A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Lines open: Monday to Friday 9am-5pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info

Do you need help sorting out a fair financial settlement?

Our consultant service offers expert advice and support to help you reach agreement on a fair financial settlement quickly, and for less than a quarter of the cost of using a traditional high street solicitor.


Changing the Law?

  • tim waits
  • tim waits's Avatar Posted by
  • Premium Member
  • Premium Member
More
06 Feb 13 #378350 by tim waits
Reply from tim waits
Hi, I''m not convinced that being progressive is a reason in itself. If something is unjust it needs to be addressed.

  • dukey
  • dukey's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
06 Feb 13 #378353 by dukey
Reply from dukey
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".

  • tim waits
  • tim waits's Avatar Posted by
  • Premium Member
  • Premium Member
More
06 Feb 13 #378365 by tim waits
Reply from tim waits
Hi Rubytuesday

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.

  • tim waits
  • tim waits's Avatar Posted by
  • Premium Member
  • Premium Member
More
06 Feb 13 #378367 by tim waits
Reply from tim waits
Hi Dukey,

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.

What could be simpler?

  • rubytuesday
  • rubytuesday's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
06 Feb 13 #378368 by rubytuesday
Reply from rubytuesday
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).

I wish you well in you campaign.

  • .Charles
  • .Charles's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
06 Feb 13 #378379 by .Charles
Reply from .Charles
Here is a situation..

One person has bi-polar disorder which leads to hypersexuality which leads to adultery. That person might be caught in the act and adultery is proven.

Would there be an escape clause in the proposed new regime or would they lose everything, including their children, due to a medical condition over which they have limited or no control?

The devil is in the detail and Occam''s razor rarely applies to issues of law.

Charles

  • tim waits
  • tim waits's Avatar Posted by
  • Premium Member
  • Premium Member
More
06 Feb 13 #378382 by tim waits
Reply from tim waits
Hi Charles,

I don''t know anything about bi-polar so I can''t really comment on your situation.

My guess is that the VAST majority of cases of adultery are MUCH less complex that the one you describe.

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11