Changing the Law?

Tim

What you need to understand is that all law in this land is based on a single tenant, to be fair, what you suggest is to take and end result and not why or how it occurred, this could never happen here, nor should it ever happen.

Both the marital causes act and the childrens act underpin the needs of children, why?, because they are innocents and vulnerable, i find it hard to belief any parent would disagree with this.

So we have a woman commits adultery, with your idea the court take the children and give them and all assets to dad, but what if dad works?, what if he can`t afford to stop working and be a stay at home dad, but far more importantly what do the kids want to happen?, of course kids want a mum and a dad, but if they have to live with mum or dad or share surely their thoughts and needs are paramount, if mum went astray and the court say well your now living with your dad but they want to live with mum your punishing the kids for what their mum did, how could that ever be right?.

In fault based law which is what you propose i know of no law which will accept the event without considering cause, 1000 years ago yes, if you were seized stealing a dear from the kings land you were hung, i would like to think we have evolved a little since then, today the fact that you were trying to feed your starving family would be a mitigating circumstance.


Think of it this way, the law says you cannot assault another person and courts have guidelines when sentencing.

A bloke punches another guy in the face breaking his nose, actual bodily harm, do you send him away for 18 months full stop?, or do you consider why he did it?, does he have a violent history? does he have a mental health issue?, what if the guy was walking home from work corners the road and finds a man beating a woman to the floor, the woman is hurt, he can`t pull this man from his frenzied attack, so he hits him breaking his nose, event and cause, be fair.

What is suggested is indeed very simple, but far too simple, and far from just in anyway, there are many problems in law, many do their damnedest to try and improve things which is commendable, but what is suggested can never happen nor will it, if it did i would move to a country with a more even approach, North Korea, China, Maybe Yemen.

Hi Charles,

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


I think it was more of an example than Charles situation, though i almost fell of my chair when i read it

tim waits wrote:

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.

For clarification, I gave an example rather than a personal account!

On a more serious note you "guess" that the "vast" majority of adultery cases are "much" less complex than the one I describe really ensures that your proposals fall at the first hurdle.

Replacing a legal framework with something that is less cumbersome without a thought for the complexities will reduce rather than increase fairness. Sure, the process of law will speed up but at the cost of justice.

Imagine the law as a series of house bricks. I am not a builder so I can see merit in making much larger bricks rather than spend time laying 8,000 bricks for a 3 bedroom detached.

Just think, if you made bricks that were 20 feet square with the same depth as a regular brick, you would only need 4 bricks to make a house. 8 if you want cavity walls. Fewer bricks still in terraced or semi-detached houses.

However, such a simple process does not account for windows, curves, doors etc. What you gain in simplicity, you sacrifice in flexibility. And so goes the law.

A small hammer will do the same as a large hammer albeit somewhat slower. A large hammer does not have the finesse of a small hammer thus it smashes the holy-heck out of most things.

I agree with your sentiment but not your solution.

Charles

Hi Dukey.

I would agree that fairness should be at the core of the debate but reach a different conclusion.

I see our curent divorce system as being as unfair as I guess you view some of those totalitarian states you mention.

Being told by the state that you can see your children every two weeks and that you are entitled only to a portion of your assets because your partner wants out - is as far as I am concerned anything but fair.

The fact of the matter is that the Law as it stands could not gove a toss about the motivation, or CAUSE as you put it, of your partners desertion, only the end result.

I absolutely believe that childrens position is paramount but again reach a different conclusion. You give rights but not the obligation to the remaining parent and children of course have their say at an agreed level of maturity.

In my proposed system the law puts down some pretty clear markers on desertion, violence and adultery. I''m not quite so naive as to believe there will not be exceptions to these markers -bi-polar may well be one of them! -, but I would bet that they were just that, exceptions and not the norm.

Just out of interest, how would your proposed system define "violence"? Would an actual physical act of violence have to occur, or would the current government definition of domestic violence be used (in which many different forms of behaviour are classed as domestic violence)?

Nobody has mentioned my legal metaphor using 4 bricks. Je suis déçu

Tim, you are correct that the law does not get involved in the emotional aspect of divorce as the law deals with the issues of divorce and finances as a ''transaction'' only. Emotions defy logic and are not a trustworthy guide for the exercise of law.

The issue of children is slightly different and the views of the children, if they are old enough, or the views of experts who advocate on behalf of those children are used to deal with those issues.

What you propose is a less harsh system of stoning adulterers to death.

In a modern society we cannot criminalise acts that are not worthy. Adultery is an unfortunate by-product of an unsuccessful marriage - it is not an issue that should deny leave you financially destitute or deny your children of contact to their parent.

Go back a hundred years or less and people paid others to murder their spouse or did the deed themselves (poison was popular) as to be widowed was more acceptable rather than be outed as an adulterer. We have moved on from those times and we are a better society for it.

Charles

Hi Tim, would just like to come in on this to query how, under your proposed system, physiological abuse would be viewed. I am getting out of my marriage on that basis, I took it until the same methods were turned on our son.

Neither my son or I has physical bruises or damaage and to most people my stbx is an ''ok guy''. I can''t prove what was happening, never will be able to and it took me years to recognise - only when my son was threatened by it did I finally wise up and accept the fact of abuse. There are a lot of cases like this on the site - maybe you should read up on them.

So, on the basis of your proposals, I leave, I get nothing and my son stays with an emotionally abusive father.

The world isnt black and white Tim. Sorry if you had a hard time and you felt the systems was totally unfair but it is there for everyone and however something looks to the world outside no every case is straight forward and - black and white.

You still sound very bitter, whatever your situation you have an opportunity to move on a create a new life. Take that opportunity and whilst doing that respect that fact that there are many reasons people have to take the course they do .........