Refused Divorce WTF

[DroningOn]

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?

When ex-DH and I separated I asked him how he would like to proceed with the divorce (as knowing him very well I knew it would be me who had to do the paperwork). He insisted that he wanted a full 2 year separation which surprised me. He said there were no grounds that were anyone's business (ie neither of us had cheated or done anything particularly out of the ordinary) and he didn't want any grounds specified other than separation. I knew if I opposed him on that he would have got all bullheaded. I really think that once it is agreed the marriage is over what's left to fight about? It's a way of staying in the relationship somehow and having some form of control over the other person which must be just awful to be on the receiving end of, it can't be due to love surely.

@Shortstuff08 she could have put more hostile things down but it makes no difference. He doesn't want to be divorced from her for whatever reason so she has to wait until 2020 to divorce him under the 5 years separation grounds.

No fault divorces or a decrease in the time for divorce without consent, would allow people who are really unhappy in their marriages to leave them sooner.

Oh and make sure you make a will leaving everything to your child and sort out your work pension etc to ensure your child inherits. Talk to a solicitor first for the will though to ensure your current husband can't make a claim on it.

If she was advised to put in a milder version of events and the judge still thought it was exaggerated, she clearly didn't follow the advice or got shit advice.

Why 'clearly'? Why isn't it possible that the lawyers were following the prevailing practice in the area, particularly knowing what the local judges tend to do, but for whatever reason the judge making the initial decision then behaved in a way that was different to accepted norms and trends? Honestly, flimsy unreasonable behaviour petitions have been granted.

Or that she was advised to draft the petition in a way that experience has shown is more likely to lead to the other party not contesting than drafting it in a more aggressive way, but it just didn't work here?

StepCatsMother I'm sure it was irreconcileable differences, and I didn't have to prove anything. No examples of unreasonable behaviour, the adultery was not mentioned, and we weren't separated for two years.

if a man runs off with another woman who is keen to marry and have her own children, it would concentrate the mind of the errant husband (and OW) much more if they were looking at a five year wait than a three year.

Any man or woman who is complicit in infidelity and the breaking up a marriage isn't going to be a bit concerned about whether or not they're married when they have a child. Three, five, or ten years wait won't stop them. This is not the 1950s where having a child 'out of wedlock' equals being sent to 'Societal Coventry'.

Very peculiar then Dollybird as it just doesn't exist as a grounds for divorce in England. There are 5 grounds and to my knowledge (lawyer of over 10 years practice) all divorces must establusg at least one of them. The only exception is where a marriage is being annulled - different rules there.

@AcrossthePond55 well said.

Also even in the Victorian era it wasn't unheard of for men to have two families as long as they could fund it. In those cases the man would make sure the wife didn't know the other woman existed, and the other women would simply pretend to be married as no-one could prove otherwise.

What a rediculous law

she could have put more hostile things down but it makes no difference. He doesn't want to be divorced from her for whatever reason so she has to wait until 2020 to divorce him under the 5 years separation grounds.

That's not the only reason it was denied.

Why isn't it possible that the lawyers were following the prevailing practice in the area, particularly knowing what the local judges tend to do, but for whatever reason the judge making the initial decision then behaved in a way that was different to accepted norms and trends? Honestly, flimsy unreasonable behaviour petitionshavebeen granted.

Because it was denied twice. Depsite being the 'usual practice'. If it's the 'usual practice and works in 99.9% of cases, then there is something wrong with her petition. Or did someone just decide she could not have a divorce just to be awkward.

She was the unreasonable one in the marriage (and she cheated), according to the husband. He doesn't want to get divorced. Why should he go along with lies?

If it was him that cheated and then moaned his wife was making it hard to divorce, people would be saying that it served him right.

And that said, I still think it should be easier to divorce. I do. But the rules she is divorcing under don't allow it.

...the judge that’s holding this poor lady to ransom needs a good hiding, it’s not up to to decide, if she wants a divorce, he should just damn well grant her it!

The judges aren't 'holding this poor lady to ransom', you haven't understood the article, which makes it clear why the judges made the decision they did. They simply interpreted the law as written, which is exactly what they're supposed to do.

Curious sums it up in her second paragraph at 11:46:33.

It IS up to the judges to decide anyway.

It is a bit of a weird system though isn't it?I want a divorce therefore your behaviour must be unreasonable.

Where there are no children (or all are over 18) I think there should be provision for an agreed divorce, not on the grounds of one person's behaviour, real or imagined. If you had come to an agreement about property and wealth as well, could it not be a matter of registration, in the way that you do for a marriage? The courts are busy enough as it is.

5 years is way too long. 1 year, no fault would do it. Enough time to sort things out and adapt if things were a shock or muddled finances etc. But 5 years, just asks for games to be played.

Waiting 5 years is also very tough on women who may go on to find a new partner and want to marry again before having kids to make sure that she and they have the legal protection of marriage.

The woman may run out of time to conceive and bear the child whereas a man does not have that same time pressure. I can absolutley see some men abusing that waiting time.

No doubt some women do too.

I think she should complain to the Law Society about her lawyers.

Can she make a new divorce application stating this particular behaviour as unreasonable? Would anyone argue against it?

Where there are no children (or all are over 18) I think there should be provision for an agreed divorce,

Why? Why should someone have to stay in a marriage they are unhappy in, because there are children?

Surely it should just apply to everyone?

Can she make a new divorce application stating this particular behaviour as unreasonable?

You are then in a not her situation having to prove he is being unreasonable.

He has the right to not want to divorce.
He is saying g her grounds are lies/inaccurate. The judge agreed with that.

Whilst I think wanting to stay married to someone, who doesn't want to be married to you is unreasonable. Legally he is exercising his rights. Plus lots of people drag divorces and challenge them.

You would essentially be taking away people's rights to challenge a divorce.

Judashascomeintosomemoney exactly

Because it was denied twice. Depsite being the 'usual practice'. If it's the 'usual practice and works in 99.9% of cases, then there is something wrong with her petition. Or did someone just decide she could not have a divorce just to be awkward.

This also doesn't necessarily follow.

I explained upthread that it's been commonplace for rather vague and wishy washy petitions to be allowed, because there's a great deal of leeway and wiggle room in what constitutes unreasonable behaviour and because it isn't really in the interests of either partner to oblige one of them to stick the boot into the other when they'd rather not. It isn't like adultery where there's a tight legal definition. As the majority of respondents don't defend divorces, judges have had a certain amount of room to allow rather flimsy grounds and there are lots of cases where they do. I don't personally think that's a bad thing. It's quite possible this one would've been allowed had he not defended.

Now none of this is to say that she might not have succeeded with a more attacking petition. But it's perfectly reasonable to consider whether a milder petition would be less likely to provoke the other party to defend the divorce, and perfectly plausible that she was advised to consider this. There's been a movement for family lawyers to try and manage matters in as non-confrontational way as possible, and language and wording is a big part of that.

MingeUterusMingeMingeYoni

So does this judge have form for not allowing divorces?

Or did he just fancy denying hers? I don't believe for a second they had no idea that if he defended it, it could be refused. I also don't believe they had no clue her reasons would be easy to dispute.

The appeal court agreed it didn't reach the limit of unreasonable.

So I stand by either, she made mistakes or her legal team did. Possibly she lied. They might not have known that she cheated or something. I have not said it's definitely them. It could be her ignoring their advice.

I get being non confrontational, but when they ends up in petitions being refused it's gone to far. This is a legal process. Surely facts are key.

@Jux and @Shortstuff08 you can read the judgement for yourself - www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0077.html

Don't know about the initial judge, I never worked in that geographical area and don't know the name.

But it's just not as straightforward as she made mistakes or her legal team did, and one of those must be true. It isn't. The legal situation wasn't at all black and white. The law doesn't allow us a no fault divorce in under 2 years, that doesn't match the reality of what people want, so the judiciary and the profession try and use the tools we have. The whole thing was a bit of a house of cards really, all fine until someone decides they're not playing. I can think of a few petitions in cases my firm did that the SC would've had no choice but to say weren't unreasonable behaviour- but they never got there because they weren't defended.

None of this is to say that her and/or the legal team couldn't be at fault, btw. Maybe they both are. But it is a fact that in the last decade or so, drafting a minimalist petition based on a view that the judge would likely allow it if undefended, and the other person is less likely to defend something that doesn't slag them too much, wasn't a particularly leftfield thing to do. Possibly the problem here isn't so much the principle as the execution, they may have come down just on the wrong side of the line.

It's interesting reading the SC judgement that the judges seem pretty unimpressed with the trial judge. Read between the lines on that one...

Maybe I was just lucky (apart from the H buggering off with OW after only 8 months of marriage 🙁)