Hi,
The times they are a-changing...
Part of that change is that it is extremely difficult to sue a third
party in a marital break up.
Years ago, it was possible to sue someone who interfered "broke up" a
marriage for what was then called "alienation of affections." A court
could order the third person to pay money damages. Although the third
party was usually a lover, in some cases in-laws or employers were
cited. In our modern society the law reflects the thinking that the
blame for the failure of the marriage rests on the two parties who are
married.
You might get an attorney to take the case on the basis of personal
injury if there is some record of medical treatment being necessary
because of the damages you suffered as a victim of the divorce, but
again, that would be much more likely if it were your parents you were
interested in suing. It just is not modern legal theory to blame
divorce on the actions of anyone but the two parties involved in the
marriage.
http://www.vanfirm.com/columns/third-party-divorces.htm - Third party
divorces are legal relics
You might want to confirm that there is no case by contacting an
attorney. What I am providing is research on your question. For legal
advice you should speak to an attorney.
Ask An Attorney allows to call an attorney for $39.95 in your state -
or in your case two calls, one to ask about Texas laws and one to
verify Illinois laws...
http://www.lawexpress.com/index.cfm?action=ask_Attorney_showexpect
It is natural to be angry at someone who, in your view, caused your
parent's divorce, but suing a third party cannot compensate for the
damages that children suffer in a divorce situation. The Jackson Law
Firm in Dallas (http://www.dallas-divorce-lawyer.com/adultery.htm) has
a page on Adultery & Divorce that pretty clearly explains why.
search terms used: children sue third party damages divorce
I expect that this is not the information you were looking for, but I
hope you find it helpful.
Regards,
bcguide-ga |
Request for Answer Clarification by
jack1425-ga
on
17 Oct 2002 14:29 PDT
Glad your looking into this. I think my question is differant than
what you answerred. My question approaches marraige as a "contract"
forming a partnership. That partnership committes to an implied
unilateral contract with its' off spring, prior to birth, to provide
support, nurturing, protection, and whatever else is required legally
and or morally to raise the children untill the age of maturity. My
question is, "whether children can seek damages from an outside party
that interferred with the original partnership contract (broke up
marraige) and so interferred with the ability of the parnership
(married parents) to fullfill its' contractual obligation (contract)
to thier children".
|
Clarification of Answer by
bcguide-ga
on
17 Oct 2002 16:27 PDT
Hi,
Again, this is research and not attorney's advice, but the point that
you are making is that there existed a third party who, with intent,
caused the partnership to be dissolved.
The current legal view represented in the research is that a marriage
is a partnership that breaks up from internal forces.
The action of the third party cannot be held to have interfered with
the partnership. The same internal forces that allowed the third party
to be introduced into the partners' relationship were the cause of the
breach of contract bewteen the two partners.
Look at it this way.
You need to prove that there were no problems in the partnership that
could have caused the partnership to flounder.
In a marriage with no problems, you seldom find a third party
involved.
Therefore, the damage to the partnership existed before the third
party was introduced and the third party cannot be found responsible
for the actions taken by the partners.
Remove it from the marriage relationship... Two partners are in
business and a competitor offers one of the partners a job. The
partner may take the job and break the partnership or decide to turn
down the job offer.
If the partnership is flourishing and there is committment the partner
will choose to remain. Faith in the fact that the partnership will be
successful will outweigh any offer that the competitor can put on the
table. Someone totally satisfied with their business relationship will
not choose to leave that situation.
If the partnership is not making as much money as one of the parners
would like or there is conflict in the business relationship - there
are internal problems. If the belief that the situation will improve
is missing, the partner will probably choose to abandon his/her
responsibility to the partnership and go to work for the competition.
If the competitor's offer causes the partner to leave the partnership
- it is a decision that the partner made of his/her free will. You
cannot sue a company for making a job offer. The party responsible for
the partnership's demise is the partner who chose to leave - the
partner who took the offer. That is who broke up the partnership.
You have two people in a marriage and one of them chose to leave that
partnership for a better offer. The person who made the offer is not
responsible for the actions of the partner who left.
A third party cannot break up a marriage.
If there are no inherent problems in the relationship and the
committment to the partnership exists in both parties -- there is no
third party.
A third party can only become involved in a partnership at the
invitation of one of the partners.
Unless you are talking about a situation where one of the partners was
not a responsible adult, you cannot make anyone else responsible for
the break up.
That's the interpretation of the law that the research gives.
As I said, if you feel that in your case there was a situation where a
third party can be proven to have somehow forced one of the partners -
against his/her will - to leave a marriage, you may have a case to
pursue.
I can't imagine a situation where a partner in a marriage gets
involved with someone else -- and the courts find that third party
responsible for the consequences of the partner's actions.
The third party can only make an offer - it remains for the partner to
accept. Once that is done it is the accepting partner who has caused
the break up of the marriage - not the third party's offer.
Since the third party cannot be found to have broken up the marriage -
that was the straying partner - the third party cannot be held
responsible for the consequences of the partner's decision.
The responsible party who made the choice of leaving the partnership,
would be the one who did not fulfill contractual obligations and from
whom you would need to seek redress for damages.
The weak point in your argument, from the research that is available,
is the assumption that a third party somehow became responsibile for
the actions of one of the partner.
It assumes that a partnership is like a vase that can be broken,
composed of objects that can be acted on.
You can try to convince, you can try to seduce, you can try to
influence -- but you can't break an agreement between two other
people. Only they can do that and only they are responsible for the
consequences when they do.
Again, I suggest that you run this by an attorney. The fact that
research points to this interpretation of the events does not
constitute a trained legal opinion. I'm not in a position to tell you
that you can or can't pursue this. All I can say is that the reasoning
presented in the research does not support your claim. A lawyer or a
judge or a jury may disagree with the research. If you feel that you
have a good case go talk to a lawyer. What have you got to lose?
Good Luck!
bcguide-ga
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
jack1425-ga
on
18 Oct 2002 10:54 PDT
I like your thinking process wakes me up. You certainly earned your
fee so this requires no futher response. Clarifing, in my
hypothetical, it is the deliberate plotting that went on to break
marital contracts, so that each divorced thier respected spouses and
married each other, which seems the important point of focus. That
shifted the resources of the wealthier to the other offspring and
created lots of turmoil. The question is wether the conspiracy was an
illgal act, regardless if done for legal or illegal purposes. My
understanding is that such infliction of harm would be actionable
wether intentional or not. And since it arouse from a conspiracy
designed to break the marital contract (valued by society) and
rienforced with the criminal acts of adultery (at the time
criminalised), it seems thier would be grounds for seeking redress
from either party, right? Thanks bcguide.
|
Clarification of Answer by
bcguide-ga
on
18 Oct 2002 12:41 PDT
It's a complex situation. You may be able to approach it by actually
including the parent who was involved with the third party...
Just be careful, I don't know what your family situation is, but
bringing suit is not a good way to cement family ties :-)
Again, I would take this to an attorney. You can probably find one who
will discuss it at no cost if you agree to a percentage payment if you
win. It is complex enough that there may be a way to attack the
problem that would allow for you to get legal satisfaction.
I hope it works out for you... and thanks for the rating!
bcguide-ga
|
,
0 Comments
)