I note that you did not answer the simple question as to whether you had read Baroness Deech’s paper? One of the points made was that divorces involve considerable emotional, financial and social costs. You are absolutely right to refer to the damage which is done if a broken marriage is not ended, especially potentially to children. To recast the “moral issue” in utilitarian terms, the current system does not weigh the relative harm of divorce or “no divorce”. It places no substantial barrier in the way of a misconceived desire for divorce, and gives little weight to the interests of the spouse who accepted a commitment which is now being broken.

In summary, although in some cases divorce prevents probable further damage to the parties, and, importantly, their children, which would be caused if they stayed together, this does not mean that in other cases divorce is not the more damaging option – but there is little that can be done to resist it, even if this is the case.

A decision to issue divorce proceedings is, I suspect, very often influenced more by emotion than a calm and rational analysis and consideration of the consequences, practical, financial or otherwise. As a matter of policy, surely consideration of steps, such as those proposed by Baroness Deech, to improve the decisions made in such circumstances is to be welcomed given the possible gravity of their ramifications?

james c,

I agree. But whilst it is impossible for those vows to be enforced, that does not mean that the Court should allow them to be disregarded with impunity.

The original poster’s quote was absurd-the Court does not enforce marriage vows. I am sure that he knows his audience, though.

James C’s comment is pithy and no doubt reflects the bewilderment which many men feel when they encounter the “Alice in Wonderland” world of divorce law. My impression is that we tend to hear more about men who do not act “reasonably”, whatever that actually means, than we do about men who do a pretty decent job of fulfilling their commitments to their wives and children come what may, but receive little acknowledgement of what they do, and then find to their consternation that their commitment is not matched by that of their wives, who find it all too easy to demand a divorce without having any sensible regard for the practical consequences either financially, or, most importantly for children.

Baroness Deech’s paper is not about “high value” divorces. It is about the issues which arise in “ordinary” divorces and an attempt to analyse the causes and suggest some measures which might provide better solutions. There is, I think, a moral message too: I would summarise it as a need for the law to better recognise a duty falling on spouses and parents to take reponsibility for their actions, especially where not doing so imposes a cost on their children, each other, and the taxpayer. This is not to say that every marriage must be maintained at all costs, but merely that it can be too easy to end a marriage without good reasons for doing so.

Probably because the Court is not meant to assign blame for the divorce and does not expect the woman to deliver on her promises.

“The husband is not going to see any money until the children leave home, as often as not; the wife is going to be living for years to come in the knowledge that one day the husband will have to receive some money because there is no way she can afford to buy him out at this stage. In other words, a problem is saved up for the future. In the meantime, the husband pays child maintenance only because that is all he can realistically afford.”

I.e. The husband is left homeless and paying child maintenance (with no account taken of the former wife’s income level for CSA child maintenance) and has to provide himeself with a home!