To think divorce filings should trigger immediate temporary protections?

[ForEdgyShark]

When divorces or separations are filed, I don’t think it makes sense for everything to be left so open and undefined in the early stages.
In situations where there’s tension, imbalance or potential vulnerability, it feels like there should be a clear, immediate default - for example, the husband moving out and some form of temporary protection being put in place where appropriate. At the moment it can feel like people are left to navigate a very unstable situation without any clear starting point, which can make things worse. I’m not saying every situation is the same but I do think a more structured, safety-first approach would make sense.

AIBU?

Protection from what?

Can you explain more what this default would be?

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions! "The husband should move out?" Why him? Why not the person who wanted the divorce, or the other person? What if the house is in his name, what if it's not? What if he's a stay at home parent? You can't just declare "in any divorce you must immediately punish the man" without any consideration of the facts or consequences.

What if the husband can't afford to move out? What if husband is primary carer of children?

It all seems a bit vague.

This

YABVU

Your “ tensions, imbalance and vulnerability” are only specific to your case.

Not all couples divorce in those circumstances.

Do you need help? If you feel vulnerable then say that and lots of us will be willing to help you.

No, I don't think the man should be automatically forced out of his home when a divorce is filed.

It depends on the situation but I agree. I want to start the divorce process but my exH is abusive and angry and I’m scared of him and his temper. He refuses to move out and I can’t afford to and I have a very sick, vulnerable child at home.
What is your situation OP? Are you ok?

These things are very rarely black and white so it's a no from me.

Who polices this situation? What if the wife in the scenario has done wrong or is abusive?

Sometime I think we expect the state to sort all our problems out.

Nope. My divorce was perfectly amicable and we lived in the same house until I bought my flat and moved out. There are no doubt some situations where your idea might have merit, but it would have been completely unnecessary in my case.

I actually think you’re right OP.

I was left in a horrible situation living with stbexh (st the time, now exh) who was EA and using every EA trick in the book to influence the outcome of divorce proceedings in his favour. Which worked - the waiting lists for final hearing were incredibly long and it just wasn’t safe to leave the situation where I had to go on living with him.

Women are vulnerable in these situations and I think the courts should have a much lower bar to allowing women to live safely in their homes whilst divorce was ongoing.

You wouldn’t lock two company CEOs in civil proceedings together in a building where one is intensely vulnerable to the other in some way, and expect a fair outcome to the proceedings.

YABU. Why should anyone move out of a house they own?

im getting divorced at the moment and we have to live together- it’s a waste of family money to rent another property
you just have to be grown up about it

But the OP isn’t talking about making an application to the court. The suggestion seems to be that Parliament should pass a law that requires the male spouse to move out of the marital home when one party applies for a divorce.

The implications of that are mind boggling.

Protection that might be triggered by a court when a divorce was filed would be the same as the protection that is currently available unless you are suggesting new laws should be passed. If a spouse was in danger and the police notified the court would issue some kind of no contact order.

I agree with @Pippa12 there seems to be a lot of people who feel the state is there to sort out problems that adults really should be dealing with themselves. It is almost a childlike expectation that some parent like authority will step in when things go wrong.

You didn't mention fees in your post. Divorces are already costly, providing additional services to steer couples through the process would, I imagine, be a very expensive addition.

Why’s the husband moving out? Why is there definitely a husband?

If there was an automatic trigger that the male had to move out upon separation, regardless of circumstance, even less men would get married and the women who do currently benefit from the protections of their marriage (SAHM, women working part time etc) would lose out and be even more vulnerable.

It might be useful for each party to be sent an 'advice leaflet' upon filing, if this doesn't happen already.
Such as how to apply for interim orders, injunctions, etc., what help the police can give, and so on.
But the leaflet should go to both parties.

Nope. If anyone is unsafe they can contact the police.

So I decide to have an affair with my boss and get divorced. My DH has to move out. And go where?

What would these “protections” look like? Is he allowed to see his children?

Have you actually thought this through?

Blatant misandry.

And what happens if the married couple are both women ? Or both men?

It it would make more sense for the person wanting the divorce to immediately move out as they want to dissolve the marriage, apparently 70% of divorces are initiated by women- so that’s wife’s mostly moving out of the martial home ,,,

What if they've initiated the divorce due to the man cheating? If we're going to make it about blame you'd then have to ask why he had an affair? You cant bring fault into the asset split

Yep, I wanted to divorce so I moved out. Not because I had to…because i wanted to. I moved out, I rented, I got divorced and he bought me out of the house.

Absolutely not. Why are you assuming it’s always the man who is the issue?