Divorce - co-respondent won't sign

glittergal_2

Hi everyone. I'm in need of some advice. If a person, who has been named as co-respondent in a divorce, won't sign the papers what will happen?

The cause of the divorce is stated as Adultry to which both husband and wife agree to, however the co-respondent won't sign.

If the husband persuing the divorce insists on naming the co-respondent and the co-respondent won't sign....how is this settled.

Any advice is appreciated.

Mojisola

Why would the co-responent sign?

browneyedbazzi

If a respondent hasn't replied to the petition within 21 days then the petitioner can apply for a decree nisi as if they have agreed - if they want to 'hold up' proceedings they have to send in an 'answer'.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

What's the problem with signing the form? The relationship is obviously over, who cares what happens now, other than getting free of one another?

browneyedbazzi

Mojisola wrote: »

Why would the co-responent sign?

Exactly. I really don't understand why petitioners bother naming the third party when their husband/wife intends to agree to the divorce and including the other party unnecessarily complicates things. (the only reason I can think of for doing so is that they're trying to drag the other person's name through the mud).

adouglasmhor

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

What's the problem with signing the form? The relationship is obviously over, who cares what happens now, other than getting free of one another?

The Co-respondent is not one of the divorcing couple though, I can think of several reasons why they would not want to sign.

Costs or damages for example.

browneyedbazzi

adouglasmhor wrote: »

The Co-respondent is not one of the divorcing couple though, I can think of several reasons why they would not want to sign.

Indeed, I can think of good reasons not to respond and no reason why you would!

glittergal_2

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

Exactly. I really don't understand why petitioners bother naming the third party when their husband/wife intends to agree to the divorce and including the other party unnecessarily complicates things. (the only reason I can think of for doing so is that they're trying to drag the other person's name through the mud).

Yes this is what's happening......husband wants to drag co-respondent through the mud and get him to accept responsibilty.

So if he doesn't sign the husband has to apply for a decree nisi? Would it make a difference if there was physical evidence; photos, recordings to prove the affair?

adouglasmhor

glittergal wrote: »

Yes this is what's happening......husband wants to drag co-respondent through the mud and get him to accept responsibilty.

So if he doesn't sign the husband has to apply for a decree nisi? Would it make a difference if there was physical evidence; photos, recordings to prove the affair?

Yes it would drag on even longer and be more acrimonious. Husband should grow up and let it go.

peachyprice

glittergal wrote: »

Yes this is what's happening......husband wants to drag co-respondent through the mud and get him to accept responsibilty.

So if he doesn't sign the husband has to apply for a decree nisi? Would it make a difference if there was physical evidence; photos, recordings to prove the affair?

Where exactly does the husband think this mud is that he's going to drag the co-respondent through? Does he think it'll be printed for the public to see? Does he think the man will be shamed in the street? It's 2013.

No-one will know other than the judge who rubber stamps the divorce and the solicitors who will be rubbing their hands together.

It isn't going to make him 'accept responsibility' for anything, all it is doing is giving him the power to control how the ex husband's divorce proceeds. I bet he's peeing himself laughing.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

glittergal wrote: »

Yes this is what's happening......husband wants to drag co-respondent through the mud and get him to accept responsibilty.

So if he doesn't sign the husband has to apply for a decree nisi? Would it make a difference if there was physical evidence; photos, recordings to prove the affair?

Does it matter? If adultery isn't denied, if the person named was present at the time of the adulterous act, who really gives a damn (assuming that he won't receive a bill for the divorce costs as a result)

Nobody publishes the details of divorce petitions in the Times, after all.