Subscribe now

News

More in this category:

Disastrous divorce plans get go-ahead

May 2019 | by Mike Judge

The Government has announced it will press ahead with disastrous plans to make divorce quicker and easier.

The announcement was made following the results of a public consultation, even though 83 per cent of respondents were opposed to the central proposal.

The Government attempted to hide the responses from the public, saying that a majority of ‘family justice professionals’ back the plans.

But more than eight out of ten of all respondents were against the proposal to remove the ability to contest a divorce as a general rule.

Those who disagreed with the proposal argued that it would seem unjust if one party was not given a voice or provided with an opportunity to ‘fight for the marriage’.

They suggested that the law should ensure that no single party has unilateral power to end a marriage.

Others who objected felt that this change would make divorce too easy, enabling unfair desertion and risking the well-being of those who are sick, poor or old, or other ‘innocent parties’.

In the House of Commons Fiona Bruce MP asked the Government, ‘Is it acceptable that the Government have felt able to discount the views of 80 per cent of those who responded to their proposed divorce law changes, simply because many objected to them?’

Responding for the Government Andrea Leadsom said, that whilst they would take account of all opinions, they were minded to move ahead with their plans to change the divorce laws.

The Coalition for Marriage said the plans would be a ‘cheater’s charter’. The organisation said the Government’s plans would allow ‘cheating or bored spouses to walk away from a solemn, lifelong commitment whenever they choose and with the full support, and even encouragement, of the state’.

The proposal ‘could see a person divorced, have their access to their children ended, their assets divided and themselves removed from their home by court order, all despite being faithful to their marriage vows’.

Mike Judge, editor