[1trouble]

Moon - sadly that isn't true about Adultery divorce laws in the UK...….it was a real eye opener for me when I went through this process

As for Ant McPartlin definitely

I also think Euan McGregor and Louise Rednapp and Richard Keys (some of these may not be known to those outside of the UK)

[The Moon’s a balloon]

Thanks 1trouble.  Pity, still would want to get the OM cited in the paperwork, just to get down on the record that it was their infidelity / unreasonable behaviour that caused this breakdown. 

Louise Redknapp, yes I thought that.  The sudden increase in partying while Jamie wants to stay at home.  The new best friend leading her on, and now the excuse she ‘lost her indentity’.  I can’t recall if there was an OM involved but otherwise very MLC.  Not heard about Keys or McGregor. 

[Treasur]

Richard Keys is pretty textbook https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/6012131/richards-affair-ripped-our-family-apart/

[megogirl]

Article from People, from Andy Spade's brother David, provides some insight into why Andy was/is in MLC!

Growing up, Spade says he saw his father about two or three times a year.

“We’d be sitting at the doors with our bags because he would call us and say he wanted to see us,” says the actor. “What I didn’t realize back then was that it was a control thing. We never had his phone number. He would call us when he felt like it.”

Nevertheless, the actor says the duo maintained a relationship and even moved in together in Arizona at one point. But years later, when Spade became a father himself, everything changed.

“I have a daughter now, and she came out of a situation with a girl I was dating and it was not planned,” Spade says. “And I get angry, because my brothers and I were planned. Now, I’m so happy that I have a daughter and she’s the best thing in my life, but I couldn’t picture my daughter being sick and calling me and me not answering.”


Growing up, Spade says he saw his father about two or three times a year.

“We’d be sitting at the doors with our bags because he would call us and say he wanted to see us,” says the actor. “What I didn’t realize back then was that it was a control thing. We never had his phone number. He would call us when he felt like it.”

“I know it sounds crazy, but I just thought, ‘Holy s—. You really played your cards the way you did when we were kids,’ ” Spade continues. “I mean, I like to have fun too, but it can’t be 24/7 and literally nothing else. The only thing my dad really did was give me an excuse to be nuts. I can always cry and go, ‘It’s my dad’s fault. He left me when I was 4! Now I’m crazy.’ ”

[Anjae]

Ewan McGregor was always a cheater, constantly having affairs. He is like Ben Affleck. For some reason, this time McGregor decided to leave his wife.

Don't know Ant McPartlin, Louise Rednapp or Richard Keys.

[Songanddance]

I suspect UK law is a bit of an a$$ and it will move to 'no fault' in time.

Speaking as a UKer - I hope the law doesn't ever move to no fault.  Re Tini Owens - she is living separately from her husband and should she continue to do so - after 5 years she can divorce him and he legally cannot contest it. He can make her life hell re financial demands however.   

She lives in a nice cottage separately with his consent and probably funds her lifetstyle from him too.

Her challenge lay in the fact that she tried to push through adultery, and then unreasonable behaviour.   How do we know how truthful she is?  The Daily Mail is almost the least offensive of the tabloid papers but it does love a scandal to create outrage.

I do wonder whether her desire to divorce is borne more from greed than unreasonable behaviour.

This particular grounds though in the UK is the stupidest part of divorce law. 

One of my colleagues who is a professional performer - her H clearly had MLC, OW etc...Whilst her children were growing up she taught during the daytime when they were at school and only ever performed professionally on rare occasions.  He (very wealthy in his own right) divorced her on the ground that he found her music distasteful (classical) and it was unreasonable for her to be a musician and imposing this upon him. Absolutely true.

The judge told her that she had to choose between music and a more "sensible" lifestyle.  It mattered little that her H acknowledged that he threw their daughter down the stairs in a fit of rage and that he had thrown stuff at my friend. The judge stated that it was probably brought on by the stress of my colleagues unreasonable behaviour!!

She divorced - got as much as she could from him and yes is still a professional musician - remarried and happy!

[Songanddance]

I thought in England, where adultery was cited in divorce proceedings, the OM/OW could get court costs awarded against them, for their role in the breakup.  Not sure if that’s still true or not. 

Nope - not true.  The divorce costs have to be met by or between the divorcing couple and the fact that there is an OP is irrelevant in cost terms.   This doesn't mean that the injured party cannot sue the OP in a civil case however.

[Ready2Transform]

This doesn't mean that the injured party cannot sue the OP in a civil case however.

Oh, I love this!! If only we could do that here in the states. What a game changer that would be!

Personally though, I have no problems with no fault divorce. If people are cheating and abusing, contractually obligating someone to stay with you is not going to change that. I probably got one of the crappiest divorce deals around here, but I still wouldn't change it because there are women who are being abused far more than I was who right now need to protect themselves and their kids from horrific situations, and without having to risk their lives more in "proving" anything. Their freedom is more important than me tying the courts up trying to prove OW got a chicken dinner on my dime.

[Thunder]

In some cases I do think No Fault is probably good, what I object to is, it makes divorcing so easy.  You don't need a rhyme or reason, you can just bale because you feel unhappy one day.  Well who hasn't felt unhappy at some time in their marriage?

If think if divorces weren't so easy maybe it would force some of these couple to actually try to work it out.

Maybe not MLCer's, but just normal married couples who are having problems and instead of getting help, they just file.  It's much easier than doing the work.

I also feel if there is an adulterous relationship going on, a person should be able to state that as a reason, let the alienator be named.  They were part of the reason the marriage broke up.

Just my 2 cents.   

[Anjae]

If people are cheating and abusing, contractually obligating someone to stay with you is not going to change that.

The divorce costs have to be met by or between the divorcing couple and the fact that there is an OP is irrelevant in cost terms.   This doesn't mean that the injured party cannot sue the OP in a civil case however.

Same in Portugal. But going to civil court here is madness, cases take years and the chance of getting anything worthy is almost non-existent. Great if one is wealthy. Otherwise, not so much.

I don't know how it is on the US, OK or elsewhere, but here it is far easier and faster to divorce mutually than with our weird court no-fault. Court means years, mutual means pretty fast. And cheap. For mutual no lawyer is necessary, there can be one, but not mandatory. For court lawyers are necessary.

If think if divorces weren't so easy maybe it would force some of these couple to actually try to work it out.

It wouldn't. Divorce was virtually a no thing here during the dictatorship, from 1928 to April 1974, and afterwards it was still rare for a while. Couples remained married but didn't work anything out. Mostly they lead separated lives. Like my aunt and uncle start to do at a point.

It is an illusion to think that if there was no divorce couples would sort things out. People sort things out if they want to/think it is worthy. The only difference is that, where before they would lead separate lives, keeping money and assets intact, now they divorce.   

I also feel if there is an adulterous relationship going on, a person should be able to state that as a reason, let the alienator be named.  They were part of the reason the marriage broke up.

Adultery can be stated as a reason and the alienator can be named here and usually is. No one can commit adultery alone. That is not the same as having the alienator sharing the costs. But are they really part of the reason the marriage broke up? Or it the married person the reason? Or the spouse who wants a divorce from the adulterer.

A marriage does not broke just because there was an affair. It will break because the adulterer does not want to leave the adultery partner (rare in non MLC cases) or because the cheated spouse wants to end the marriage.

What now we have, since Supreme Court case of a few years ago, is that adultery, regardless of divorce, means the cheated spouse can ask for monerary compensation for emotional damages. And probably one can for monetary compensation for money spend on the alienator or joint money spend by the alienator.

Would I, if I made laws/was a judge, had a problem making an alienator pay the cheated spouse? It would depend. If the alienator didn't know the other person was married I would. A one night stand wouldn' make sense. Alienators that knew the person was married? Probably not.

If people are cheating and abusing, contractually obligating someone to stay with you is not going to change that.

Of course not. But no-fault means it was no one's fault. If there is adultery, someone broke the contract. With our old law the divorce would still happen if one or the other side wanted it, but the adulterous partner would have to pay a very expensive finacial price for it. As it should be.

Adulterer and non-adulterer aren't alike, which is what no-fault divorce causes. Since marriage is a contract, a person that breaks it should pay for the infringement if the other part so wishes. As is the case with any other type of contract. Break a clause and you will be made to pay.

So far, I've got no divorce deal at all, while Mr J lives the high life. But since even a judge thinks the poor man needs to lead a dignified life, it seems not much, aside from mutual agreement can be arranged.
 
To leave it clear, the name of no-fault here is "Divórcio Sem o Consentimento do Outro Cônjuge" (Divorce Without the Consent of the Other Spouse). Fault was abolish, but one still needs to prove responsability/who was responsible. That is what Mr J was not able to do. He cannot prove I was responsible or at fault, for the end of the marriage.