Not allowed to divorce.

[FloralBunting]

www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-hereford-worcester-44949856?__twitter_impression=true

I'm hoping the link works, it's my first attempt.

I'm not a fan of divorce being easy (dur, Catholic), but something feels incredibly wrong about this man going to these lengths to refuse this woman a divorce. Surely he cannot possibly think that this course of action will save the marriage? Which leaves one with the only conclusion that he is controlling git.

I'm married, and indeed vowed to remain so for the rest of my life. I'm a Catholic to boot. But in a secular society, where divorce is acknowledged as a sad, but real part of people's lives and legislated for, even supporters of marriage understand that it happens.
It doesn't change the nature of understanding that marriage is intended to be a permanent commitment, and a really useful thing for a stable society.

However, you don't have to have laws in place that allow some people to be total arseholes to other people through divorce proceedings. It shouldn't be easy, I don't think. But it shouldn't be cruel, either.

How do you prove unreasonable behaviour though. It's her word against his.

And why the hell should anyone have to try and convince someone else tat the behaviour is mad enough to warrant them Granting something that has no effect on anyone besides the miserable poor sod denied the divorce

This is nothing more than a man exerting control and fighting for his right to do so.

The thing is, there are legal rights that come with marriage that can’t be replicated - I arrived my first husband because we were born on different continents and it was the only way we could live together - otherwise we would’ve just co habited. We were seperated for 4 years before I actually filed for divorce under 2 years separation and him agreeing.

I married my second husband because we were having a baby and it gave him automatic parental responsibility, as well as next of kin status - I have no blood family. Again we divorced under 2 years separation and his agreement. We actually live only 5 doors apart and he’s one of my best friends. We just aren’t a compatible couple and our baggage doesn’t fit (he’s scared of abandonment, I’m scared of being tied down. We learned this through relationship counselling).

I only bothered to actually divorce him to marry husband number 3, who is the love of my life. We’re getting on a bit and have a blended family so needed both the next of kin stuff and legal covenants to do with property & inheritance tax etc.

I have them listed in my phone as Hn1, Hn2 and Hn3. They all get along well and I get along with their current partners. Hn2 will be remarrying next year and Hn3 and I will be guests.

Hn3 and I actually recycled witnesses from our first weddings, because friendship often outlasts marriage!

This is why I think marriage as a legal concept needs doing away with! Legally as a contract it’s unenforceable, and the prevailing view seems to be blowing in that direction anyway.

My sympathies usually tend to lie with the cheated on and betrayed Party. So I don’t think overly much of this woman, but I do think it’s in this chap’s best interest to let her go and find someone a bit more deserving of him.

Personally I’d like to see the civil/legal stuff further seperated from the marriage stuff (so you can make the legal contracts without the baggage of the death us do part, giving away, maiden name religious/patriarchal stuff) but I can’t see it ever being done away with because of all the other laws that sync up with it, both nationally and internationally.

Regarding this couple, we only know about her adultery because she admitted it, we have no way of knowing what might’ve was led up to it (what if he’s been withholding sex for two decades or more? Or has some crazy embarrassing fetish that she won’t try and prove for the sake of their grown up kids and grandkids?) so while it’s possible she is the party at fault, there is still no real point in refusing to grant a divorce to someone that has left you. Better to let them go and give yourself the opportunity to find happiness again.

Unless your motivation is purely financial, of course.

‘There is no merit in overdone pork’

If the best her legal team could come up with was his being pissed at her infidelity was unreasonable behaviour then he sounds like he was probably a fantastic husband and father.

I’m perfectly happy to revise my view in light of more information, but the data thus far is she cheated on him, and he’s done nothing wrong.

I would also surmise she’s not short of a bob or two, as appeals to the Supreme Court are not cheap, so if he’s controlling he’s certainly not controlling her finances!

The fact of the matter is the rules are the rules. If you don’t like them then campaign. Write to your MP’s to look at the legislation. Personally that’d be great as the sooner men realise marriage is an incredibly stupid risk to take the better.

I hope if this couple have any son’s they learn the lesson!

Of course he's controlling. The relationship is dead. He could have agreed to divorce and let everyone move on. But he won't because he has the power to control that. Vindictive.

But a fantastic husband! Of course.

I like the story of the village where to be granted a divorce you had to spend a month in a hut together with only one of everything, one chair, one cup, one plate, one fork etc.

More relevant articles: inews.co.uk/news/uk/tini-owens-divorce-supreme-court/

www.hja.net/divorce-could-turn-into-soap-opera-if-tini-owens-loses-her-appeal/

Yeah trying to hold a woman to a commitment is an act of control? Try basic moral responsibility. For what it’s worth I do think it’s probably best for all involved if he let her go and found someone nicer and more worthy to share his life with.

This one is from over a year ago after the appeal court hearing:

www.legalcheek.com/2017/03/why-has-the-court-of-appeal-ruled-a-very-upset-wife-must-stay-married-to-a-man-she-hasnt-lived-with-for-two-years-and-who-allegedly-behaved-unreasonably-towards-her/

Original judge said they didn’t need a divorce due to being able to afford to live in seperate properties (they own 4). Seems a bit weird.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/14/millionaires-wife-refused-divorce-judge-rules-beratement-affair/

I'm sure that she is a much more dignified person than me, because I would devote the time that I was waiting for a divorce to making him as miserable and pissed-off as possible. I'd start with a big advertising thing on the roof of my car that said "X is a fuckwit" along with a big picture of him and in smaller letters across the top "In my opinion".

When someone no longer wants to be in a relationship with another person, the morally responsible thing to do is to let them go, not make it impossible for them to leave.

He’s 80, she 68. Wonder if the fact she’s young enough to have a second shot at happiness and he perceives that he isn’t* has anything to do with it?

*He’s not quite oil tycoon/Anna Nicole Smith rich, but I’m sure an 80 year old millionaire could still have some good times if he wanted them!

I'm struggling to understand why her solicitor didn't tell her that her examples were 'flimsy and exaggerated' before they got to the judge stage. Isn't that what you pay them all that money for?

Going to be honest if my husband tried to divorce me I’d cling on. I’m not giving him the satisfaction of making abandoning me and destroying the life we built together easy if that’s what he wants (thankfully he doesn’t!!!)

I know various spouses who have been cheated on who had no desire to make things easy for their husband or wife - they did not actively obstruct proceedings, but did nothing to expedite or smooth them either. The way one of them explained it to me is that they took their vows seriously and meant "til death do us part", so will not initiate divorce proceedings or make it simple

Personally that’d be great as the sooner men realise marriage is an incredibly stupid risk to take the better.

Really living up to your name there, MRA.

I’d love to know how marriage is more of a risk for men. After all, it’s not usually men who sacrifice their careers to raise children. My DH got to have sex and then two kids appeared, he continues his existing job and gets to have lovely quality time with his kids, while I clean the house, take care of the children, and enable him to have the best of both worlds.

What a risk.

“Citing unreasonable behaviour, she says her millionaire husband, Hugh, prioritised his work over their home life, made her feel unappreciated, suffered mood swings which caused “distressing”, “frequent” and “hurtful” arguments between them, and spoke about her in a “critical and undermining manner.””

Yeah, he sounds like an awesome husband. So hard done by. 🙄

the sooner men people realise marriage is an incredibly stupid risk to take the better.

Fixed that for you. Marriage, and indeed kids, is a huge risk for a woman too. Why do you think that one of the first things that women's rights campaigners strive for is the right to initiate divorce? Remind me how many women are killed by a current or former partner every year? In half of rapes, the perp is a current or former partner of the victim. It's a hell of a lot easier to leave an abuser if you are not shackled legally to the guy.

Men fear a lightened wallet if a marriage goes bad. Women fear death and injury if a marriage goes bad.

@bd67th lighter wallets are the least of our problems. The loss of family, and regular contact with our children coupled with a financial hammering leave men depressed and suicidal 40% greater than married men, so women coupled with a weaponised court system kills off a great deal more men.

The stats in America are even more horrific with something like 10 divorced men a day killing themselves! But I accept whole heartedly this isn’t women’s problem to solve, and I doubt many of you would really care to, unless it were to happen to a son, but I sincerely doubt it would take anything less than that for most feminists, and I genuinely hope you never have that tragedy to deal with.

But it sounds like we’re of one purpose in the end, you dissuade women from marriages with men, and I’ll work on talking men out of it on my end. Deal?

The loss of family, and regular contact with our children

My Dad had us for fifty percent of the time, one week in two, kept the family home, and was able to restrict where my mum bought her house as it had to be near his. But keep talking shit about loss of contact. Non-abusive fathers in the UK do not lose contact.

coupled with a financial hammering

When you got married, you agreed a contract to share your assets in common. When that marriage ends, you are both entitled to a fair share. Consider the value of a woman's unwaged domestic labour before you moan that he earned for both of them.

leave men depressed and suicidal 40% greater than married men,

Women who never marry live longer than those who do, partly because of the partner-inflicted murder stats. Men who marry live longer than men who never marry, so men stand to live longer if they marry and run the risk of divorce.

so women coupled with a weaponised court system kills off a great deal more men.

So women getting their fair share of the home they helped to establish and protecting their children from abuse (where relevant) is responsible for men's decisions to kill themselves? This is an application of the first law of misogyny: "women are responsible for men's actions".

Anyone who holds onto someone against their will is abusive in my opinion. He's not saving the marriage he's punishing his wife for not wanting to be in it anymore, it will make life exceedingly hard for her financially and otherwise. I wonder if the judge would have made the same decision if a woman had been refusing to allow a man a divorce?

"leave men depressed and suicidal 40% greater than married men"

I do not believe this. Evidence?

"women coupled with a weaponised court system kills off a great deal more men"

I do not believe this. Evidence?

"The stats in America are even more horrific with something like 10 divorced men a day killing themselves!"

I believe you're just straight up telling huge whoppers, but I would still read evidence if you had any.