[Milly]

I read this yesterday and I'm disgusted of course. Anjae, I agree that when the spouse guilty of breaking up the marriage and the family doesn't pay consequences, doesn't have to feel bad for their actions, doesn't have to 'suffer' for what they did, the abandoned spouse feels even more hurt.

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.

As long as it's easy and painless for a cheater/abuser to divorce and dump their spouse, family,  then there is no deterrent.

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.

Marriage should come with a warning.

[Anjae]

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.

[Songanddance]

Facebook age'
However, John (not his real name), from Kent, said it felt like now was a time of "disposable marriages for the disposable age".

John, who was divorced by his wife after a marriage more than two decades long, says: "We are devaluing marriage to the point where frankly what's the point of getting married in the first place? 'Hmmm. Woke up unhappy this morning, bored with family life. Fill out a form and junk my family - they'll get over it'.

"Fantastic - it's a divorce system for the Facebook age of instant gratification.

"What happened to for richer for poorer, for better for worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part?"

This from BBC website.  Spot on comments!

[One day at a time]

Facebook age'
However, John (not his real name), from Kent, said it felt like now was a time of "disposable marriages for the disposable age".

John, who was divorced by his wife after a marriage more than two decades long, says: "We are devaluing marriage to the point where frankly what's the point of getting married in the first place? 'Hmmm. Woke up unhappy this morning, bored with family life. Fill out a form and junk my family - they'll get over it'.

"Fantastic - it's a divorce system for the Facebook age of instant gratification.

"What happened to for richer for poorer, for better for worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part?"

This from BBC website.  Spot on comments!

Yep, spot on..

[Anjae]

"Fantastic - it's a divorce system for the Facebook age of instant gratification.

Sort of. Even if here, when no fault-come, most who went for it had been married for decades. Here no-fault come to be December 2008, Facebook wasn't much, if a think, by then and those who had been married for decades at the time weren't into the internet or social media.

It was more like husbands and wives had been waiting for ages for divorce to become very easy in order to get divorce. Also, mostly for husbands, waiting until their cheating mean nothing and they no longer had to pay alimony for life.

Here being married does not mean much and people get married less and less. No point.

Besides, we have "união de facto". A couple that has lived together for two years can register their relationship and will pretty much have every right a married person has. There is no divorce, but there will be the need to share all assets acquired during the "união de facto", etc.

That is one of the reasons my mum does not understand why my younger sister is getting married. Legally, here, it no longer makes sense. The other reason is that her future husband is not such a great partner. I also don't know why my younger sister is getting married or why she decided to, all of a sudden, say she was getting married in June. Is she pregnant? Maybe. That still does not require marriage.

None of my other siblings is married, they have "união de facto", have kids, are buying a house together etc. They and many other Portuguese.

[Milly]

To be honest, if I were to get married again, I would want to have some kind of contract written up. Not very romantic, I know, but a cheating spouse should not be able to run off with a life time's worth of financial earnings and good job and leave the LBS with hardly anything or nothing. Maybe if the two spouses have to sign a legal contract stating that they will look after each other even if so and so happens, then the weak, crappy spouse might think twice before heading off to schmoopie land.

[Anjae]

If I were to remarry I would also want some written contract/pre-nuptial agreement.

In the extremely odd case Mr J and I ever get back together he will have to sign documents/a contract. Not romantic, but necessary.

[xyzcf]

I came across this yesterday, sorry I wasn't able to upload the diagram as the site says it was "full". It has to do with addiction and the root causes which stem from abuse, physical, emotional, spiritual and sexual.

I know that many of our spouses have an addiction.

I also know that many of our spouses have been abused in their childhood.

I look at this tree, and somehow it is meaningful in context of a crisis...and reaffirms my belief that although the MLCer might "know" what he/she has done...it was not intentional and could not have been avoided due to life situations that they were exposed to and the coping mechanism that they needed to develop to survive.

https://www.facebook.com/TheCentreofHealing/photos/a.809254725863665/1463962643726200/?type=3&theater

[Disillusioned]

What a mess the human species can be...

[Anjae]

here is the image, Xyzcf.

No one chooses to have a MLC, but in my view it can be avoided. MLC has to do with depression. They do know what they did and are doing. They just become addicted to the new MLC lifestyle and then it becomes complicated to stop. Or they like to have both the MLC life and the normal life, as some of them do.

When we see returning MLCers it is not that complicated for them to get back to normal.

There are some things missing on that tree, like depression that often leads to addiction. Pretty much all addicts are depressed people. Depression may not have to do with heriditary factors or abuse, it may come with divorce, death of a loved one, losing a job, etc. All those things can lead a person to drink, take drugs, etc.

Grief in on the tree, but gried and depression are different things.