​Whether or not you should move out before filing for divorce depends on your individual situation. There are pros and cons to each option and the right decision varies greatly depending on you particular situation.  For example, if you are seeking custody of your children, leaving the home without them will put you in a significant disadvantage when the actual custody proceedings begin.  However, If you're experiencing conflict or abuse in the home, moving out may be necessary for your safety and wellbeing. In such cases, you may want to seek a protective order from the court to ensure your safety. 

​On the other hand again, moving out before filing for divorce could impact your legal rights and obligations related to property division, and spousal support. If you move out and your spouse stays in the marital home for longer than a year, it could be interpreted as abandonment, which could weaken your legal position in the divorce proceedings.  It's best to consult with a qualified family law attorney to understand the implications of moving out before filing for divorce in your jurisdiction.

No fault divorce has been in place since the 1970s and is currently recognized in all fifty states. This type of filing allows couples to obtain a divorce without having to prove that adultery, abandonment, cruelty, or other legally defined causes happened during the marriage. But a new effort by the Texas Republican Party is underway to end no fault divorce in the state of Texas. This would potentially be a major shift in the way divorce is handled in this state—shifting from an arrangement where couples can file for divorce based on irreconcilable differences, to an arrangement requiring a “fault” to be found before a divorce would be granted.

The opposition to reinstating fault based divorce stems from a concern regarding how the changing of the law would impact alimony and child support payments. Opponents are also worried that with the added difficulty of having to establish fault in each divorce suit, parties and certain lawyers may be incentivized to falsify evidence and create untruthful accounts of the relationship, which would lead to a longer and more costly divorce process.

The Republican Party believes that the disadvantages of no fault divorces pale in comparison to the advantages that would come from requiring fault in court. They are hopeful that this change would allow couples to look back on their relationship and learn from their mistakes, leading to better communication, more understanding and less co-parental struggles.

From a Texas divorce attorney perspective It CAN be difficult, but by no means impossible-to prove fault grounds- provided of course, the grounds are supported by facts.  I take exception  that some opponents to the bill cite that it can be presumed that divorce lawyers will allow false evidence into the Courts.  Certainly there are some in this profession who may be dishonest, but most of the Texas bar is composed of honorable individuals who take their role as officers of the Court very seriously and would not allow falsehoods to be presented as truth- even to obtain a divorce.  On the otherhand, there is no doubt that the bill would lead to more intensively fact based cases which certainly would create more lengthy and expensive legal battles in court. But the Republican Party may see this as a positive outcome because the increased litigation cost could create a further disincentive for couples to get a divorce.

Although this proposal would potentially change the way divorces are handled in the state going forward, it’s important to note that no fault divorces still remain legal in Texas, but this proposed change would make them more difficult to obtain. 

The practice of marrying is ancient, as marriages have been found to have existed in many cultures and civilisations as far back as 4,000 BC. Early marriage was often more of a business transaction than a personal choice, with parents arranging marriages for their children in order to gain wealth or form alliances with other families.

The definition of marriage has changed over the centuries. From its earliest incarnation, marriage was seen as a way for two people, who were not necessarily in love, to join together to create a family. It was also believed to be a way of ensuring that the children had a stable home life. Over time, the emphasis changed, and marriage came to represent a union between two people who loved each other and wanted to create a family together.

In addition to the definition of marriage changing, so has its structure. In the past, it was quite common for people to marry more than once in their lifetime; with widows or widowers being expected to remarry as soon as possible. As society has progressed, this is much less common. Marriage is now seen as a lifelong commitment between two people, and divorce is seen as an accepted part of life.

Marriage continues to be a legal and social institution today, but it increasingly viewed as something that couples choose to do, rather than something that is expected of them. Marriage provides both legal and social benefits for couples, such as taxation breaks and insurance coverage. More than ever, people are looking beyond the traditional view of marriage and looking for new ways to express their commitment to each other.