Conflicts of Divorce Cases

When people’s lives were mostly confined to single state, local court orders for maintenance and child support, and for contact with, and parental responsibility for, any children of the family were administered through a relatively trouble-free system.

But, as the borders between states became increasingly porous, people moved in search of employment, to build businesses or, simply, because they could, the marriage of people with different nationalities or domiciles therefore became more common.

This has produced serious problems for the parties and for the court systems which are now expected to accept jurisdiction over persons sometimes only transiently within their territorial boundaries, and to enforce the judgments and orders of foreign courts.

In modern society, the role of marriage and its termination through divorce have become political issues. As people live increasingly mobile lives, the Conflict of Laws and its choice of law rules are highly relevant to determine: the circumstances in which people may obtain divorces in states in which they have no permanent or habitual residence; and when one state will recognize and enforce a divorce granted in another state. Learn more about divorces with the Austin divorce attorney.





In the common law, marriage can produce a common domicile for the spouses with the wife taking the domicile of the husband. This rule is derived from the proposition that a dependent wife will follow her husband in all aspects of her life.

Although this provides a convenient law which is usually easy to identify it may produce a result in which a person is domiciled in one state but the matrimonial home and all other features of the parties’ lives may be in a second state. This problem is aggravated by the rules relating to the revival of the domicile of origin when a domicile of choice is abandoned. Visit the Austin divorce to learn more about divorce procedures and requirements.

Habitual residence may be a more satisfactory connecting factor than domicile because a person’s long-term residence would appear to offer a more practical basis for recognition, whatever his or her intentions may be.
Although intention is relevant to establishing a person’s habitual residence, it is a less demanding test than for domicile. But it could lead to forum shopping with a Petitioner living in a state only long enough to establish habitual residence under that state’s law and so evade obligations or gain unfair advantages. For more information about divorces and divorce conflicts, visit the Austin divorce for more details.

Conflicts of Divorce Cases / Author: Christine Layug