[Mortesbride]

Well if this wasn't a MLC disaster I don't know what is!

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/thai-bride-wins-battle-share-075115748.html

[UrsaMajor]

I saw that too ... My first thought was that "Oh, THAT has to be a great R if he wants to keep it secret..."

[Treasur]

A big story here in the UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5992637/Worcestershire-Tini-Owens-forced-stay-married-husband-Hugh-losing-Supreme-Court-case.html kicking off a lot of debate about 'no fault' divorce.

Listening to a piece on the radio about it, I realise that my PoV is different now...I find myself thinking that infidelity - and all the damage that goes with it - should carry some consequences in a divorce. That 'no fault' divorce focuses almost exclusively on the leaver's right to 'freedom' and not at all on the effects on the person who is left. That it takes two to get married, but somehow we only respect one person's wish to get divorced. Even wondered if I should have dug my heels in and made my xh wait by contesting his idiotic list of unreasonable behaviours...although, for me, I think not, I think it would have kept me stuck in limbo and mindf**kery even if it would have prevented ow having her wedding.

I suspect UK law is a bit of an a$$ and it will move to 'no fault' in time. I'd prefer a rule that says you can't get divorced without a financial agreement first. I might like a financial penalty of some sort for adultery actually, something that recognises the scale of life and family destruction on the one who is being divorced without getting a vote on it. Interesting to observe though how differently I see it now from how I would have seen it before.

[1trouble]

Actually this case makes he hopping mad TBH

What is not mentioned (At least in any articles I have read) is that you can divorce unilaterally in this country …..
because it happens ALL the time.....and that this whole case proves money talks

I was furious when I read the judge wouldn't accept the reasons given in this divorce as they were too flimsy ......when H managed to divorce me on the grounds that we didn't go to bed at the same time and I worked too much and both those reasons were  regurgitated and used to string out a couple of other reasons...like hurt feelings because of the above …..and making him feel depressed because of the above!!!
And he stated that this had only happened within a 6 month period.....

Originally H's solicitor wanted me to divorce H for adultery but I would not acknowledge the existence of the OW so I refused, I remember thinking at the time H would have to wait 2 years separation because I niavely thought he couldnt divorce me for unreasonable behaviour because 1) there hadnt been any and 2) he would have to prove it and he wouldnt say antyhing horrible about me.....
I didnt realise he could make a couple of pithy reasons up and not prove anything


When I enquired about contesting I was told it was going to cost at least £10,000.........

The ONLY difference in this case is the bloke has pots of money so can afford to contest it......
Otherwise judges never really scrutinise divorces.


You are right Treasur UK law is an ass and justice is only available for those with lots of money

[Mortesbride]

Personally I see it as a good thing. I do not like the fact that one person decides they want to divorce and destroy the entire families life, over a handful of nonsense.

So the guy speaks loudly? So they have arguments over cardboard...SHE had an AFFAIR and he forgave her for that...but she is the victim?

I dunno. We never know the whole story...but personally unless abuse is happening...I think they did the right thing making her wait or whatever. People shouldn't get to just walk out on their marriage.

And Treasur I agree...if there is abuse, and affairs...and whatever else...all provable there should certainly be repercussions in the divorce proceedings. Those things destroy a person just as much as assault or being burgled...why shouldn't there be a consequence for that?

[1trouble]

Mortes
I agree I think its a good thing they are ridiculous reasons BUT that sort of judgement is only for the rich....

If the husband didn't have money the divorce would have been waved through

[Mortesbride]

Probably. And exactly what is wrong with the divorce system IMO.

[Velika]

My experience has convinced me that equal marriage rights is important, but just as important is state recognition of marriage as a business contract with similar rules applied to businesses. I actually think more people would take marriage seriously if they saw it as a financial agreement!

In my mind, this means that a marriage is a business partnership. Both people's careers and their assets are like the company. So, if mom stays home to work but dad develops his career, his career is their shared "business." He cannot leave her and kick her off the board and simply replace her with someone new, at will. Likewise, if he decides to spend money outside of the business, he may be found to have "defrauded" the company.

I think love is beautiful and all people should approach romantic relationships with hope and an open heart. I'm all for spiritual connections and ceremonies. I also do not believe anyone should be forced to live with someone they don't want to. It is apparent that many of our spouse are seriously unwell mentally, and testimony of some wallower LBS and even returnees speak to this as well. No one has to live with someone they don't want to, even us. However, I think many of us would not be so very traumatized or devastated if this did not also involve financial betrayal and irresponsibility.

[Anjae]

The Thai story is more "silly white western dude syndrome" and "Thai woman who saw an opportunity for money". It may had been a MLC story or not.

"Even though his other wife knew of their relationship" are Americans allowed to legally have more than one wife?

If she is 68 and he is 80, she was 28 and he was 40 when they married. Could it be that, by then, he was having a MLC? Not certain here it is a MLC case. He doesn't seems a nice, caring person and sounds very irritable and snappy. Maybe she just had enough. Or realised she had made a mistake 40 years ago at 28.

What is not mentioned (At least in any articles I have read) is that you can divorce unilaterally in this country

Clearly, the lawyer speaking in the article sees things differently: "In my view, the law restricting the right to divorce is a fundamental infringement of the rights to private and family life. I would go further and say it is a form of indenture or slavery."

But you still need reasons to divorce in the UK: Adultery, Unreasonable behaviour (this can be pretty much everything and nothing and probably will depend of the judge), Desertion, Separation for more than 2 years with spouse agreement in writing, Separation for 5 years withou spouse agreement.
 
"Introducing 'no fault' divorces would go a long way in reducing conflict." - the lawyer has no idea what no fault divorce does to people when one of them commits adultery and can divorce their spouse like if it was nothing, as is the case here since late 2008.

My experience has convinced me that equal marriage rights is important, but just as important is state recognition of marriage as a business contract with similar rules applied to businesses. I actually think more people would take marriage seriously if they saw it as a financial agreement!

Marriage is a contract. At least here civil marriage is. That is why divorce is called dissolution of marriage = the end of the contract. Marriage pertains to civil law and has rules. I knew it was a contract, Mr J knew it was a contract and we have in fact got married for financial reasons, taxes.

There are big advantages here for marriage couples over just living together. It didn't change a thing when it comes to Mr J and his crisis. Nor when it comes to the court. By law he has to give me alimony, but a judge declared that he needs the money he makes to live a dignified life. Go figure.

If you find UK law bad, you should try Portuguese one. Our previous marriage law was good, but was seen by those in charge as old and blah, blah, blah. Since, things are a mess.

[The Moon’s a balloon]

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. 

Anyway, back to the topic, does anyone else think that Ant McPartlin (of Ant and Dec fame here in the UK) might be having a MLC?  Sorry, if this has been mentioned already.