The legal process of divorce should be changed

Maureen43

Provocative title and feel free to disagree!

I am expecting my decree absolute any day (hooray!) and have a few thoughts at the end of this process.

Firstly, I do not think you should have to supply "grounds" for divorce. You can marry on a whim, as a consenting adult, without giving any reason, so why on earth should you have to supply a reason for ending that same marriage? I could have ticked the "unreasonable behaviour" or "adultery" box for my ex but actually, what does it matter? As a consenting adult over 18 I wish to end my marriage and my reasons for doing so are private and irrelevant.

Secondly, the ex and I agreed an amicable financial settlement which both solicitors agreed was fair to both parties. The financial consent order was rejected three times before finally obtaining approval! Surely, where an agreement is amicable and both parties have had legal advice all the judge needs to do is rubber stamp the agreement?

In some ways I wish we had sorted out all our finances, waited two years THEN filled out all the forms to obtain a divorce. This would have saved us approx. £6500 legal fees as well..

I would be interested in your views.

DUTR

I don't know what to say Maureen, seems a shame that marraige is taken so lightly nowadays (the bit where you put hooray) , I'm not never have been or probably never will get married, but if I had I would have to be 120% sure that it's forever. In the meantime in true MSE style, I shall save the cost of a wedding and divorce by staying as I am

Mrs_pbradley936

Divorce is far easier than it used to be. There is no guilty party any more. Anyway marriage carries with it a tons of legality whether that be tax and inheritance laws, entitlement to an armed forces pension and not so much now but a woman's pension used to be based on how much her husband had paid in. Plus at one time children of a marriage had better legal status than children born out of wedlock.

While all of that is largely historical, laws take forever to catch up.

While in your case you and ex reached a happy conclusion and probably would have been able to save legal expenses that is not the case for all couples.

Errata

Grounds for divorce most commonly cited nowadays is 'irretreivable breakdown' and it seems to be little more than a rubber stamping exercise. If there's some to-ing and fro-ing caused by the court with the financial settlement that's the law ensuring people are protected. What's wrong with that?

alleycat`

Errata wrote: »

Grounds for divorce most commonly cited nowadays is 'irretreivable breakdown' and it seems to be little more than a rubber stamping exercise. If there's some to-ing and fro-ing caused by the court with the financial settlement that's the law ensuring people are protected. What's wrong with that?

If both parties and solicitors have agreed to the settlement then by all means the judge should be able to query it once.
3 times seems excessive?

jjj1980

I would have liked my divorce to be simpler but only because my ex husband was abusive and the whole process took nearly two years. I had to file for my decree absolute without any financial/clean break order being in place as he refused to enter into any discussions or paperwork regarding finances and I just wanted it all over.

When I married, I wholeheartedly meant my vows and assumed I would be married for the rest of my life. However, it all came out after the wedding that he had been lying to keep for months beforehand and his family and friends all knew about it.

aliasojo

DUTR wrote: »

I don't know what to say Maureen, seems a shame that marraige is taken so lightly nowadays (the bit where you put hooray) , I'm not never have been or probably never will get married, but if I had I would have to be 120% sure that it's forever. In the meantime in true MSE style, I shall save the cost of a wedding and divorce by staying as I am

I married for life as I thought. As soon as he started controlling me I knew it wasn't going to be for life.

I too 'hooray'ed' when my divorce was final. In fact I had a celebration party to mark the fact that a) I was free and b) the legal process was finally over.

Imo, people don't take marriage lightly but nor do they 'put up and shut up' like they perhaps used to do in years gone by.

I agree with the OP. I think it's ridiculous that the courts should have any kind of control over whether two people should be able to cut ties legally or not especially when agreements are in place.

I also think the reason is irrelevant. If you don't to continue being tied to a person that should be all that is needed. Red tape gone mad imo. Always thought so.

DUTR

aliasojo wrote: »

I married for life as I thought. As soon as he started controlling me I knew it wasn't going to be for life.

I too 'hooray'ed' when my divorce was final. In fact I had a celebration party to mark the fact that a) I was free and b) the legal process was finally over.

Imo, people don't take marriage lightly but nor do they 'put up and shut up' like they perhaps used to do in years gone by.

I agree with the OP. I think it's ridiculous that the courts should have any kind of control over whether two people should be able to cut ties legally or not especially when agreements are in place.

I also think the reason is irrelevant. If you don't to continue being tied to a person that should be all that is needed. Red tape gone mad imo. Always thought so.

It wasn't an attack on the OP or those in a similar episode, it's always a shame that the person one thought they would commit to for the rest of their life, fails (irrespective of the reasons) .

Nicki

Maureen43 wrote: »

Provocative title and feel free to disagree!

I am expecting my decree absolute any day (hooray!) and have a few thoughts at the end of this process.

Firstly, I do not think you should have to supply "grounds" for divorce. You can marry on a whim, as a consenting adult, without giving any reason, so why on earth should you have to supply a reason for ending that same marriage? I could have ticked the "unreasonable behaviour" or "adultery" box for my ex but actually, what does it matter? As a consenting adult over 18 I wish to end my marriage and my reasons for doing so are private and irrelevant.

Secondly, the ex and I agreed an amicable financial settlement which both solicitors agreed was fair to both parties. The financial consent order was rejected three times before finally obtaining approval! Surely, where an agreement is amicable and both parties have had legal advice all the judge needs to do is rubber stamp the agreement?

In some ways I wish we had sorted out all our finances, waited two years THEN filled out all the forms to obtain a divorce. This would have saved us approx. £6500 legal fees as well..

I would be interested in your views.

All well and good if the parties GENUINELY are separating amicably and the financial agreement has really been agreed by both with no coercion. But how is the judge to know that this is the case if he is not able to question the agreement and point out to a party that legally they would be entitled to more.

Whilst I understand that two equally robust fairly young people might want to be able to separate with ease, what about cases such as the 50 year old woman who hasn't worked for 15 years due to childcare duties, whose husband has met a floozie and wants to leave her. Her only leverage to get a fair financial settlement is the fact that without grounds HE can't divorce HER for 5 years unless she is willing to cooperate. That levels the playing field a bit in terms of agreeing a settlement. What about the battered spouse who has initiated the divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour but has agreed a very unfair settlement (even with legal advice) just to get away. Should a judge not be able to require a more equitable split of assets, with less likelihood of a violent comeback on the battered spouse because the initiative for this has come from an independent external source?

No system is perfect, but the current one is a decentish compromise between enabling people to divorce fairly easily whilst also building in a little protection for those with weaker bargaining positions.

aliasojo

DUTR wrote: »

It wasn't an attack on the OP or those in a similar episode, it's always a shame that the person one thought they would commit to for the rest of their life, fails (irrespective of the reasons) .

Oh no, I didn't think it was honestly. Just chatting.

tayforth

Errata wrote: »

Grounds for divorce most commonly cited nowadays is 'irretreivable breakdown' and it seems to be little more than a rubber stamping exercise. If there's some to-ing and fro-ing caused by the court with the financial settlement that's the law ensuring people are protected. What's wrong with that?

I've only recently become au fait with divorce terminology (and I wish that I didn't have to), but just FYI: there's no such thing as 'irretrievable breakdown' as a ground for divorce in the UK.

The grounds are:

1. Adultery
2. Unreasonable behaviour
3. Desertion (for two years)
4. Two years' separation (with both parties' consent)
5. Five years' separation (with one party's consent)

jjj1980 wrote: »

I would have liked my divorce to be simpler but only because my ex husband was abusive and the whole process took nearly two years. I had to file for my decree absolute without any financial/clean break order being in place as he refused to enter into any discussions or paperwork regarding finances and I just wanted it all over.

When I married, I wholeheartedly meant my vows and assumed I would be married for the rest of my life. However, it all came out after the wedding that he had been lying to keep for months beforehand and his family and friends all knew about it.

aliasojo wrote: »

I married for life as I thought. As soon as he started controlling me I knew it wasn't going to be for life.

I too 'hooray'ed' when my divorce was final. In fact I had a celebration party to mark the fact that a) I was free and b) the legal process was finally over.

Imo, people don't take marriage lightly but nor do they 'put up and shut up' like they perhaps used to do in years gone by.

I agree with the OP. I think it's ridiculous that the courts should have any kind of control over whether two people should be able to cut ties legally or not especially when agreements are in place.

I also think the reason is irrelevant. If you don't to continue being tied to a person that should be all that is needed. Red tape gone mad imo. Always thought so.

I'm the same. I married for life, and did not take my vows at all lightly. Sadly, my ex became abusive and I left him. So, while I'm devastated at the way my marriage turned out, I'm very glad that I can get divorced.

FWIW, I agree with Maureen that the actual divorce process should be simpler, particularly for those who (1) have come to an amicable agreement to separate, (2) have been cheated on, and (3) have been abused physically or emotionally. For anyone in the last two categories, it's distressing to be legally tied to your spouse for any longer than necessary.

Re financial settlements, arrangements for children etc, we have no children and no joint assets. So hopefully ours will be fairly simple to sort out. But I agree that these settlements should be fair, and particularly that they should protect women who gave up work to bring up a family.