Divorce: Reform of the 15th Amendment

MadsL

The SSM referendum result is fantastic step forward for modern Ireland; however the 15th Amendment is now 20 years old, in my view there is a strong argument for removing the inhumane restrictions on divorce in Ireland and introducing mutually agreed, affordable, simple and relative fast no-fault divorce.

The 15th Amendment imposes a considerable amount of expense, pain and in many cases a sense of limbo on couples who wish to separate. Time to bring Irish law in line with other countries?

A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that—
i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

This notion that Ireland must always be in line with other countries really gets my goat. Why? Are all laws elsewhere more perfect? Why not align with US law and let us all carry guns and have the death penalty. Let's charge huge amounts for 3rd level education. Why don't we let the unemployed fend for themselves? Sorry off topic but because others do something doesn't make them right.

On the poll: nay, let it stand.

The_Valeyard

Inhumane restrictions?


I think it helps stops sham or visa marriages. Also, we won't end up like Americans and marriage.

My name is URL

Lylah Melted Bedbug wrote: »

This notion that Ireland must always be in line with other countries really gets my goat. Why? Are all laws elsewhere more perfect? Why not align with US law and let us all carry guns and have the death penalty. Let's charge huge amounts for 3rd level education. Why don't we let the unemployed fend for themselves? Sorry off topic but because others do something doesn't make them right.

On the poll: nay, let it stand.

That would be right up Mads' street

MadsL

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Inhumane restrictions?

Do you think it fair to wait 5 years to marry again after a mutually agreed divorce?
Also are you aware that a divorcee whose divorce was in another country cannot marry in Ireland without permission from their ex?

I think it helps stops sham or visa marriages. Also, we won't end up like Americans and marriage.

Explain how the 5 year rule prevents sham marriages?? Confused???

The_Valeyard

MadsL wrote: »

Do you think it fair to wait 5 years to marry again after a mutually agreed divorce?
Also are you aware that a divorcee whose divorce was in another country cannot marry in Ireland without permission from their ex?

Yes.

Explain how the 5 year rule prevents sham marriages?? Confused???

so someone cannot legally get married, again, and again, and again, and aagain.....for profit.

SmilesInMass

Could we not just do away with marriage altogether?

RobertKK

What we need are legal pre-nuptial agreements.

strelok

americans divorce more often because quite a few of them get married at ludicrously young ages. it has **** all to do with the ease of getting a divorce

The_Valeyard

SmilesInMass wrote: »

Could we not just do away with marriage altogether?

Would save me a lot of money each summer.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

MadsL wrote: »

Explain how the 5 year rule prevents sham marriages?? Confused???

No you're not.

MadsL

The_Valeyard wrote:

so someone cannot legally get married, again, and again, and again, and aagain.....for profit.

So the 99.9% of genuine cases should be punished to prevent the 0,1% of abuses?

How big is this problem your draconian measure isn't solving?

wp_rathead

RobertKK wrote: »

What we need are legal pre-nuptial agreements.

Rare enough I agree with you Rob, but you're dead right here

Teyla Emmagan

Yeah, I think the waiting period should be shortened. 4 or 5 years is an eternity to wait when you want to get on with your life. And with all the people who can't afford to live apart now if their relationship ends, I guess they're still classed as 'living together' when it comes to judging the waiting period? I actually had thought it was even longer than that, but in my opinion about 2 years would be more than fair.

NachoBusiness

Lylah Melted Bedbug wrote: »

This notion that Ireland must always be in line with other countries really gets my goat.

Resisting reformation of the 15th Amendment is pointless. If your goat wants to leave, she will.

SeanW

Lylah Melted Bedbug wrote: »

This notion that Ireland must always be in line with other countries really gets my goat. Why? Are all laws elsewhere more perfect? Why not align with US law and let us all carry guns and have the death penalty. Let's charge huge amounts for 3rd level education. Why don't we let the unemployed fend for themselves? Sorry off topic but because others do something doesn't make them right.

On the poll: nay, let it stand.

I have a friend who is in precisely this predicament. His marriage collapsed about a year or two ago, yet he's still "married" to the ex even though their relationship is over, full stop, and they're stuck in this state of affairs for years to come. What's the point?

so someone cannot legally get married, again, and again, and again, and aagain.....for profit.

There are ways to deal with sham marriages. There are plenty of things the government could do, but they're too busy pandering to bank bondholders, Eurocrats, radical feminists, Islamists and other assorted vermin to give a damn.

Besides there plenty of other ways illegals can abuse the immigration system, sham marriages are just one of many.

osarusan

I don't really see why people want to look at this from the context of aping America, or else not wanting to be aping America.

Just look at the current situation on its own merits.

The current period outlined in (i) seems very long - I'd say that it could definitely be shortened significantly to say 18 months or even a year, in the even that both parties are satisfied that no reconciliation is possible at that time.

Junglewoman

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Yeah, I think the waiting period should be shortened. 4 or 5 years is an eternity to wait when you want to get on with your life. And with all the people who can't afford to live apart now if their relationship ends, I guess they're still classed as 'living together' when it comes to judging the waiting period? I actually had thought it was even longer than that, but in my opinion about 2 years would be more than fair.

You can occupy the same home and live separate lives. This doesn't impact on the waiting period. You just need an approximate date when the marriage broke down. This is what happened in my case.

Not a NSA agent

If 2 people what to get a divorce I dont see what is achieved by dragging it out.

What we currently have was probably just to appease the "traditional family" folk

MadsL

Lylah Melted Bedbug wrote: »

This notion that Ireland must always be in line with other countries really gets my goat. Why? Are all laws elsewhere more perfect?

So your objection is that Ireland should be 'different'? Ireland has quite the long tail when it comes to social reform. Let's examine that against our nearest neighbour and most closely aligned legal code, the UK

Abortion: Still mostly illegal vs 1967
Same sex marriage: 2015 vs 2013
Same sex civil partnerships: 2010 vs 2004
Decriminalisation of homosexuality: 1993 vs 1967 (!)
Birth control (pill): 1961 vs 1980

Could you explain why delaying these type of social reform practices benefits the Irish people, unless of course you are arguing that you do not support such reforms.

Why not align with US law and let us all carry guns and have the death penalty. Let's charge huge amounts for 3rd level education. Why don't we let the unemployed fend for themselves? Sorry off topic but because others do something doesn't make them right.

You are aware that the death penalty was finally consitutionally abolished only in 2001, some 16 US states had already abolished it at that point and currently 20 states have no death penalty. As for guns, every citizen in Ireland may apply for a gun license to legally hold a firearm.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

MadsL wrote: »

So your objection is that Ireland should be 'different'?


currently 20 states have no death penalty. .

Ah No! Not what I said, and you know it. I did not object to an amendment on those grounds at all but said this constant argument that we should follow the rules elsewhere is most annoying and not a valid reason to do anything.

I could go on all night about social inequality in the USA, having spent many years there, but I couldn't be bothered. Suffice to say I experienced their education and health services. As for growing old there......

Gee 20 states with no death penalty...now let me see...how many states are there? 50, isn't it?

MadsL

Lylah Melted Bedbug wrote: »

Ah No! Not what I said, and you know it. I did not object to an amendment on those grounds at all but said this constant argument that we should follow the rules elsewhere is most annoying and not a valid reason to do anything.

I could go on all night about social inequality in the USA, having spent many years there, but I couldn't be bothered. Suffice to say I experienced their education and health services. As for growing old there......

Gee 20 states with no death penalty...now let me see...how many states are there? 50, isn't it?

So your sole argument for not reforming the 15A is because 30 states in the US have the death penalty. Wow. That's a stretch.

Why is it fine as it is? Because you get annoyed that people say that other countries are more progressive? How about you try and address the fact that there is not a simple civil method of divorce that citizens can use instead of the courts. Do you object to that?

How about debating the issue instead of throwing red herrings around?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

You're the one raised social reform.

Look forget it. You are picking what you choose and ignoring everything else.

Goodnight, I'm up early to take the grandkids to the Zoo.

MadsL

Lylah Melted Bedbug wrote: »

You're the one raised social reform.

Look forget it. You are picking what you choose and ignoring everything else.

Goodnight, I'm up early to take the grandkids to the Zoo.

Ignoring what? Unless you really can show that these type of reforms leads Ireland to a path of social inequality as you claim, then I'm really only ignoring a very spurious reason to oppose reform.

zeffabelli

Yep it should be changed.

Now you have situations where people are still legally married but have started new families with new partners.

This combined with the cohabitation bill creates what is essentially a polygamous culture.

And then within that you have people who are still married, but have also split from ex cohabitees and end up with multiple an conflicting obligations.

Pherekydes

MadsL wrote: »

Also are you aware that a divorcee whose divorce was in another country cannot marry in Ireland without permission from their ex?

Not true. I remarried here without permission from my ex. With a decree absolute you are completely legally sundered from your ex.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Ìt should definitely be changed. A year or 18 months should be plenty long.

It says there "at the institution of proceedings" so does that mean if there's a dispute over assets or custody or anything that can only be begun to be dealt with after four years??? Scuse my ignorance

MadsL

Pherekydes wrote: »

Not true. I remarried here without permission from my ex. With a decree absolute you are completely legally sundered from your ex.

What country were you divorced in? The process from an EU country is accepted, however elsewhere the General Registrar requires significant documentation:

Where the divorce comes within EU regulations, it is sufficient to confirm that both parties to the divorce were notified of the proceedings and had an opportunity to give evidence to the court which granted the divorce.

- Where EU regulations do not apply, certain information as to place of birth, countries of residence and other relevant facts must be supplied on a questionnaire provided by the Registrar. The information is then forwarded to the General Register Office, whose consent must be obtained before the ceremony can take place.

In my own case the Registrar wanted an affidavit from my wife that her ex-husband acknowledged the divorce: since she no longer knows where he lives this blocked us getting married in the Republic as we could not obtain the necessary documentation. This effectively means that the ex can prevent the spouse from remarrying in Ireland. The UK has no such requirement and we married in NI.

darkpagandeath

The_Valeyard wrote: »

so someone cannot legally get married, again, and again, and again, and aagain.....for profit.

Links to facts on this one please.

darkpagandeath

Lylah Melted Bedbug wrote: »

This notion that Ireland must always be in line with other countries really gets my goat. Why? Are all laws elsewhere more perfect? Why not align with US law and let us all carry guns and have the death penalty. Let's charge huge amounts for 3rd level education. Why don't we let the unemployed fend for themselves? Sorry off topic but because others do something doesn't make them right.

On the poll: nay, let it stand.

Sure everyone else has water charges that's the reason we are getting them. :pac:

Jayop

I hate the fact that there has to be a guilty party in divorce and that a couple that want to split up have to go though a really arduous drawn out process. If people don't want to be together don't try to force them. It shouldn't be the easiest thing in the world and there should be a period of separation but 4/5 years is too much.

Pherekydes

MadsL wrote: »

What country were you divorced in? The process from an EU country is accepted, however elsewhere the General Registrar requires significant documentation:

I was married the first time and divorced in the UK. My wife (current model) was married here and divorced in the UK. Once the GRO verified our documents we were free to marry here. Without permission from exes.

Massimo Cassagrande

Divorce and abortion. The two issues that just.keep.fcuking.dragging.us.back.to.the.fifties.

It's 2015, get with the bloody programme Ireland.

mailforkev

Why is it so much harder to get divorced than it is to get married? Three months versus five years. Never really understood that.

I'd suspect many that would vote to keep it at five years would also vote to get rid of divorce at all. Social dinosaurs.

darkpagandeath

mailforkev wrote: »

Why is it so much harder to get divorced than it is to get married? Three months versus five years. Never really understood that.

I'd suspect many that would vote to keep it at five years would also vote to get rid of divorce at all. Social dinosaurs.

I'm going with Sky wizards on this one.

MadsL

Pherekydes wrote:

I was married the first time and divorced in the UK. My wife (current model) was married here and divorced in the UK. Once the GRO verified our documents we were free to marry here. Without permission from exes.

Being an EU citizen has some advantages. Not the same for non-EU cases.

MadsL

MadsL wrote:

Being an EU citizen has some advantages. Not the same for non-EU cases.

Actually quite a good reason not to do the marry on a tropical beach thing. A friend had terrible child custody problems for this reason.

Victor

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

And with all the people who can't afford to live apart now if their relationship ends, I guess they're still classed as 'living together' when it comes to judging the waiting period?

the 4 years is about the relationship, not about the address.

Cool Mo D

Jayop wrote: »

I hate the fact that there has to be a guilty party in divorce and that a couple that want to split up have to go though a really arduous drawn out process. If people don't want to be together don't try to force them. It shouldn't be the easiest thing in the world and there should be a period of separation but 4/5 years is too much.

The process is too long, but divorce in Ireland is no-fault. There is no guilty party necessary (legally speaking).

FishOnABike

Jayop wrote: »

I hate the fact that there has to be a guilty party in divorce and that a couple that want to split up have to go though a really arduous drawn out process. If people don't want to be together don't try to force them. It shouldn't be the easiest thing in the world and there should be a period of separation but 4/5 years is too much.

There does not have to be a guilty party in divorce. Ireland has 'no fault' divorce legislation. The requirements are :
(a) at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to,
at least four years during the previous five years,
(b) there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses, and
(c) such provision as the court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses and any
dependent members of the family,

It does not have to be arduous. If both parties can agree to the terms of their divorce it can be finalised with minimal cost and require very little of the court's time.

It is open to debate whether the 4 year qualifying or waiting time before one can apply for divorce is reasonable or not. The legislation is almost 20 years old now and was enacted in more conservative times.

The constitutional amendment which enabled divorce at the time would have had to strike a considered balance between the more liberal and conservative sections of Irish society. A 4 year waiting period was possibly seen at the time as a reasonable compromise to facilitate legislation which acknowledged the reality of marital breakdown.

Social values have changed in the past 20 years and the waiting time for divorce should possibly be looked at again, but as it is in the constitution, it would take a referendum to change.

Divorce is 'no fault' and need not be very arduous. It can be very simple and dealt with swiftly by the courts once the qualifying criteria are met.

SpaceTime

5 years is ridiculous.

Irish law spends way too much time attempting to regulate people's love lives and moralising and not nearly enough time on important things like regulating banks, preventing economic collapses and dealing with massive drugs problems!

Children obviously need to be adequately provided for and have access to their parents but where a couple have decided that their marriage is incapable of working, they're really the only people who can conclude that.

It's unbelievably patronising to force two fully capable individuals to go through 5 years of limbo just to be sure to be sure!

Also what about very abusive situations?

If your spouse is beating you up for example,
why shouldn't they be able to dissolve a marriage ASAP?!

Not a NSA agent

SpaceTime wrote: »

5 years is ridiculous.

Irish law spends way too much time attempting to regulate people's love lives and moralising and not nearly enough time on important things like regulating banks, preventing economic collapses and dealing with massive drugs problems!

Children obviously need to be adequately provided for and have access to their parents but where a couple have decided that their marriage is incapable of working, they're really the only people who can conclude that.

It's unbelievably patronising to force two fully capable individuals to go through 5 years of limbo just to be sure to be sure!

Also what about very abusive situations?

If your spouse is beating you up for example,
why shouldn't they be able to dissolve a marriage ASAP?!

Divorce wont stop a man from beating a woman, it just moves the problem remember? Hello divorce, bye bye daddy!

SpaceTime

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Divorce wont stop a man from beating a woman, it just moves the problem remember? Hello divorce, bye bye daddy!

No but it leaves someone unnecessarily tied to some psycho for 5 years for no reason other than it satisfies some moralising busybody who feels they've a right to force people to love each other.

Ireland is extremely backwards and conservative about a number of issues like this.

Incidentally, having had relatives in divorce situations it also makes things like mortgage and loan applications and foreign visa applications extremely messy.

So it's actually a lot more than just about getting remarried in a rush.

The persons ex gets to potentially dig the boot in for 5 years!

InTheTrees

Five years is insane. Absolutely crazy. It shouldn't take any longer than the legal proceedings to wrap up any contract.

Presumably it was some kind of compromise to make divorce acceptable when it was first introduced.

SpaceTime

Sure before 1995 if your marriage broke down here your only choice was emigration really.

I know several people who moved to the UK to obtain divorces and never came back.

Exile or sort of refugees in effect.

It's hard to imagine just how much Ireland changed since the 1990s

FishOnABike

Despite its age, our divorce legislation is progressive in that it is 'no fault'.

The 4 year waiting time may seem excessive to those in a marriage which neither wants to continue and where both people want legal closure and to move on with their lives.

Our nearest neighbour has a two year waiting period for a consent divorce and five years where there is not consent by both parties. In the UK Judicial Separation, while provided for, is very rare. Divorce is the preferred legal route to deal with marital breakdown.

Our Judicial Separation legislation allows for Judicial Separation after one year qualifying period if by consent and three if contested. Judicial Separation can essentially make orders on practically all the same matters as Divorce except for the dissolution of the marriage and right to remarry.

A subsequent divorce can frequently be no more than rubber stamping of the Ancillary Orders made in a Judicial Separation with a dissolution of the marriage and right to remarry.

There would be a good case for reviewing both Judicial Separation and Divorce legislation and rationalising the whole area of law. It seems irrational to give legal recognition to a couple's separation and make all the necessary ancillary orders after a year of living 'separate and apart' but not give legal recognition to the dissolution of their marriage and their right to remarry for another three years.

Without a referendum and change to the constitution there is nothing that can be done to the four year waiting time to apply for a divorce but other steps could be made to harmonise other aspects of our own Judicial Separation and Divorce laws.

Removing the fault based preconditions from the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act and mirroring the no fault criteria of the Family Law (Divorce) Act, with the exception of the qualifying time, might help reduce the level of acrimony in family law cases. There are enough similarities that both Acts could probably be merged into one.

Victor

SpaceTime wrote: »

5 years is ridiculous.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Five years is insane. Absolutely crazy.

If you bothered to read the thread or the constitution, you would see that it is 4 years (of the previous 5).

It shouldn't take any longer than the legal proceedings to wrap up any contract.

Some of which take years.

SpaceTime wrote: »

No but it leaves someone unnecessarily tied to some psycho for 5 years for no reason

You seem to be conveniently forgetting things like protection orders and legal separations.

arayess

MadsL wrote: »

Do you think it fair to wait 5 years to marry again after a mutually agreed divorce?
Also are you aware that a divorcee whose divorce was in another country cannot marry in Ireland without permission from their ex?



Explain how the 5 year rule prevents sham marriages?? Confused???

having gone through a divorce myself , I got to say the 5 year waiting period is ok - I believe it is that you've lived apart for 4 of the last 5 years and i see that as a good thing.

Stop people doing stuff on the rebound. multiple times.

It does stop people getting married for money multiple times too.

athtrasna

I'm coming to the end of the four years and I agree it's inhuman and unfair. Three months to get married and four years before you can even apply for a divorce. I am disgusted that my country has kept me in limbo for so long. This is the 21st century ffs, one year was long enough, four is just cruel.

The Corinthian

MadsL wrote: »

The SSM referendum result is fantastic step forward for modern Ireland; however the 15th Amendment is now 20 years old, in my view there is a strong argument for removing the inhumane restrictions on divorce in Ireland and introducing mutually agreed, affordable, simple and relative fast no-fault divorce.

Affordable divorce? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Jayop wrote: »

I hate the fact that there has to be a guilty party in divorce and that a couple that want to split up have to go though a really arduous drawn out process.

Ireland only has no fault divorce. Check your facts.

If people don't want to be together don't try to force them.

If people don't want to be 'forced' to stay together, then don't get married.

Marriage is supposed to be difficult to get out of. It's supposed to be a lifelong commitment. It is not supposed to be something you can jump into and if it doesn't work out you can jump out again and be free to jump into another 'lifelong' commitment.

Waiting 4 years to start a divorce, can't be easy, but it's not supposed to be. That's the whole point. You signed up to a binding contract for life and now you want out - well take a bit of responsibility for having made that choice and stop blubbering about how it's inhumane, because it's unlikely anyone forced you to do so at gunpoint.

Frankly, the whole institution has become nothing more than a temporary institution masquerading as a permanent one. A scam by the government to cut down on social welfare costs by making one adult, bizarrely, financially responsible for another for life. And, increasingly, a bad joke.

It may be a bit long at 5 years but it should under no circumstance be a quick process. Maybe something like 3 years otherwise its just making marriage a bit of a joke really if you can just get out of one at the drop of a hat.

People need to understand that marriage is supposed to be for life not just a temporary thing so don't get married if you don't intend it to be for life.