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

The change is simply to the reasons for divorce - to remove blame etc. You will still be wise to settle financial and children matters before applying for a decree absolute.

@pinkcircustop

Just another blow to the nuclear family.

If you’re not prepared to take your marriage views seriously and be in it for life you shouldn’t get married.

Divorce should only be for exceptional situations like abuse, addiction or adultery.

Ok Mrs 1950. You stay married if you want. No one is forcing you to divorce (well apart from your spouse possibly).

Going by your logic, everyone who doesn’t want to be married will state abuse as the reason to divorce or stay in an unhappy relationship. How will that improve things?

That was a ridiculous case wasn’t it @GlutenFreeGingerCake ? I wonder if that was inspiration for the positive reforms?

Yes, it was. Resolution have been pushing for these reforms for a long time and the Tini Owens case really highlighted how ridiculous and damaging the current system is.

@pinkcircustop

Just another blow to the nuclear family.

If you’re not prepared to take your marriage views seriously and be in it for life you shouldn’t get married.

Divorce should only be for exceptional situations like abuse, addiction or adultery.

What a load of rubbish. Divorce is based around the legal contract of marriage.

There's no legal contract you can't get out.

How does it damage the 'nuclear family' if the marriage is only wanted by one party, the oh so important nuclear family is already broken.

@Brakebackcyclebot

The change is simply to the reasons for divorce - to remove blame etc. You will still be wise to settle financial and children matters before applying for a decree absolute.

That’s it though, what if the financials are a disaster zone and the other party pushes the absolute through regardless? @PicsInRed clarified that it’s often the wait for expert actuarial reports holding things up. It seems untidy and pressuring to me if the wealthier, nastier party in a unpleasant divorce can finalise the divorce before the financials.

I fully appreciate most divorces aren’t that poisonous, but some are.

Yes, it was. Resolution have been pushing for these reforms for a long time and the Tini Owens case really highlighted how ridiculous and damaging the current system is.

Makes sense. Joint filing I particularly like. The option not to be adversarial at all.

@pinkcircustop

Just another blow to the nuclear family.

If you’re not prepared to take your marriage views seriously and be in it for life you shouldn’t get married.

Divorce should only be for exceptional situations like abuse, addiction or adultery.

🤣🤣🤣

Joint filing I particularly like. That would be no better than the system we have, if one party was hanging on to the marriage as a form of control.

People need a quick, easy, uncontestable get out. That doesn't involve sitting it out for 5 years whilst trying to prove you are separated.

I finally found the courage last week to tell my husband I've had enough and want to divorce. 30 years of misery due to his controlling selfish behaviour. I said I want to sell the house and he immediately said "do what you like, I'm not going anywhere, I'll contest it".

This will be great for me because he's the type to do all that he can to delay or prevent a divorce.

@pinkcircustop

Just another blow to the nuclear family.

If you’re not prepared to take your marriage views seriously and be in it for life you shouldn’t get married.

Divorce should only be for exceptional situations like abuse, addiction or adultery.

I assume that the vast majority of people who take marriage vows do so with the intention to stay married for life.

People change, situations change.
And it's not really anybodies business but the two people involved, is it?

Huge positive. I've had 2 friends who have had to stay married for the full 5 years because their spouse has done a runner or won't cooperate. Unable to move on emotionally and practically.

@lughnasadh

Joint filing I particularly like. That would be no better than the system we have, if one party was hanging on to the marriage as a form of control.

People need a quick, easy, uncontestable get out. That doesn't involve sitting it out for 5 years whilst trying to prove you are separated.

Well I like joint filing, but obviously that’s only good for amicable divorces. So that’s what I’m talking about there.

My point of concern that one person could power ahead to the final divorce decree very quickly, before a fair financial agreement etc, is reached and then put pressure on to accept his miserly offer “because we’re divorced now”, but obviously that’s a concern that only applies to far-from-amicable divorces.

No two couples are alike.

@pinkcircustop

Just another blow to the nuclear family.

If you’re not prepared to take your marriage views seriously and be in it for life you shouldn’t get married.

Divorce should only be for exceptional situations like abuse, addiction or adultery.

Abuse, addiction and adultery are not exceptional situations. They are actually very common. Plus I don't agree that a version of happy families which requires one person to stay in relationship which is no longer working for them is healthy.

@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.

Exactly. I know a lot of people trapped in abusive marriages as they stay because of the house, pensions, holidays etc my mother hates my father, yet won’t live the million pound home - this is another point.

I felt so sorry for Tini Owens and her horrid marriage I think she left him in 2018! And I am worried as she had to wait 5 years poor woman was 68 and had been unhappy for years abs just wanted shot of him and couldn’t divorce him for 5 years - he contested and the court of appeal ruled that being miserable wasn’t grounds for divorce and she had to wait 5 years. Anyone know if she’s actually divorced yet? I think he was Hugo Owens - massive sense of entitlement to insist she had to stay married as he didn’t agree with a divorce !

If you’re not prepared to take your marriage views seriously and be in it for life you shouldn’t get married. Divorce should only be for exceptional situations like abuse, addiction or adultery.

As the child of a couple who "stayed together for the kids" and "put on a good show so they won't suspect", I can confirm it's a thoroughly miserable way to grow up. We did know, we always knew, and when they did eventually split up it was a relief all round.

No one should stay tethered to someone else just because divorce is too difficult or carries too much stigma.

YABU, the current blame culture of divorce needs scrapping.

I wish there was never divorce, I wish marriage was for life, but that is sadly not the reality. The law must provide for the abusive, coercive and other situations that have been described in this thread, and no fault divorces seem probably the best way.

My point of concern that one person could power ahead to the final divorce decree very quickly, before a fair financial agreement etc, is reached and then put pressure on to accept his miserly offer “because we’re divorced now”, but obviously that’s a concern that only applies to far-from-amicable divorces.

Financial remedy doesn't work like that. This won't affect anything but pension sharing, and there is already provision to delay absoute.

Financial agreements can and are agreed (or court ordered) AFTER decree absolute.

This is only going to help abuse victims. The only injured parties will be abusers who wish to retain ownership or "their" (usually) woman.

This won't affect anything but pension sharing, and there is already provision to delay absoute.

So that’s my answer then, I suppose?