The Personal In the Judicial: Divorce Proceedings, Essay Example

I recently attended a Dissolution of Marriage hearing at the Richard J. Daley Center, at 50 West Washington Street in Chicago, Illinois.  The proceedings were, in a word, sedate. The hearing was called for one p.m., and very few people were in the seating gallery.  At the appointed time, the wife, whom I will call Mrs. X, appeared with her attorney.  Mr. X did not arrive, nor was his counsel present.  This was noted with some surprise by presiding Judge Smith but, in accordance with matrimonial law, the failure of a spouse to appear does not of itself negate the hearing.  I found it interesting, in fact, that Mrs. X’s attorney seemed very pleased by this absence of the husband.  I also learned early on that this was a joint proceeding; Mrs. X was filing for the divorce and simultaneously seeking to declare her position and her intents in regard to a final settlement.

Judge Smith established order – this generated a chuckle or two in the quiet courtroom – and began by asking Mrs. X what seemed to be routine questions.  As to why she was filing for divorce, Mrs. X cited irreconcilable differences.  When asked if she believed the marriage was irredeemable, or if counseling could salvage the union, she replied that there was no hope of saving the marriage.  I should note that, in virtually every instance of a question being asked of her, Mrs. X would pause to turn to her attorney before replying; occasionally he whispered advice to her, briefly.  Judge Smith continued to pursue reconciliation options, informing Mrs. X that, in his experience, couples often benefit from allowing time and separation to create new perspectives.  To this Mrs. X shook her head, replying that there have in fact been several attempts to reconcile, each of which has ended in failure.  She added that she would not waste the court’s time were she unsure about moving ahead with the divorce, and this seemed to satisfy Judge Smith.

At this point, the attorney took the lead in addressing the pragmatic circumstances of the case, and as prompted by Smith’s inquiries.  It was revealed that the couple have been married for eight years; that Mrs. X is not pregnant, that there are no children from the union, nor do Mr. or Mrs. X have children from prior marriages; and that Mrs. X does not foresee difficulties in equitably dividing the assets of the marriage.  Both spouses are employed, and reside in an apartment; Mrs. X’s desire is that she retain the lease to the apartment, as the location is near to her work and as she has done all of the decorating.  She wishes to make clear, the attorney offered, that she is not seeking alimony.  Her concern, in fact, is that, as she earns more than Mr. X., she not be required to pay alimony to him.  At this Judge Smith only nodded, which lack of reassurance seemed to alarm Mrs. X.  Her attorney, however, calmed her and informed her that this was standard procedure. The judge could not give any such assurance before reviewing the financial statements of the couple, as well as the husband’s claims.

At this point, Mrs. X requested permission to address the judge herself.  This seemed to surprise her attorney.  Permission was extended and she asked what the impact would be of the failure of her husband to appear on this occasion.  She said that her attorney had been vague on this point, expressing only that such absences tend to work in favor of the spouse present. The judge smiled and concurred, but added that there is no penalty necessarily attached to non-attendance of a hearing.  There are, Judge Smith went on, circumstances often impeding attendance, and the court typically allows latitude, particularly as husbands often are unable to leave their jobs.  At this Mrs. X – not turning to her attorney – vehemently expressed the desire to acquaint the judge with the full facts.  Allowed this, she made it clear that her husband’s work was by no means so restrictive; he set his own schedule as an IT consultant, in fact.  Judge Smith was patiently attentive, as I could also discern Mrs. X’s attorney as watchful of his client’s potential excesses.  Mrs. X then informed the judge that she is absolutely certain that her husband’s absence is evidence of his disregard for her.  That is to say, she went on, she is convinced that he failed to appear because this would impede the divorce, and thus prolong her own distress.  She added that she is fearful that Mr. X will plead illness as his reason for not attending, which will also go to his request for financial support.

After allowing Mrs. X to finish, Judge Smith told her that he appreciates her concerns and is not unfamiliar with the many strategies spouses employ in divorce proceedings.  He assured her that there would be no random rulings made, and that he is obligated to review all pertinent information as objectively as possible, no matter the behaviors of the parties.  At this point the attorney mentioned that it is important to Mrs. X that she be permitted to return to her maiden name.  She spoke here as well, asking how soon this could be done, as she was very eager to put the marriage behind her and resume her life as a single woman.  Judge Smith informed her that, as the marriage dissolution did not appear to be complicated, this would be granted upon the final decree.  When Mrs. X was clearly unhappy with this information, Judge Smith took this as an opportunity to address her in what may be called a paternalistic manner.  He reminded her that the marriage had lasted eight years, and that too much eagerness to “start over” may indicate a failure to genuinely appreciate how and why the union failed.  Smith said he did not want to see her in this same court in the future, so he advised her to use the process, as painful as it is, as a learning experience.

With the actual filing of the papers, the hearing concluded and Smith reiterated his need to review all relevant documentation.  What was evident to me at this time was unease or even distress in Mrs. X, as I gathered that the judge’s response to her husband’s absence disturbed her.  I witnessed the attorney consoling her and explaining that this was the process, but I also heard her ask him why the absence was not as favorable to her interests as she had been led to believe.  The attorney denied having given this impression, and I perceived Mrs. X as generally angered.

Stepping into the hallway, I also heard her express indignation at Judge Smith’s “lecture” to her about the responsibility of marriage and his apparent perception of her as not appreciating this.  Her attorney, however, reassured her regarding the points of alimony and the resuming of her maiden name, and this seemed to calm her.