Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

legal separation

Read a random definition: confession

A quick definition of legal separation:

Legal separation is when a married couple decides to live apart but still stay married. They might do this for religious reasons or to keep their health or life insurance benefits. Sometimes a judge orders them to separate. It's important to know if a couple is legally separated because it can affect things like a child's citizenship. Legal separation means the government has done something to change the couple's relationship, like a divorce decree.

A more thorough explanation:

Legal separation is a situation where a married couple decides to live apart but remain legally married. This can happen when both parties agree or when a judge orders it. People may choose to legally separate for religious reasons or to keep certain benefits like health or life insurance.

In terms of immigration, legal separation can be defined in two ways. The first is a narrow definition where legal separation means a limited or absolute divorce through a court process. This means that the marital status has been terminated. The second is a broader definition where legal separation requires some formal government action to dissolve or alter the marital relationship by law. In both cases, some kind of government action is needed to legally separate.

For example, if a couple decides to legally separate through a court process, they will need to get a divorce decree. This will officially end their marriage and allow them to live separately. In immigration court, legal separation can be important because a child's citizenship may depend on the marital status of their parents. If the parents are legally separated, it can affect the child's citizenship status.

legal risk placement | legal services

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.