DIVORCE ON DEMAND
As biggest shake-up in 50 years ends the blame game...
DIVORCE laws are undergoing a radical overhaul to try to limit the blame and bitterness of marital break-up.
The shake-up – the biggest in 50 years – will sweep away the legal principle that one partner should usually be identified as at ‘fault’ for a split.
The three grounds for an at-fault divorce – adultery, unreasonable behaviour and desertion – will be axed. ‘Irretrievable breakdown’ becomes the sole reason and it will take just one party to state that a marriage is over.
The legal right for a husband or wife to contest a divorce will also be dropped.
Drawn up by Justice Secretary David Gauke, the reforms follow years of campaigning by family lawyers and judges.
They have been trying to remove the idea of fault, which they say can increase conflict, reduce the chances of reconciliation and undermine relationships with children.
Mr Gauke said: ‘ Hostility and conflict between parents leave their mark on children and can damage their life chances. While we will always uphold the institution of marriage, it cannot be right that our outdated law creates or increases conflict between divorcing couples. I have listened to calls for reform and firmly believe now is the right time to end this unnecessary blame game for good.’
Critics fear a rise in ‘divorce on demand’ and
more couples splitting. Under existing divorce law, which dates from 1969, there are five grounds for divorce.
Two do not involve any claim of fault – a couple can be divorced after two years of separation if both agree, or after five years if just one wants a divorce.
At-fault divorces are more common, usually because they are quicker.
One ground is adultery, another is unreasonable behaviour, which can include financial irresponsibility, abuse, obsessive behaviour or refusing to have sex. A third reason, desertion, is used only rarely.
Under the new system, divorce will follow after one partner declares the marriage has irretrievably broken down. There will however be a cooling-off period of six months for ‘reflection and an opportunity to turn back’ before the divorce is finalised.
This is designed to give people a chance to change their minds.
The new law will allow a couple for the first time to lodge a joint applica
‘Highly stressful experience’
tion for divorce. It will keep the twostage process, where a ‘decree nisi’ is followed by a ‘decree absolute’.
The right to contest a divorce will also go, meaning a husband or wife who wants to save their marriage will be unable to block the process.
Divorce rates are at their lowest in 45 years. But Whitehall assessments have warned that when the new law comes into operation there is likely to be an instant rise in divorce as couples rush to take advantage of it. After that, officials have said, ‘there is a possibility that it could impact rates’ and produce a long- term increase in the number of married couples splitting.
‘If you make something easier then more people will do it,’ said Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute think-tank.
‘The Government is going to make divorce easier so sadly, as has happened in every previous liberalisation of divorce law, the number of divorces will go up, as will the misery it causes to families.
‘This will increase the insecurity that many people feel within their marriages, since it will mean that one partner can simply resign from the marriage, leaving the other partner little time or opportunity to rescue it.’
Mr Gauke intends to bring a legislative bill before Parliament ‘as soon as time allows’. However its passage through Westminster may not be unchallenged.
In the mid-1990s John Major’s Tory government introduced a no-fault divorce bill which ran into a powerful backbench rebellion. Although eventually passed in 1996, the Family Law Act proved unworkable and was repealed by Tony Blair’s government.
Mr Gauke’s proposals were welcomed by Christina Blacklaws, president of the Law Society of England and Wales.
She said: ‘The Government’s decision to introduce a no-fault divorce will help to cut some of the conflict from what can be a highly stressful experience.
‘For separating parents, it can be much more difficult to focus on the needs of their children when they have to prove a fault-based fact against their former partner. Introducing a no- fault divorce will change the way couples obtain a divorce – for the better.’
Sam Hall, senior partner at Hall Brown Family Law, said: ‘The current system requiring fault is the equivalent of throwing a hand grenade into an already difficult situation. This should remove an area of disagreement, allowing couples to separate with a greater level of dignity and less conflict.’
But the Campaign4Marriage group said the plans would only make divorce easier and more common. ‘It is an absolute disaster for the institution of marriage,’ a spokesman said. ‘All this will do is speed up the divorce process.’