The Channel 4 show takes the wedding dramatically, as two singles say their vows the first time they look at each other.
Married At First Sight puts dating aside and skims over the engagement stage, matching two people in front of each other – on their wedding day.
While divorce may be considered for some married couples under general circumstances, viewers questioned the option of annulment.
So, can the couples on Married At First Sight get the cancellation? Let’s find out…
Screenshot: Married at first sight Channel 4
How does marriage work at first glance?
Two singles are matched by relationship experts and get married the day they first meet.
They are then put to the test through several challenges, including moving in together for 8 weeks, as well as going on a honeymoon (for a fee!).
Each couple regularly attends relationship counseling with experts.
They also have the choice of having a vow renewal ceremony towards the end of the series, depending on how they get along.
See also: Where are the Married at First Sight wedding venues in the UK?
Can couples in the series be canceled?
Yes, but they will have to go through legal proceedings
For example, Michael and Meka, from Married at First Sight season 10 (US), got an annulment after claiming their marriage wasn’t real.
Meka took to Instagram to tell her followers that they initially agreed to divorce, before Michael decided to try an annulment instead.
They went to a virtual court to get it annulled, Michael reportedly said he didn’t believe the televised marriage was real and that Meka’s name change had led him to believe she was hiding something.
Married at first sight | New season Wednesday 21/7 at 8 / 7c | Lifetime
BridTV
2976
Married at first sight | New season Wednesday 21/7 at 8 / 7c | Lifetime
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8Nef0CdrJuI/hqdefault.jpg
815057
815057
center
22403
Does Married At First Sight Pay For Divorces?
As reported by Closer, the show’s executive producer revealed that he only provides assistance “within a certain time frame” to cover legal fees.
He also said that the amount provided is very symbolic.
So while the show helps couples pay for divorces, it is likely that they may have to contribute their own share to formally annul the marriage.
WATCH BRIDES AT FIRST SIGHT IN UK FROM AUGUST 30 ON E4
AND BECOME FREAKY WITH US ON INSTAGRAM AND FACEBOOK
Do you have something to tell us about this article?
Is Bobo from Finding Bigfoot sick? Explored weight loss
Get to know Rae Ripple from Netflix’s Metal Shop Masters
House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez speaks at a press conference in December 2017 in the House of Representatives. Mark Demayo, ABS-CBN News
MANILA – Former House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez confirmed the cancellation of his marriage to his ex-wife on Saturday.
Makati City Magistrates’ Court Branch 144 annulled and annulled her marriage to Emelita Apostol Alvarez, the representative of the 1st District of Davao del Norte said in a tweet.
In her decision, Judge Marie Picardal-Tecson said the marriage between Alvarez and Apostol was declared null and void because it lacked a marriage license and for non-compliance with the Family Code.
“Respondent [Apostol] could not prove the bad faith of the applicant [Alvarez] by entering into marriage with the Respondent, ”she said.
Makati court annulled the marriage of finality representative Bebot Alvarez to his estranged wife
Makati City RTC Branch 144 has already annulled and annulled the marriage of Davao del Norte First District Representative Pantaleon Alvarez to his ex-wife Emelita Apostol. pic.twitter.com/doPqVebEnF
Alvarez, who served as Speaker of the House from 2016 to 2018, advocated for the legalization of divorce and the dissolution of marriage for spouses with irreconcilable differences.
Under his presidency, the House passed its bill legalizing divorce and marriage dissolution, citing public outcry from overseas Filipino workers and those whose marriages are irreparable. However, this bill died in the Senate during the 17th Congress.
The House Committee on Population and Family Relations recently approved another version of the bill and is now heading into plenary deliberations.
In 2017, Apostol revealed that she had long been aware of her husband’s illicit affair, but it was only a year before he left the family home.
At the time, Apostol dispelled rumors that she had been long estranged from her husband, saying it was only after Alvarez took over the House presidency in 2016 that she was “dropped” .
“Well, her other relationship, I was aware of it a long, long time ago because as a husband and wife it is normal for husband and wife to have an affair,” she said. at ABS-CBN News.
“There is pain. I wouldn’t say there ain’t no pain because it’s being [a] hypocritical. But like I told you, my faith is strong for a woman. Masakit, ‘yun na lang,’ she added.
The lawmaker’s marriage came under scrutiny after he admitted to having a girlfriend and parting with his legal wife.
In a hurry if it was an admission that he had a girlfriend, Alvarez said, “Diyos ko naman, kayo naman eh. Sino bang walang girlfriend?”
But Alvarez said the length of their relationship was a “secret.”
Alvarez claimed to be a member of the Manobo tribe who would supposedly allow him to have multiple marriages, as he defended his bill to allow marriage dissolution.
The High Court on Thursday asked a father to bring his two US-born children to court on August 31 as their now estranged Japanese mother traveled to Bangladesh recently to seek custody of her underage children .
The court also asked the interior minister and immigration police at Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport in Dhaka not to allow the father, Imran Sharif, and the two minors aged 9 to 11 to leave. Bangladesh for the next 30 days.
An online bench of Judge M Enayetur Rahim and Judge Md Mostafizur Rahman delivered the ruling after hearing a written petition filed by the Japanese mother on Thursday.
The father and two minors returned from Japan to Bangladesh on February 18, awaiting hearings in a family lawsuit in a Japanese court since January 28 regarding child custody and divorce proceedings requested by Eriko Nakano on January 18. January, his lawyer Shishir Manir told the court.
The lawyer said the father picked the minors from their schools on January 21 and detained them before flying to Bangladesh. The Japanese Family Court issued a verdict on May 21 and asked the father to return the children to the mother’s custody.
The court also asked the government, the father and his sister Amina Jebin to explain in two weeks why the minors would not be brought to court for its satisfaction at not having been illegally detained.
The lawyer told the court that Eriko Nakano visited Bangladesh on July 18 and stayed at the Japanese embassy in Bangladesh and tested for Covid five times to see her children on terms set by her ex-husband .
She was allowed to see her children for a few moments on July 27 in a place where she was taken by her ex-husband blindfolded. She was taken to her children by car and returned to where she boarded the car.
Eriko Nakano told reporters inside the courtroom that she had traveled to Bangladesh, leaving behind another of her 6-year-old daughters in Japan.
She said the couple, both U.S. and Japanese doctors and citizens, married in the United States on July 11, 2008, and Eriko Nakano filed for divorce on January 18, 2021 while in Japan.
The couple gave birth to their first baby in 2010 and second baby in 2011 and the third in 2014.
The Bill amending the Guardianship of Minors Bill currently before Parliament and under public debate eliminates many legal issues and clarifies that both parents, whether or have been married under civil or customary law, must share guardianship and custody unless a competent court decides otherwise.
This is fine as far as it goes, given the accompanying memorandum, to implement the Constitution and clarify that the same law applies to customary marriages and divorces as to the position civil law, while stressing that this common position must ensure that both parents have equal rights and must come to an understanding.
But the situation of a child born out of wedlock is still somewhat uncertain, although there is now a fairly strong Supreme Court ruling that effectively grants both parents joint guardianship and custody unless the High Court believes that the welfare of the child is best served with another arrangement.
The effect of this decision is to place the guardianship and custody of a child whose parents have never been married in much the same position as a child whose parents were married under civil law and who are now divorced.
As the decision concerned a particular child of conflicting parents, both of whom were able to engage legal teams to argue their case before the High Courts and Supreme Courts, it was to some extent limited although it sets a precedent that the other judges must follow.
But this is why the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, sponsor of the amendment, could perhaps deepen the question and bring in the children whose parents have never been married, or in case of doubt. on the precise legal status of the union, such as when a man married under civil law subsequently enters into an unregistered customary union with a second wife.
Part of the reason for the amendment was to align the Guardianship of Minors Act with the Constitution, which grants women the same rights as men with regard to the custody and guardianship of children, with Parliament enacting the detailed law necessary to apply that law. constitutional clause. The amending bill is the proposed detailed law.
But the recent wave of court cases involving an unmarried child whose parents have never been married and who are not only no longer together but seemingly hate each other shows the need for Parliament to bring in parents and children of all relationships, whether formal, informal or casual.
The judges called to decide the matter in the High Court and the Supreme Court applied a separate section of the Constitution, that dealing with the rights of children, rather than the rights of parents, which the bill deals with.
The Law on Guardianship of Minors and the proposed amendments do this to a very large extent and establish the essential fact that in the event of a dispute, the rights, needs and well-being of the child prevail over the rights. parents.
While the proposed amending law grants equal rights to parents as a standard, it also empowers High Court judges in civil law cases, because a civil marriage exists or has existed, or to magistrates when a customary marriage exists or has existed, issue orders which may give more rights, or even exclusive rights, to a parent if the well-being of the child is better served.
The judge or magistrate can even arbitrate disputes between parents on the same issue if necessary.
There seem to be reasons to apply this sane set of rules to children whose parents have never been married, as well as the default positions if necessary to cope with the practical world.
This is already the case in the law concerning the children of married parents who divorce. Until the legal mess is resolved, the child lives with the mother unless the two agree or until a court renders a different decision.
Even when parents have the same guardianship and custody rights, the child needs a place to live.
For children born out of wedlock, the default rule, just as aptly, is that the mother has custody although with the Supreme Court ruling this can be changed, if it is in the best interests of the child. , and that equal trusteeship applies.
In terms of practical behavior, very few fathers of children born to single mothers care much about their children, and many have to be taken to court to be forced to pay their share of the bills. But there are some who care.
Sign up for free AllAfrica newsletters
Get the latest African news straight to your inbox
Success!
Almost finished…
We need to confirm your email address.
To complete the process, please follow the instructions in the email we just sent you.
Fault!
There was a problem processing your submission. Please try again later.
It seems that it should be possible to extend the draft amendment to these children, putting them in the same situation as children whose parents have divorced and who live separately. It is strange that it is very difficult to decide whether civil law or customary law would apply in these cases.
But since the only difference once the proposed amendments are passed is whether a judge or magistrate makes the orders or decisions, the law having to be the same in both systems, this should not be a major problem.
Magistrates’ courts tend to be more accessible, with many more resident magistrates scattered across the country, despite efforts by the High Court to decentralize at least to provincial capitals, than perhaps it could be left. parents decide which court to go to. first. Judicial precedent is an essential part of the law, filling the bare bones of the Constitution and the better-developed body of statutory law, but it tends to constitute a dossier dealing with particular circumstances.
For a more general basis of a law, Parliament is usually a better forum and the rights and duties of parents who have never married but who share a child may well be incorporated into this amending bill.
TThe bill amending the draft law on guardianship of minors currently before Parliament and under public debate eliminates many legal problems and clarifies that both parents, whether they are or have been married under civil or customary law, must share guardianship and custody unless a competent court decides otherwise.
This is fine as far as it goes, given the accompanying memorandum, to implement the Constitution and clarify that the same law applies to customary marriages and divorces as to the position of civil law, while stressing that this common position must ensure that both parents have equal rights and must come to an understanding.
But the situation of a child born out of wedlock is still somewhat uncertain, although there is now a fairly strong Supreme Court ruling that effectively grants both parents joint guardianship and custody unless the High Court believes that the welfare of the child is best served with another arrangement.
The effect of this decision is to place the guardianship and custody of a child whose parents have never been married in much the same position as a child whose parents were married under civil law and who are now divorced.
As the decision concerned a particular child of conflicting parents, both of whom were able to engage legal teams to argue their case before the High Courts and Supreme Courts, it was to some extent limited although it sets a precedent that the other judges must follow.
But that is why the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, sponsor of the amendment, could perhaps deepen the question and bring in the children whose parents have never been married, or in case of doubt. on the precise legal status of the union, such as when a man married under civil law subsequently enters into an unregistered customary union with a second wife.
Part of the reason for the amendment was to align the Guardianship of Minors Act with the Constitution, which grants women the same rights as men with regard to the custody and guardianship of children, with Parliament enacting the detailed law necessary to apply that law. constitutional clause. The amending bill is the proposed detailed law.
But the recent wave of court cases involving an unmarried child whose parents have never been married and who are not only no longer together but seemingly hate each other shows the need for Parliament to bring in parents and children of all relationships, whether formal, informal or casual.
The judges called to decide the matter in the High Court and the Supreme Court applied a separate section of the Constitution, that dealing with the rights of children, rather than the rights of parents, which the bill deals with.
The Guardianship of Minors Act and the proposed amendments do this to a very large extent and establish the essential fact that in the event of a dispute, the rights, needs and well-being of the child prevail over the rights. parents.
While the proposed amending law grants equal rights to parents as a standard, it also empowers High Court judges in civil law cases, because a civil marriage exists or has existed, or to magistrates when a customary marriage exists or has existed, issue orders which may give more rights, or even exclusive rights, to a parent if the well-being of the child is better served.
The judge or magistrate can even arbitrate disputes between parents on the same issue if necessary.
There seem to be reasons to apply this sane set of rules to children whose parents have never been married, as well as the default positions if necessary to cope with the practical world.
This is already the case in the law concerning the children of married parents who divorce. Until the legal mess is resolved, the child lives with the mother unless the two agree or until a court renders a different decision.
Even when parents have the same guardianship and custody rights, the child needs a place to live.
For children born out of wedlock, the equally reasonable default rule is that the mother has custody, although with the Supreme Court ruling this can be changed, if it is in the best interests of the mother. child, and that equal guardianship applies.
In terms of practical behavior, very few fathers of children born to single mothers care much about their children and many have to be taken to court to be forced to pay their share of the bills. But there are some who care.
It seems that it should be possible to extend the draft amendment to these children, putting them in the same situation as children whose parents have divorced and who live separately. It is strange that it is very difficult to decide whether civil law or customary law would apply in these cases.
But since the only difference once the proposed amendments are passed is whether a judge or magistrate makes the orders or decisions, the law having to be the same in both systems, this should not be a major problem.
Magistrates’ courts tend to be more accessible, with many more resident magistrates scattered across the country, despite efforts by the High Court to decentralize at least to provincial capitals, than perhaps it could be left. parents decide which court to go to. first. Judicial precedent is an essential part of the law, filling the bare bones of the Constitution and the better-developed body of written law, but it tends to constitute a dossier dealing with particular circumstances.
For a more general basis of a law, Parliament is usually a better forum and the rights and duties of parents who have never married but who share a child may well be incorporated into this amending bill.
Dominican Father D. Reginald Whitt, from left to right, Father Gilbert J. Seitz, Judicial Vicar and Father Hamilton Okeke, lawyer, meet on August 5, 2021 at the Court Office of the Archdiocese of Baltimore. (Kevin J. Parks / CR staff)
The Court of the Archdiocese of Baltimore will no longer ask for a contribution to deal with a cancellation case.
Archbishop William E. Lori implemented the policy change, which took effect on July 1. This was in response to a request from Pope Francis in 2015 to make the cancellation process faster and cheaper for couples.
In the documents reforming the cancellation process published by Pope Francis in 2015 – in particular “Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus” (“The Lord Jesus, the gentle judge”) for the Latin rite church – the main objective of the Pope was to reaffirm the indissolubility of marriage while offering pastoral care, mercy and a helping hand to people whose broken unions were faulty from the start.
Father Gilbert J. Seitz, judicial vicar of the archdiocese, told Revue Catholique: “The Holy Father has tried to convince ministers of justice all over the world – both in Rome and in other dioceses around the world – to remove any obstacles that would prevent people from going to court and seeing a resolution of the marital relationship issue.
“As a result, Bishop Lori thought it appropriate, especially in this year, as we celebrate the year of the Eucharist, that in Baltimore, we take the actions the Holy Father has suggested and remove. this obstacle, ”said Father Seitz. .
In the past, the Archdiocese requested a contribution of up to $ 550 per case, but the contribution was not required. “It wasn’t really a fee; it wasn’t like you had to make that payment or you wouldn’t receive a final decree from us, ”he said.
If people could make their contribution, the Tribunal was happy to accept it to help cover its costs of reviewing and processing the case.
Many people believed there was a “charge” for a cancellation, but there was not.
“If they were not in a position to make their contribution, in no way would our service to them or our ministry to them in this matter be interrupted due to the lack of payment,” said Father Seitz. “We just asked people for this contribution and if they could, if their means allowed it, then we were very welcoming to receive it, but if their means did not allow it, then it became inconsequential.”
Due to the new policy, there is no longer any financial contribution or ministry-related financial commitment that the Tribunal offers to those in need, he added.
“The concern of the Archbishop, like that of the Holy Father, is that all obstacles be removed so that people can go to the courts when they need it without being (financially) burdened”, said the father. Seitz.
Since the Tribunal’s financial approach has been so accommodating in the past, he said, some people approaching the Tribunal to begin the annulment process are not surprised that no contribution is requested, but they are “extremely grateful that the financial burden has been lightened.” , especially in the midst of a pandemic and uncertain economy. I think people are just thankful that it’s a burden they don’t have to worry about, ”he said.
Dominican Father D. Reginald Whitt, court judge, left, discusses a case with Father Gilbert J. Seitz, judicial vicar, August 5, 2021 at the court office of the Archdiocese of Baltimore. (Kevin J. Parks / CR staff)
The Archdiocesan court processes between 150 and 180 marriage cases per year using the formal process. Father Seitz said that one of the reforms instituted by Pope Francis’ letters in 2015 to make the process more “user-friendly” was to eliminate “the need for an automatic appeal if a lower court decision is pending. favor of the invalidity of the marriage, that is, granting annulment.
That alone made a significant difference in the speed of the process. Since every court in the province of Baltimore – which includes much of Maryland and the states of Delaware, Virginia, and West Virginia – has spent time reviewing invalidity cases from other dioceses, the burden of less work allows the court to complete cases more quickly.
“Usually in the Archdiocese of Baltimore right now, as in other dioceses across the province, it would be realistic to complete a case in about six months,” said Father Seitz.
He said that resolving marriage matters brought before the Tribunal is essentially pastoral care in the form of a canon law process, the law of the church.
“Our ministry, more than anything else, is to enable people to meet the Lord Jesus,” said the judicial vicar. “So many people, because of the hurt and pain of divorce, feel estranged from old family members, maybe their own family members, from the church.
“And they come to us grieved and laden with these wounds and pains, and our hope is that by using the legal process that the church establishes in a very pastoral way, we can help facilitate some healing for these people. people, which would then allow them to recognize themselves as a member of the Body of Christ, wounded but healed, and as someone who has encountered the risen Jesus, wounded and healed, ”he said.
“And it’s amazing what can be accomplished when you take this hurt and this healing feeling and share it with others. “
Father Seitz said he often reminded his staff that they could follow legal procedures well and with unspeakable precision, but “if we haven’t done it in a way that allows people to meet Christ risen, we did not perform our service to them as it should.
He said one of the tactics he employs is to carefully consider a petition request or petition to initiate a case, before initiating the formal case process.
If the petition is weak or lacks something, he will not accept it, sometimes encouraging the minister working with the party to delve into the reasons for the cancellation. This way, if and when the petition is accepted and the case begins, the questions posed by the Tribunal can be better targeted to obtain the information judges need to make a decision.
Without this care and concern, the case could go to its end and get a negative decision. “This, for me, will only add to the hurt and the pain that people have gone through,” said Father Seitz.
Even so, the process is not always easy for those going through it, as they have to approach and acknowledge some things about their failed relationship that they would rather not admit.
“I hope we can do it in a way that people feel safe and not being judged,” Father Seitz said. “And if we do that right, we can help people grow and heal. And this is our first concern because in the end it achieves their salvation. “
He said that in some cases the decree of nullity may also allow people to return to the sacraments in their entirety. He pointed out that it is incorrect that all divorced Catholics are unable to receive the Eucharist. Only those who are divorced and remarried outside the church should not receive the Eucharist.
“As we grow and heal we can find ourselves closer to the Lord Jesus and when we are closer to the Lord Jesus we are that much closer to our salvation,” he said.
Father Seitz said he hoped that no longer being asked for a financial contribution for the cancellation process would allow people to “make a financial contribution or a contribution of their talent to other needs of the world.” archdiocese or the church at large. Perhaps the money that would have come to us because of our service to someone could be donated to a homeless shelter or to advance the cause of justice in the Archdiocese, ”said Father Seitz .
“Perhaps because of our service to people, they will find themselves able to give more generously of their time to a cause that advances the gospel.”
To begin the cancellation process, Father Seitz said parishioners can contact their local parish or contact the Tribunal directly.
For more information, visit www.archbalt.org/marriage-tribunal.
Lisa Marie Presley and her ex-husband, Michael Lockwood, continue to feud over financial matters.
Although Elvis Presley’s daughter and her ex separated more than five years ago and finalized their divorce in May, money continues to be a touchy subject, and Michael is now asking for help with the child support – and he wants the funds to come from his late father. , in a roundabout way.
Rob Latour / REX / Shutterstock
In legal documents obtained by The explosion, Michael claims Lisa earns a substantial amount of money from her late father’s estate and says their 11-year-old twins are enjoying a lavish lifestyle while they are with her. He believes that he too should be able to offer children an equally privileged lifestyle when they are with him.
“Presley has significant income for the purposes of calculating child support, due to the ongoing and recurring distributions Presley receives from his trust (s) and significant assets, including his family business,” says there in the folder. “Presley’s father was Elvis Presley, a world-renowned artist and one of the most successful people in show business history. Presley is Elvis’s sole heir and as such is the owner of Graceland and is interested in recordings, songs, rights to Elvis merchandise, and rights to life history. “
KCR / REX / Shutterstock
Michael says neither he nor his wife made much money during their marriage, saying almost everything came from the estate.
“In fact, Presley and Lockwood both earned very minimal income throughout their marriage, but as stated in Lockwood’s statement, the parties have been living what can be conservatively considered a very extravagant way of life. “, indicates the court file. “Their monthly expenses averaged at least $ 100,000 per month, and the parties received funds from Presley’s family business (either directly or through payments made on behalf of the parties), and distributions from the Presley trust (s) as well as family gifts, which enabled the extravagant lifestyle of the Parties.
Michael thinks he should get a small percentage of whatever Elvis’ estate earns in a year to help with child support, says The Blast. He also explained how much he thinks he is entitled to: if the estate brings in $ 20 million a year, he wants $ 61,463 a month; if domains are making $ 10 million a year, he wants $ 30,991 a month. It balances out at about 0.003 percent.
While spouses conclude that they should separate for one reason or another, they have two choices. The first is annulment and the second is divorce. These two options have legal similarities and differences. This article will provide an explanation regarding these forms of separation.
Main differences between annulment and divorce
While the divorce process ends the marriage, the annulment essentially erases the fact that the marriage took place. It may sound quite complicated, but it is possible to summarize these procedures to a few statements:
Divorce is a legal dissolution of marriage which changes the legal status of both spouses to celibates;
The annulment declares that the marriage is void and that it never existed in the first place from a legal point of view.
With the basic definitions covered, it is now possible to delve deeper into the subject and separately explain the differences between annulment and divorce.
Cancelation
It’s a pretty interesting procedure, but it’s not as common as its counterpart. An annulment ends the marriage if at least one of the spouses feels that it should never even exist. It can also be applied to a marriage that has never been legal. While it might seem quite confusing, a list of legal grounds for cancellation clarifies everything:
At least one partner was already married at the time of the marriage;
At least one partner was not of legal age to marry;
At least one partner was forced to marry;
At least one partner has been trapped in the marriage;
Incest;
At least one partner was unable to make an informed decision about marriage due to mental disability or alcohol / drug poisoning.
Before the annulment, the court asks the applicant to provide proof of at least one of the grounds for separation previously described. And now it is possible to see why cases of cancellation are so rare – the requirements of this procedure are quite specific.
Divorced
This is the most common type of separation. Divorce proceedings can be separated into two categories: disputed and undisputed. As the first type suggests, an applicant must provide a solid reason for filing for divorce. The reasons can include domestic violence, abuse and adultery. Additionally, this type of divorce is applicable when both parties have issues regarding the division of property, child custody and potentially spousal support.
Regarding the second case, neither party is required to provide a specific ground for divorce – the grounds for an uncontested divorce are based on “irreconcilable differences. “While this type of divorce is preferable because it is quick and can be inexpensive, spouses can still have differences regarding the terms. This is why spouses can seek the services of a mediator.
Premises and legal solutions
Both types of separation can be simple or complicated – it all depends on the individual circumstances of each case.
If the annulment is approved, the marriage is considered never to have existed. In the event of divorce, the parties may have legal obligations to each other even after the process is completed.
With divorce being a more common method of separation, most people who are considering a divorce are looking for a quick and affordable solution that does not require the services of a lawyer. This is why DIY divorce is becoming popular among people who want to separate.
If both spouses agree on an uncontested divorce, that is, they settle their differences without the court, they can make all the documents themselves and present them to the court.
This is why online divorce preparation services are so prevalent these days. If all issues are adequately resolved, a spouse can begin the divorce process through the Internet. This method is often used by couples who want to reduce the cost of divorce and make everything fast.
For a low price, the online divorce company can provide an online divorce application. The automated service automatically selects and fills out the appropriate forms for the petitioner based on the details of their case.
Online divorce is also effective for cancellations, as spouses can resolve property rights and child custody issues on their own.
Final thoughts
As can be seen, there are considerable differences between annulment and divorce. Although the two options result in the dissolution of the marriage, the legal consequences are different. Understanding the requirements of both procedures and what they mean for each partner is imperative in order to avoid unnecessary drama and stress.
An annulment means that the marriage was never legal – this type of separation has specific requirements, which makes such cases rare among those who practice law.
Divorce is the most common practice, and partners can get through it the hard way or the easy way. Those who can agree on critical issues can experience the latter option and often simplify the process by preparing for divorce online.
In January 2004, Pop Princess Britney Spears married her childhood friend Jason Alexander in a wedding chapel in Las Vegas. However, 55 hours later, their vows were canceled. Initially, it was believed that Spears and Alexander signed the cancellation papers without a fight. But recently, it was reported that the pair were forced to end their nuptials, which Alexander’s lawyer said was “harmful” to Spears’ life.
Britney Spears and Jason Alexander | Toni Anne Barson / WireImage; Enos Solomon / FilmMagic
Jason Alexander’s lawyer claims Britney Spears’ mother forced them to annul their marriage
In a recent interview with the Daily mailDivorce attorney Mark Goldberg spoke about Spears’ 55-hour marriage to Alexander.
According to Goldberg, the couple tied the knot shortly after Spears took Alexander to Las Vegas to party with her and her friends. At one point in the night, the singer suggested they get married, which Alexander agreed to.
“If I remember correctly, it was Britney’s idea to get married,” Goldberg told the outlet. “[Jason] said they hadn’t been drinking or using drugs – or at least they weren’t drunk.
The lawyer continued, “It was clear they weren’t… they really really loved each other… Jason was confused because he loved Britney and he didn’t want to hurt her.”
The morning after exchanging vows inside a tiny white wedding chapel in Las Vegas, Spears and Alexander called his mother, Lynne Spears, to let her know. Goldberg says that was when “hell broke loose.”
Britney Spears and her mom Lynne Spears | Kevin Mazur Archive / WireImage
RELATED:Britney Spears’ parents: why isn’t her mother in the guardianship?
At the beginning of the afternoon, an annulment appeal was drafted. Although Spears and Alexander didn’t want their nuptials canceled, Goldberg says they were forced to sign the papers by Lynne Spears and the “Gimme More” singer’s management team.
“It was the mother who intervened and inserted herself into her daughter’s life,” he said. “She came to Las Vegas, threw Jason out and got him a plane ticket home.”
Mark Goldberg believes this event was one of the earliest examples of Britney Spears being controlled.
Since he loved Spears and wanted to stay in his life, Goldberg says that Alexander accepted requests from Lynne Spears and the management team.
“[Jason] was very scared of her mother and her leadership, ”Goldberg said. “It wasn’t a stranger she had just picked up. They had known each other for years. He thought that if he played the game and did as they asked, she would come back, and he and Britney would be together.
After their cancellation, Alexander contacted Goldberg for legal advice. According to the divorce lawyer, Alexander wanted to be with Spears and hoped they would be together in the future.
” I explained him. I told him we could fight the cancellation, but I think in his heart Jason was thinking and hoping that if he accepted, he and Britney both would get back together, ”Goldberg explained.
Although Alexander was optimistic, Goldberg had reservations as he saw how much control Spears’ family had over his life.
“[Britney] gave in to her mother’s demands. Honestly, I’m sorry for the girl, and I felt sorry for [Jason]”said Goldberg.” But she’s been under the strict hands of her parents her whole life – her mother, then her father who made so much money with her. There is no love, no love. respect there. There is nothing there. “
He continued: “I really believe that this particular event had a negative impact on the life of Britney Spears – the way she was controlled and the toll that took place.”
Jason Alexander says he was tricked into signing the annulment
During a recent appearance on Toxic: the story of Britney Spears podcast, Alexander had a similar feeling to Goldberg’s account of his cancellation and how easily the Spears team took control of the situation.
RELATED: Britney Spears’ ‘Oops!… I Did It Again’ costume is back for Halloween 2021
Alexander claimed he agreed to sign the annulment of his marriage to Spears under the impression that he and the singer could still date and pursue a future together. However, he soon realized that was wrong.
“They told me that if I signed the contracts – the cancellation – they would let me and Britney continue our relationship, and if we felt the same in six months, they would give us a decent marriage,” he recalls. . “So I had no reason to believe otherwise. I thought it was the truth. They allowed Britney and I to continue to communicate by phone.
But exactly one month after signing the cancellation, Alexander says Spears’ phone was mysteriously disconnected.
“Literally the next day, like, the 30 days were up, I remember trying to call the number I had for Britney and it was like ‘beep, beep, beep’,” he said. he declares. “I’m like ‘Fk, they got me! Holy shit! So that was it.
The divorce lawyer who called off Britney Spears’ marriage to her childhood sweetheart Jason Alexander said neither wanted a divorce – it was Britney’s mother Lynne Spears and her management who forced separation.
In January 2004, the couple infamously married at A Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas for just 55 hours before being slapped with a petition claiming the artist “lacked understanding of his actions.”
The couple were very close and grew up together in Kentwood, Louisiana.
Divorce lawyer Mark Goldberg, now retired, advised Alexander following the event. It all started when Britney called Alexander to be with her in Vegas, even paying for her plane ticket.
“If I remember correctly, it was Britney’s idea to get married. He said they hadn’t been drinking or using drugs – or at least they weren’t drunk, ”Goldberg said.
Skeptical, Goldberg asked Alexander if drink or drugs were in the equation, but “it was clear they weren’t … they really really loved each other.”
Britney pictured with Jason (far right) after their nuptials. Source: Facebook, Mario Andres Lastra Oviedo
After the nuptials, Britney’s mother Lynne Spears cracked the whip, coming to Vegas and throwing Alexander on a plane home. Shaken and upset, Alexander contacted Goldberg for legal help.
Speak on the podcast Toxic: the story of Britney Spears, Alexander revealed that he was tricked into signing the annulment.
“They told me that if I signed the contracts – the cancellation – they would let me and Britney continue our relationship, and if we felt the same in six months, they would give us a real marriage,” Alexander said.
“So I had no reason to believe otherwise. I thought it was the truth. They allowed Britney and I to still have phone calls, ”he continued.
Surprisingly, exactly 30 days after the cancellation, Alexander says Britney’s phone has stopped working.
“Literally the next day, like, the 30 days were up, I remember trying to call the number I had for Britney and it was like ‘beep, beep, beep’,” he said. he declares. “I’m like ‘F ** k, they got me! Motherfuckers!” So that was it.
And with that, their relationship was burnt out. Britney married Kevin Federline seven months later, sharing two sons, Sean, 15, and Jayden, 14, before divorcing in 2006.
Britney is currently embroiled in a messy court battle in the United States to have her guardianship crushed amid allegations her Conservative Father Jamie Spears is abusive. Shocking claims about Britney’s life continue to emerge, detailing the relentless restrictions the singer has been subjected to from the guardianship and her family.
Join Tom Tilley with regular co-hosts Jan Fran, Annika Smethurst and Jamila Rizvi on The Briefing, Monday through Saturday, for headlines and breaking news as well as hot topics and interviews. Available on Listnr.
By 
To print
