If you had an amicable divorce, what did you say for the unreasonable behaviour?

[fridayschild]

Our solicitors are not being much help here. Has any one got any suggestions of things which are bad enough for the judge but not so serious that our carefully balanced amicable divorce slips over into the hostile? I think the real reasons for the divorce would look too cruel, somehow, in black and white on a court document.

So far I have got

• failure to give me a birthday present or even card on my birthday (it all came the day after)
• telling me he wants a divorce
• saying the children would be better off in two houses instead of one home where there is no love

and I feel somehow that this is not enough. Does anyone know, or do I have to go back to my rather wet solicitor.

Obviously DH could come up with a list of things where I am unreasonable, but he's not the most organised chap and for some reason the ball seems to be in my court on this one.

can you not say irreconcilable differences?

That's in America. Here we need to be a bit more specific about what those irreconcilable differences actually are.

Can't you speak to him and hatch a plan between you as to what you are going to cite as unreasonable behaviour?

You dont need that if you are doing the two years seperation. That is what I did.

If you are going for unreasonable behaviour, it really does have to be deemed unreasonable by the judge.

Your excuses sound a bit weak at the moment (I mean that kindly).

Hey there. For my clients it's normally things like the following:

failure to provide love and affection
living a separate life and not involving me
making me feel rejected and unloved
refusing to help with the domestic chores
Pursuing independent things making me feel rejected
Not spending enough time with me
Criticising me for not wanting to do things his way
Causing me a loss of self esteem and confidence
saying mean things during arguments that are just unforgivable
Showing an interest in other men/ladies
etc etc

Now, these particulars are all very general and you will need to come up with actual incidents to back them up. In my view that's not hard to do considering the above is probably what happens to most couples when they separate! pm me if you wish.

Best regards

Harjit Sarang

Thanks Sassa - very helpful!

The advice from both lawyers is that if we are getting on ok at the moment, not to wait 2 years in case things change and our settled plans become unstuck. I think this is code for "one of you will meet someone else". I do agree, my excuses were very weak....

I can't believe that in the UK a judge has to evaluate the reasons that the two people give for a divorce and "decide if they are enough"... are you kidding me? Is it not enough for the people to agree on divorcing??? And if the judge thinks they are not enough, they are forced to keep married?

This is partly for aurynne and partly for the OP.

If the divorce is not contested the judge will usually accept the reasons given by the petitioner. Something quite mild such as devoting too much time to his career, having no common interests or pursuing a separate social life will almost certainly be sufficient. Even in an unopposed divorce, though, the judge might tell you to get a life if your complaint is that he always leaves the toilet seat up!

The judge will only really look at the reasons seriously if the divorce is opposed. They then have to decide what a reasonable person could be expected to put up with in the circumstances.

Given that this divorce amicable and is expected to be unopposed, I would recommend sticking with mild reasons to avoid them becoming a source of friction.

Surely 'we don't want to be married anymore' is enough?

Brahms - Not if you are going for unreasonable behaviour. "We don't want to be married any more" would be fine for two years separation (actually, you don't need to state reasons at all in this case) but if you want to divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour, there has to actually be some unreasonable behaviour!

I tend to think that if the divorce "is opposed", it will be only by one person... obviously the other will WANT the divorce. I always thought that it was enough for ONE part to want to break free... can the judge force someone to keep married just because the other part wants to?

(sorry to the OP for the hijacking, I really find this interesting and surprising!)

When a marriage breaks down there is, in the first instance, a rush for an immediate divorce. It's quite understandable for one, if not both, parties to want this 'clean' break, especially in view of possible heightened emotions.

However, ask yourself this "do I actually need to be legally free right now?" If the answer is no, wait for the two year separation. It's not that long to wait and it saves any unnecessary unpleasantness in saying horrible things about each other that you don't want to do. It also saves you from lining solicitors' pockets.

That sounds very reasonable Karmann, thanks for the explanation. In my country of origin (Spain) an "express divorce" law was created some years ago, and there is no need to give a reason for any of the parts. If they agree, they can be divorced in 3 months (no period of separation required). It prevents the bitterness of having to write down reasons, but I agree it could lead to hasty decisions. If this was the case though, they could also get married again :P.

Yes indeed, it will only be one of you opposing a divorce. If you both oppose it you would simply stop it before it came to court.

There wouldn't be much point in opposing a divorce if the judge is always going to grant it! You might as well save everyone's time (and yourself some money) and not bother. So yes, the judge can refuse to grant a divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour if one party opposes the divorce and the "unreasonable behaviour" isn't unreasonable enough.

Similarly, if you've been separated for 2 years you will only get a divorce if you both agree. If one party opposes the divorce, the judge has to refuse - there is no choice in that one.

The judge can't, of course, force you to live together so, if all else fails, you can go for 5 years separation. That is the only grounds for divorce which can't be opposed.

For the sake of completeness, there are two other grounds for divorce we haven't mentioned yet. Adultery can only be opposed on the grounds that it didn't happen or that you were aware of the adultery more than 6 months before petitioning for divorce (in which case you are basically assumed to have accepted the adultery). The final grounds for divorce is desertion which is almost never used and can only be opposed on the grounds that there was no desertion.

Of course, most divorce petitions are unopposed so, in most cases, there isn't much for the judge to decide.

Fridayschild - it would appear to me that both you and your H are wanting a divorce and it is your solicitors who are pushing you to cite unreasonable behaviour. This drags out the process thus enabling them to charge you more. If you can wait for the two years, then wait. It should, by then, be a foregone conclusion and just a matter of formality.

If you are both wanting it, there is no need to go down this route. What prh47 says is absolutely right.

We did it on the 2 years separation thing. Still friends.

NO LAWYERS INOLVED. I don't know why more people don't take this route

DO you have children?

H is divorcing me (I told him to get his arse in gear and sort it out - I've got too much other stuff to sort to be faffing with solicitors and filing for divorce). He's divorcing me for unreasonable behaviour (although I could very easily divorce him for the same).

I'm not waiting around 2yrs to get it sorted, we're still friends (just as wlel as we've been separated for 2 months - but still living in the same house atm!), and have told him just put anything down, no-one but him, me, the laywer and the judge are going to see it so I really don't care.

I don't know much about this but I once knew a couple who were going through this, like you, amicably. The husband objected to all except one fault and so the wife agreed to take out the ones he disagreed with. There was no problem with the judge and so they were successfully divorced on the grounds of his devotion to garlic.

Hats off to you for being so amicable.

Thank you all for your contributions! Actually I think this approach will save us money. My plan is to show DH the grounds I send to my lawyer before I send them to her, and if he doesn't like any of it I will take it out. Then we are divorced and that is that. Hopefully.

We are being pretty determined to keep legal fees down and have told the lawyers this. I think the fees might be higher in two years if we fall out, or circumstances change for one of us, so I don't think the lawyers are advising us like this just to keep their fees up TBH. Plus I would really like to move on, emotionally and physically, now we have decided what we are going to do, and that is another reason for not waiting.

Yes, there are children . I think that means we do need a court order. I also went to lawyers to make sure I wasn't missing anything - that we had thought about all the aspects we need to.

fridayschild, good luck.