I’m not going to examine the moral or theological aspects of Mr. Robertson’s statement, but legally, could you get a divorce from someone with Alzheimer’s?

It may be surprising, but you can get an irreconcilable differences divorce from someone with Alzheimer’s Disease. As you may know, that requires both spouses to agree to end the marriage. How can the court be sure a person with that condition has the capacity to agree? First, the person with the disease will probably need a guardian or conservator to be appointed. Then, they will also need a guardian ad litem. Assuming they are both good with it, the divorce will probably go through.

What about a contested divorce? Could Alzheimer’s be considered “incurable insanity,” one of the grounds for divorce in Mississippi? I doubt it. First, the statute requires the insane spouse to be confined to an institution for treatment for at least 3 years. I doubt a long-term care facility would qualify as an “institution.”

Second, two physicians must find the defendant insane. I don’t think you could get a doctor to say that a patient with that debilitating condition was insane.

For my final reason why I don’t think such a quest would prevail, you have to look outside the divorce statute. Mississippi recognizes a method to have a person involuntarily committed if they, due to mental health issues, are a danger to themselves or others. However, that statute specifically excludes “infirmities of old age.” I would imagine that Alzheimer’s qualifies as such an infirmity.

Even if Alzheimer’s was a basis for divorce, the defendant would still need a guardian ad litem. Even then, could the defendant contribute to their defense at all?

As the baby boomer generation grows older, chances are that we’ll see more divorce because of Alzheimer’s.That said, I don’t think there needs to be a new basis for divorce added. The procedural safeguards are already in place in an irreconcilable differences divorce.

Do you think Alzheimer’s is a justification for divorce? Let me know in the comments.

(Photo credit: By iluvrhinestones from seattle, oceania, upload by Herrick (rampant) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons)

Working with people going though a divorce and serving as a guardian ad litem, I see many claims of child abuse. Most of these, I think are false, but it’s not my place or my expertise to make that determination. In fact, I have a duty to report such allegations, even if my client doesn’t want it to be reported, to the Department of Human Services. Why would someone make up a false claim of child abuse? The first thing that pops into my head is they think it will help them in their divorce or custody case. More on this in a moment. I do believe that there are plenty of overprotective parents out there as well, and any bruises that happen to their precious angel must be the result of abuse. (that should be read in a sarcastic tone)

What gets on my nerves are the cases I see of “serial allegations.” The thinking must be that if the authorities didn’t believe the first allegation, maybe they’ll believe the second, or the third, or so on. Of course, there are real cases of abuse that are reported. But one thing everyone complains of is how overloaded the system is and how, as a result, how slow an abuse investigation goes. Logically, if there weren’t so many reports made that the parent knows are not true, there would be fewer investigations and maybe, just maybe, the investigations on real cases wouldn’t take so long.

And then, just like the boy who cried wolf, there are bound to be some cases where the child eventually does get abused, and the authorities are even slower to investigate or maybe even don’t, because this is the umpteenth time this parent has made an allegation, and all the others have been false. And I won’t even go into the possible psychological effects this has on the child toward the alleged but innocent parent. So, if you think you’re helping yourself and your child by making a false report, you’re not. You may even be hurting the child in the long run.