I am personally concerned that there is no form of contesting the divorce and that either one can file.
That is more or less what happens here since no-faul was introduced. One can contest, but there will be way of stop the divorce unless the couple agrees to. The reason Mr J's court divorce number two, opened under the no-fault law was dismiessed is because he had filled once before, by the old law (that require proof of guilt and he had none against me) is that no one can be taken to court twice for the same thing.
However, the law is a funny thing. Family court number two dismissed his case, he appealed to a higher court that said he was in the right. Process returned to family court. I told my lawyer I had enough, wyers agreed to write the family court saying the parts had accepted to deal privatly.
I am still waiting for the court document saying I agree to it that I have to sign. Or maybe Mr J changed his mind again and the judge really had to divorce us. If so, I never received any court document saying so.
Our absurd no-fault divorce law only has family court judges decree the divorce. Split of finances and assets, unless amicable, has to be done by a different process in a civil court. Civil courts do not know how to handle family matters and things can take forever. As in the UK here divorce can be done without financial/assets sorted and now tends to be.
With a MLCer this solves nothing. The important matters would not be sorted out.
No fault-divorce here only benefited those in the wrong and those who make, or have, more money than their spouse.
Alimony for life is also gone, as are several other protections the fault divorce law had for a spouse who is not responsible for the end of the marriage.
People who agree to divorce go for amicable divorce, that is what 95% of those who divorce here do. Of the remaining 5%, the ones who reach court, most are domestic violence cases and several of the 5% who reach court end up being dealt off court.
I also found it very annoying that the comment was about the no fault allowed people to move on with their lives quicker. I would guess that most of those that made that comment have never faced marital break up especially with children. Certainly the MP that was interviewed all over the BBC has been married solidly for years.....
I found that comment totally annoying. As I had found similar ones here at the time no-fault was introduced. Here no-fault become a thing because the party that was in government at the time needed the support of a smaller party and that smaller, urban elite of very well-off people totally detached of the country's reality wanted no-fault. It was a political trade-off. Our by then President warned against it, so did judges and lawyers.
I just wish that there was a mandatory period of counselling and pre-marital advice to help young couples and those who are on second or third marriages to really understand each other and know why they are getting married (other than being "in lurve")
I agree. That is one thing I always thought was missing for most couples. Mr J and I had dated for 10 years before we married and lived together for three. We had a sound idea of how life was even in our late teens - our letters to each other show it -, but I think we would had benefit of pre-marital advice. Also, of marital support throught the marriage. Not that we faced major problems and we knew marriages and long term relationships had bumps, etc.
My younger sister is getting married in June. It is a big mistake. Of course she listens to no one.
I am disgusted by the concept sold that this will make breakups have less conflict. This is an insult to those of us going through it.
Like Song pointed, there will not be less conflict. It is going to be worst and people are going to feel even more hurt.
As long as it's easy and painless for a cheater/abuser to divorce and dump their spouse, family, then there is no deterrent.
No there isn't. I think in abuse cases it may be a bit different if I understood the UK idea, but not sure.
I have said it before, marriage is dangerous, especially for women who give up their careers for their husbands or to raise the family. They then are dumped at middle age with no means to support themselves, no pension, no chance to rebuild a future.
It is. Very dangerous. But it was not when Mr J and I got married. Cheating had a high cost, alimony for life existed, 75% of the cheater personal property with be for the other spouse, etc. That is I should had divorce Mr J as soon as OW1 was made public. At the time, the law favoured me.
Of course there is no way of knowing if Mr J was going to pay and gave me 75% of his private property. We may still be where we are, but if the case had been opened under the old divorce law it had to be ruled under the old divorce law. Or so I think. With laws and lawyers, who knows.
MIL has alimony for life and didn't lost a single asset with divorce.
Still, probably the UK parliament is not able to pass the law right now. All they seem to have time for is the never ending saga of Brexit.
Who knows, they may find time and go ahead with it pretty quickly.