Monday, September 24, 2007

No Fault Divorce Reprised

When I opened Resolution's monthly periodical The Review this morning, the usual wad of advertising leaflets from book publishers and seminar providers fell out, but there was also a No Fault Divorce Questionnaire from Resolution itself. This asks for the views of members upon no fault divorce, and particularly what should be required to show that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. This is boiled down to the following:

1. Is mutual consent sufficient, and if so, should this be only after a period of separation?

2. With no consent, is the filing of a 'statement of marital breakdown' by one party, followed by a period of time, sufficient and if so, what should the period be?

3. If 2 above, should there be any period of separation?

The purpose of the questionnaire is so that Resolution can formulate its policy, should reforming the ground for divorce find its way back on to the political agenda. I sincerely hope it does, as our current fault-based system is an unnecessary source of confrontation and is surely inappropriate in today's society.

[Incidentally, my answers were: 1. Yes to the first part, no to the second. 2. Yes, six months. 3. No.]


  1. I agree. I think the whole process should be less focused on procedure and exactitude and more on letting people achieve what they want, namely a divorce. I have had a petition rejected this month because the word "at" was not included. No sign of the word "at" on the foreign marriage certificate either!!! That's a cool £40.00 per letter.

  2. Brilliant. This kind of thing gives the system a bad name. Still, a nice little earner for HMCS.

  3. How about reforming divorce law so that nobody can be divorced without their consent?

  4. I don't think that would work. No one should be tied into a marriage for the rest of their life just because their spouse refuses to consent. To take one example: what about a battered wife? Should she have to rely on her husband's consent to get divorced?


Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.