Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
poobumwee · 25/07/2018 13:15

I get that its down to law, but I really do find this unsettling. The law around this needs reforming. I find it shocking that in this day and age, this women has to stay in a loveless marriage for another 2 years, before she can get divorced.

I just hope that in the next couple of years, she does find a way to move forward, despite her husbands best efforts to block her from doing so.

rinabean · 25/07/2018 13:16

I can only think that a lot of people are very unhappy in their own marriages if what's keeping them there is a contract and a sense of duty to the terms of the contract, or the inconvenience of having to wait. And that's terrible when it's a case like this where she's been trapped by it and wants to get out, but why are people who are supposedly happily married saying these things? A contract I signed couldn't keep me apart from my husband, and I would wait more than 5 years to be with him if I had to. I'm not married simply because I'm unwilling to divorce! If any change to the divorce law would weaken your marriage you're in no position to tell the rest of us what marriage really means.

Shortstuff08 · 25/07/2018 13:18

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.

The original judge didn't refuse because the husband had a paddy. He refused because her reasons were 'flimsy and exaggerated'. Either her or her legal team, put together a shit argument.

Parliament need to be the ones to change this. Not a judge.

AStatelyPleasureDome · 25/07/2018 13:19

We now live in a secular society and few believe 'What God has joined together, let no man (note no reference to woman) put asunder'. Accordingly, the existing fault based divorce is anachronistic and not fit for purpose. Nobody knows what goes on in someone else's marriage but if one party says it has broken down, then it definitely has. You can't have a unilateral marriage.

French2019 · 25/07/2018 13:19

I think it's bloody unreasonable behaviour to insist on staying married to someone who doesn't want to be married to you any more. The fact that this husband is denying his wife the opportunity to walk away frankly tells me all I need to know...

QueenoftheNights · 25/07/2018 13:20

I wonder if there is more to this than we know? Is her husband hoping he might die before 2 years so his estate goes to his sons, not her? If he is alive when they divorce, he will pay dearly.

He is a multimillionaire. They live in 2 large houses, opposite each other.
I can't see how the actual settlement is needed for her to have a life.

What I can see is her lawyers were carp-instead of trying to get a divorce on grounds of 2 years' apart, they went for UB and the examples used were dismissed. That's the true picture. But yes, the law needs changing. But any good lawyer would work within the current law and find good-enough examples of UB for their client!

QueenoftheNights · 25/07/2018 13:21

carp? crap .
well maybe a carp could have done better.

Baumederose · 25/07/2018 13:22

This has been done for a reason

The law needs to be changed to a no fault divorce

The court want to make this point strongly via refusing this request when it's clearly reasonable

Government will now have to change things

HelloBrass · 25/07/2018 13:23

Just an aside - he can't now divorce her for the affair because he's time barred.

The affair has been known about for years, and to bring a divorce on that basis it must be within 6 months of finding out about it (and Respondent needs to co-operate in practice).

BlueBug45 · 25/07/2018 13:23

@QueenoftheNights 2 years separation has to be done with both parties agreement. He would simply refuse to agree.

In fact all grounds for divorce except 5 years separation can be contested.

BlueBug45 · 25/07/2018 13:25

@HelloBrass while he can't use adultery, he can use it in his petition using unreasonable behaviour as grounds to divorce her.

As he doesn't want to divorce her it doesn't matter.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 25/07/2018 13:25

QueenoftheNights
She may well have been poorly advised. If she had good evidence of UB then she should have presented it. If the first instance judge discounted strong evidence then I would be uncomfortable with the whole situation. However, that doesn't appear to be the case (I need to read the SC judgment )

However, it does appear that Lady Hale has expressed some concerns about the requirement for fault in divorce already.
www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-180420.pdf

OrangeMarshmellows · 25/07/2018 13:29

I find this absolute madness. The law absolutely needs to change. 2 people can waltz into a registry office having known each other for 2 minutes and get married, but you cant get a divorce if you want one.
All this bollocks of citing reasons etc etc, NO! I don't want to be married any more is enough of a reason to not be married any more!!! Poor woman! Evil man!

Kismett · 25/07/2018 13:34

I was really surprised when I looked into English divorce law before moving here. It was close-minded of me, but I assumed there would be a no fault divorce option that wouldn't take years. I think that it's outdated, can keep people in bad marriages, and make the breakdown of a marriage far more hostile.

OctaviaOctober · 25/07/2018 13:35

As far as she possibly can she needs to adopt the motto "the best revenge is living well". Put the husband out of her mind for the next three years and enjoy her life.

Wouldn't it make more sense to impose a waiting time for marriage rather than a waiting time to end it?

It couldn't be more than a month or two or you'd get people wailing that the state was forcing their children to be born in "sin". Hypocritical af, but I bet it would happen.

SomeonesRealName · 25/07/2018 13:38

Shortstuff08 there has been more than one piece of advice as the case has gone right up to the Supreme Court.

In terms of the original advice my understanding is that two years separation is not available to her as he will not agree, hence the unreasonable behaviour petition. It has been fairly standard up to now for people to be advised to put something quite mild in the petition rather than going for warts and all, on the basis that it will be less likely to be contested and it will be less acrimonious. As I understand it the courts’ have always interpreted ‘unreasonable behaviour’ very loosely. My own divorce petition was very mild for this reason and in retrospect it may not have got past this particular judge had my ex been determined to resist the petition. But hindsight is a wonderful thing and the first instance decision surprised a lot of people.
By the time it got to the Supreme Court, Mrs Owen would have been making a very different argument with different risks attached and she would have had counsel and probably different solicitors by then.

headinhands · 25/07/2018 13:44

But these people saying oh I've changed my mind after a year or two should be made to wait five years if the other partner doesn't agree

Do you have any data to show that having to wait 5 years repairs the marriage?

Baumederose · 25/07/2018 13:47

Alot of these time limits are based on case law precedents

I believe the 5 years originated in relation to a case of desertion so it's not about repairing the marriage

When men went away to sea for example they could be gone years without knowing if they were dead or alive

5 years was considered reasonable to know if the other party could re marry

Mutiny0nTheBunty · 25/07/2018 13:48

The law needs to be changed to shorten the time you have to spend still married when one person wants a divorce.

But just to add - when I divorced XH I had pages and pages of evidence of his emotional abuse and threats. I had police reports, emails, texts, you name it. But my solicitor chose three extremely light examples. They were so mild I was stunned they would even be accepted. She told me that the idea was to make them quite bland so your spouse wouldn't contest the divorce. If I wanted out quickly and cheaply it was in my interest for him to agree.

placemats · 25/07/2018 13:48

As with all these threads let's reverse this.

Man in the 21st century denied a divorce despite going all the way to the Supreme Court.

Your views? Well I'll tell you mine. WTAF?

Obviously this woman is remained shackled to this man. In the name of matrimony.

VanGoghsDog · 25/07/2018 13:48

"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, that wouldn't work, you can't sue for divorce on the grounds of your own adultery, only the other person's.

I think it's the courts making a [futile] stand against the moves towards no-fault divorce.

mrjoepike · 25/07/2018 13:48

wow.what a bunch of crap.
,across the pond some states don't even require that.thank god for irreconcilable differences statute.
lots of money/assests and children can slow things down
first divorce attorney;what do you want
me;my name back

LeahJack · 25/07/2018 13:49

The thing is, if you behave like a dick by cheating or being abusive or just through plain arsholery the other partner is not obliged to make things easy for you.

Ant McPartlin’s wife seems to be doing something very similar at the moment and is trading her signature on the papers for a better settlement.

Ironically, if this law was done away with, it would be women who suffered the most as women who are usually the lower earners would lose a key bargaining chip to get a better deal. Which is withholding the signature that an ex wants to move on with a new woman unless they give them a decent settlement.

I think the posts on here would be a lot different if it was a cheating husband trying to blame a divorce on a faithful spouse too. I have to say I can see an awful lot of victims of cheating would refuse to agree to a divorce on the grounds of their unreasonable behaviour just out of principle.

PuntCuffin · 25/07/2018 13:49

Surely the two years separation should be enough to then have a no fault divorce that cannot be contested? How many couples live apart for that long and then get back together?

I am quietly hoping that old age gets him before she finally gets her divorce, considering his age. If she is still his wife, wouldn't she then stand to inherit everything? And if she lives opposite, strings of 'fancy men' to visit in the meantime.

Baumederose · 25/07/2018 13:50

Additionally what also needs to be borne in mind is marriage rules are closely related to parentage and inheritance rights and in years gone by, property ownership etc. Children outside of marriage didn't inherit until the rules were changed in this regard etc etc

So as times have moved on alot of the outraged rules around marriage are no longer as relevant and thus it needs sorting out