adultery scenario

rachelhen

man has multiple affairs throughout marriage. agrees divorce on grounds of adultery NAMES co respondent.

Co respondent disagrees but only finds out her name is on the papers years later never having been given an opportunity to respond!!
surely this is not lgeal otherwise people could just go round blackening anyone's name.
discuss?

Kay_Peel

Are you asking for yourself, for a friend or do you just find it interesting to discuss?

Yorkie1234

Did the co respondant actually sleep with the married man. If so, then I can't see how she can object to being named on the divorce papers.

ellay864

How would the co-respondent not know? When they're named the papers are served to them too and they have to sign or contest. Unless a significant fraud has taken place ie man has faked co-respondents acknowledgement, then I don't see how the scenario you mention can have happened

peachyprice

It hardly blackened her name to any significant extent if it took her several years to find out she was named.

And if she was involved in the adultery she hardly has anything to bleat about.

moodydonkey

When I divorced my ex I understood that if I wanted to name her as being involved she would have to have admitted to it. I don't think she/he can have been named or been involved without signing a document admitting to it without proof, ie pictures or video. That is what my solicitor said.

victory

rachelhen wrote: »

man has multiple affairs throughout marriage. agrees divorce on grounds of adultery NAMES co respondent.

Co respondent disagrees but only finds out her name is on the papers years later never having been given an opportunity to respond!!
surely this is not lgeal otherwise people could just go round blackening anyone's name.
discuss?

Is this made up or is it you?

ellay864

moodydonkey wrote: »

When I divorced my ex I understood that if I wanted to name her as being involved she would have to have admitted to it. I don't think she/he can have been named or been involved without signing a document admitting to it without proof, ie pictures or video. That is what my solicitor said.

That's exactly where I was coming from. You can't just name somebody and them not be informed, unless that bit was done fraudulently. Many solicitors actively advise against naming the other man/woman due to the complications it can bring - I stuck to my guns and named the other woman when I divorced my ex, she wasn't happy but even my ex agreed she couldn't really argue and persuaded her to just accept it and let the divorce go through without a fight

scheming_gypsy

rachelhen wrote: »

man has multiple affairs throughout marriage. agrees divorce on grounds of adultery NAMES co respondent.

Co respondent disagrees but only finds out her name is on the papers years later never having been given an opportunity to respond!!
surely this is not lgeal otherwise people could just go round blackening anyone's name.
discuss?

if she only found out years later then her name hasn't been blackened as nobody seemingly cared enough to make enough fuss for her to find out.

meritaten

and the point of your post is??????????????????

beenstung

meritaten wrote: »

and the point of your post is??????????????????

That another idle so & so wants to do their course work the easy way.

"Discuss" Pah!