Learn More

Here is the first in a series of Divorce Corp polls. Please vote only once. We will post the results after we have received a statistically significant number of votes.

[polldaddy poll=7795808]


And here are the results, accurate to within +/- 5%



Clearly we need to reform the way our country approaches divorce. Scandinavians do not use family courts or lawyers to get divorced. We do not need them either. Please support our proposed reform initiatives by signing up to our reform mailing list at divorcecorp.com/reform.  Thank you.

7 thoughts on “Should Family Court be Necessary to Divorce? Poll #1

  1. Lawyers and judges lack the necessary skills to do the “work” of divorcing a couple.They have short attention spans, make snap judgments without enough information, and trash good people’s lives without a second thought.
    Risk of domestic violence – should be assessed by a psychiatrist (preferably one with forensic and jailhouse experience – for example – with experience deciding if some one is criminially insane or eligible for parole). How does a judge have a clue about assesing some one for emotional control, impulsive or aggressive behaviors? How can a judge decided whether or not the “victim” is truly at risk, or simply lying to keep her house, children and enough money in support to pay the mortgage with free legal help (so-called victims of domestic violence get free legal help as per VAWA)?This job belongs to the shrink.And the shrink’s medical license can be terminated if the shrink lies. Lawyers, judges and GALs can lie without negative repercussions, even when they are caught.
    Turning one household into two means that a house that costs 30% of the one household income cannot be kept unless there is a third party ready to move in and contribute to the mortgage or the couple decides to birdnest for custody(this is the metric upon which most mortgages are calculated).Financially sound and fair means that the household income now must go to two houses that TOGETHER consume 30% of the household income – this means that the cost of housing is 15% of the total available household income . To be fair, the house of the marital lifestyle CANNOT be maintained, unless there are enough other assets to offset. And the one who leaves the house needs some money to set up a new house. Let’s be realistic about these costs and use an accountant. Lawyers and judges flunk elementary school math with the basic addition, simple division and subtraction. skills needed to create two separate but equal household.
    Lawyers and judges have perverted the true intent of divorcing couples and instead passed legislation that allows them to incite uneven, unfair and unnecessay litigation and seize the life savings of the couple and enslave and harm the breadwinner forever. (VAWA, Federal Child Support Enforcement, title 42, chapter 7, subchapter IV Part D, sections 651 to 659, and the 1986 Bradley Amendment)

  2. These are not the only options. This deserves dialogue between the people to decide. There should be more than one option. Again, this site is pro terminating of alimony, disguised as fathers rights.

    I have a question for your survey. Why is the only legislation proposed by the fathers rights movements about alimony reform? Why is it NOT about fathers and their children? The people are not as stupid as you think.

    • Most father’s rights proposals are about children. We cover parental rights too. We are neither father’s rights nor mother’s rights, we are for equal rights. And we do believe that divorce can be accomplished without family courts – it’s how 25 million people in Scandinavia handle things. And their divorce rate is lower than ours!

  3. I don’t think family court is necessary but I do think that we make it too easy to divorce and being able to simply submit a form would make it even easier. If we removed the ability for either side to “win” in a divorce, there would be less “incentive” to do so. Additionally, if we provided better resources for married couples to reconcile their divorce, possibly via a mandatory period of couples counseling (I’m talking a couple year, not 60 freakin days….). The system has made things so easy to throw accusations at each other through the complete separation of the two parties, not allowing or even encouraging communication through the process. It’s truly a process that quickly escalates the situation rather than reconciles it. We, as a nation, should be doing everything we can to SAVE our families and not find easier ways to break them up. Nor should we bankrupt families that have legitimate reason to divorce and force children to be innocent bystanders of hostile breakups. We are hurting future generations more than ourselves.

    • We agree, but please keep in mind that the divorce rates (divorces per 1000 marriages) in Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden are all much lower than the divorce rate in the United States. And in those countries you merely need to fill out a form to get divorced. No courts. No lawyers.

      • Please also keep in mind then that the Scandinavian countries you cited have cradle to grave social welfare systems that ensure that a mother without a husband to support her and the children will never want for anything. As a matter of fact, the high cohabitation and low marriage and divorce rates in the Scandinavian countries are due to marriage actually not being advantageous in light of the more generous social welfare provisions for unmarried mothers.
        Given the glaring social inequality and poverty facing single mothers in the US, and the continuous chipping away at any government aid available to them, your recommendation to import Scandinavian style divorce without importing the Scandinavian style social welfare system sounds chilling in its cruel indifference to the plight of women and children harmed by divorce. It resembles the Muslim style of being able to divorce a woman by just repeating three times, “I divorce you.” Why not recommend that? For the simplicity you want, nothing beats it.

        • Maylem, your comments make the assumption that women alone bear the burden if raising children – which is an outdated notion. You should read the Pew Foundation studies on the changing social landscape. Things are very different for the youngest generation, and our proposals are only for future marriages. Thanks