Spanish Judge Tells Divorcing Couple To Literally Divide Their House In Half

[Initech]

PARIS — The economic crisis in Spain has had the unintentional consequence of forcing warring couples who cannot afford divorces to remain together. Now, a judge in Seville has ordered a divorcing couple to split their 2,700-square-foot apartment down the middle.

The property belongs to the husband’s parents, but the judge ordered the man to bisect it to create two independent abodes, citing economic considerations and the well-being of the couple’s two daughters, ages 6 and 7, according to the written ruling released by the court this month.

Josep Maria Torres, a family law expert at Roca & Junyent, a leading law firm in Barcelona, said Friday that the ruling was highly unusual. “It is an extraordinary decision that could encourage other judges to seek similarly extreme solutions,” he said. “Spain’s economic crisis has changed everything.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/world/europe/spanish-judge-partitions-warring-couples-home.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1&

Why does this sound like something out of I Love Lucy?

[MADem]

1. I always thought that kids should come first in a divorce.

The parents should provide housing for the kids, and they should be forced to shuffle back and forth to the children's home.

Why should kids have to "move" every other weekend and disrupt their lives to "visit" with a parent? Make the parents move!

[Tien1985]

2. Because having exhausted,

Strained and poverty stricken parents is terrible for any child. It wouldn't lead to more stability for the child, it would lead to less stability for the entire family. Kids don't do well when their parents aren't doing well. This would unintentional encourage parents to provide the bare minimum for their kids--if for no other reason than financial ruin and lack of time.

And how would this work in the case of an abused spouse who's ex still has visitation rights?

I'm all for encouraging people to develop strong families that won't be easily broken apart, but Positive reinforcement has been shown to work over negative reinforcement again and again. As a country we need to move away from the "punishment for every infraction" mentality, we are already reaping the benefits of that style.

[MADem]

3. All you'd need is a two bedroom apartment and the house for the kids.

Each parent has a room in the apartment. They can even put a lock on it if they don't want their ex nosing around. They simply "trade off" when it's their turn to supervise the children. That way, there's no need for them to interact overmuch. They'd need to divvy up shelves on the fridge, take sides in the freezer, and decide who gets which kitchen cabinet.

Why should it have to cost MORE? There are two "homes" anyway, that kids have to shuffle back and forth to (all that gas, extra food in two fridges, and TIME to drag the kids back and forth)--and one of them is usually inferior, in a "bachelor condo" type set-up, with too many kids in crappy bunkbeds in too-small rooms. Unless they want to haul stuff, there's usually two x-boxes, two wiis, two televisions, extra clothing--to say nothing of all the extra furniture that needs to be bought. My scenario obviates that. What it does do, though, is require parents to grow the hell up and put the children first. Once the last one is out the door to college, the parents can be kids again and kick up their heels.

If parents would cooperate and be adults, instead of being selfish and more interested in their own self-actualization than raising the kids they made, the kids wouldn't have to suffer. You criticize a "punishment mentality," the fact of the matter is that children are "punished" because their stupid parents can't behave like adults when their marriage or partnership goes south.

Frankly, I think spouses who abuse their better halves should lose custody of their kids. Who wants that kind of example around children? Problem solved.

If the abuser is deemed worthy of visitation (but never 'custody'), he or she can see the kids in a supervised visitation once a month at a public building with police oversight. The abused parent (or a friend or relative) turns the kids over to a social worker, who takes the kids to see the abusive parent, and picks the kids up from the social worker--no need to even lay eyes on the abuser.

I don't see anything "punishing" about putting children first and not disrupting the school/social life of children. What is punishing is when a kid's life is disrupted just because their immature parents decide that they "hate" each other. Why should a child constantly get in hot water every other Monday for being late to school because one parent, not living in the school district, gets the kid back from their little forced-fun weekend 'late?' Talk to school administrators and teachers, they'll give you an earful about this kind of thing.

Give the kids stability--it's only fair.

If this kind of scenario was the norm, maybe people would be slower to have children, less likely to marry in haste, repent at leisure, slower to split up, and think before they play "I want MINE NOW" games.