Comment on Anon is confused
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 days agoIn the US we solve this one of two ways, depending on the state:
- everything earned/purchased during the marriage is jointly owned, 50/50
- things are only jointly owned if both parties’ names are on it
Things from before marriage are usually separate, provided the parties can show they’ve kept them separate (i.e. if you got an inheritance before marriage and never shared it with the spouse).
If the divorce is amicable, then it’s generally pretty smooth, regardless of what the local law is, since you just hire a mutually agreeable arbiter to value and distribute things. It only gets complicated when parties disagree about who gets what (usually emotional attachment), and also disagree about what things should be worth.
In any case, though, waiting 6 months doesn’t make that process easier, it likely just discourages people from bothering with the divorce. Do you really want to deal with joint assets for 6 months? Who lives in the house? Who drives the cars? All of that should be settled as quickly as possible instead of sitting in limbo for half a year.
Dasus@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I think you’re underestimating what a huge process this is.
You can split up all your shit as soon as your like. When you want a divorce, you apply for it as soon as you want to, but it will only legally be confirmed after six months if you go and confirm it within six months of the end of the six-month waiting period. Ie in a year from the original date, but after 6 months.
But there’s no need for this waiting period if you’ve for instance lived in different addresses for the past two years.
This isn’t like trying to force people to stay together or make it too hard. It’s honestly because if it was that simple tons of drunk finns would get divorced on weekends.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
And I think you’re making it out to be easier that it is in the US. It’s not like you just drop by a government building and sign some papers and you’re done, you actually need to go through the effort to separate all your finances. Even a smooth divorce can take a few days, and my understanding is that you can’t file such paperwork drunk since you wouldn’t be “of sound mind” to complete the legal paperwork.
The 6 month waiting period seems to be intended to prevent divorce. Otherwise, why not just a week? Or a month to be generous? Surely that’s enough time for a drunk Finn to sober up (then again, maybe Finns have some epic benders). Send a reminder postcard or something around the time you need to confirm and you’re good. Better yet, require it to be opt out, as in you’re divorced unless you take action. I think remaining married after filing is much more surprising than being divorced.
Dasus@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Not just finances. You need to remember estates, emotional connections to things, friends family and above if the couple has children, custody.
I’m not making it out to be easy in any way. I’m saying that because it’s not easy, it’s a two phase process here (plus all the things that go with divorce, obviously), so for instance you can’t drunkenly decide to divorce legally and then have to settle all the finances and shit even if you ended up making up and getting back together.
I wish I could have stats on how many people apply for a divorce here, how many cancel it, how many confirm it and how many just expire due to the year’s time limit. Ofc societies are pretty different but it’d be interesting to know.
And yes I understand you can’t file the papers drunk but you can get so mad that you’re angry for a week. But if you still disagree in six months, it clearly wasn’t “just” anger but a good reason. Eh, societal differences I guess. Why six months? Idk. It does feel like people can really be “drunk” as in the winter people might lack vitamin D and get the gloomies and drink all the time and if the period is six months, then there’s at least a bit of non-winter at some point. (Although not really but at least more sun.) I don’t know why it’s so long. The law is originally from 1929 iirc. (Been amended several times obviously)
I don’t have an opinion, I’m just stating that as the reasoning.
Like Finland isn’t the most progressive country despite the “good” social security. (“Good” in quotes because I could write a book about that.)
Hell it took until 2023 to repeal the law which mandated that any transitioning trans person had to be sterilised.
I think you’re confusing Finland for a democracy when we’re actually a bureaucracy. Making applications and rules and half of them being fucked is like baked into the system.
Also because of how old this law is, perhaps it is to make it harder for women to leave completely. Idk man. But that’s how it is. Looking at history one would assume it’s something like that. It’s crazy the sick shit societies have done to women to achieve that. Literally hobbling women.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
You can’t here either. You file for divorce, and then you can cancel the process at any time while estates and whatnot are settled. If you end up making up later, get remarried. I’ve known couples who have been remarried three times, it’s not common, but it’s a thing.
I’m guessing Lutheranism has something to do with it.
Wow, that’s truly awful. I thought my state was bad since we had a law on the books until two years ago that allowed guardians to forcibly sterilize their adult children (i.e. if they have a mental disability of some sort), provided they got a court order first (required “medical necessity,” not just “pregnancy is inconvenient”).
They’re the same picture. And that’s usually a good thing, I’d much rather something be inconvenient than impossible.