Divorce on demand is not legally tenable. The freedoms of true spousal equality require heightened responsibility, far more so in the conjugal union than in any other social enterprise, regardless whether its legal organization is husband and wife, partnerships, or twin trusts. Because spousal interdependencies and vulnerabilities are inescapable, confidential relationships and fiduciary responsibilities arise as a matter of law and must be established by judicial acknowledgment, to protect human rights guaranteed by the constitutions, without necessity for legislation or regard for any legislation to the contrary. Therefore, this Court should examine these interrelated issues in this case, and carefully take at least the fundamental first step into family protection, by eliminating unilateral divorce on demand, to allow enforcing marital vows against the bad faith use of no-fault divorce by either spouse to begin reversing the family holocaust. In this case, because the petitioner's defense against the no-fault divorce was in good faith, the divorce should not have been granted, and the case should be reversed and remanded.
Petitioner requests all other relief entitled by law.