Text of Mr Coleridge’s speech to the Family Holiday Association last month,

http://www.fhaonline.org.uk/Documents/COUNCIL090616MrJusticeColeridgeSPEECH.pdf

and of his speech to Resolution last year.

http://www.resolution.org.uk/editorial.asp?page_id=228&n_id=14

Not sure that I agree with that. On the other hand, it can certainly encourage it, and make the whole business a good deal worse.

If a marriage has genuinely broken down irretrievably, then probably only the most committed godbotherers would argue the couple should stay together.

It’s axiomatic that with any marriage only two people can say whether the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and they’re the two people concerned; but, and it’s a very big but, the couple concerned will be able to make a clear-headed, objective decision on that only if they’re fully informed on the nature and reality of matrimonial problems, and on what can be done to tackle them. That has nothing to do with attempting reconciliation, it’s just the analogue of what would happen with a medical problem, where someone would engage fully in the process of diagnosis, and do everything to help become more informed about their health problem, before deciding there was no hope of retrieval.

As I understand it, the law says that the only ground for divorce is irretrievable breakdown, and the rule of interpretation says that words used in a statute have to be understood in their literal sense. I would take the literal meaning of irretrievable breakdown to be an absence of capacity for retrieval, which had been inferred after doing everything that was reasonable and possible to establish first of all whether there was some capacity for retrieval. If that was applied properly, the law would have some sense and consistency. As it is, the mealy-mouthed, cobbled-together definition that is applied, lies at the heart of the law’s culpability for some of the social, emotional, health, and economic costs that flow from its interpretation and application. That culpability of course is shared by the legislature, the legal profession and the courts. (Humble view of a layman.:) )

The legal profession and the courts are not experts in matrimonial problems, any more than they’re experts in medical or mechanical problems, and for the generality of matrimonial problems I would suggest their early involvement is damaging to the whole process, although obviously that would not apply in serious cases such as where, for instance, there may have been violence. It’s not about making divorce harder or easier, it’s about making it more sensible and based on informed thinking. Having the issue embedded in an adversarial process from the start is simply not conducive to that objective.

Although I’ve read only the newspaper articles you link to, Paul Coleridge does indeed seem to be an eminently sensible chap, and I agree fully with what he’s saying, which includes disposing of the fault basis for divorce. Donald Mackay’s earlier attempt to reform the process also attempted to move to no-fault divorce, but unfortunately the process was left largely in the hands of solicitors, who no doubt had little enthusiasm in seeing it succeed. I hope lessons would be learned from that in any future reforms. Another lesson would be the inclusion of marriage issues on the school curriculum, which I think is inappropriate. It would be far more beneficial to include some instruction and consideration of approaches to conflict resolution more generally, such as using Edward de Bono’s lateral thinking techniques, or anything else that helps to widen thinking away from the adversarial style. The understanding gained from that wider application would then be useful in the more specific area of matrimonial conflict at a later date.

Interesting blog you have here. I like the way you weave in other strands of knowledge. My compliments to Renaissance Woman.