No-fault divorce

[Rhiannon]

It’s really time the law was changed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-44949856

[Roses]

A crazy decision, which really surprised me! If one wishes to have a divorce, for whatever reason, it should be granted a.s.a.p.

[Harrowby Hall]

I get the impression that the husband is punishing the wife for an earlier adultery.  I also suspect - him being 12 years older than her - that there may be the likelihood of him requiring care of some kind in the not-to-distant future and she will be "cheap".

[Roses]

I get the impression that the husband is punishing the wife for an earlier adultery.  I also suspect - him being 12 years older than her - that there may be the likelihood of him requiring care of some kind in the not-to-distant future and she will be "cheap".

Wives are very cheap carers, I should start charging my husband.

[Rhiannon]

I get the impression that the husband is punishing the wife for an earlier adultery.  I also suspect - him being 12 years older than her - that there may be the likelihood of him requiring care of some kind in the not-to-distant future and she will be "cheap".

Yep, this is all about his need for control and desire to punish. Even if there isn't an affair, she's had the temerity to leave him. But leave him she has, and I hope that she has enough financial wherewithal to be able to move on anyway and loosen his control over her - he certainly won't get her back under his roof to play nursemaid. God alone knows what the marriage must have been like.

[Rhiannon]

A crazy decision, which really surprised me! If one wishes to have a divorce, for whatever reason, it should be granted a.s.a.p.

And why the Supreme Court have expressed their disquiet. The law should not be used in the family courts by one party to punish another, although frequently it is.

[jeremyp]

Having read the story, I would have thought the current situationn in which a woman has pursued the divorce all the way to the Supreme Court is prima facie evidence that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

[Robbie]

Wives are very cheap carers, I should start charging my husband.

You don't have to do that, he can claim carer's allowance for you.

I get the impression that the husband is punishing the wife for an earlier adultery.  I also suspect - him being 12 years older than her - that there may be the likelihood of him requiring care of some kind in the not-to-distant future and she will be "cheap".

She's separated from him so would not be likely to 'care' for him should he need it.  You can't demand someone to nurse you just because you're legally married to them.

I believe a divorce should be granted, the marriage has obviously broken down.

[Rhiannon]

Having read the story, I would have thought the current situationn in which a woman has pursued the divorce all the way to the Supreme Court is prima facie evidence that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

Yes, if I were her I'd go back to court with a second petition citing his behaviour since the first hearing as 'unreasonable'. But it may well be that by the time that clears the courts her two years will be up anyway.

[wigginhall]

Does she have to wait 5 years, if he doesn't agree?  Barmy.

[jeremyp]

Does she have to wait 5 years, if he doesn't agree?  Barmy.

Yep. That’s the law. Even the Supreme Court in handing down the verdict thought it was obviously wrong in this case.

[Rhiannon]

Does she have to wait 5 years, if he doesn't agree?  Barmy.

It's the law being used as a form of domestic abuse.

[SteveH]

Divorce is already too easy - the law should be tightened up, not loosened. One unfortunate case doesn't alter that. Hard cases make bad law.

[Rhiannon]

Divorce is already too easy - the law should be tightened up, not loosened. One unfortunate case doesn't alter that. Hard cases make bad law.

Why do you have a problem with people being able to walk away from unhappy marriages? What is the advantage in making divorce harder?

[SteveH]

It'd make people think hard about getting married in the first place. Obviously, abusive marriages should be endable, but they already are. I don't want to return to the 50s, but we've gone a bit too far in the other direction. Marriage is a serious commiment, which is supposed to be life-long, and the law should reflect that. After all, you don't have to get married: you can always just shack up together, and nowadays there's no shame in that. (Perhaps there should be.)

[Shaker]

Why should there be? You claim that you don't want to return to the 50s, and then say the exact opposite.

[Rhiannon]

It'd make people think hard about getting married in the first place. Obviously, abusive marriages should be endable, but they already are. I don't want to return to the 50s, but we've gone a bit too far in the other direction. Marriage is a serious commiment, which is supposed to be life-long, and the law should reflect that. After all, you don't have to get married: you can always just shack up together, and nowadays there's no shame in that. (Perhaps there should be.)

Are you sure you don't want to return to the 50's with your last comment about cohabiting?

People really don't enter marriage thinking 'well I can divorce him/her if it doesn't work'. And your comment about abusive marriages being 'endable' is exactly why we need no fault divorce. Can you imagine what it is like for an abused person having to detail the abuse to a judge knowing that the other party will not only read it, but has to agree that it has happened? Our system at present is set up to make divorce acrimonious and unsafe, with greater impact on children and families.

And unhappy marriages are also abusive in their own way; two unhappy people aren't very often civil to each other. I grew up with neighbours who seemed from the outside to have a happy marriage; it was only when the youngest child left home that they revealed they'd been divorced for years, both had other partners but they had stayed in teh same house in order to raise their kids. This is an exceptional story, but it shows how divorce can be beneficial. Being stuck with someone who you shouldn't be living with is soul destroying. And please don't say it is better for the kids - they know in their bones when things aren't right and their childhood memories are clouded by witnessing the snide comments, rows and unhappy silences - I know mine was. And I've heard so many people say that they've felt guilty as adults realising how unhappy their parents were in trying to stay together for 'the sake of the kids'.

[Gordon]

The thing is though that when people get married they don't do so thinking they'll divorce at a later date.

Even those who have had a long engagement can end up divorced, and I know a few people who fall into that category, whereas some who marry quickly stay married: like me and Mrs G, who met on Hogmanay 1973 and were married by the end of February 1974 - and we still are. People are different and their circumstances can change: 'The best-laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, Gang aft agley, An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, For promis'd joy!' (to quote a fellow Scot).

Divorce is quicker here too: there is a simplified procedure where, provided there are no children under 16 or financial complications, it takes 2 years separation even where one party doesn't consent and a year if they both do and you don't even need a lawyer - I'm not aware that this has caused any horses to become frightened.

[Rhiannon]

The thing is though that when people get married they don't do so thinking they'll divorce at a later date.

Even those who have had a long engagement can end up divorced, and I know a few people who fall into that category, whereas some who marry quickly stay married: like me and Mrs G, who met on Hogmanay 1973 and were married by the end of February 1974 - and we still are. People are different and their circumstances can change: 'The best-laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, Gang aft agley, An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, For promis'd joy!' (to quote a fellow Scot).

Divorce is quicker here too: there is a simplified procedure where, provided there are no children under 16 or financial complications, it takes 2 years separation even where one party doesn't consent and a year if they both do and you don't even need a lawyer - I'm not aware that this has caused any horses to become frightened.

You don't need a solicitor to divorce down here either, but our adversarial system means that having one is advisable. And there is no legal aid available for divorce except in cases of domestic violence, and even then there are restrictions.

[jeremyp]

It'd make people think hard about getting married in the first place.

The law regarding divorce has become progressively easier over time. By your hypothesis, people in olden times thought much harder about whether they should get married than they do now. I do not see any evidence for that being the case. In fact, now that it is much more acceptable to live with somebody without being married to them, I would suggest that, people do think harder about getting married in the first place.

[Rhiannon]

The law regarding divorce has become progressively easier over time. By your hypothesis, people in olden times thought much harder about whether they should get married than they do now. I do not see any evidence for that being the case. In fact, now that it is much more acceptable to live with somebody without being married to them, I would suggest that, people do think harder about getting married in the first place.

And back in the day marriage was an essential sign of respectability. A man seeking promotion would often need to have a presentable wife. A pregnant woman had a choice - get married or lose her child. Now unmarried mothers won't have their babies taken away and people can gain promotion without having a spouse to host the dinner parties. If anything this means that people no longer rush into marriage for status or convenience, and marry because they genuinely want to.

[wigginhall]

It sounds punitive to me.   Because you no longer want to be married, we are going to make it hard for you.   Eh?   Why punish people?

[Rhiannon]

It sounds punitive to me.   Because you no longer want to be married, we are going to make it hard for you.   Eh?   Why punish people?

It seems to be associated with the idea of marriage as a sacrament. See it as a civil matter and where's the problem? Civil contracts are dissolved all the time.

[Robbie]

I do understand in a way where Genial Harry is coming from but, frankly, living in an unhappy, loveless marriage must be intolerable. Nowadays divorce is more civilised than it used to be too, both mother and father support the children and share them - until they are teens and want to do their own thing. Doesn't apply to everyone of course, e.g. if one partner abandons the family or is abusive, but most share custody. In old days children belonged to their father!

Trying to imagine being in a depressing relationship where there is virtually no joy is too awful. I have always loved my husband - we lived together for over a year before marrying - and he loves me but nothing special about us, just how it is. We're fortunate. I would not have stayed if I'd been miserable. Might have tried to make it work for a while but there are limits. I'm glad times have changed and there is less, if not no, stigma to divorce any more.