Ok, before we had this system we had what Mr Mike was talking about, trial`s, in other words the court looked for who was at fault, who ruined the marriage, who was to blame, do you get the idea?.
These trials were in court with a judge, they took time and cost a fortune, the net result was financial ruin and much bitterness, its before my time but required reading when learning law.
So lets look at a basic example, you find your wife is being unfaithful, you petition
court on a fault basis, it goes to trial, you can prove beyond reasonable doubt she is having an affair, but her defence is you are distant, cold, unloving, withheld erm sex, so who is at fault here, did you drive this woman into the arms of another man? (i`m not talking about you Tim) who is the judge to rule?, in the bad old days the adultery
was key, but lets face it there are two sides to every story, happily married people don`t divorce.
To some extent divorce (only divorce not the money side) is still fault based, if you commit adultery
or its unreasonable behaviour then the erring person can be made to pay the legal costs of the "innocent".
I did put over my own view of the children''s perspective in the initial mail. From what I have seen children would prefer for both parents to stay together. Failing that they seem to be remarkably adaptable. In my system the children, would also benefit far more financially as the responsible parent would take all the financial assets and still receive support from the departing parent.
I may have missed your point but in the system I propose there would be no need to search fow WHAT CAUSED the adultery
. Thus obviating need for lengthy trials. Give the judge proof that your wife/husband bedded the football team and the case is over. He/she loses the money and the kids.
I think you need to read the posts by LittleMrMike and Dukey again - you are making things very black and white, when in actual fact, there numerous shades of grey in-between.
I can see many flaws in your arguments, and nothing to convince me that a] this would work in practice and b] this would put the interests of the children first.
The problem with wanting to change anything, not just the law of the land, based on one''s own personal experience is that it those who do are looking at the situation from one perspective only - their own. (for example, many of the speeches in the Commons last night on the Marriage(same sex couples) Bill did just this).