What does it mean??

[everycloudhasasilverlining]

Sounds a bit silly but I have just been advised that my h has agreed that the marriage has irretrievably broken down but will not accept that he is(partly)to blame, think that's right. he originally refused to accept and threatened to defend. Can anyone tell me what this actually means? Everything I have cited is true, just wondered what it actually means or if its if no real relevance - I feel like its suggesting I am liar:( thank you for reading

If you started a divorce, on what grounds would you petition? If you cite unreasonable behaviour (which you have to describe) then yes, he can defend (rare) or cross petition (both of which can get acrimonious, but which might be worth going through to get it over with).

Or you can jut wait two years to petition on grounds of separation. Is that a route you would contemplate? You need to show you have been living apart for the required period (either literally, which is easier to demonstrate) or if under same roof for all/some of it that you were not supporting each other in any practical or financial sense.

I started it on unreasonable behaviour,he has accepted it's broken down but does not agree with the grounds? Think that's right?sorry. The first petition he wanted most of the examples removed or he would defend,this time after slight amendments he has done the above. Thank you

My xh disliked the reasons I gave for divorce (despite the fact he knew very well they were true) but never actually contested them - most people don't.

Ooh,that would make sense - I am guessing the same, he doesn't like it but knows they are true so can't really defend.all makes sense-thank you