Divorce laws a ‘meal ticket’
As one ex-wife wins the right to claim 23 years on, British judge Sir Paul Coleridge tells Frances Gibb divorce law must change.
This week Britain’s highest court ruled that Kathleen Wyatt can bring a £1.9 million (NZ$3.8m) claim against her former husband 23 years after they broke up.
Wyatt married Dale Vince when they were both penniless travellers in 1981, divorcing in 1992. In 1995 Vince founded one of the UK’s biggest green energy companies, Ecotricity, and is said to be worth some £107m.
No maintenance award was originally made at the time of the divorce because he had no money. The issue was – should Wyatt be allowed, so many years later, to come back with a claim? The UK Supreme Court justices delivered a clear ‘‘yes’’.
Last month in a separate case, a judge suggested that divorced women with children over a certain age should find work rather than rely on payouts from wealthy husbands to fund a life of leisure. The comments came from a case in which Tracey Wright, 51, the former wife of a millionaire racehorse veterinary surgeon, chose not to be a working mother when she split from her husband, Ian, after 11 years of marriage.
However Wright went back to the High Court, arguing that it was unfair that he be expected to support his ex-wife indefinitely, even after his planned retirement at 65 while she made ‘‘no effort whatsoever to seek work’’.
Most of the remarks about there being no good reason why Tracey Wright should not go out to work came from the original judge, Judge Roberts, who heard the case, with Lord Justice Pitchford agreeing and upholding that ruling.
Lawyers immediately hailed the decision as a game-changer that would bring English law more into line with Scotland and Europe and end the culture that an ex-wife may have a ‘‘meal ticket for life’’.
It also comes at a time when there is mounting pressure for reform of the divorce laws, but little political will. A series of judges and lawyers – Sir James Munby, president of the family division, Mr Justice Mostyn, Baroness Deech – have all urged an overhaul in recent months; from the way divorce is obtained to how assets are divided.
This week the Marriage Foundation, headed by another senior family judge, Sir Paul Coleridge, launched its manifesto for all political parties – a key plank of which is to modernise the divorce laws. ‘‘Having an out-of-date body of family law, especially surrounding divorce, is bad for the stablity of couple relationships because myths then abound,’’ he said this week. ‘‘Society needs a set of laws surrounding family failure that is easily understandable and accessible, otherwise the pain and damage of separation is made worse and disputes are prolonged.’’
Current laws date from the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which grew from a royal commission in the 1950s, he says. Since then, society has transformed ‘‘beyond recognition’’ and current laws – including those on maintenance – do not reflect society as it is or should be.
What is needed? Munby proposed simplifying divorce so that it could be obtained ‘‘over the counter’’, at one of a few processing centres. Most of the 120,000 divorces a year should be taken out of courts altogther, he argued last year.
The idea split lawyers; Coleridge is one who disagrees. ‘‘Speaking from the point of view of a practical lawyer, it is probably right but I think it’s a step too far. It belittles marriage.’’
Ending a marriage, he adds, should not be just like ‘‘getting a dog licence’’.
‘‘Getting a divorce should be seen as a very serious step only sanctioned, even nominally, by a judge.’’
Second is the question of financial arrangements. ‘‘The way in which the spoils of marriage are divided up goes to the very root of the social norms/mores, especially women’s rights and role in society. Some societies give wives almost no right to claim, for instance Muslim wives,’’ he said. In Scotland maintenance is limited to three years.
So is it time to end the principle of the ‘‘meal ticket for life’’? Coleridge says the issue is ‘‘very complex’’ and finely nuanced. ‘‘If a woman finds herself divorced in her mid-50s, should she be forced to go out to try to find work, when she is deskilled and gave up a potentially prosperous career to look after the children? Situations vary drastically and judges’ views differ markedly with strong views, especially female judges, who themselves have probably worked for their whole adult life. But stay-athome mothers are to be valued as much, surely?’’
The problem, he says, is that without statutory guidance, courts ‘‘make it up’’. Judges are ‘‘drawn from a very narrow section of society – who says they are right in their approach’’?
Instead, it should fall to Parliament to provide clear guidance. Parliament should also take action to remove fault as a ground for divorce.
‘‘I would get rid of it. The current law is the worst of all worlds: it pretends to be fault-based but in fact the parties also do a deal because they don’t want to wait for two years. It is completely pointless. So they have to find adultery and [unreasonable] behaviour. But if used they are cobbled together, although one or the other side always resents it.’’
It is now three years since Coleridge set up the Marriage Foundation, a charity that promotes marriage and highlights the impact of relationship breakdown. The move led to his departure as a fulltime judge after a series of warnings from his superiors about speaking out publicly on marriage – and after public complaints. He is still sitting on a couple of cases, but mostly devotes time to the foundation and to sitting as an arbitrator in family cases.
As well as law reform, Coleridge and the Marriage Foundation want a Cabinet minister for families and family breakdown; a tax and benefits sytem that supports marriage; funds to promote relationship education and a policy that ‘‘unashamedly champions marriage as the gold standard for all’’ – demolishing myths such as that ‘‘cohabitation is as stable a state as marriage’’.
Governments, he says, cannot legislate for stronger families but can foster the right environment for them. Modern divorce law is one part of that.
‘‘The laws have not been overhauled for half a century. Let’s have a new and sensible law that ensures people only get divorced when they have exhausted all other avenues and are fully informed – and does not make the pain and damage even worse than now.’’