Divorce experts back no-fault divorces

93% of Stowe Family Law’s divorce experts back no-fault divorces.

In February, we undertook an in-house research project at Stowe Family Law to gauge opinions from our expert divorce lawyers on reforming divorce laws in England and Wales.

And the results were in resounding favour of reform with 85% off those questioned backing calls for major change.

On the call for the development of a no-fault divorce, the results again were strongly in favour with 93% of our experts backing this change.

In the case of no-fault divorce, this research is particularly relevant with the Owens v Owens case being heard at the Supreme Court tomorrow. A case that will seek to shift the need to establish some sort of blame before a divorce is granted.

Having to seek blame can often lead to greater conflict even if their original split was amicable. The introduction of ‘no-fault’ divorce is an obvious step to help minimise distress and conflict between divorcing parents and children.

The research also revealed:

91% felt the current divorce laws did nothing to minimize distress and conflict between divorcing parents

If no-fault divorce introduced, the minimum qualifying separation period should be six months

76% said existing facts such as adultery should continue to exist

50% said a no-fault divorce would have been beneficial to more than half of their cases

There have been calls to reform divorce laws in England and Wales for many years. Marriage, families and relationships have changed. Divorce legislation needs to catch up.

 

 

Stowe Family Law Web Team

View more from this author

1 comment

Tony - May 16, 2018 at 9:46pm

This is an unsurprising continuation of an extraordinary vested-interest campaign.

In the circus which family law represents, it could surprise few of those “consumers” (or consumed) who have been through the process – to see a majority of the industry (it isn’t a profession, it lacks the characteristics of the latter such as honesty and absence of self-interest) wanting to see a process of further reducing their adherence to what Parliament has ordained. Maybe that is what this article means by “Divorce Experts”? Manipulation by “Divorce Experts” has led the public to some terrible strife and disharmony and along the path towards marginalisation of the research-proven values of a stable society.

Remember that inconvenient thing called Parliament?? Remember the “Separation of Powers” doctrine upon which the Rule of Law is hypothetically founded, and that lost concept of honesty in the (matrimonial) Courts?? It is not for lawyers to comment upon no-fault divorce becoming UNIVERSAL for all marriage-conclusion (even if fine for those situations where both parties freely elect for it).

The old principle is for Parliament to be guided by the people – those citizens of the Clapham Omnibus. The problem as regards “divorce on demand” is that it has been introduced by specific elders of a flatulent industry who hide under silly wigs and behind silly archaic language. Reference the Divorce Capital of the World, London, I refer to a judiciary selected under the Buggins-turn procedure from those London Barristers who have earned a handsome living from exactly the solicitor firms wanting to push the boundaries of matrimonial greed (from either sex). The vanity of “judicial discretion” is a convenient mechanism for the disparity between those of the judiciary wanting to sustain the Rule of Law (including separation-on-demand rather than divorce-on-demand where Parliament’s prescription ordains that as appropriate) and those who feel they have favours to pay back (namely their thoroughly lucrative careers) by way of pushing greed-beyond-need (in the absence of reality of unreasonable behaviour, which Parliament has ordained as the proper Litmus test) to new limits.

The concurrent target of the greedy “Divorce Experts” is those couples who have wisely avoided marriage in favour of cohabiting so that a relationship can be formed and developed between 2 people, avoiding the wigs (and most especially the avarice of certain firms of solicitors). Surely Nobody has been handcuffed into cohabiting? Yes of course there needs to be a parallel set of legal principles to protect the rights and needs of CHILDREN of cohabitees – but that is a standalone principle.

If and when Parliament legislates for divorce on demand, then lawyers might have some useful contribution about how to implement such an extraordinary concept. Until then – leave it to the people to make their voice heard by guiding Parliament to the people’s will. Lord Justice Thomas Bingham – please come back and sort the matrimonial division.

Leave a comment