.webp)
.png)
Given the advances made with our current technologies – specifically, the internet – parties are tempted more and more frequently to proceed with their divorce case pro se. Unlike in the not too remote past, in which obtaining even preliminary legal documents was something of a challenge, the internet allows litigants to download practically all their documents in a relatively short period of time. Someone preparing to go through a divorce can rapidly download the documents to file a petition, or a response to a petition, file a motion, file an appeal, or achieve any other goal within a given case.
There are lots of problems with the pro se approach, however, and one of the main problems is that parties often don’t understand the full implications of their actions throughout the legal process. Just because a person can download a given legal document, fill in the information, and file it with the court doesn’t mean that this person also understands all the details surrounding that document, including the implications of failing to appear for a certain hearing. This is why having capable counsel is so critical.
A recent case, Jackson v. Jackson (2025), shows us clearly the risks assumed by parties when they proceed on a pro se basis. Let’s examine this case in detail.
Facts of the Case
In this Hartford County case, the wife proceeded pro se during the initial trial. When she responded to the husband’s petition, she completed her response entirely online; she searched and reviewed the online response documents, and then filed her answer to the husband’s petition. In the petition, the husband stated that neither party sought or requested alimony or a monetary award. In the wife’s response, she checked one of the standard, “stock” responses, and asked the court to “grant the relief requested in the complaint.” This was one of several stock responses, and so the court had reason to believe that this was a genuine response. The trial court denied alimony and a monetary award, consistent with the husband’s petition and the wife’s response.
Importantly, the wife was not present during the hearing on the husband’s petition, and so she couldn’t correct what she later claimed to be an error in her response. The wife brought the matter before the appellate court, claiming that she hadn’t intended to essentially waive her right to an alimony judgment. She sought a monthly alimony award of $2,500 to $2,800 to help her cover bills and expenses.
Ruling & Post-Ruling Discussion
Unfortunately for the wife, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination with respect to alimony. Even though the wife tried to claim that her answers weren’t reflective of her true intent, the hard reality is that those were the answers she chose to fill out and file. Plus, she didn’t contradict those answers when she failed to appear for trial. The trial court had nothing else to go after, and so the court’s decision was entirely appropriate.
This is a perfect example of how conducting your own legal research and representing yourself isn’t necessarily the most financially prudent decision. The wife likely suspected that she could proceed pro se and save herself resources, but in the end she was unable to receive financial resources which she ultimately needed. Proceeding pro se ended up being a very costly mistake, and this is something which readers need to consider.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
To learn more about the risks of proceeding pro se, the benefits of counsel, alimony requests, alimony determinations, failing to appear for hearings, or any other related matter, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
