My responses to these lies and half truths are in purple

III. THE ARGUMENT: Petitioner= Him . Respondent= Her

In examining the substantive issues relative to the grounds of defect
of consent due to a lack of due discretion on the part of the petitioner and the
respondent, issues of principally an extrinsic nature were affecting the
petitioner at the time of his marriage to the respondent which rendered him
incapable of placing a valid matrimonial consent.
The petitioner was raised in difficult and dysfunctional family
circumstances. In his personal declaration he states that his parents had a
rocky marriage noting that money or lack thereof was a huge argument.
Despite these difficulties, the petitioner does states that he and his sisters "were
well loved and cared for. He does note that his relationship with his mother
was strained due to issues of discipline and respect. While not addressed
directly or in detail by the petitioner, his two sister who have served as
witnesses have both noted that the petitioner is prone to depression and he
lived an extremely sheltered life with his mother in which there was lots of
yelling and verbal abuse. The petitioner was not able to relate well with his
mother due to the "harsh environment in which he was raised. One sister notes
these issues made him choose to do whatever to get out of the house - a
circumstance confirmed by the petitioner himself who states that his attraction
to the respondent was the thought of being with someone and getting out of
[his] parents' house. These circumstances when considered in the context of
the dysfunctional nature of the relationship that the petitioner established with
the respondent are factors of an extrinsic nature that were principally
responsible for the gravely defective discretion of judgment that the petitioner
exercised concerning the essential rights and duties of marriage when he
entered into this marital union.
The respondent was raised in what the petitioner has described was a
dysfunctional family. Her father was not around during her formative years
due to his work; however, the petitioner does state that the respondent had a
great relationship with her mother which became even stronger following the
death of her father.( I am unsure why my father's death was even mentioned
here as he did not pass away until 3 months after the divorce was finalized and
his death had no bearing on our relationship.) Although the petitioner notes that
the respondent freely used alcohol, he has not described any specific issues
of trauma or abuse that would suggest factors of an intrinsic nature responsible
for a grave defect of discretion of judgment on her part concerning the essential
rights and duties of marriage. This is information he gave them, I did not have
a dysfunctional immediate family, I did have a lot of extended family that I
would place in that category. My dad did not start working away from home
until I was about 10. During this time he called home 5 to 7 times a week and
spoke with my mom , my brother and me. I never felt he was not around
though I did hope that when I grew up that my husband would not have to
work away from home in order to take care of our family.
The petitioner notes that he only had a few casual dates with friends
before meeting the respondent. He told me that he had sex with two women
before me. I can only guess from his quote casual dates that to him sex was
not as sacred to him as he acts. He knows nothing about the respondent's dating
history. The petitioner was 19 and the respondent was 25 when the parties
initially met at the store where they both worked. I was 25 and I was also still a
virgin, the Petitioner was my first sexual partner and to this date (2015) he has
been my only sexual partner. The parties established a relationship that

continued for only four months and was followed by a one month engagement
prior to their marriage. As noted above, the petitioner's motive for staying a
relationship with the respondent was the thought of being with someone and
getting out of [his] parents' house. He states that in the respondent's own
words, she was attracted to petitioner because she wanted to use [him] to get
pregnant which the petitioner considered the only basis of her love for him.
This is an outright lie I may well have told him I was using him to get rid of my
virginity but if I did it was said in a totally sarcastic way. The parties became
sexually active within maybe a couple of weeks. While the petitioner states
that they considered fidelity important and did want to have children, there
were no in-depth conversations about the establishment of a conjugal
partnership or their plans and goals for marriage. The petitioner was
apparently a victim of selective hearing as we had many long conversations
discussing where we were gonna live, how we were going to afford it. That we
were going to have children and how we were going to raise them in regards to
religion and schooling. The petitioner does note that he was a very outgoing
person while the respondent would rather keep to herself. From his
perspective there were no doubts about entering into marriage, and the parties
eloped and entered into marriage in August of 2002 without informing family
or friends. When we eloped I did inform my family, I do not know why he
was secretive with his family. My family and friends knew I did not wish to
have a big expensive wedding.
The parties remained in their marital union for only nine years and ten
months, and one child was born to them. The petitioner states that following
their marriage they had a hard time communicating due to their different
personalities, and he states that he then realized [they] had very little in
common [which] placed a huge strain on the relationship. I just want to say
that I was unaware that there was an incompatibility problem at this point.
***Following the birth of their only child in December of 2003, the petitioner
states that the respondent completely shut down all attention and sexual
activity with the petitioner; as all attention was devoted to [their] child. This
led to the petitioner's becoming dependent on pornography for sexual
gratification; *** and when this was discovered by the respondent, she saw it
as cheating and violated her trust. Ok first of all the pornography started
before my son came along. A few months into the marriage I accidently found
a nude photo that had been emailed from a girl named Jilly to the petitioner.
On closer inspection of the computer I found several visits to porn sites and
more shocking to me I found evidence of several chat rooms in which the
petitioner appeared to engage in sexual chats. We discussed this and he
apologized profusely claiming he just got caught up and it would never happen
again. I believed him, then a few months later I found out he was doing this
again, porn and sexual chats in chat rooms on non porn sites with other girls. At
this point I really started to examine the marriage and though I did not want to
give up on the marriage I did ask him to figure out what he wanted from the
marriage and if he believed that cybersex was not cheating and I in fact
believed it was cheating. He of course apologized again and although I was
skeptical I stayed believing that marriage was til death do us part and
believed it was my duty to give my full effort to saving the marriage. Within a
few weeks of the second porn/chat findings I found out I was 3 months
pregnant. What the petitioner neglects to mention in regards to the birth of our
son is that we knew from the first prenatal visit that something was wrong in
the pregnancy. The second visit was to a specialist who believed the baby's
brain was no longer developing. This left me in a very emotional state and I
clung to the petitioner for support and felt we were closer than ever and that
this uncertainty about the baby had brought about a new maturity in him. When

the petitioner refers to me shutting down all attention and sexual activity this
was only for a period of approximately 8 months, 3 weeks straight I was
hospitalized before the baby's birth and then following his birth the baby was in
icu for about 2 months while lived at the local ronald mcdonald house. Our son
was born 6 weeks early with severe hydrocephalus, he had 2 brain surgeries
and gastrointestinal surgery before leaving the hospital. In the next 9 months he
had 3 more surgeries and countless doctor appointments at least once a week
sometimes more. Of these medical visits about 95% of them were at a hospital
that is a 6 hr round trip from our home at the time. To be honest I had neither
the time or energy to worry about the petitioner's sex drive. I did find that
many days that me and my mom had taken the baby on a long trip for a
medical visit, that the petitioner spent either time before or after his work
schedule on the computer, and he was , yes you guessed it, viewing
pornography and chatting in questionable chat rooms. Oh and this time I also
found that he had joined more than one online dating sites. Our sex life got
back to a more normal routine although a new baby with lots of special needs
does take a lot of attention, I made an effort to try to be a good wife too.
Anyways, this type of thing happened several more times and the last time I
bothered to check was in year 8 of the marriage. This was about seven months
after I was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and about 6 weeks since I
had had a bilateral mastectomy (both breasts removed) due to breast cancer. I
walked in and sat down by the petitioner and seen him hurriedly trying to close
facebook chat and acting weird. When questioned he admitted to a
conversations with a girl from our town in which she had invited him to come
over and have the best night of his life with her. Shocked and hurt once again
I monitored the facebook messages the neck few days, both our names were on
the facebook page. I found out he had been having what he knew I would
considered an emotional affair with a different girl for at least 3 months. (
https://www.scribd.com/doc/259438693/Tue-Aug-24-2010 ) This broke me, I
never recovered as far as my marriage was concerned and pleas for marriage
counseling fell on his deaf ears. The petitioner himself does admit that this
behavior was, in effect, infidelity on his part. The lack of intimacy within their
marriage and the petitioner's absence from their home due to work and
school ultimately led to the respondent's decision to depart the marriage. (He
didn't start classes and working away from home til about year 7 of the
marriage)
The respondent has not participated in the instruction of this action. In
addition to the declaration provided by the petitioner, three witnesses have
provided testimony. These witnesses include the petitioner's mother and two
sisters. The testimony of the two sisters clearly corroborates the extrinsic issues
responsible for the lack of due discretion on the part of the petitioner. The
petitioner's mother has not addressed the difficulties that were present in their
family during the petitioner's formative years and provides no information
concerning the parties' courtship or decision to marry. This witness only notes
that the petitioner and respondent weren't mature in marrying each other.
The petitioner's two sisters have provided much more detailed
information addressing the petitioner's lack of due discretion at the time of his
marriage to the respondent. As noted above, both sisters have confirmed the
verbal and physical abuse to which the petitioner was subjected during his
formative years and the impulsive nature of the decisions that he made which
included his decision to marry the respondent basically to separate himself
from the dysfunctional circumstances within his own family. One sister has
noted that the petitioner was in a rush to get away from home, be on his own,
have relations, [and] do whatever was pleasurable. This witness also notes that

the respondent was shy and reserved and not really seeking a relationship
with the petitioner. The second sister states that both parties were rash in their
decision to get married and eloped... .They did not talk about what it took to be
married (finances, jobs, support for each other) prior to entering into their
marital union; and they told everyone about the marriage only after they had
gotten married. We did discuss what it took to be married I just did not realize
what a compulsive liar the petitioner was until after the marriage. And
everyone knew we were planning to get married as his family was planning a
big wedding and expecting my family to pay for it. Both sisters have noted the
lack of Christian commitment on the part of the respondent and the absence of
religion within their marital union. Only one sister has addressed the
breakdown of the parties' marital union stating that the respondent had told her
that it was due to finances and feelings of abandonment.
The report of this forum's psychological expert has stated that while
there are no indications.. .of significant clinical conditions that might have
impaired the petitioner's competence or reason at the time of marriage, the
expert has noted that the petitioner was lacking in maturity and character
development as well as the willingness to exercise due discretion at the time of
marriage. These factors appear to be the effects of harsh discipline
involving the verbal and physical abuse to which he was subjected which may
have significantly impacted both his character development and his decisionmaking capacity. The expert has also noted that the abuse to which the
petitioner was subjected may well have contributed to an innate tendency on
his part to be impulsive, rebellious and irresponsible which led to the harsh
discipline to which he was subjected. These extrinsic factors during his
formative years clearly contributed to the sexually dependent nature of his
relationship with the respondent and the lack of actual bonding that was present
in the parties' relationship prior to their marriage. These factors in their entirety
resulted in the gravely defective discretion of judgment that the petitioner
exercised concerning the essential rights and duties of marriage.
The lack of information provided by the witnesses concerning the respondent's
reasons for marrying the petitioner and the absence of any conclusions on the
part of the expert make it impossible to attain moral certitude concerning the
nature of the respondent's discretion of judgment at the time of the parties'
marriage. The lack of clarity concerning her motives for entering into this
union raise questions of whether she did, in fact, exercise a grave defect of
discretion of judgment or possibly totally simulated her marriage with the
petitioner for the sole purpose of having a child - a circumstance that is
supported by her alleged abandonment of an intimate relationship with the
petitioner following the birth of their child. ( For a whole 8 months of a 10 yr
marriage.)
The Defender of the Bond has not challenged the integrity of the proofs that
have been gathered, nor has she questioned the facts and circumstances that
these proofs present. Hence, based upon the clear presentation of the facts and
circumstances that these proofs have provided, this forum is able to conclude
with moral certitude that at the time of this marriage, the petitioner was
incapable of placing a valid matrimonial consent due to his grave defect of
discretion of judgment concerning the essential rights and duties of marriage.
Such a grave defect has not been established on the part of the respondent.
Therefore, we the undersigned Judges of the Tribunal of Little Rock sitting as
the Court of First Instance, having invoked the Divine Name and with only
God before our eyes, hereby answer the proposed doubt of grave lack of due

discretion (c. 1095, 2) on the part of the petitioner in the

Affirmative
that is, to say,
CONSTAT DE NULLITATE MATRIMONII HOC IN CASU.
We the undersigned Judges of the Tribunal of Little Rock hereby answer the
proposed doubt of grave lack of due discretion (c.1095, 2) on the part of the
respondent in the
Negative
that is, to say,
NON CONSTAT DE NULLITATE MATRIMONII HOC IN CASU.
The Tribunal also wishes to make the following statement regarding a
prohibiting clause as part of this decision or regarding pastoral
recommendations to those who witness the celebration of a new marriage of
one or the other of the parties: none.
Furthermore, this Tribunal wishes to remind the parties of their moral and even
civil obligations towards each other and their children. The Court costs are to
be borne by the petitioner.
The decision is to be published in virtue of c. 1615, d.c. 258 and executed. In
accord with the provisions of Canon Law, the process of judicial review will
take place by the Tribunal of Second Instance or the Roman Rota.
Given at the office of the Tribunal, Little
Rock, Arkansas Date: January 23, 2015