Final answer:
The law does not view either Kim or Brock as having abandoned the other due to their separate living arrangements for employment reasons. The choice to fulfill professional responsibilities without residing together does not fit the legal definition of abandonment.
Step-by-step explanation:
Given Kim's promotion and move to California while Brock remains in New York for his job as a technician, the law in this context does not label either spouse as having abandoned the other. The decision for Kim to move for her job and Brock to stay for his does not constitute abandonment. Rather, these are personal decisions influenced by their professional obligations and aspirations. Abandonment in the legal sense typically involves the desertion of a spouse with the intent to sever ties without consent or justification. Since this scenario does not fit that description, both Kim and Brock are seen as fulfilling their professional duties without any legal implications on their marital obligations.
Relocation and employment circumstances, like in the scenario where Kim works for a Fortune 500 company and is facing such a dilemma, are not uncommon in modern society. The law tends to consider the complexities of contemporary life, recognizing that couples must sometimes live apart temporarily due to work without legal judgments of abandonment. The answer to the student's question would be D. views neither one as having any obligation in regards to the concept of abandonment.