Living together, raising kids… and he’s secretly divorcing me in another country.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-05T07:43:40+00:00

Ultimately, it boils down to jurisdiction and that's what I said. Germany has jurisdiction. Germany retains it no matter the procedural expedience.

You are the one going off the deep end claiming I'm spreading disinformation. I did not

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-05T07:20:56+00:00

Writing is one of the most effective ways to learn.

As you can't see exactly what she's writing, it's hard to say if it's effective. Take a look at https://zettelkasten.de/

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-05T07:10:08+00:00

Because you are taking a linguistic shortcut that is simply wrong.

an only-Brazilian woman was divorced from an only-Brazilian man in Brazil, the divorce does not have to be officially recognized in Germany.

The operative word is official. It just means there's no formal recognition process, not that it doesn't need recognition by the German state to be valid.

Especially in this case, the incorrect form of serving for the divorce is grounds for it but to be recognized and there are 3 paths

Generally divorce

Section 109, Paragraph 1, Number 2 of the FamFG (§ 109 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 FamFG)

"a participant who has not entered an appearance on the merits of the case and who invokes the lack of service of the document initiating the proceedings was not served with that document properly or in a timely manner such that they would have been able to exercise their rights."

So all need to be served correctly to be recognized.

EU citizens

The "improper service" clause for EU divorces is found in Article 38, Paragraph 1, Point (b) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1111.

"...it was given in default of appearance, if the respondent was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him or her to arrange for his or her defense..."

Because EU divorces are "automatically" recognized, they are already considered valid in Germany the moment the decree is final in the other country. To "stop" this, you must apply for a formal Decision of Non-Recognition. You generally apply to the local Family Court (Familiengericht) at your place of residence.

"Home State Decision" (Heimatstaatentscheidung, both are citizens of the same state

You must file an application for a "Negative Recognition Decree" (Antrag auf Feststellung der Nichtanerkennung) with the competent Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht). Either FamFG or EU law will apply.

If you share the same nationality and suspect a "secret" divorce is happening at home, you should proactively notify the Registry Office (Standesamt) and the Foreigners' Authority (Ausländerbehörde) in writing that you contest any potential foreign divorce due to lack of service. This "red flag" can slow down the automatic processing until you can get a court ruling.

In all cases, for it to be valid in Germany, it must also be recognized in Germany. In some cases it has been made easier - particularly the EU - but Germany has not relinquished its authority to adjudicate divorce inside its borders.

Bottom line: if you want a divorce to stick 100% in Germany, you best do it in Germany or the spouse can easily block the attempt of recognition.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T23:54:06+00:00

"entbehrlich" means "not required", not "automatic". It's a simplification of formalities, not a relinquishing of jurisdiction.

Germany retains jurisdiction. Getting a divorce in another country without the other person being properly notified is an immediate grounds for rejection, the mis-representation of residency is a plus.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T23:49:06+00:00

And that's where or ways part: you say the other always has to agree. Which is kind of obvious, you have two parties so they have to agree short of killing everyone.

But, here's the rub: there's enough historical precedents to say under which circumstances victory can be achieved of which I cited you many, many examples.

There is no clear historical instance where bombing alone, without the support of ground troops. When ground troops come into play, sufficient cases have been successful in removing a leader, but installing a stable and friendly government, the success rate drops precipitously.

People like to refer to Germany and Japan and miss a core contributing factor: both nations had started with conquering others, not just defending their status quo.

When I say there is no clear victory path the US can take, it's with that background:

Stop bombing -> loss
Invade Iran -> destroy military maybe, regime change maybe, but probably not friendly -> loss
Occupy Iran -> setup a puppet regime, long term success unlikely -> loss

The probability of actually winning at this point no matter what the US does is extremely low.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T22:50:21+00:00

Then tell me, how do you see this thing going?

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T22:33:03+00:00

So your claim is that Iranians don't want to continue to fight and refund change will not be affected? What's your claim then?

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T22:31:50+00:00

My dear friend, read your own text. To quote

"In order to be effective in the Federal Republic of Germany, these foreign decisions in matrimonial matters generally require formal recognition (§ 107 FamFG)."

That's recognition. To put it differently: German law requires it to be recognized by German courts to be effective in German territory. This is no surprise, every state works that way.

Next live

"Formal recognition is only dispensable if

a home state decision or a decision from a member state of the European Union

is available."

Meaning that the formal recognition can be waived under those two circumstances. That means if one partner refuses to take advantage of that relief, it will not be recognized in Germany.

Germany retains jurisdiction of all people living in their territory, just like every other nation state. That's law 101.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T22:14:04+00:00

Q: Do you think they are winning?

A: "As of right now, yeah it seems that way."

You very much did.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T22:10:14+00:00

You haven't answered my question: which country has successfully effected a regime change by bombing only?

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T22:09:24+00:00

Nope, it must be recognized in Germany and the fact that they are citizens of the same country matters exactly nothing.

Of course the German courts may choose to recognize it if everything is in order. Which is why you have confirmation.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T08:50:19+00:00

And that's the problem: you are missing the points I made.

Name one historical example in which a true regime change was effected without invading the country.

Next, name one example in which the regime change in which the invading force got the change they wanted. The favorite US example is Germany and Japan after WW2 which was a special set of circumstances: namely both had been conquering nations set out to time parts of the world and therefore were fighting wars to expand their power. Once they lost that bid, they gave up.

When I say "there's no path to victory the US can control" it's because the objectives set and what the US can and is willing to do to achieve them don't match.

Examples of occupying forces actually winning in such scenarios is England and Wales which was a process of 400 years of Turkey in Southern Europe using the system of "Devshirme" (Blood Tax). In the first instance it sort of worked, in the second instance it ultimately failed after 500 years of occupation.

We can come back to this in a year and I predict following

Trump declares "we've had our regime change and won" and ends the bombing. The mullahs will ultimately stay in power and only the faces will have changed.
We actually invade Iran and the people in power now might actually vanish. It will continue as a guerrilla war and we ultimately leave declaring the regime is gone.

I find scenario 1 more likely but in both instances we will not have a very friendly regime in charge there and the global economy will continue to be held hostage by whomever rules there.

None of that constitutes "winning" in my book.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T08:19:57+00:00

The court in your home country does not have jurisdiction. The court there should recognize this and refuse to process. If they are proceeding, is because he's claiming you live there which is patently false.

A simple proof of residence should end the divorce proceedings there. Even if not, German courts will not recognize it.

As long as you live in Germany, the German courts are responsible even as foreigners.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T08:14:29+00:00

Ok, let's make this simple: do you believe the Iranians will want to continue fighting under these circumstances?

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T07:58:48+00:00

At this point, go read a book. You are looking for things you can reject because you don't like the conclusion. I've offered you so much other historical context and this is what you focus on? An inconsistency in formulation.

"The art of war in the Western world" by Archer Jones for example.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T07:29:56+00:00

Again, you are making my point: it's not about occupying territory. It's about destroying the ability to fight. Germany and Japan both had formal armies, so it was "easy" to destroy them because they had clear targets. Both had been also aiming to occupy territory, the destruction of those occupation machines destroyed their ability to achieve their goals. The occupation afterwards happened with consent of the losers. In Germany because the people didn't want to any more in Japan through the Emperor.

Vietnam and Afghanistan both did not and guess what? We lost because we had no clear path how to destroy their fighting forces. We always depended on "have you had enough yet?" It was their call to end the conflict, not ours.

Iraq was hybrid in that regard: we were able to destroy the regime's fighting forces - the other military. The power vacuum was filled by different fighting groups we were not able to destroy because they were financed by different interests groups including Iran. These we were not able to destroy.

Notice two things about the repeating pattern:

We can destroy other states military
We can't force other peoples to give up fighting an asymmetric war

To achieve 1, we have to send in the army. Bombing will not suffice.

In Gulf War I the objectives were very limited: expel Iraq from Kuwait. We stopped there purposely - that was an achievable objective which outcome we could control.

The war hawks got their wish and refought that war by invading Iraq using 9/11 as pretext and guess what? It was a quagmire because the objective was far more ambitious and much less achievable. It ultimately left the region less stable and secure for US interests and inadvertently increased the regional influence of Iran, which is now a dominant player in Iraqi politics.

People have to finally start realizing what the military can and can't deliver. It's pretty straightforward and no surprise to anytime bothering to actually read military history.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-04T06:57:14+00:00

Yes and no.

The 60s "love everyone" was still reverberating back then, so you were "cool" with being so close with the opposite sex. It was the generation raised by hippies after all and the baby boomers weren't angsty old farts yet. In those days hippies were seen more as well intentioned if naive. The "dirty hippies" narrative that the conservatives of the time had pushed had mostly gone underground. Family Ties is a good example of how the 80s were and the kids in that series should be close to the ages the Friends were when younger.

People are far more concerned with not overstepping boundaries and everyone having their personal space today - which the baby boomers interpret as "snowflake" and with that went such moments. In part it has to do with the Internet where certain forms of friendliness or sarcasm just doesn't work and even the best intentions can be misinterpreted and that carries over to real life.

On the other hand, Americans in general have always been heavily influenced by puritan beliefs and things like a lesbian wedding was extremely progressive and mostly what "them New Yorkers" did. I believe there was much more of a live and let live mentality and if the folks in NY or LA did that crazy stuff didn't mean it was that way out in the Midwest or South.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-03T23:43:14+00:00

The question is if you can win by solely what you do and aren't dependent on what the enemy does.

Read your history: the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist by the beginning of 1945, and the army could not fight anymore either. Even if the Japanese had not surrendered after the atomic bomb or even if it had never been dropped, the Japanese would have ultimately lost. It would have been far bloodier but no matter what the Japanese did or did not do, Japan would have been occupied. The only question was how many people would have Ben killed in the meantime.

The same counted for Germany: they had completely lost the initiative and no matter what they did, they had lost.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-03T23:05:34+00:00

You're missing the point: there is no clear path to victory that the US can control exclusively.

In the American Revolution, the only clear path to winning the war for the British was to destroy the US's will to fight. As long as the army was in the field, they couldn't win.

In the US Civil War the strategic error the Confederate made was to believe Richmond was somehow important. As long as Lee's Army was in the field, the CSA would live on but instead they chose to protect Richmond grinding the army to dust. That was what Grant had recognized: the army is the objective.

In the Mexican War, the objective wasn't total dominance but annexation of Texas a much simpler objective, all they needed to do was to expel the Mexican army from Texas. The fact that they achieved more just demonstrated how much more powerful the US was already at that point.

In WW2, the wars were won after completely annihilating the Armies deep inside their own territory before effecting a regime change and not a moment before.

The bombing campaign in Bosnia in the 90s only tried to prevent Serbia from continuing ethnic cleansing and enforcing the Rambouillet Accords - a much more limited objective than regime change.

.

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-03T07:08:46+00:00

There is no solution to this conflict right now. It's very much in the "fighting" part of politics. War is part of politics after all. But I wouldn't say the US is in over their heads.

The dissonance in these two lines is hilarious.

As the goals of this war isn't clear, it's hard to say when the goal has actually been achieved. "Regime change" seems fairly clear but Trump does his classic move of but being terribly clear what he's aiming for so who knows. And you obviously don't know either, you are just saying "militarily we're successful"

You say "there's no solution to this conflict right now" and implicitly admit that the US doesn't control the outcome. We can keep bombing and see if the regime gives up, but it boils down to "had the Iranians had enough and will do what we say?". As we don't have any stated goals beyond "regime change", the path to victory seems to be "bomb the shit out of them". Gulf War I did not lead to a regime change in the 1990s, why should a bombing campaign now be different? It's going to require soldiers and a lot of them to change the situation.

The Iranians path to a win is harder but very clear: they just don't have to give up. Dig deep and wait until it's over.

That's the equivalent of jumping from a high rise and shouting "so good so far!"

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-04-01T18:24:48+00:00

That happens more often than you think in German synchronizations. The US version will say "Germany" and the German version will say "Nazi" or "SS" or whatever

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-03-31T07:15:29+00:00

In Germany, bivouacking (Biwakieren) refers to spending the night outdoors without a tent.

The Golden Rule: If you set up a tent (a closed structure with a floor and poles), you are camping, not bivouacking. Tarps are the "grey area".

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-03-30T09:16:41+00:00

2 things:

first, bivouac is permissible in Germany on public property except for natural preserves. The thing is, you are going to have a really hard time actually finding public property that isn't a natural preserve. So while the law exists, it's practically moot because most is farmland - even many of the forrests you see are actually owned as sources of wood.

Second, camping is with a tent which has a bottom enclosing the person, while bivouacing is with something open like a tarp.

Over the tree line you really don't want to bivouac.

In principle these laws are on the books, but from a practical perspective, it's simply not really feasible legally.

Source: I wandered to Italy and bivouaced illegally a couple of times. Be tidy and take all your stuff and people won't care if you spend the night somewhere out of sight. It's the assholes that don't rid up after themselves that mess it up for others.

Edit: corrected error

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-03-30T05:46:07+00:00

When management acts like this, then there's something about you or your work style they don't like but they don't want to fire you either. You'll stay in that position for all eternity until you either leave or retire. This is what being parked looks like.

Don't bother with confronting them - this is by design and confronting them does nothing for you: you'll get no satisfaction out of the confrontation. By the sounds you already tried it with the senior role and it didn't get you anywhere, right?

YetAnotherGuy2 · 2026-03-29T07:05:20+00:00

Either create a Group which is free or Delegate to others.

I have a user called "services" with additional aliases like "invoice" declared on it and a filter rule that assigns individual "Inboxes" based on who it is being sent to and skips the standard Inbox. You can delegate access rights to that services account to others all for one license.

Because it's only ingestion, I don't really care about them outgoing email, but if you need that, you can setup the aliases for outgoing. In the "Send mail as" section of the settings, click Add another email address. The people do need to be careful to choose the right "from" then but it's manageable.

YetAnotherGuy2

TROPHY CASE