She won't believe he's committed adultery

[ClaireDeLoon]

I'm just asking for views on this situation. Someone I'm close too has been married for 40 ish years, 5 years ago her husband left, he ummed and ahhed about why never gave her a proper explanation, ummed and ahhed about coming home, refused to give her his new address and generally behaved terribly, really trying to mess with her head IMO.

So, it transpired he had met an old female friend out of the blue, and was lodging in her spare room. 5 years down the line, he's still her 'lodger' living with her and her children. My friend and he are in the process of divorce, he said to her that this woman MUST NOT (he's very controlling) be named in the divorce proceedings. Her solicitor wants to put adultery as the reason for divorce. But she just doesn't believe that this is a new realtionship for him.

So seriously, does it sound like adultery to you? And if whe won't believe it does it actually matter in terms of the divorce? I just worry if he marries her/buys a house with her after the divorce she will be doubly devastated to have it confirmed.

Errrr, yes! Although if she just doesn't want to believe it I'm not sure you can convince her. I don't know if it still matters these days, she should ask her solicitor.

Your poor friend, hope she gets through this.

Think she's in for a shock after the divorce sadly. Sounds like she is sticking her head firmly in the sand, and there isn't much you can do to change her mind; just be there for her when the truth comes out (as I'm sure it will).

Surely after 5 years apart, the divorce bit is just a formality? Adultery has to be proved doesn't it?

Thanks for your thoughts, I just wanted to see if people thought I was being overly suspicious. I won't press it with her though.

I think the solicitor said the reason for divorce makes no odds to the dividing of assets etc so I'm not sure why they think citing adultery is the way forward.

It sounds like adultery to me but it really doesn't matter as far as the divorce is concerned.

If she was persuaded to use adultery as the grounds she would have to provide evidence. If her ex decides to contest this she will have to satisfy the judge that adultery took place and that it most recently happened less than 6 months ago.

Naming the OW in the proceedings would mean that she (the OW) could contest the divorce which could slow things down and add to the costs. There is no real reason for the OW to co-operate, not least because she could be ordered to pay some of the costs of the divorce. It is therefore almost always best not to name the OW in adultery cases.

His adultery will not affect the financial settlement nor, if there are children involved, will it make any difference regarding the arrangements for them.

To be honest, I'm surprised her solicitor wants her to go for adultery. That sounds like poor advice to me. I would go for unreasonable behaviour.

After 5 years apart he/she can get divorced without the consent of the other, so a reason isn't needed. Just the fact of the 5 year separation is enough.

How could the OW "be ordered to pay some of the costs of the divorce"? Genuinely confused here.

That's the law. If Jill divorces Jack on the grounds of his adultery with Betty (as opposed to adultery with an unnamed woman), Betty becomes part of the divorce proceedings. Because she is named, Betty is entitled to contest the divorce even if Jack doesn't. After all, Jack may be happy with the divorce even if he didn't actually have sex with Betty, whereas Betty may want to protect her good name.

If Betty is named and Jill gets her divorce, she is entitled to ask the courts to make Betty pay some of her legal costs. Jill can ask for this even if Betty decides not to contest the divorce.

It is a bit of a legal oddity, probably intended originally as a way of punishing Betty for breaking up Jack and Jill's marriage.

Whether or not he is having an affair with this woman should be irrelevent. If they have been separated for 5 years then although legally it may be called adultery very few people would call having sex with another person adultery, after all lots of people meet other folk whilst waiting for their divorces to come through. You don't say how long after the separation he moved in with this woman.
The marriage is over, 5 years down the line she shouldn't care who he is sleeping with. It's a shame she hasn't moved on and found someone of her own to sleep with.

'The marriage is over, 5 years down the line she shouldn't care who he is sleeping with. It's a shame she hasn't moved on and found someone of her own to sleep with.'

That's not very nice 2rebecca - I did say she'd been married 40 years after all, I don't think being fairly broken hearted after being left in her late 50's and hence not moving on swiftly and finding someone else to 'sleep with' aged 60 is anything to beat the poor woman up about.

He moved straight in with his female friend from marital home yet kept stringing my friend along saying he was going to come back then not (friend did not know about the potential other woman at the time).

I wasn't really looking for divorce advice for her just wondering if people though the same way as me. I'm worried she will be very devastated if, after divorce, it becomes apparent that it was an affair all along. And she will hear what he's up to, they have grown up children.

Agree with phr, she'd be a fool to try on grounds of adultery. Bad advice from that solicitor imo.

It's 5 years later, there is no way of proving if he really was cheating while they were 'together' as opposed to formally married. Could get very sticky. Best to just go for unreasonable behaviour and be done with it.

I don't get why it will be obvious to her that he had an affair. If he does buy a house with this woman, so what? It doesn't prove anything about what happened before. After all, it is likely that if you get divorced your ex will find someone else sooner or later.

After 2 years' separation, if both parties consent, you can get divorced without having to state any reasons.

After 5 years you can get a divorce without the other party's consent.

There is absolutely no reason to cite adultery on the divorce petition in your friend's case, and all it will do is aggravate her ex and make him even more uncooperative -- and all delays and battles do is put more money in the solicitors' pockets. Maybe that's why her solicitor suggested it. (And maybe she should therefore change solicitors!!!)

(The issue regarding the OW being potentially liable for costs I believe has to do only with the cost of the petition, i.e. £300-ish, and not any additional solicitors' costs. Adversely, naming the OW will raise everyone's stress levels and almost certainly lead to contestation -- BAD IDEA.)

Yes, seriously you should tell her to get a new solicitor if nothing else. I can't think why he would suggest citing this woman unless it is to rack up costs