague Convention involves a wrongfully removed child when there is an exception to being returned home. One such exception is the mature child exception. How mature does a child have to be in order to avoid being returned to the child’s habitual residence? A recent Florida case analyzes that question.

Hague Mature Child 2

Oh Mexico

The Father and Mother are the parents of a child born in Mexico in 2013. They lived together in Mexico until approximately one year after the child was born. After their separation, a Mexican court granted custodial rights and child support obligations. The custody order also contained a clause which prohibited Mother from removing minor child from Mexico without Father’s consent.

Then in December 2022, the Mother abducted the child to the United States. After learning his child was abducted, the Father filed a return petition under the Hague Convention in Florida.

The Mother opposed returning the child by arguing that the child was “sufficiently mature and intelligent to object to being repatriated to Mexico.” The trial court conducted an in-camera interview with the child who was then ten years old and had been exclusively with Mother in Florida for over a year. The child testified she lived in an apartment with Mother and her little brother and was attending school and taking English classes. She enjoyed playing at parks and wanted to join a football team.

She also admitted seeing Mother crying and being told by Mother that Father wanted minor child to go back to Mexico and that “I’m afraid that you might be sending me back to Mexico and that I won’t be able to see my mom.” The Mother testified she not only told minor child about the proceedings, but also told her she feared minor child “would be taken back to Mexico and no longer be with me.”

The trial judge denied the Hague return petition after applying the mature child exception. The father appealed.

Hague Convention

I have written and spoken on international custody and child abduction cases under the Hague Convention. The Convention’s mission is basic: to return children to their country of habitual residence.

In the recent Mexican case, the father had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child was a habitual resident of Mexico immediately before her abduction, the removal was in breach of his custody rights under Mexican law, and he was actually exercising rights of custody, or would have been so exercised but for the removal. If so, the child must be promptly returned to Mexico unless there is an exception to return.

The key inquiry in this recent case was the mature child exception. A court may refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is ap­propriate to take account of its views. A court may find that the child’s objection in and of itself is conclusive—it does not have to be coupled with another defense to be sustained.

Talking ’bout Mexico

On appeal, the district court noted that the child was exceptionally bright and articulate, she calmly and clearly conveyed her reluctance to return to Mexico, and conveyed significant family ties, teachers, and friends in Florida.

But in determining whether the mature child exception applies, courts primarily consider whether the child is sufficiently mature, has a particularized objection to being returned and whether the objection is the product of undue influence.

Here, the ten-year-old child’s preference to remain with Mother in Florida was based primarily on: friends, a desire to attend high school, and an upcoming school trip to Orlando. The appellate court found these to be generic and near-sighted responses and demonstrated the child’s inability to maturely comprehend or appreciate the long-term impact of her decisions.

This was especially true considering the child provided no significant testimony as to her life in Mexico or how life in Mexico differed from life in the United States. Also, her fear of return was based solely on not wanting to be separated from her Mother and return to Mexico does not necessarily mean she will be separated from Mother as Mother is free to return with her to Mexico.

Importantly, only a child’s objection is sufficient to trump the Convention’s strong presumption in favor of return, not the child’s mere preference. Here, the child just didn’t want to be separated from her mom. The only fear of returning to Mexico was being separated from Mother and not an unwillingness to live in Mexico.

Finally, the child’s objection was clearly the product of Mother’s undue influence. For example the Mother admitted she told minor child about the legal proceedings and about her fears of minor child being returned to Mexico.

The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to grant return to Mexico.

The opinion is here.