Stolen Vows

The Illusion of No-Fault Divorce and
The Rise of the American Divorce Industry

For further information, contact:
Judy Parejko, Lacrosse, WI
Author of "Stolen Vows"
www.StolenVows.com
e-mail: jparejko@juno.com

Or:
Marie (Bai) Macfarlane, Westlake, Ohio,
Author of "and Justice for None"
www.marysadvocates.org/aboutus.html
e-mail: ma.defending@marysadvocates.org
Cuyahoga County DR-03-294327

Attorney Bob Lynch can be reached through his answering service: 216-771-0999


- - - - - - -PRESS RELEASE - AUGUST 23, 2004- - - - - - -

CATHOLIC DEFENDANT FILES UNPRECEDENTED
CHALLENGE TO "NO-FAULT" DIVORCE

Couples who marry in the Roman Catholic Church are bound by an antenuptial agreement (also called a prenuptial agreement), which includes specific rules about separation and divorce, according to a brief filed today by Cleveland attorney Robert Lynch, on behalf of his client, Marie (Bai) Macfarlane.

Mr. Lynch has asked the court to dismiss all temporary orders, arguing that his client's husband, William (Bud) Macfarlane, Jr., violated the couple's "prenuptial" by moving out of the house and filing for divorce without first contacting the bishop. A judge, operating under the Ohio No-Fault code, has already ordered the sale of the family home as well as a change in schooling for two of the couple's four sons -- who are all under the age of 13.

According to the argument presented by Mr. Lynch, the couple willingly agreed to abide by the Church's "rules" during their Pre-Cana marriage
preparation and also prior to exchanging vows on their wedding day. He supports his argument with a 4-page affidavit, written by Benedict Nguyen, who is a canon lawyer and serves as Chancellor of the Diocese of La Crosse, Wis. The affidavit outlines the nature of the "de facto" prenuptial agreement to which all Catholics consent prior to marrying in the Catholic Church.

Previous case law shows that the prenuptial agreements of Orthodox Jews have been upheld by civil authorities. Mr. Lynch asks the court to uphold his client's prenuptial agreement in the same way.

Judge Cheryl Karner, who is hearing the case, and is herself Jewish, does not appear to understand the import of the Macfarlanes' prenuptial agreement, evidenced by the statements she made at a prior hearing:

". . .your religious conviction and the contract you entered into in front of your priest, has priority, I can understand that from a religious point of view, but it doesn't from a secular point of view and doesn't from a legal point of view."

Typically, the Catholic Church does not get involved after the divorce has been granted, at which time, one party might petition the Church's tribunal to obtain an annulment of the marriage, in order to re-marry within the Church. But prior to divorce, canon 1153 in the Code of Canon Law, requires that a spouse must first demonstrate to the bishop or the tribunal that there's an acceptable reason for separating from the other spouse, unless there is "danger in delay". In addition, canon 1692 requires that a spouse must receive authorization to "approach the civil forum." Mr. Macfarlane did not first consult with Cleveland's Bishop Pilla before moving out of the family home and subsequently filing for divorce. Ohio courts grant a no-fault divorce to the petitioner after one year of separation, without regard to the circumstances.

Stephen Safranek, a professor of Law at the Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Michigan, maintains that the contract they made placing jurisdiction in the courts of the Catholic Church should be upheld --- in the same way that other arbitration agreements are upheld.

When the case was first filed, Mrs. Macfarlane had asked the judge to send both herself and her husband to conciliation services, so they might resolve their conflict, but Judge Karner would not do so unless both parties were willing to attend, and Mr. Macfarlane refused.

Mrs. Macfarlane then learned that Cuyahoga County had never even instituted any conciliation programs, as are required in Ohio Revised Code 3117, which was enacted to ameliorate the affects of the "no-challenge" system of no-fault divorce, where the petitioner is always granted his/her request for a divorce. She suspects that this Code has not been properly implemented in any Ohio county, which means there is nothing offered to the spouse who wants a chance at preserving his/her intact family when facing the threat of divorce.

The change to "no-fault" divorce was originally promoted in the late '60's by lawyers as a way of actually saving marriages --- by eliminating the bitter acrimony of the "fault"-based divorce system where one party had to accuse the other of wrongdoing. In addition, discussion about changing the law included the idea that "court-ordered counseling" would be part of this new system.

The sinister side to no-fault divorce is that most people assume no-fault means "mutual consent", whereas up to 80% of divorces are "coerced" by judges who believe they need to keep the divorce "conveyor" belt rolling. Reluctant spouses are forced to sign "agreements" about property and children at the threat of being jailed. Mrs. Macfarlane has been so-threatened, and she tells her story --- including the judge's own words, taken from the court record --- in a quickly-written book called, "and Justice for None". Her motive is to convey to others the diabolical nature of this country's prevailing divorce system, where jurisdiction over marriage is based solely on a residency requirment and where judges deny any measures requested by the defendant that might salvage marital relations.

The Macfarlane case is significant, since there are no safeguards left in the civil system for marriages facing divorce. The Catholic Church, which views marriage as a Sacrament, is now being tapped to apply the laws that have been "on the books" since 1983, in order to help her families avoid the devastation of divorce. Other churches may be inspired --- by this "Catholic" example --- to begin instituting their own similar safeguards.
----------------------------------