Divorce refused- why?

onomatopoeia99

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

If you could get a no questions asked divorce in 1 year, surely that means a marriage only has a minimum duration of 1 year. That doesn't seem very long for something intended to last a lifetime... I certainly can't understand why opposing that should be seen as absurd

The case the OP is about shows why. A very long marriage with, according to a court, no unreasonable behaviour. One party believes it is over, but because the other contested unreasonable behaviour as a ground (and won in the family court) and presumably therefore will not give consent to "separated for two years with consent", the marriage has to run another five years before a divorce will be granted, unless the judgment is overturned on appeal.

Locked in for more five years after almost 40 years of marriage? There's nothing short about that and many lives last much less time. I stand by "absurd".

Rosemary7391

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

The case the OP is about shows why. A very long marriage with, according to a court, no unreasonable behaviour. One party believes it is over, but because the other contested unreasonable behaviour as a ground (and won in the family court) and presumably therefore will not give consent to "separated for two years with consent", the marriage has to run another five years before a divorce will be granted, unless the judgment is overturned on appeal.

Locked in for more five years after almost 40 years of marriage? There's nothing short about that and many lives last much less time. I stand by "absurd".

Ah, perhaps we're talking at cross purposes here. I thought you meant anything longer than a year was absurd. My bad.

As a general point, it makes sense to me that it takes longer when there hasn't been unreasonable behaviour or that both parties don't agree it's over. 5 years for both circumstances might be pushing it, but I do think that 1 year is too short.

It's true that children can die before they reach 5 years (that's what you're referring to?), but as they're presumably not getting married then I'm not sure that's a relevant timescale. I'd be more inclined to consider how long it takes folks to decide to marry someone. I don't think many would marry someone they'd known for a year, so I don't think marriages should end in that timescale either. I can't claim any experience though!

GDB2222

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

Ah, perhaps we're talking at cross purposes here. I thought you meant anything longer than a year was absurd. My bad.

As a general point, it makes sense to me that it takes longer when there hasn't been unreasonable behaviour or that both parties don't agree it's over. 5 years for both circumstances might be pushing it, but I do think that 1 year is too short.

It's true that children can die before they reach 5 years (that's what you're referring to?), but as they're presumably not getting married then I'm not sure that's a relevant timescale. I'd be more inclined to consider how long it takes folks to decide to marry someone. I don't think many would marry someone they'd known for a year, so I don't think marriages should end in that timescale either. I can't claim any experience though!

My parents got engaged 3 weeks after they met! And the marriage lasted until my father died nearly 40 years later.

But that was after WW2. Life had been on hold for 6 years, and they were both absolutely ready to settle down.

I think 5 years is rather long for a unilateral divorce without unreasonable behaviour. 2 years seems long enough to me. If they can't decide to mend fences after two years, there's no hope for the marriage.

jjj1980

Even with the horrible abuse I suffered from my Ex-husband, which started within days of getting married, I was told I had to wait until the marriage was a year old before I could file for divorce. This meant I had to suffer extra months of abuse as in his word "You're still my wife, I can treat you how I want!".


I disagree totally with there being ANY minimum timescales. I believe that if someone wants out of a relationship, then they should not be forced to stay or to go through counselling. If someone has rushed into marriage and/or not taken their vows seriously, then prolonging the length of the relationship for any reason can only do more harm than good.

GDB2222

jjj1980 wrote: »

Even with the horrible abuse I suffered from my Ex-husband, which started within days of getting married, I was told I had to wait until the marriage was a year old before I could file for divorce. This meant I had to suffer extra months of abuse as in his word "You're still my wife, I can treat you how I want!".


I disagree totally with there being ANY minimum timescales. I believe that if someone wants out of a relationship, then they should not be forced to stay or to go through counselling. If someone has rushed into marriage and/or not taken their vows seriously, then prolonging the length of the relationship for any reason can only do more harm than good.

I'm sorry that you were in this frightful position.

However, no divorce is instant, so you needed to leave the marital home. In a refuge if necessary.

Kayalana99

What happened to free will? I really don't think a marriage should be taken lightly, but if one person decides they want to end it who are any of us, or a judge, to decide if we've tried enough or how to live our life?

We all make decisions we regret or don't see the bigger picture at the time, or we may just simply grow apart and want to move on.

Marriage or no marriage - it doesn't stop the other person moving out and moving on with their life so the judge isn't doing anyone any favours. Does he really think because he has said 'no' to the divorce they are going to make-up with each other? Of course not. He's just delaying the process.

GDB2222

Kayalana99 wrote: »

What happened to free will? I really don't think a marriage should be taken lightly, but if one person decides they want to end it who are any of us, or a judge, to decide if we've tried enough or how to live our life?

We all make decisions we regret or don't see the bigger picture at the time, or we may just simply grow apart and want to move on.

Marriage or no marriage - it doesn't stop the other person moving out and moving on with their life so the judge isn't doing anyone any favours. Does he really think because he has said 'no' to the divorce they are going to make-up with each other? Of course not. He's just delaying the process.

I don't think that you should blame the judge. Parliament decided on the law, and he was just applying it.

The wife asked for a divorce on the grounds that her husband's behaviour was unreasonable. He said that it wasn't, and the court had to decide whether it was or not. If you read the court report, it was all pretty minor stuff, eg they had a tiff and didn't talk to each other during a meal. The trial judge decided that didn't constitute unreasonable behaviour, and the court of appeal agreed. A more pragmatic trial judge might have decided differently, I suppose, essentially ignoring the evidence in front of him.

hazyjo

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

I get that - not arguing against divorce altogether. I just think 1 year, without grounds, is quite a short amount of time. I can see that there could be arguments for and against it being 1 year - it's calling being against that absurd that I found so strange!

Who would want to get divorced 'without grounds' - don't' think anyone mentioned that, but might have missed it. My husband chose to leave me for someone else. We'd been together 6 years or so, but he decided to start an affair with his secretary 3 days before our wedding. Didn't really have any choice in the matter...

Jx

jjj1980

GDB2222 wrote: »

I'm sorry that you were in this frightful position.

However, no divorce is instant, so you needed to leave the marital home. In a refuge if necessary.

I agree it isn't an instant thing. The situation was extremely difficult and complicated but without explaining the whole thing we were living apart, each at our own parents, within a few short months of the wedding. This did not stop the abuse though and the police and Woman's Aid had to become involved. This is the period during which he was telling me that even though we were separated, I was still legally his wife so he could treat me however he wanted.


Even after being able to file, he carried on the abuse and control by delaying every step of the process meaning it took 2.5 years for the divorce to be finalised.