Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Refused Divorce WTF

224 replies

DroningOn · 25/07/2018 10:52

Tini Owens loses Supreme Court divorce fight - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-44949856

Don't understand how a husband could hold his wife to an unhappy marriage when she wants a divorce so much she's willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Is it a divorce settlement issue or something?

OP posts:
SomeonesRealName · 25/07/2018 12:46

Shortstuff08 I think she wants to get a divorce, not to set a legal precedent.

AngelsSins · 25/07/2018 12:48

What a controlling prick he is.

A marriage is a legally binding contract. It isn't as easily dissolved as some people think.

It’s very easy to dissolve if no one is acting like a twat.

Jux · 25/07/2018 12:49

This is why it is really important to speak out about controlling behaviour in your spouse when it occurs. If he's unreasonable, controlling, violent, abusive in any way, get it logged officially somewhere.

Report the first slap, the first time he blocks you from leaving the room, the first time you feel frightened or intimidated, log it. GP, WA or police.

In 32 years' time when you've finally got the courage to leave, you'll want that evidence......

AngelsSins · 25/07/2018 12:50

but they at least will have kept to the vows they took before God. Agreeing to a divorce will be breaking those vows

Not everyone believes in God, not everyone has a religious wedding.

BitOutOfPractice · 25/07/2018 12:50

I would e thought his refusing a divorce is unreasonable behaviour in and of itself. What an utter cock. Can you imagine what sort of husband he must have been. And he seems so determined to prove himself to be an arsehole too. Who the hell is advising him? I'm embarrassed for him.

LeighaJ · 25/07/2018 12:52

The divorce laws in the UK are archaic. 🙈🙊

charlestonchaplin · 25/07/2018 12:52

I'm not sure an allegation, on its own, is evidence.

charlestonchaplin · 25/07/2018 12:54

Not everyone believes in God, not everyone has a religious wedding
Who knew?

SomeonesRealName · 25/07/2018 12:54

AngelsSins charlestonchaplin and I were discussing the viewpoint of a hypothetical person who does believe in God and has had a religious wedding.

SomeonesRealName · 25/07/2018 12:55

There just shouldn’t need to be evidence the fact that one partner is seeking a legal dissolution of the marriage should be evidence enough, provided the person is able to understand the implications of what they are asking for.

BlueBug45 · 25/07/2018 12:59

@worridmum most people now go for unreasonable behaviour with as a PP wrote very flimsy examples of what is unreasonable.

So your scenario 1 won't happen as he can't claim you had an affair when he was the one who had it. He can claim your unreasonable behaviour led him to have the affair, which means the grounds for his divorce petition will be unreasonable behaviour.

In the case of scenario 2 you can start your own proceedings citing his adultery or his unreasonable behaviour. Then you should get a hearing where a judge asks you both which petition you want to proceed with.

Cutietips · 25/07/2018 12:59

Viviennemary do you really think domestic violence is the only sort of abuse?

Also just because some people marry frivolously doesn’t mean that others should be tied to their partners when they are desperately unhappy. This woman spent decades putting up with his teasing (bullying) and loud voice (shouting). Thank goodness the law isn’t based on what you think. Whenever politicians start making laws based on their opinions, they make bad laws.

OliviaStabler · 25/07/2018 12:59

What does he gain by refusing? The relationship is not salvable. It could only be to punish her by not giving her what she wants. Surely that is unreasonable behaviour!

AngelsSins · 25/07/2018 13:00

Ahh I misunderstood, sorry!

SomeonesRealName · 25/07/2018 13:05

I think in the context of a marriage “domestic violence” can mean any type of abuse by one spouse to the other?

AcrossthePond55 · 25/07/2018 13:05

So, is it all about the money? I don't know these people but could it be that he doesn't want to have to pay out a settlement and he thinks by being obstreperous she'll accept less to be rid of him?

Sorry, but I think the divorce laws in the UK are (as a PP stated) archaic. I live in a US 'no fault' state. As a rule, it's 6 months start to finish. If the couple can't settle things about money and/or child custody, the termination of the marriage can still proceed (it's called 'bifurcation'). Much more reasonable. And 6 months is plenty of time for one party to decide they 'jumped the gun' in filing.

I can't think of anything more horrible than being legally tied to someone you detest. Or even someone you simply decide you just no longer love. Or worst of all, someone who is mentally or physically abusive. Been there, done that. Thank God it only took me 6 months to be rid of him!!!!

BlueBug45 · 25/07/2018 13:05

@OliviaStabler control

SomeonesRealName · 25/07/2018 13:08

BlueBug45 I didn’t acknowledge your insights about the rationale of religious institutions and your friends’ experiences. It’s a good point and very relevant to the discussion.

QueenoftheNights · 25/07/2018 13:10

I don't have time to read and reply to all the posts so this may repeat other posts..

. Ironically if she had an affair and used it for grounds for divorce it would have gone through years ago as he couldn't have contested it

No..

He can divorce HER for her affair but SHE cannot use her affair to divorce him.

My opinion is she has been badly advised. The examples of his UB evidently didn't pass muster. This is unusual to say the least. Her lawyers appear to have tried to get a no-fault divorce for her when in fact the only grounds she could have used are 5 years apart or unreasonable behaviour. The judges took HIS side that his behaviour was not unreasonable. So what were her lawyers presenting for her?

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 25/07/2018 13:11

As people have rightly recognised this is not one for the judges, it is one for parliament. The divorce law was a product of its time and needs revisiting as 5 years is too long. The Matrimonial Causes Act that contains the 5 year provision was enacted in 1973 (although there have been amendments these provisions don't appear to have changed).

Oakmaiden · 25/07/2018 13:12

Thing is, if no-fault divorce were easier to obtain I'm sure we'd see men exploiting that too. So swings and roundabouts.

So?

KwatahPanda · 25/07/2018 13:13

Does she have a partner do we know?

I'd move my boyfriend (or hire a pretend boyfriend) into the family home. And then spend the next two years unceremoniously throwing away everything that belonged to "D"h.

Oh you went shopping Bob? That's great thanks.

Cutietips · 25/07/2018 13:14

Well if Viviennemary meant any kind of emotional abuse then I would argue the original judge got it wrong then. People who boast, like this man, about teasing and speaking loudly are often using that to minimise bullying and belittling. He admitted he did this regularly. She was just told she was being sensitive. I would disagree.

His controllling nature is indicated by his refusing the divorce. If he really cared about his wife, he wouldn’t have behaved in that way in the first place.

Shortstuff08 · 25/07/2018 13:14

@SomeonesRealName well then her team advised her incorrectly.

Her grounds were 'flimsy and exaggerated'.

You were the one who said she may have been told the risks and advised properly.

You can't have it both ways. If they advised her properly and told her the risks, then she chose this and why would you choose this, if all you want is to divorce.

If they didn't give her all the info, then her legal team are shit.

She took a risk. It didn't pay off. It's either a case of her taking a risk or them not advising her properly.

QueenoftheNights · 25/07/2018 13:14

As people have rightly recognised this is not one for the judges,

But the judges threw it out on the basis that her examples of UB weren't enough. His defence was 'she was bored'.

Most lawyers are very good at telling their clients what to select as examples of UB. Given he seems a controlling bastard, you'd have thought she could have come up with a list as long as her arm.