We have often said on our blog that as a democratic and progressive society, England should be asking itself whether state intervention in essentially personal affairs, like marriage, are truly necessary or desirable, and it seems that in 2014 France will be leading the way in this debate.
The proposal would allow a court clerk to approve such divorces. According to one of France’s leading newspapers, Le Figaro, France’s divorcing couples in agreement presently only spend 8 minutes in front of a judge today.
We think this is a very interesting development and will look forward to this government’s response to such a proposal.
Researching Reform 
Interesting. I note that part of the French reasoning is that their court clerks are highly trained in the law. Ours aren’t. They are perfectly decent people, doing a very difficult job, but it’s administration they are expert in, not law. Anyway, most divorces in England and Wales are dealt with entirely on paper and no one spends even 8 minutes in front of a judge. Looks like France is trying to catch up with us.
LikeLike
Hi Jonathan,
I was hoping someone would make that point (about our paper divorces).
Yes, you’re right, our divorces, for the most part, are done on paper, but we still require judges to take part in at least the initial aspects of the process, like allowing the divorce.
The concept of moving judges out of the picture and getting clerks to do something which is, once again, for the most part not really heavily legal, where two people consent to a divorce, is an interesting development.
It could mean in the future that we also allow clerks to approve such dissolutions – especially in an already strained system where judges are overloaded and court hearings are at a premium.
It therefore opens up moral and philosophical questions about marriage and state, however marginally.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Just Appease Me.
LikeLike
There is too much interference from the state on all levels including divorce. Odd that you can make a decision to get married but require a court to dissolve it. It should be up to the parties involved. I understand that its more complicated with property and children but I feel courts make it even more complicated. There should be a simple mathmatical way of dividing the spoils and with children there should be fair arrangements made so that the other party maintains a relationship with their child. If one or the other is a danger to the child then that would change things but why should a court be involved? The courts make judgements and they are never enforced! Mediation with a neutral body is the way forward. No social workers, cafcass or judges. No one to be manipulated! Let people make their own arrangements and take the adversarial sting out of proceedings.
LikeLike
Hi D, I think there is too much interference also. I’d like to see less state involvement in marriage, but in real terms that may prove very hard under the current model, and government, which is seeking to tie incentives to marriage where it can, like tax breaks for example.
LikeLike
Hi Natasha,
The simple answer is to get rid of the current model!
A friend and neighbour of mine is currenty going through a divorce. I was surprised to find that the divorce forms you have to fill out, pass by Carcass who make a decision to pass the case to social workers if they deem children may be at risk!
Human nature being as it is, one puts themselves in a good light and therefore by default the other is in a bad light! They may well be transient thoughts, “she’s mad, he’s gets angry”, but they can be misconstrued due to the emotive nature of divorce and the fact that one wants it usually when the other doesn’t! Add in the children’s arrangements to visit or even live with and you have a scenario that is very easily manipulated by 3rd parties for their own gain.
That is why the model should change, it’s open to abuse!
LikeLike
The Law Commission is consulting on a more prescriptive way of dividing finances. On the continent most jurisdictions have a far more fixed method of deciding who gets what. Personally I feel that would be a far better way of doing things, but I’m not holding my breath! The Matrimonial Causes Act is over 40 years old now and really needs a full rethink.
LikeLike
Thank you Jonathan, yes, we definitely need a revamp I think. We should all just keep breathing in the meantime, as you say 🙂
LikeLike
I find the above comments very depressing. I have 30 years experience in trying to advise people how to divide their assets on divorce and the least acrimonious, most straighforward way to dissolve their marriage. It might be useful to have a formula in the most straightforward cases , but these matters are rarely “black and white”. To read the above it sounds as if the turkeys are voting for Christmas…
LikeLike
Hi Chennaki, after 30 years experience of divorcing couples, what do you think would be a fair solution?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Children's Rights.
LikeLike
In India the picture is totally different, we have clerks and judges running Family Courts in a a-dhoc manner. Especially in lower courts there are so much irregularities and corruption that it takes 2 years to get ex parte divorce and if both the spouses are contesting then it takes even 8-9yrs to get a decree. Now just imagine how much it effects the productivity of an individual who are going through matrimonial disputes..Huh.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment, Manu. I believe your system is in part based on our own (the less than pleasant effects of Colonialism), which means its prone to a lot of our faults here in the UK. I’m afraid delay and corruption are an intrinsic part of our system too.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on "Absent" Parent Missing? Love & Parental Alienation Uncovered.
LikeLike