Now, a divorce lawyer has told Express.co.uk why the bill is significant, and what it leaves to be desired. Currently, couples must be able to list one of three reasons as to why they are seeking a divorce – adultery, unreasonable behaviour, or desertion – or otherwise prove they have lived apart for up to five years.
And what’s more, one spouse may effectively veto the proceedings altogether, which can further delay the process.
But the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill will do away with these requirements, enabling divorce proceedings to go ahead without a particular reason being given, and even if one spouse disagrees.
The bill was voted through its first Commons debate with a comfortable pass – 231 votes to 16 against.
Even so, a number of Conservative MPs have voiced concerns about the bill – namely that it will lead to a greater number of divorces.
But Jane McDonagh, head of family law at Simons Muirhead Burton LLP, says that the bill is overdue and might reduce the negative stigma surrounding divorces more generally.
“For a long time now [the new law] has been overdue,” McDonagh told Express.co.uk. “I think we need to do what we can to make it easier and oil the wheels for couples to get divorced once they’ve made that decision, rather than attribute blame which increases stigma, I think.”
McDonagh believes that the current system – of having to attribute some sort of blame on a spouse in order for proceedings to begin – can set a heavy emotional tone for the rest of the discussions involving, for example, children or money.
“I feel, from the lawyer’s point of view, that we’re doing a disservice to ask them to have that kind of conversations with their spouse at a time when, actually, they might not want to revisit who said what to whom.”
Forcing couples to blame each other – even if the split is mutual – can understandably cause issues, and for McDonagh it means asking them to go and discuss past behaviour to find something that they might rely on as worthy for causing divorce.
“It’s clunky, and it’s far from ideal, and it’s an unpleasant way to start the whole process,” she added.
One thing the bill will do away with is allowing one spouse to delay divorce proceedings by objecting to them. One high profile case involved Tini Owens, a Worcestershire woman who was “devastated” by a Supreme Court decision in 2018 that meant she would have to remain married to husband Hugh for two more years despite yearning for a divorce, because Hugh refused the split.
McDonagh said: “[The Owens case] just showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that if somebody is actually determined to defend against the divorce then it can cause huge problems.”
Source Link
Picture Source :
