New 'no fault' Divorce laws being opposed by backbench MPs

[Weetabixandcrumpets]

In the news the past few days, second reading of law on Monday which will allow quicker, no fault divorce.

'MPs were told on Thursday that the Government intended to press ahead with the second reading of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill into law despite the concerns among backbenchers.' (Source The Telegraph)

I believe it will allow divorce after 6 months with no need for blame. It also, I think, allows for one party to start the divorce procedure without notifying the other and have a 20 week reflection period? This may be contentious, and I can see that, although in cases where there is serious abuse may be important?

The contesting MP's seem to be arguing that it will all be too easy for couples to 'give up' and not the serious process it should be, thus allowing for hasty, ill thought out decisions and lack of respect for the sanctity of marriage.

The financial arrangement and child custody arrangements remain separate, so divorce overall will still be a costly and lengthy procedure, which I personally think negates the argument of it being frivolous!

AIBU to think that no fault and quicker divorce laws will be much more civilised, and may even lead to some couples establishing a less acrimonious post divorce relationship ?

Another happy single person here.

Stop trying to speak for single mothers en masse.

A long drawn out divorce hurts the children the most- get it done ASAP so that people can move on with their lives.

I sure wish I had never married!
Will definitely recommend against it, if DC ask.

Marriage is a contract. There’s no other kind of contract that forces you to stay In it because of society‘s moral judgement.

If marriage were meant to be a lifelong commitment, divorce wouldn’t even be a thing!

This is one where everyone needs to get with the times, and fortunately the law is.

It's the wrangling over the kids and property that takes the court time and money, not the actual divorce itself. Having been divorced I cant see how this bill is particularly important.

I think there was an interesting quote from a high profile lawyer saying that the current system starts with one party having to outline the 'faults' of the other party, which gets everyone off to a bad start.
This way, both parties can agree they don't want to be married and just get on with the process without the legal requirement for mud slinging.

'Most single mothers, and most single people, aren’t happy being alone.'

Generalisation, much?

@heartsonacake How many of these miserable single mothers do you suppose are miserable despite having caring, reliable ex husbands who provide adequate time, care and financial support to their children?
If they're not, do you really think the answer is to remain tied to these exes for the rest of their lives?

Re stupid decisions - people make stupid or ill-thought out decisions in life. The important thing is that we learn from them, and rectify them where possible. How many other decisions do we "punish" with lifelong consequences when there would be no downsides to letting people rectify it immediately? Do you really think that if people marry when they shouldn't have, that the best thing is to force them to remain married to someone they aren't compatible with, just because they "promised"?

If you believe marriage is something which should be respected, worked at and taken seriously, fair enough, even in the face of incompatibility and unreasonable behaviour. But if a couple has already separated, forcing them to remain married for another 2-5 years won't make them work at their relationship, it won't make them happier, it won't make the children happier, and it won't make them more compatible or well-suited to each other. Therefore it's little more than a punishment, and one which actually causes more messy divorces. (As pp have said, if you don't want to remain married for 2-5 years your only option is to list your ex's faults under the guise of "unreasonable behaviour", and that's always going to start the proceedings off on a sour note).

And to everyone else, marriage is changing. It's losing the traditional and religious connotations, and to many is a way of legalising their relationship status. If I marry, it will be because I love that person, want and expect to spend the rest of my life with them, and want to change our legal status, but I won't be swearing "till death do us part", because I'll be marrying secure in the knowledge that if they turn out to be a grade A cunt further down the line, I can end the marriage. If marriage was truly permanent with no get-out, ever, then I wouldn't get married.

They need to get rid of the cooling of period the only people that will benefit from that are abusers

Okay, so you’re happy. Good for you. Most single mothers, and most single people, aren’t happy being alone.

Says who? I'd have thought that most people would prefer being alone than in an unhappy marriage.

Having to wait two years for a divorce unless your spouse has committed adultery or has behaved unreasonably is ridiculous. And as for having to wait five years if your spouse refuses - that's horrendous!

Filing for divorce when you want then waiting six months to finalise seems very reasonable to me.

Forget reforming divorce. Marriage should be abolished. It’s the apparatus of the patriarchy and enslaves working women.

If there is a divorce reform that’s needed it IS to apportion blame and to make the person responsible pay for it - which doesn’t happen. The law doesn’t care who did what, all it wants is to carve up property. So I, female higher earners who acted to protect my kids from abuse, had to pay my lousy ex to go away, leaving me with less money to support them. Thank God I do have a job.

Marriage is harmful. It’s not a romantic commitment. It’s enslavement.

it’s getting married they should make more difficult.

Quite!

Also, there is no need to wait two years. Unreasonable behaviour can be anything.

there is no need to wait two years. Unreasonable behaviour can be anything

it can't be that easy or that lady wouldn't have had to wait 5 years

This is like abortion. If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. If someone else has an abortion it doesn't affect you.

Equally, if you don't agree with divorce, don't get divorced. It doesn't affect you if others do.

Why do people constantly feel the need to police behaviour in others that does not affect them?

The MPs wanting to block this need to stop moralising and get on with sorting out the problems in the country.

My only concern is how this would work in terms of divorce settlements where one party has hidden assets. I’ve not read the bill but that is something I would want covered before I’d deem this acceptable. The last thing that divorce needs is arseholes forcing their husbands/wives into unfairly low divorce settlements because they’re divorcing in x months.

We went with unreasonable behaviour to end our marriage. I volunteered to be the one to take the fault because the divorce was at my initiation. Went through without a hitch. It’s not like that information is for public consumption anyway. It’s my understanding that most technically no-fault divorces are put through via over-exaggerated or outright made-up unreasonable behaviour claims in order to secure judgement. The MPs wanting to block this are living in a dreamworld if they think people aren’t already getting around the system. Surely it would be far easier to eliminate some of the paperwork and allow people to split amicably.

It would make no difference to settlements. You can’t get decree absolute until the settlement is agreed. The only difference is to how soon after splitting you can apply. Divorces go on for months or years and the main people who profit are the lawyers. Ban them too!