Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:05PM   Printer-friendly
from the breaking-up-is-hard-to-do dept.

Ending a marriage is never easy, but Kelly Clay reports at ReadWrite that things just got easier as Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper has granted 26-year-old Ellanora Baidoo permission to serve papers to her elusive husband via a Facebook message. Invoking the social network was a last resort. Husband Sena Blood-Dzraku's whereabouts in the real world were unknown. But because he communicated with his estranged wife via phone calls and Facebook, Baidoo knew where to find him online. Justice Cooper says the "advent and ascendency of social media," means sites like Facebook and Twitter are the "next frontier" as "forums through which a summons can be delivered." Previously, if you couldn't find a defendant, you had to leave the notice at a last-known address or publish it in a newspaper, and there was no guarantee the defendant would know about it.

Before Cooper agreed to her using Facebook, Baidoo had to prove the Facebook account belongs to her husband, and that he consistently logs on to the account and would therefore see the summons. Attorney Andrew Spinnell says he has contacted Blood-Dzraku twice on Facebook, but has yet to hear back. If Blood-Dzraku refuses the summons, Spinnell says the judge can move forward with a "divorce by default" for his client. "She's not asking for any money," says Spinnell, "She just wants to move on with her life and get a divorce."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by Snow on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:32PM

    by Snow (1601) on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:32PM (#168505) Journal

    I always think long term. I'm on my first marriage, but already planning my third divorce!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Funny=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:37PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:37PM (#168509) Journal
    Congrats.
    Careful though with the long term thinking, some may end of not marrying even a first time due to the rational undecidability of the problem.
    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:44PM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:44PM (#168511) Journal

      Are there any upsides to marriage for men?

      Why is it acceptable under the Equal Protection clause that the male partner is responsible for the lifestyle maintenance of the female partner after the partnership is over? Is this archaic thinking that women are damaged goods after a divorce?

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by danmars on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:57PM

        by danmars (3662) on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:57PM (#168514)

        It often goes the other way in the case that the wife is the breadwinner. So I would say the answer to your question is "no".

        http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/16/the-de-gendering-of-divorce-wives-pay-ex-husbands-alimony-too/ [time.com]

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:31PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:31PM (#168526)

          Alimony is nonsense anyway. Get a job like everyone else has to or find a way to support your current lifestyle (or downgrade it if it is too costly and extravagant). There are also social safety nets if people are in real trouble. I don't see why people should be punished just for getting a divorce and having a decent job.

          • (Score: 1) by Bacon Bits on Friday April 10 2015, @08:54PM

            by Bacon Bits (5203) on Friday April 10 2015, @08:54PM (#168832)

            That's an extremely naive outlook.

            When you're married, there's often a choice about where to live, how to raise children, etc. and since the choices are made as a unit, usually benefiting one partner's career to the detriment of another's. Now, the way careers work, the longer you're in one, the higher your salary. if you take, say, 10 years off to raise children, you're not just out 10 years' salary. You're out the salary, the experience, and the higher salary you would be being paid. Punishing someone because they acted in good faith during a marriage and sacrificed their career for the sake of their partner's career and the marriage as a whole is not fair.

            Alimony is an attempt to correct the fact that the partner who was still working enjoyed significant benefits which allowed him or her to spend additional time and effort on his or her career because his or her spouse was there to support him or her. That career would not be as successful or lucrative without that spouse there. Nobody who's been in a loving, supportive marriage would deny that fact. That support has real, tangible value, even though it's not a paid occupation. As a society, we recognize how valuable spouses are towards producing a better society for today as well as often raising our children, and, in an attempt to encourage men and women to devote their lives to someone else's career offer alimony as compensation in the event the marriage dissolves. It is, in effect, unmarried insurance.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by danmars on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:35PM

          by danmars (3662) on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:35PM (#168529)

          Okay, he asked more than 1 question.

          Are there any upsides to marriage for men? Yes.
          Why is it acceptable under the Equal Protection clause? It is more-or-less equal, that's why.
          Is this archaic thinking that women are damaged goods after a divorce? No.

          • (Score: 2) by GeminiDomino on Friday April 10 2015, @02:32PM

            by GeminiDomino (661) on Friday April 10 2015, @02:32PM (#168751)

            Are there any upsides to marriage for men? Yes.

            Such as..?

            --
            "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
            • (Score: 2) by danmars on Friday April 10 2015, @06:52PM

              by danmars (3662) on Friday April 10 2015, @06:52PM (#168813)

              Read my previous link - Alimony goes both ways, if your wife ends up making a lot of money.
              There are definitely tax benefits - My girlfriend and I live together and only I work at this time - if we got married, we'd have significantly less money taken away in taxes.
              Inheritance differences, of course. If your wife dies, you don't lose money. If you're not married, money you inherit from her is taxed. (That's why that's a big battleground for same-sex marriage.)
              Apart from finances, there's the typical hospital stuff. You can make decisions for each other without power-of-attorney.

              These reasons illustrate a weird incentives system to encourage marriage, but that's the way things are right now.

              • (Score: 2) by GeminiDomino on Monday April 13 2015, @01:28PM

                by GeminiDomino (661) on Monday April 13 2015, @01:28PM (#169693)

                Fair enough, but the tax breaks aren't nearly worth it, IMO, considering what you have to lose by metaphorically giving someone a gun to point at your head. And the hospital bit is trivial to fix: just sign the form appointing her MPOA.

                --
                "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:02PM

          by frojack (1554) on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:02PM (#168540) Journal

          It often goes the other way

          The reason it is news worth enough to appear in TIME is because it is the exception to the rule. A novelty.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:26PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:26PM (#168550) Journal

            The reason it is news worth enough to appear in TIME is because it is the exception to the rule. A novelty.
             
            A difference without a meaning. So you agree that, according to the legal system, men are entitled to alimony.
             
            There's better man law to complain about anyway. According to the TIME link, now that men are receiving alimony there is talk to abolish it. That's at least amusingly hypocritical.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:27PM (#168552)

            It happened to a friend of mine in Boston. She had been a stay-at-home mother for over a decade, but the court said she was capable of working so his alimony was reduced by the amount she could reasonably earn given her education level and prior work experience as an engineer.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday April 10 2015, @05:11AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday April 10 2015, @05:11AM (#168634) Journal

        Is this archaic thinking that women are damaged goods after a divorce?

        No, it is more the opposite. Really, who want a used husband? Ick!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @05:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @05:01PM (#168778)

        Why is it acceptable under the Equal Protection clause that the male partner is responsible for the lifestyle maintenance of the female partner after the partnership is over?

        My guess is that its an overcompensation for misogyny, which is still just as widespread as always. If misogyny ever goes away, nonsense like this should too.

  • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:33PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:33PM (#168527)

    The Kasparov-Casanova.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh