Family Attorney
Summary
|
|
Egyptian women are at a distinct disadvantage in access to divorce for no reason other than that they are women. The threat leveled against Amira Ahmad by her husband is not an idle threat: it is backed by profoundly discriminatory laws and practices premised on women’s inferiority, particularly in matters related to the family. The Egyptian government has created two widely disparate systems for divorce, one for men and one for women. Egyptian men have a unilateral and unconditional right to divorce. They never need to enter a courtroom to end their marriages. Egyptian women, on the other hand, must resort to Egypt’s notoriously backlogged and inefficient courts to divorce their spouses. In the courts, women face procedural and evidentiary hurdles to divorce that are inherently discriminatory. Men, who can divorce their spouses at will with an oral renunciation later registered by a religious notary, can simply sidestep these procedures. Obtaining a divorce can also take years as men manipulate the many defenses and tactics Egyptian law reserves only for them. As a result, many Egyptian women, like Amira Ahmad, avoid the courts and are left with two equally distressing options: either remain in an unwanted marriage and possibly endure physical and psychological abuse, or beg their husbands to divorce them, giving up everything they own and cherish in return. The consequences of this two-tiered system are often financially and emotionally devastating for women. In some cases, they can be life-threatening. Egypt’s discriminatory divorce system is among the starkest examples of Egypt’s oppressive personal status laws. These personal status laws–common in the region–govern marriage, divorce, custody, and inheritance and advance a model of the family based on the superiority of men to women. Laws and practices as applied violate the rights of Egyptian women to equality before the law, nondiscrimination, and equality in marriage and divorce, as enshrined in international human rights law. Egypt’s divorce laws discriminate against women in the procedures they impose and in their substantive provisions, reflecting a system of unequal access and treatment that obstructs many women from seeking divorce. The judicial process is fraught with difficulties, delays, high costs, and varying standards. In order to initiate a divorce providing full financial rights, an Egyptian woman must show evidence of harm inflicted by her spouse during the course of their marriage, often supported by eyewitness testimony. Alternatively, since 2000, Egyptian women can file for “no-fault” divorce (khula) if they agree to forfeit their financial rights and repay the dowry given to them by their husbands upon marriage. Khula, adopted as a way to afford women easier access to divorce, still requires women to petition the court to terminate their marriages. The option is most accessible to women with the financial means to renounce all financial claims, or those with limited means but who are desperate for a divorce. The government requires all women seeking divorce, including victims of domestic violence, to submit to compulsory mediation. When men initiate divorce, the government does not require them to make an effort to reconcile. The fact that only women must submit to mediation in the name of family preservation implies that only divorces initiated by women destroy the family. Compulsory mediation for women, and only women, is also rooted in biased notions of a woman’s inability to make rational decisions about important life choices without interference. Many Egyptian women find themselves impoverished and facing homelessness while they navigate the judicial jungle of divorce in Egypt. Egyptian women who have separated from their husbands and have filed for divorce in Egypt’s courts are deemed automatically ineligible for any form of government-sponsored financial assistance, since they are officially still married. Without a divorce certificate in hand, women are provided with no social assistance; they are deemed to be the financial responsibility of their husband and not the state. The legal and bureaucratic nightmare of obtaining either a fault-based or no-fault divorce does not end once a divorce is finally granted. For many Egyptian women, a divorce is tantamount to destitution because of the government’s failure to enforce court rulings for alimony and child support. The Egyptian government’s attempt to remedy this problem through the establishment of a specialized alimony and child support fund is a step in the right direction. However, the fund should not be a substitute for more aggressive enforcement of court rulings. More : hrw.org |
Related Articles from Attorney for Family
Researching the family law reform act.
In these pages Lawrie Moloney reviews a major report on the operation of the first three years of the Family Law Reform Act 1995, the summary of which was published in the last edition of Family Matters. Then follows a response by the report's authors, Helen Rhoades, Reg Graycar, and Margaret Harrison, to this review and to Patrick Parkinson's comments in our letters pages. In November last year, the University of Sydney and the Family Court of Australia jointly published the results of research that aimed to review the first three years of the operation of the Family Law Reform
Ethical issues in collaborative law
Collaborative law is be coming increasingly popular, for reasons well stated by Pauline Tesler in her article in the Winter, 1999 issue of the American Journal of Family Law (Vol. 13, number 4, p. 215). In brief summary, collaborative law consists of lawyers and clients committing to resolving their issues by settlement, and not by litigation. Each party is separately represented, and both clients and lawyers commit to voluntary full disclosure of all relevant information. If settlement fails, the collaborative lawyers must withdraw, and turn over the case to litigation counsel. Experts are brought in, but only as neutrals. They
Rosen Law Firm adds Erin Clarey as new divorce attorney
Rosen Law Firm, the largest divorce firm in the state, has added Erin Clarey as a new divorce attorney. Through collaboration and mediation, Clarey helps guide clients through what is likely one of the most difficult stages in their lives. “I love working at Rosen because every day you really help people get to a better place in life,” says Clarey. A native of Charleston, South Carolina, Clarey graduated from Campbell University where she served as a Case Summary Writer for the Campbell Law Observer. She has also worked as a law clerk for Mast, Schultz, Mast, Mills, Johnson
Stay-at-Home Moms in Ontario, Calif., Area Balance Domestic Needs, Checkbook.
Karen Bowley entered the work force at age 15. At age 36, she left the ranks of wage earners and a salary of $41,000 a year to stay home with her infant daughter, Megan. Five years and thousands of diaper changes later, Bowley, now a Corona resident with two young children, doesn't regret the decision despite the lingering discomfort of needing to rely on her husband for spending money. "Still, to this day, it's hard for me to ask for money," Bowley said. According to a report published in the Christian Science Monitor in November, the number of mothers choosing
Only sponsoring parent has imputed liability in child’s auto accident.
Even though divorced parents of a minor driver have joint legal custody and share physical placement of the minor, a non-sponsoring parent does not have imputed liability for the minor's negligence under sec. 343.15(2)(b), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held on Oct. 16. Joint Legal Custody Joseph W. Langer and Rosemary A. Salkowski divorced in 1992 and were awarded joint legal custody of their daughter, Courtney. The parents live apart and alternate Courtney's physical placement weekly. In 1999, Courtney obtained a Wisconsin driver's license with Langer as the sponsor, pursuant to sec. 343.15. On Oct. 15, 1999, Courtney's placement transferred