You are on page 1of 8



In Re: The Marriage of:


vs. FILE NO.: _____________



COMES NOW, PMW. who files this Verified Petition for Divorce.


1. Petitioner’s full name is PMW; he is 29 years old, and currently resides at

636 Wildass Dr., Pelham, AL 35124, his phone number is (205) xxx-xxxx; and

has lived in Alabama his entire life.

2. Petitioner is employed at Happy Ass Trails. in Birmingham, AL, the phone

number: (205) xxx-xxxx

3. Respondent’s full name is VLW, her maiden name is Xxxxx; she is 26 years

old, and currently resides at 821 Roundtree Plaza, AL 35064, her phone number is

(205) xxx-xxxx; and has lived in Alabama her entire life.

4. Prior to admittance to a psychiatric hospital, and separation between

Petitioner and Respondent, Respondent was on medical leave and employed by

BellHead; her current employment status is unknown to Petitioner.

5. Petitioner and Respondent were married July 16, 2005, in the City of

Birmingham, County of Jefferson, State of Alabama. An official copy of the

marriage license is attached to this PETITION FOR DIVORCE.

6. Petitioner and Respondent have one female child born into their marriage,

whose name is KAW, and whose date of birth is August 16, 2005, and who is

living with her mother. To Petitioner’s knowledge, Respondent is not currently


7. There have been no custody or visitation Orders given by any Court.


8. This Court is that of proper jurisdiction to hear this cause; it has been filed in

the circuit court of the county in which the Respondent resides, in compliance with


9. Neither the Petitioner or Respondent have been involved in any litigation or

other proceeding involving the other party in this or any other jurisdiction with

respect to their marriage.


10. Respondent, after having been admitted to a psychiatric hospital during

2009, and was schedule to be released just before Thanksgiving, had her mother

advise Petitioner that Respondent wanted Petitioner moved from the marital home

before she arrived back from the hospital.

11. Petitioner, without having talked with Respondent, and believing the request

was for a temporary basis, and that Respondent just needed a little space and to

have some time to herself, complied with the request and left their home.

12. Petitioner, on numerous occasions, has attempted to communicate with

Respondent and their daughter, only to be blocked and verbally assaulted by an

unknown male entity that, from all appearances, and to the best of Petitioner’s

knowledge and belief, is living with and having an adulterous relationship with

Respondent in front of Petitioner’s four year old daughter.

13. Petitioner, who had previously been the primary caregiver, has been denied

all parental rights, and all contact with, including but not limited to telephone

conversations, his daughter, and has not been allowed visitation with his daughter

at all.1

14. Petitioner wishes a dissolution of marriage based on the grounds that there

has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and that further attempts at

reconciliation are impractical or futile and not in the best interests of the parties or


15. Petitioner and Respondent have not communicated with one another since

1 The rights to … raise one’s children have been deemed ‘essential,’ Meyer v
Nebraska, ... ‘basic civil rights of man,’ Skinner v Oklahoma, 316 US 535, 541
(1942), and ‘[r]ights far more precious ... than property rights,’ May v Anderson,
345 US 528, 533 (1953)
before Thanksgiving 2009; they have not discussed or entered into a Marital

Settlement Agreement that formalizes an allocation of their property and finances

and matters relating to child custody and visitation.


16. During the marriage, one child was born to Petitioner and Respondent:

KAW, born August 16, 2005.

17. After the birth of Petitioner’s daughter, Petitioner worked night shift so that

he could be an equal part of the parenting to the child.

18. Petitioner spent the entire day, every day, with the child while the mother

was at work; he was at home when the child awoke, and home when the child went

to sleep at night. Petitioner was more the primary caregiver than the Respondent


19. Because Respondent and the male entity living with her, have barred any

contact between Petitioner and his child, the presumption is that Respondent and

the male entity have been undermining the relationship between Petitioner and his


20. The male entity at Respondent’s home has verbally abused Petitioner, using

foul language unfit for a child, when Petitioner has attempted to telephone

Respondent or the child; the presumption is that Respondent and the male entity

have indeed hurt the relationship between Petitioner and his daughter.

21. Respondent’s refusal to allow visitation or even communication between

Petitioner and his daughter, shows that there will be visitation interference should

Respondent be granted physical and/or legal custody of the child. 2

22. Petitioner would have no problems allowing a normal relationship between

the daughter and Respondent should he be granted sole physical and legal custody.

23. For the above stated reasons, this Court should grant sole physical and legal

custody to Petitioner, and have Respondent pay child support to Petitioner.

24. Petitioner would find a fair and equitable visitation schedule for Respondent

2 In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), the United States Supreme Court
issued a landmark opinion on parental liberty, and said: “In subsequent cases also,
we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning
the care, custody, and control of their children…Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205,
232, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972) ("The history and culture of Western
civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and
upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of
their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American
tradition"); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 98 S. Ct. 549
(1978) ("We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between
parent and child is constitutionally protected"); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584,
602, 61 L. Ed. 2d 101, 99 S. Ct. 2493 (1979) ("Our jurisprudence historically has
reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental
authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course");
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 102 S. Ct. 1388 (1982)
(discussing "the fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody,
and management of their child"); Glucksberg, supra, at 720 ("In a long line of
cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill
of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the
right ... to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and
Pierce)). In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of
parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their
children. [emphasis supplied]
acceptable and would not interfere with visitation, or attempt to undermine or

alienate Respondent or Respondent’s parental relationship in any manner.

25. Should the Court find custody in favor of Respondent, Petitioner requests

the Court Order implementing Petitioner’s Parenting Plan, attached hereto as

“Exhibit A”


26. Prior to or during the marriage, the Petitioner acquired the separate property

listed on the attached “Exhibit B”. That property should be confirmed as the

Petitioner’s separate property, and the Respondent should be ordered to return to

Petitioner any such property in her possession.

27. Petitioner and Respondent rented their residence, so there is no real property


28. During the marriage, Petitioner and Respondent acquired several items, none

of which Petitioner has any wish to have as his own; therefore, there is no

community property that Petitioner would like to have.3

29. It would be fair and equitable for the Petitioner and Respondent to be

responsible for their own debts, and hold the other harmless for any further liability

concerning those debts. Petitioner has attached “Exhibit C” for an explanation of

the debts for which he has knowledge.

3 The only one thing Petitioner really wants that was part of the marriage, is his
daughter, and his Right to be a parent, part of her rearing, and prevent being
alienated from her.
30. Petitioners and Respondent have been separated since November 2009, it

would be fair and equitable for the court to order that each party will be

responsible for and pay any debt incurred by that party since the date of separation.

The court should order each party to pay those debts as or before they become due

and to hold the other party harmless from any obligation concerning those debts.

31. Should Respondent desire to have her maiden name returned, Petitioner has

no objection.

32. Wherefore Petitioner requests that the Court enter JUDGMENT FOR

DIVORCE and such further relief as Petitioner may have requested herein.

Respectfully submitted this ________ day of February, 2010

By: ___________________________
PMW Pro Se
636 Wildass Dr.
Pelham, AL 35124
(205) xxx-xxxx


I, PMW., on this ____ day of February, 2010 after first being duly sworn, state that
I am the person described in the above document as Petitioner, and that I signed
the above document in the presence of a Notary, and Verified that the information

contained in the foregoing Petition for Divorce is true and correct, based on first-
hand personal knowledge, and that I signed the document as a free and voluntary
act for the purposes stated therein.


Sworn to and Subscribed before me

This ____ day of February, 2010


NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Alabama
MY Commission Expires: ___________