To think new divorce law will have a flaw, in that it will be too easy for your spouse to divorce you without your consent?

[RickiTarr]

It looks like it’s coming in in April 2002, after some delays. No fault seems generally a good idea, and there will be a new option to file jointly, but surely it has the drawback that one party will be able to push a divorce through too easily and quickly?

I already have my decree Nisi, and my situation is amicable, so it won’t impact me, but it just dawned on me that there is a down side. Surely the adversarial element helps at the moment in more contentious situations by allowing time to negotiate settlements?

www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-apr-jun-2019/how-will-no-fault-divorce-work-uk-divorce-law-reforms-explained/

www.gov.uk/government/news/new-divorce-law-to-end-the-blame-game

I'd have thought it was a plus point tbh

YABU because the alternative is one person being trapped in a marriage they don’t want.

There have been a few cases of people who are unable to move on because their partner has contested the divorce. If one person wants out, for whatever reason, they should be able to get out.

If your partner wants to get out of a marriage, not sure what the point would be to stay in it. A longer delay for settlement will only crank up the resentment?

So? Someone should not be in a marriage they don’t want to be with. What exactly is the probably with divorcing someone without their consent?

Is this separate to the financial settlement? Because doing that properly and not rushed is the more important thing than being legally divorced

if your spouse wants to divorce you then that's that anyway surely, regardless how easy or not it is to actually get it done

you don't need consent to end a relationship and move out married or not - the divorce is just a practicality

It's generally abusive men who delay divorce for control and punishment purposes and this spirals a woman's costs out of control and greatly increases the psychological damage to woman and child(ren). She then needs to have a judge sign off on the divorce which can turn extremely nasty (to the victim) as allegations start being fornalised by necessity.

This then spills over into child arrangements and financial remedy proceedings. Again, spiralled costs, venue for further coercive control.

The sooner women are able to access divorce on demand, the better.

Any contract termination will involve negotiation. This change should make those negotiations easier, hopefully, as one spouse cannot hold the other hostage.

Why would a person want to force someone to stay married to them?

It's a massive positive for me.

The financial stuff will still have to be dealt with separately. This just allows a person to apply for divorce without waiting for the default separation time or having to give a fault reason.

Surely if one person wants out of the marriage, it's clearly over anyway?

Why do you think one should be able to keep the other trapped in a marriage that's no longer working?

On the whole I think it's a good thing. But it would make you wonder what the point is of marriage if you can just say I'm sick of you next please.

To be honest I think the 20 week minimum period is too long - if you’ve gotten to the point that you want a divorce you have more than likely already tried to ‘save the marriage’ and gone way past the point of even wanting to to.
The whole ‘marriage is for life’ and stigma of divorce ideas are out of date and ridiculous. They were ideas created by men to trap women and keep them in their place.
No one, man or woman, should have to spend a minute more in a marriage than is needed to get it processed.

@MichelleScarn

Why would a person want to force someone to stay married to them?

Well not for long, presumably, but in the really nasty divorces, people sometimes prefer not to finalise the divorce until the financials and child arrangements are settled.

I think the court still has the power to delay the decree absolute before they see arrangements for the children. It has been in my case, my ex's request for the absolute has been rejected until the court has been satisfied that the children matter is resolved.

@PicsInRed

It's generally abusive men who delay divorce for control and punishment purposes and this spirals a woman's costs out of control and greatly increases the psychological damage to woman and child(ren). She then needs to have a judge sign off on the divorce which can turn extremely nasty (to the victim) as allegations start being fornalised by necessity.

This then spills over into child arrangements and financial remedy proceedings. Again, spiralled costs, venue for further coercive control.

The sooner women are able to access divorce on demand, the better.

This.

The fear of losing your financial security, the mounting cost, the accusations etc are what damages the children in the majority of cases. Not the separation itself.

The easier divorce can be made, the better for all concerned.

@KleineDracheKokosnuss

Any contract termination will involve negotiation. This change should make those negotiations easier, hopefully, as one spouse cannot hold the other hostage.

You think?

I suppose I was imagining situations where one partner is at a disadvantage, is dealing with an arsehole and needs some leverage to get a fair deal? There’s hardly any legal aid any more.

"but in the really nasty divorces, people sometimes prefer not to finalise the divorce until the financials and child arrangements are settled."

There's probably more people who want to be divorced asap. There's no harm done by a quick divorce, plenty of harm is done by one party using staying married as a threat and bargaining tool.

@Viviennemary

On the whole I think it's a good thing. But it would make you wonder what the point is of marriage if you can just say I'm sick of you next please.

Yes. I agree it’s much better to have a no fault and the possibility of joint filing. We would have done that if it had been available.

However, I can imagine in horrendous, toxic scenarios it might cause an issue.

It just seems a tiny step too far that two people have to agree to enter a marriage contract, but now one person will be able to unilaterally cancel the contract.

@Ponoka7

"but in the really nasty divorces, people sometimes prefer not to finalise the divorce until the financials and child arrangements are settled."

There's probably more people who want to be divorced asap. There's no harm done by a quick divorce, plenty of harm is done by one party using staying married as a threat and bargaining tool.

Yes, you’re right it’s a double edged sword.

I’m imagining abused partners being stitched up. Other posters are imagining abused partners being held hostage.

I can see it might work both ways.

@DifficultBloodyWoman

YABU because the alternative is one person being trapped in a marriage they don’t want.

There have been a few cases of people who are unable to move on because their partner has contested the divorce. If one person wants out, for whatever reason, they should be able to get out.

Nobody gets trapped for that long, do they? Or at least, not many. Even under the current system, you can list your reasons and apply for your decree.

What @PicsInRed said with bells on.

Family member left her controlling arsehole of a husband and he dragged out every last step of process, as well as ramping up the emotional abuse. He gladly signed over her half of the house but he made bloody sure she didn't get to see a penny of it as it all ended up being spent on legal fees. He would tell anyone who would listen that the delays to the process were because the system and the courts agreed with him that she didn't know what she was doing/there was no reason for them to divorce/they should stay together or would get back together and that he was basically in the right, making the process as difficult as possible was vindication for him.

Divorce as a process should be as simplified, as cheap, and as easy as possible with no opportunity for either party to use it as a way to tangle up the other.

No bloody way should divorce be made any harder. The person petitioning for a divorce already has a lot of hoops to jump through if the person they’re divorcing is being belligerent.

This will be exactly the same as usual where the decree absolute is delayed till finances are sorted out.

@frazzledasarock

No bloody way should divorce be made any harder. The person petitioning for a divorce already has a lot of hoops to jump through if the person they’re divorcing is being belligerent.

This will be exactly the same as usual where the decree absolute is delayed till finances are sorted out.

Oh god no. Not suggesting it should be harder. The reform was needed. It just seems like three good ideas and one step too far, to me.