Griner Annulment Petition Denied | The Boneyard

Griner Annulment Petition Denied

Status
Not open for further replies.

HGN

Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
3,158
Reaction Score
6,816
I don't think it should have been annulled either.......Maybe BG didn't think Glory was a gold digger , and she is , but one party being a gold digger is not grounds for a judge to annul the marriage..

BG knew what she was getting into. They had just been in a fight a week or so before.

BG finally came to her senses and the conclusion that Glory is indeed a gold digger and that pregnancy was not the Immaculate Conception.:)
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
11,335
Reaction Score
25,045
I don't think it should have been annulled either..Maybe BG didn't think Glory was a gold digger , and she is , but one party being a gold digger is not grounds for a judge to annul the marriage..

BG knew what she was getting into. They had just been in a fight a week or so before.

BG finally came to her senses and the conclusion that Glory is indeed a gold digger and that pregnancy was not the Immaculate Conception.:)
I' am shocked. It was not an I.C.??? (can bring myself to write the words) So the judge must have proof of the Marriage being consummated --I wonder what that is, it certainly isn't any soup or broth. With a pair of wee ones on the fast train to earth I suppose the Judge's first thought was of them. Now THAT THE judge has ruled--all shall be happy and carefree in Glorytown.
 

DaddyChoc

Choc Full of UConn
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
12,403
Reaction Score
18,450
not annulled, so they must get divorced now? then the spousal & child support stuff kicks in etc.?
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
555
Reaction Score
996
I don't think it should have been annulled either..Maybe BG didn't think Glory was a gold digger , and she is , but one party being a gold digger is not grounds for a judge to annul the marriage..

BG knew what she was getting into. They had just been in a fight a week or so before.

BG finally came to her senses and the conclusion that Glory is indeed a gold digger and that pregnancy was not the Immaculate Conception.:)

Clearly there were issues before the wedding that shoud have been resolved as in a pre nupual agreement.
We have a saying at work for people who things that they know are wrong. "THE STUPID SHALL BE PUNISHED!"
 

Waquoit

Mr. Positive
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
32,188
Reaction Score
82,245
I feel bad for her. She's a unique young women trying to make her way, seemingly without a lot of support. Certainly, not support from anyone who has experience with her personal situation, who has been in anything approaching her shoes. She finally finds someone she feels she can trust and that person betrays her and is trying to take the money she has worked for. I don't care what you say, that's hard.
 

DaddyChoc

Choc Full of UConn
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
12,403
Reaction Score
18,450
I feel bad for her. She's a unique young women trying to make her way, seemingly without a lot of support. Certainly, not support from anyone who has experience with her personal situation, who has been in anything approaching her shoes. She finally finds someone she feels she can trust and that person betrays her and is trying to take the money she has worked for. I don't care what you say, that's hard.
I agree... BG needs to be monitored
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
6,309
Reaction Score
9,989
They will have two children to care for in the not too distant future. However their relationship ends they have to find a way to work together to raise the twins. They both need to grow the hell up and fast.
 

HGN

Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
3,158
Reaction Score
6,816
To not annul the marriage , by the Judge , I think was the right call............. I guess being a golddigger is not legal grounds for divorce. However , its going to be very interesting to see what the court system does about any alimony and/or child support. Unfortunately , there are a few cases in the USA where Judges have forced a spouse/divorcee to pay full child support for a child that the Courts admitted was not fathered by the payer. I wouldn't wish this on anybody.

And it does look like Glory will be asking for child-support when a divorce is finally granted.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
16,539
Reaction Score
64,695
To not annul the marriage , by the Judge , I think was the right call... I guess being a golddigger is not legal grounds for divorce. However , its going to be very interesting to see what the court system does about any alimony and/or child support. Unfortunately , there are a few cases in the USA where Judges have forced a spouse/divorcee to pay full child support for a child that the Courts admitted was not fathered by the payer. I wouldn't wish this on anybody.

And it does look like Glory will be asking for child-support when a divorce is finally granted.
Do you have to pay the child-support even the children is clearly not yours?
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
91
Reaction Score
220
I am not a lawyer. This is only my opinion. If this were a marriage between a man and a woman, the man is usually still required to pay child support even if the children weren't his biological offspring. Same sex couples being granted equal rights to marry should also carry with it the same responsibilities in the event of a divorce. So if the law requires a man to pay child support for any children born during a marriage, I think it should also apply to a same sex couple. You can't expect to reap the benefits without accepting the responsibilities. I feel badly for Brittney's situation. It's not going to be easy and I'm sure things will get a lot messier before it is over.
 

ThisJustIn

Queen of Queens
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,015
Reaction Score
10,314
FWIW:
There are a number of possible situations when you can ask an Arizona court to annul your marriage:

  • One of the parties was married to someone else (bigamy).
  • The parties are related by blood.
  • One of the parties was a minor at the time of the marriage, and did not obtain the consent of a parent or guardian.
  • One or both of the parties lacked the mental capacity to get married.
  • One of both of the parties lacked the physical capacity to get married.
  • One or both of the parties were intoxicated at the time they married.
  • One or both of the parties lacked the intent to enter into a marriage contract.
  • The parties failed to obtain a proper, official marriage license.
  • The parties used a proxy (substitute) instead of marrying each other in person.
  • One of the parties perpetrated a fraud to get the other party to consent to the marriage.
  • One party used force (legally known as "duress") to get the other party to agree to marriage.
  • The parties have not had sexual relations or one party refused to have intercourse.
  • One of the parties misrepresented his or her religion.
  • One of the parties concealed his or her prior marital status.
  • One of the parties secretly planned to evade a premarital agreement.
As to child support issues - it's time to refer to any organizations who've dealt with a judicial system used to hetero issues. I'm sure the case law is sketchy on this - wondering if they draw on case law on adoptions and remarriages.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
9,874
Reaction Score
29,425
FWIW:
There are a number of possible situations when you can ask an Arizona court to annul your marriage:

  • One of the parties was married to someone else (bigamy).
  • The parties are related by blood.
  • One of the parties was a minor at the time of the marriage, and did not obtain the consent of a parent or guardian.
  • One or both of the parties lacked the mental capacity to get married.
  • One of both of the parties lacked the physical capacity to get married.
  • One or both of the parties were intoxicated at the time they married.
  • One or both of the parties lacked the intent to enter into a marriage contract.
  • The parties failed to obtain a proper, official marriage license.
  • The parties used a proxy (substitute) instead of marrying each other in person.
  • One of the parties perpetrated a fraud to get the other party to consent to the marriage.
  • One party used force (legally known as "duress") to get the other party to agree to marriage.
  • The parties have not had sexual relations or one party refused to have intercourse.
  • One of the parties misrepresented his or her religion.
  • One of the parties concealed his or her prior marital status.
  • One of the parties secretly planned to evade a premarital agreement.
As to child support issues - it's time to refer to any organizations who've dealt with a judicial system used to hetero issues. I'm sure the case law is sketchy on this - wondering if they draw on case law on adoptions and remarriages.
A case could be made for, "One or both of the parties lacked the mental capacity to get married."
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
11,335
Reaction Score
25,045
Clearly there were issues before the wedding that shoud have been resolved as in a pre nupual agreement.
We have a saying at work for people who things that they know are wrong. "THE STUPID SHALL BE PUNISHED!"
I THOUGHT THAT THE PHRASE WAS---NO GOOD DEED GOES UN PUNISHED!! Seems both may apply in this fiasco!!
Coulda shoulda been avoided!! We used the phrase ---Murphy's rule just kicked in (anything that can go wrong shall go wrong it just picks the time and place to cause the most embarrassment) --and few more I don't currently remember.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
11,335
Reaction Score
25,045
I am not a lawyer. This is only my opinion. If this were a marriage between a man and a woman, the man is usually still required to pay child support even if the children weren't his biological offspring. Same sex couples being granted equal rights to marry should also carry with it the same responsibilities in the event of a divorce. So if the law requires a man to pay child support for any children born during a marriage, I think it should also apply to a same sex couple. You can't expect to reap the benefits without accepting the responsibilities. I feel badly for Brittney's situation. It's not going to be easy and I'm sure things will get a lot messier before it is over.
Some states (Connecticut when I was a youth) had a law that said essentially--if a woman is married and a child is born to her, her husband is financially and otherwise responsible for that child regardless who impregnated the woman. No DNA then, no effective blood tests but the courts wanted to assure that the kid when born wouldn't be a burden to the state. In my experience few laws, once written, are ever removed from the books of law. Also, to rewrite all laws to be specific for single sex partners won't happen--too much expense, no one can be assured all appropriate laws shall be adjusted
 

ThisJustIn

Queen of Queens
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,015
Reaction Score
10,314
1) folks can always NOT read the thread
2) Plenty of laws have been taken off the books. For instance, a woman can marry a woman...
There has, also, been an evolution in the laws of divorce, custody and support. Long way back, men could dump a woman and take the children. Custody, in more modern days, more often automatically went to the women. Men have advocated for their rights to be single parents (see Kramer v. Kramer... ).
 

ThisJustIn

Queen of Queens
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,015
Reaction Score
10,314
Beat me to it. :D

I can think of several marriages that would fall under that assessment.

That being said, it's not much fun to make fun of someone else's emotional pain...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
462
Guests online
3,747
Total visitors
4,209

Forum statistics

Threads
155,803
Messages
4,032,147
Members
9,865
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom