Are there any divorce lobby groups?

Monife

Hi all,

As you may be aware, the government will be holding a referendum in late May to remove the time period couples must be separated (currently 4 years) before they can seek a divorce. The Minister for Justice (Charles Flanagan) is then going to legislate the time period and set it at 2 years with no grounds for immediate divorce.

This sets Ireland at a major disadvantage compared to other neighbouring countries, for example:

- England and Wales - 2 year separation (but immediately due to adultery or unreasonable behaviour of one spouse),
- Scotland - 1 year separation (but immediately due to adultery or unreasonable behaviour),
- France - 2 year separation (but immediately due to the 'fault' of one partner or if there is mutual consent),
- Belgium - 6 month's separation (if by consent, otherwise 1 year),
- Italy - 6 month's separation,
- Portugal - 1 year separation (but immediately if there are any other facts that reveal a definitive breakdown of the marriage i.e. domestic violence or adultery).

I have wrote to the Taoiseach, Minister Flanagan, my local TD and TD Josepha Madigan (who originally proposed changing our divorce laws) in the hope that they remove the time limit completely or allow immediate divorce in certain cases.

I feel my plea is falling on deaf ears and am wondering if there are any divorce lobby groups or organisations that I could contact/join in the hope to light a fire under the government in relation to this issue.

Thanks.

Attol

I think those are really great points.

I don't understand why the wait is so long. It's not good for anyone involved to be stuck with that kind of link to someone when everything has irreparably broken down.

If you do find such a group I'd be interested in helping out too.

I know of too many people stuck in this horrible limbo right now.

UsBus

As someone who separated nearly 2 years ago, yes 4 years is absurd and should be changed.
I feel 2 years is okay, would be happy with 1 year as well. You can get a legal separation immediately if needed and you aren't going to be jumping into anything before that time period is up, if ever again..so a year or two wait is fine I think

Monife

UsBus wrote: »

As someone who separated nearly 2 years ago, yes 4 years is absurd and should be changed.
I feel 2 years is okay, would be happy with 1 year as well. You can get a legal separation immediately if needed and you aren't going to be jumping into anything before that time period is up, if ever again..so a year or two wait is fine I think

The wait is grand regarding getting into another marriage but it's dodgy if you come into money etc. My family want to gift me land to build a house on. I'm getting a legal separation but even though my solicitor has made it as airtight as possible, it's not a 100% until we actually divorce. He still could come after me for money/a share in that. Has little chance according to my solicitor, but doesn't have zero chance.

.......

2 years is still too long IMO.

People usually decide to divorce as a matter of last resort, making them wait a long time after they have already taken time to come to that decision is just ridiculous.

Make it the same as the period of time required before you can marry, 3 months.

Ken.

....... wrote: »

2 years is still too long IMO.

People usually decide to divorce as a matter of last resort, making them wait a long time after they have already taken time to come to that decision is just ridiculous.

Make it the same as the period of time required before you can marry, 3 months.

Still a big church hang up in Ireland. Has to be done in baby steps.

.......

Nosnon wrote: »

Still a big church hang up in Ireland. Has to be done in baby steps.

We are on a roll with marriage equality and abortion - oh and blasphemy!

Lets strike while the iron is hot!

listermint

....... wrote: »

2 years is still too long IMO.

People usually decide to divorce as a matter of last resort, making them wait a long time after they have already taken time to come to that decision is just ridiculous.

Make it the same as the period of time required before you can marry, 3 months.

I'd be quite socially liberal. And I wasn't married in a church either . But I think 3 months would be madness tbh. I still think that taking a marriage decision shouldn't be taken lightly . 2 years fine .1 year also fine. Nothing less for me.

Stheno

Monife wrote: »

The wait is grand regarding getting into another marriage but it's dodgy if you come into money etc. My family want to gift me land to build a house on. I'm getting a legal separation but even though my solicitor has made it as airtight as possible, it's not a 100% until we actually divorce. He still could come after me for money/a share in that. Has little chance according to my solicitor, but doesn't have zero chance.

Even after you divorce he could have a chance

Monife

Stheno wrote: »

Even after you divorce he could have a chance

True but it's a very very small chance once divorce is final.

Stheno

Monife wrote: »

True but it's a very very small chance once divorce is final.

Still something sho u ld be aware of divorce is not final here in terms of claims on assets

.......

listermint wrote: »

I'd be quite socially liberal. And I wasn't married in a church either . But I think 3 months would be madness tbh. I still think that taking a marriage decision shouldn't be taken lightly . 2 years fine .1 year also fine. Nothing less for me.

It strikes me as odd that it is so much easier to get into a marriage than get out of one.

Can you articulate what would be "madness" about it?

I dont understand what purpose waiting a year, 2 years, 4 years etc serves when people have decided that they want to divorce. What is the benefit in making them wait?

I can see a lot of issues with making them wait (and I have seen plenty of friends in strife because of it) but I genuinely do not see any benefit?

Xterminator

Hi OP

Marriage by civil ceremony is a civil contract. Marriage by certain religious and secular ceremonies is also recognised by civil law as being a civil contract.

there is a list of prerequisites before you are allowed to marry, eg you must no already be married must be of age etc. must have the capacity to consent etc. There is a clear defined process to allow divorce in law.

a marriage is a legal contract between 2 people. What you are asking is that we make it okay for one side to cancel a legal contract with no penalty with no waiting period or penalty etc. And lets face the fact the marriage and divorce has constitutional status that would prevent the government from changing the law, as it would require a referendum, and the text would have to be acceptable to the majority of voters in the ROI. so not only would the government need to be minded to make the change but they would have to be reasonable certain the measure would carry. And while some people would accept perhaps a compromise of 2 years would be acceptable - you have the militants who wont accept any restrictions.

i wonder how they would feel if the bank could cancel tracker mortgages unilaterally because they don't love their customer anymore?

OP you don't have to get married. But if you choose to enter into marriage my advice would be that you are aware or should make yourself aware of the terms of any contract you are entering into. You cannot expect to unilaterally change the terms of a contract after the fact.

Monife

Xterminator wrote: »

OP you don't have to get married. But if you choose to enter into marriage my advice would be that you are aware or should make yourself aware of the terms of any contract you are entering into. You cannot expect to unilaterally change the terms of a contract after the fact.

There is no contract, I signed a marriage certificate yes, but there is no actual contract.

And that's all well and good, I could be the most responsible and savvy person and go in with my eyes wide open, but there are two people in a marriage, and you can't control the other.

My ex husband had multiple affairs and produced two affair children. The "contract" should be null and void in my case but it's not.

jimmycrackcorm

Xterminator wrote:

i wonder how they would feel if the bank could cancel tracker mortgages unilaterally because they don't love their customer anymore?

Your analogy is incorrect.
If a marriage is over then its over for both.
How would you feel about your tracker if the bank offered a large write-down in exchange for giving it up?

Xterminator

my analogy is for when one spouse decides they want a divorce unilaterally & is accurate.

obviously there is more than one type of breakup, some are mutual, some can be amicable. your analogy is closer to that scenario. depends on the circumstances.

However if you look at divorce in america, the two parties are not always considered equally. Where one has more wealth they can get better legal representation etc. your suggestion would be going down the slippery slope where one party could offer a chunk of money to another party who might be in financial difficulty to agree to their demands. I would not like to see ireland move in the direction of prenuptial agreements etc.

Monife

Xterminator wrote: »

I would not like to see ireland move in the direction of prenuptial agreements etc.

Why not? Surely people should be allowed protect themselves. Why should one spouse be entitled to a share of wealth they never contributed to? (Once they are properly provided for, and any children are)

jimmycrackcorm

Xterminator wrote: »

my analogy is for when one spouse decides they want a divorce unilaterally & is accurate.

obviously there is more than one type of breakup, some are mutual, some can be amicable. your analogy is closer to that scenario. depends on the circumstances.

However if you look at divorce in america, the two parties are not always considered equally. Where one has more wealth they can get better legal representation etc. your suggestion would be going down the slippery slope where one party could offer a chunk of money to another party who might be in financial difficulty to agree to their demands. I would not like to see ireland move in the direction of prenuptial agreements etc.

I cannot understand the logic of one partner trying to force the other to stay in the marriage unwillingly.

In what circumstances do you consider this to be a good thing?

decky1

How much does it cost to get a divorce?

Monife

decky1 wrote: »

How much does it cost to get a divorce?

How long is a piece of string? It depends if it's amicable or not. My legal separation is costing about 3 grand (incl. VAT) and divorce will cost about the same once nothing is contested. No kids, and we are going down the route of what's mine is mine, what's yours is yours.

cnocbui

listermint wrote: »

I'd be quite socially liberal. And I wasn't married in a church either . But I think 3 months would be madness tbh. I still think that taking a marriage decision shouldn't be taken lightly . 2 years fine .1 year also fine. Nothing less for me.

Have you ever been through an acrimonious marriage breakdown?

bcklschaps

Monife wrote: »

The wait is grand regarding getting into another marriage but it's dodgy if you come into money etc. My family want to gift me land to build a house on. I'm getting a legal separation but even though my solicitor has made it as airtight as possible, it's not a 100% until we actually divorce. He still could come after me for money/a share in that. Has little chance according to my solicitor, but doesn't have zero chance.

Even after a divorce the financial settlement part including maintenance payments etc. of that divorce can be re-visited should one or both parties financial circumstances change dramatically.


I don't know if there is a time limit on that and I don't know exactly what would constitute a dramatically changed financial circumstance. That would presumably be upto a judge to decide.


Ironically this was something feminists argued strongly for at the time.


Maybe what's good for the goose, is good for the gander :-)

Monife

bcklschaps wrote: »

Even after a divorce the financial settlement part including maintenance payments etc. of that divorce can be re-visited should one or both parties financial circumstances change.

Luckily my ex and I remained completely financially independent throughout our marriage and considering how our marriage broke down, my solicitor said he would be laughed out of court if he came looking for maintenance. The judge might award him a share in my death in service benefits or a spouse's pension if I die after retirement, but it's only based on how much pension was built up during the marriage, 5 years worth, so it wouldn't bother me too much if I had to concede to that.

cnocbui

bcklschaps wrote: »

Even after a divorce the financial settlement part including maintenance payments etc. of that divorce can be re-visited should one or both parties financial circumstances change dramatically.


I don't know if there is a time limit on that and I don't know exactly what would constitute a dramatically changed financial circumstance. That would presumably be upto a judge to decide.


Ironically this was something feminists argued strongly for at the time.


Maybe what's good for the goose, is good for the gander :-)

Think again. My lawyer insisted that was the case - the judge thought otherwise.