visiting the US after abandoning AOS

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Yes, that's exactly what I thought, because of the fingerprinting.

I didn't have dual citizenship yet when I filed for the K1. I just got it last year.

But, I still don't understand how I can get a divorce if I can't go back inside the country! All the lawyers said that I HAVE to be there. I know I can cross on land, but by plane? I'm worried!

That's not true. You DON'T HAVE to be physically present to get a divorce.

All your husband has to do is file for divorce by placing an ad in the newspaper. You don't have to be served, nor sign anything.

Different states have different requirements about this. The add in the paper does not work in all places. Where I live, it takes a couple years to prove abandonment.

I think you are confounding abandonment as a "ground" for divorce, and a process service option of divorce by publication when the whereabouts of the defendant is unknown. The two aren't necessarily the same...

[M. 0]

I think you are confounding abandonment as a "ground" for divorce, and a process service option of divorce by publication when the whereabouts of the defendant is unknown. The two aren't necessarily the same...

Exactly.

In most states, grounds for a divorce are "abandonment" which requires 1 year (or more, by state) of separation against the will of the other party.

Whare you're talking about is acceptable "service" -- because the OP is a foreign national, there's something called the Hague Conventions that have to be followed, no matter what state the future ex-husband is in, to prove service, unless the OP signs an Acknowledgement of Service (notarized in the country of her current residence, which isn't necessarily her nationality) saying she's received a copy of the summons and complaint in her court matter -- and that's for all court actions involving a foreign national abroad, not just divorce.

Having said that, whoever said You don't have to be present to get a divorce is correct, in theory. Her husband can properly serve her and default her (ask for a judgement against her). However, depending on the state and the individual specs of the case, this can be anywhere from a mild inconvenience to a really big deal, especially if there's property of the marriage (house, finances, vehicles, bank accounts, retirement/pension plans, etc.) to be distributed.

Based on the fact that she hasn't completed AOS, I'm assuming it's a fairly young marriage and most of that shouldn't be at issue and a Default Divorce would just mean she couldn't resume her name legally in some states without being present -- assuming she changed it. However, if there's marital debts, vehicles, house, or anything like that, it's in her best interest to be there, espcially if there's a child and child support/custody is at issue.

Hell, and this is my advice to everyone about any legal matters, anytime you are served with court papers, the best thing to do is either consult an attorney or hit a law library ASAP and file an appearance with the court. Even if you don't contest anything. Better to pay the fees and be able to have a say than be defaulted and have no ability to state your position.

[Canuck Carrie 1]

Yes, that's exactly what I thought, because of the fingerprinting.

I didn't have dual citizenship yet when I filed for the K1. I just got it last year.

But, I still don't understand how I can get a divorce if I can't go back inside the country! All the lawyers said that I HAVE to be there. I know I can cross on land, but by plane? I'm worried!

That's not true. You DON'T HAVE to be physically present to get a divorce.

All your husband has to do is file for divorce by placing an ad in the newspaper. You don't have to be served, nor sign anything.

Why did you dig up something from April?

[Yodrak 7]

Ana,

Like 1 or 2 others, I don't understand why you must be present. You mention lawyers - is one of them your lawyer? If not, perhaps you should retain one if to do nothing more than to be your representative in court.

When my first wife divorce me, she was not present in court for the hearing. Her lawyer represented me, I represented myself, the judge approved the settlement we presented, and that was that.

Yodrak

...

But i still don't understand how i can get a divorce if I can't go back inside the country! All the lawyers said that I HAVE to be there. .....

[M. 0]

Ana,

Like 1 or 2 others, I don't understand why you must be present. You mention lawyers - is one of them your lawyer? If not, perhaps you should retain one if to do nothing more than to be your representative in court.

When my first wife divorce me, she was not present in court for the hearing. Her lawyer represented me, I represented myself, the judge approved the settlement we presented, and that was that.

Yodrak

...

But i still don't understand how i can get a divorce if I can't go back inside the country! All the lawyers said that I HAVE to be there. .....

Depends on the state and the judge.

For example, one of the judges where I work will not place a settlement on the record unless both parties place on the record *themselves* that they knowingly and voluntarily entered into said agreement.

It's also important in some states for name changes -- in some states, just getting divorced does *not* automatically entitle you to resume your maiden name. In fact, in this state, you can take *any* last name you wish under the statute -- provided your place, on the record, some basic facts: that you are not in bankruptcy, you are not being persued by law enforcement, etc. If you are, then you cannot change your name.

Now, some judges used to accept an affidavit and certification for a name change, but the court rules have become more specific on this issue, and now requires it to be verbally placed on the record at the time of the name change, though of course, judges will be judges and some make up their own rules.

Also, if there isn't a settlement, testimony will have to be taken.

Of course, some judges will allow video taped depositions en leu of testimony, but the opposing party has a right to cross-examine, which is near impossible with video taped depositions.