In what can only be described as a Frost-bitten flashback, Spring has been nipped in the bud by sub zero climates and impending icicles, but this March Monday is about to be saved by our ever fabulous question of the week. Milky tea at the ready (what, that’s how we like our tea…)
It’s been the talk of the town over the last few days, but a husband who tried to block his wife from divorcing him over a row concerning map reading has failed in his attempt to do so on the grounds that the wife was entitled to have her divorce.
In England today, in order to obtain a divorce all a spouse needs to do is show that there has been irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and that can then be confirmed using one of five elements, the two most well-known being adultery and ‘unreasonable behaviour’. And whilst the system uses these ‘fault-based’ elements to process a divorce, the reality is that lawyers are, more and more, creating what has become known as an ‘anodyne petition’, one which is often bereft of fault or blame as most parties simply do not wish to engage in rigorous battle over separations. But some would say that this practice is undermining marriage and snuffing out any hope of reconciliation at a crucial stage.
So, our question to you this week is simply this: Should we move towards a no fault divorce system, such as the one in New York over in America, or should we be narrowing the grounds for divorce instead?
Am I, right to think’ the same person who said “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” also introduced no fault divorce?
I think he was right to say what he did about the government but wrong to introduce no fault divorce because it seems to send out the wrong moral message.
There is a tendency for some young persons to seek out older and richer spouses ,and then after a couple of years or so divorce them so as to return to their young but poorer original partners and then live off the fat divorce settlements so obtained !In such cases “no fault” divorce cannot be right.I hasten to add that I have been married myself for 42 years so have no personal axe to grind !
Surely that is not the State’s concern? caveat emptor, sir. If you are foolish enough to fall for such parlour tricks, on your head be it….
We’d like to throw something into the mix, here. Divorce to our mind is not a problem, or symptom of a disease; it is the point at which one or both parties to a relationship can no longer bear the weight of that union. Who are we to judge whether that weight is serious enough to merit the dissolution of a marriage and should anyone, including the state, have a right to manipulate or cajole couples into living either with or without one another? Men and women have been coupling up since the beginning of time – we say allow them to couple and uncouple as many times as they wish, without prohibition or condition…..
Surely not? Have you ever had the misfortune to encounter such a case, with all the attendant misery and uncertainty for the children of such unions? No, no, no. We are entitled to make whatever dog’s breakfast of our own lives as we choose. What we are not entitled to do is screw up our children’s lives. If we’re going to have children, we need a real measure of commitment – they deserve it.
What if the answer lies not in the blocking of divorce but in the ‘handling’ of divorce? To our minds at least, unhappy people (and that is what you get if you force two unhappy people to live together, or to try to make things work when they know they can’t) make unhappy children – whether they are married, living together or separated. This issue is, to our mind, so much bigger than state sanctions and the law. This is about giving people the tools to live well, and in so doing, would iron out a great deal of these largely superficial issues, and probably go a long way to preserving marriages where possible and allowing for healthy separations where not. We just can’t ignore the fact that marriage is a high risk endeavour; people change and often grow apart through no fault of their own. Many people stay together as they assume it’s better for their children, and not for love and we make no judgement on that. But a fascinating question still remains – is that what we should be teaching our children? Or should we lead by bold example – one that exhibits respect for others and a dignity and grace which highlights courage and honesty as the way forward? Just a thought….
I agree that “on your head be it” is fair enough for those foolish enough to be ripped off by marrying someone 40 years younger but that does not mean that the perpetrator should get away with it officially in a court of law..
Anyone flashing a huge wad of cash boasting about their “winnings” down at the Kray’s favourite pub may deserve for their foolishness to get robbed ,but the thief should still be found and arrested !
As a family practitioner, I cannot believe it has taken this long to introduce ‘no fault’ divorce. The media likes to report the stories of a 30 year old slim blonde ‘capturing’ a 70 year old multimillionaire and bleeding him dry. This is sensationalist and sells papers. The reality is these are not the kind of divorce cases going on every day.
The way the law stands at present only goes to increasing the acrimony between the parties. As has been the case with some of my clients, a petitioner who has suffered domestic violence (which is far more common than the ‘aged gentleman’ and his ‘playboy bunny’) is put at further risk of harm if they seek to rely on ‘unreasonable behaviour’.
Similarly, breakdowns where children and financial issues are involved often become highly contested due to ongoing animosity between the parties. The legal requirement to particularise such behaviour often precedes an intention of each party to antagonise the other e.g. by being obstructive when it comes to the children having contact with the non-resident parent. Yes this is supposed to be resolved by the courts, however with the legal aid changes coming in this issue is only going to get worse.
The non-fault based elements of 2 years separation with consent or 5 years / no consent are not often used by petitioners. Again, from my experience parties are sometimes no longer in contact after 5+ years separation and even when there is no fault involved, consent is hard to obtain- many people just do not want to be known as ‘divorced’. 2 years is also a very long time for people to wait before obtaining a divorce when many want to move on with their lives.
I personally do not believe reforming the law will send out the wrong moral message. Morality has little to do with it when family breakdowns happen and there would still be the need to follow the current procedural timetable. If parties were able to petition soon after breakdown and it was a mere formality rather than a procedure that causes further strain and distress, this would encourage people to try and resolve any ancillary issues as amicably as possible/ It is about time the government removed the need to point the finger which only serves to cause parties and any children involved unnecessary suffering.
And if that’s not enough, who really cares whether people divorce due to fault or not? The end result is the same – surely the steps should be as painless as possible.
Should a young man who regularly beats up his rich elderly wife be entitled to half her cash when they divorce?? I’m only asking………
That’s a good question. You mention a criminal aspect here – to my mind, that should be addressed.