Divorce Referendum

Brussels Sprout

On the same day as the local and European elections (Friday May 24th) the electorate will also be asked to vote on a referendum for the proposed 38th amendment of the constitution, i.e. the Divorce Referendum.

I know that the same-sex marriage and Abortion referenda were a lot more high-profile issues but I have heard absolutely nothing about this and haven't seen any posters up about it.

Is it seen as a done deal and nobody is bothering to campaign much about it?

Also, why did they not consider removing the issue of divorce entirely from the constitution, as they did with the Abortion issue, and allow for it to be dealt with through legislation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2016

salmocab

My understanding is they planning to remove the time scale from the constitution and let the government set legislation for it. Maybe I misunderstood to be fair.
It’s a fairly non contentious issue so I’d imagine nobody is too bothered about pushing it.

Just nipped to the shop and FG lads are sticking vote yes on a pile of lampposts

ILoveYourVibes

I knew about it.

I'll be voting yes.


I know people who have been waiting for a divorce longer than they were married!

Seth Brundle

I know people who were married and divorced abroad but cannot get married here because we currently don't recoognise their divorce.
In addition, their exs can show up here and demand financial support.

pixelburp

Seems like an administrative referendum than anything, closing off loopholes and tightening the law to be more accommodating to couples; I presume this has universal support from all parties, and the Rónán Mullens of this world are staying out of the conversation? Taking a public 'no' stance would presumably be seen as a fairly petty, vindictive stance against something already in the law books...

L1011

pixelburp wrote: »

Seems like an administrative referendum than anything, closing off loopholes and tightening the law to be more accommodating to couples; I presume this has universal support from all parties, and the Rónán Mullens of this world are staying out of the conversation? Taking a public 'no' stance would presumably be seen as a fairly petty, vindictive stance against something already in the law books...

Iona are opposing it. Which is not a surprise!

pixelburp

L1011 wrote: »

Iona are opposing it. Which is not a surprise!

I'm actually genuinely surprised; what's the thinking behind their opposition? I'm scarcely a PR expert but I'd have thought opposing this would just make the group/person appear a bit spiteful or petty, against a law already enacted & functioning.

Seth Brundle

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm actually genuinely surprised; what's the thinking behind their opposition? I'm scarcely a PR expert but I'd have thought opposing this would just make the group/person appear a bit spiteful or petty, against a law already enacted & functioning.

Presumably their closeness to the RCC means that they simply must have an anti-divorce outlook.

L1011

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm actually genuinely surprised; what's the thinking behind their opposition? I'm scarcely a PR expert but I'd have thought opposing this would just make the group/person appear a bit spiteful or petty, against a law already enacted & functioning.

They don't seem to mind negative PR from their actions - see Pantigate.

Don't think any political parties, even Renua or Aontú, have come out for No.

JeffKenna

#hometovote

touts

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm actually genuinely surprised; what's the thinking behind their opposition?

Other people might be happy.

touts

L1011 wrote: »

They don't seem to mind negative PR from their actions - see Pantigate.

Don't think any political parties, even Renua or Aontú, have come out for No.

I'm sure John Walters will be more than happy to fill the gap on any and all shows that will have him.

salmocab

touts wrote: »

I'm sure John Walters will be more than happy to fill the gap on any and all shows that will have him.

There’ll be little to no debate so not much oxygen will be given to either side thankfully. I’d see this as more a bit of housekeeping legislation wise.

circadian

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm actually genuinely surprised; what's the thinking behind their opposition? I'm scarcely a PR expert but I'd have thought opposing this would just make the group/person appear a bit spiteful or petty, against a law already enacted & functioning.

I'm convinced Iona are contrarian for the sake of it at times.

cruizer101

Potentially its a good opportunity for Iona to oppose as presumably there will be a bit of airtime given to it and anytime there is for the sake of balance they will want a no representative and this is where Iona steps in getting there name out there.

I did see a clip where a representative was saying they don't oppose reducing it as such but would rather keep it in the constitution as if we give control to the politicians who knows what will happen, next day divorces for drunken marriages and that kind of thing :eek:

In my opinion it is exactly the kind of thing that shouldn't be in the constitution, i.e. specific details on a bit of legislation.

L1011

cruizer101 wrote: »

next day divorces for drunken marriages and that kind of thing.

Due to the statutory notice period, those can't happen to begin with; you'd think they'd know the laws about marriage seeing as they've fought to stop them changing before!

loyatemu

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm actually genuinely surprised; what's the thinking behind their opposition?

they're scum.

cruizer101

L1011 wrote: »

Due to the statutory notice period, those can't happen to begin with; you'd think they'd know the laws about marriage seeing as they've fought to stop them changing before!

Just for clarity, my post was bit hyperbole, what David Quinn said was he didn't want to see it reduced to 6 months which has happened in other countries.
RTE 9 New Sun 6th may, divorce bit 14:00 minutes ish in.
https://www.rte.ie/player/series/rt%C3%A9-news-nine-o-clock/SI0000001468?epguid=IH000374687

is_that_so

L1011 wrote: »

Iona are opposing it. Which is not a surprise!

They have no issue with the proposed change in limits but want it to remain in the constitution and as has been stated above what they don't want is instant divorce nor politicians legislating for it. This should be approved with a very large majority.

sandbelter

is_that_so wrote: »

They have no issue with the proposed change in limits but want it to remain in the constitution and as has been stated above what they don't want is instant divorce nor politicians legislating for it. This should be approved with a very large majority.

Actually, as someone going through a divorce at the moment this is a very valid reason to vote no. Until you go through a divorce, it's a very abstract concept.

oscarBravo

sandbelter wrote: »

Actually, as someone going through a divorce at the moment this is a very valid reason to vote no.

You'll have to explain that one.

sandbelter

Not easy to articulate....In short what I'm learning is that there both the divorce split then the divorce process and divorce is already legal so it's not a "Iona/RCC vs progress" clash, this actually about the being fair to the Applicant and Respondent to a Divorce (which Iona frankly seem to grasp).

I happen to be of the view that the law should facilitate the Applicant, Respondent and children move to on. That's what divorce is, ""separate unto death". So don't get me wrong, I agree with the change to reduce to 2 years and the recognition of a foreign divorce as it is fair and proportional to all three parties to a divorce. But instant divorce terrifies me, but that's another topic.

Hence I'm of the view the population has more insight into the divorce process than the politicians, they live with it and have more understanding of it. It's not just me that's had to deal with it, my whole family has had to as well, and funny enough it's my teenage nephews have found it hardest to adjust.

I've tried to answer you objectively and factually as I can as I don't want it to sound like therapy.

oscarBravo

sandbelter wrote: »

Not easy to articulate....In short what I'm learning is that there both the divorce split then the divorce process and divorce is already legal so it's not a "Iona/RCC vs progress" clash, this actually about the being fair to the Applicant and Respondent to a Divorce (which Iona frankly seem to grasp).

That's fair enough, but I'm not clear on how the proposed change is unfair to either party.

I happen to be of the view that the law should facilitate the Applicant, Respondent and children move to on. That's what divorce is, ""separate unto death". So don't get me wrong, I agree with the change to reduce to 2 years and the recognition of a foreign divorce as it is fair and proportional to all three parties to a divorce. But instant divorce terrifies me, but that's another topic.

Well, yes - it's another topic. As far as I know, absolutely nobody is proposing instant divorce, which really makes it a slippery slope logical fallacy.

Hence I'm of the view the population has more insight into the divorce process than the politicians, they live with it and have more understanding of it.

The implication is that politicians never have marital breakdowns.

I've tried to answer you objectively and factually as I can as I don't want it to sound like therapy.

I appreciate it, but I'm no closer to seeing an argument against the proposed amendment.

igCorcaigh

This proposition has had so little debate, I only realised this week we are voting on it. So I had to find the thread here.

Even though i agree with very little he says, I follow David quinn on twitter.

I think his argument for a no vote goes as follows.

https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/1124963772303642624?s=19

Which I interpret as another watering down of the commitment that marriage entails.

I'd like to see more debate about this.

My instinctive feel is to vote yes, which is almost certainly what I will do, as I have voted yes to divorce in the past and also yes to SSM.

My personal feeling is that a loving relationship has to be voluntary, but I also feel that this issue has to be debated properly, like all others.

salmocab

igCorcaigh wrote: »

This proposition has had so little debate, I only realised this week we are voting on it. So I had to find the thread here.

Even though i agree with very little he says, I follow David quinn on twitter.

I think his argument for a no vote goes as follows.

https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/1124963772303642624?s=19

Which I interpret as another watering down of the commitment that marriage entails.

I'd like to see more debate about this.

My instinctive feel is to vote yes, which is almost certainly what I will do, as I have voted yes to divorce in the past and also yes to SSM.

My personal feeling is that a loving relationship has to be voluntary, but I also feel that this issue has to be debated properly, like all others.

It’s a bit odd because it’s such a non event that there won’t be much debate, they have to give equal time so if the yes side aren’t really too bothered pushing it then it’s hard to give airtime to the no side. Ultimately it’s so non contentious that the no side will be likely a quite small minority and that would lead to us hearing from the same few people on everything some just doing it to further their media presence.
Personally speaking I think it’s the right thing to do and see it as little more than a tidy up.

hairyprincess

It shouldn’t take five years to break out of a legal contract that only took three months to get into. Reduce to two years and increase the notice period to a year at least.

FreudianSlippers

I'm finding it very difficult to even comprehend what the opposition to this referendum is other than the usual Iona protection of the doctrines of the Catholic church. Am I missing some keen arguments against it or...?

Dial Hard

sandbelter wrote: »

Not easy to articulate....In short what I'm learning is that there both the divorce split then the divorce process and divorce is already legal so it's not a "Iona/RCC vs progress" clash, this actually about the being fair to the Applicant and Respondent to a Divorce (which Iona frankly seem to grasp).

I happen to be of the view that the law should facilitate the Applicant, Respondent and children move to on. That's what divorce is, ""separate unto death". So don't get me wrong, I agree with the change to reduce to 2 years and the recognition of a foreign divorce as it is fair and proportional to all three parties to a divorce. But instant divorce terrifies me, but that's another topic.

Hence I'm of the view the population has more insight into the divorce process than the politicians, they live with it and have more understanding of it. It's not just me that's had to deal with it, my whole family has had to as well, and funny enough it's my teenage nephews have found it hardest to adjust.

I've tried to answer you objectively and factually as I can as I don't want it to sound like therapy.

I still have no idea why any of this equates to a no vote, though?

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I know people who were married and divorced abroad but cannot get married here because we currently don't recoognise their divorce.
In addition, their exs can show up here and demand financial support.

The down side of this referendum is that you have to vote yes or no to BOTH parts. “There will be one question on the ballot paper and voters can either vote Yes to allow both changes, or No to reject both changes. Voters cannot accept one change and reject the other” https://www.refcom.ie/current-referendums/regulation-of-divorce/overview/

FreudianSlippers

sandbelter wrote: »

Actually, as someone going through a divorce at the moment this is a very valid reason to vote no. Until you go through a divorce, it's a very abstract concept.

When I started out my career as a barrister I took on a lot of divorce cases (I'd usually be hanging around a court waiting for my whatever to come on and would get a handover from a colleague that couldn't attend) and I can say from experience that the process being long and drawn-out benefits neither party emotionally, physically or monetarily.

There are plenty of cases where there are child custody issues, issues of assets to split, issues of premarital family land, etc. - all issues which obviously need to be addressed and dealt with, but not ones which should effectively require a waiting period to start the process.

The vast majority of divorces in Ireland would be, from my experience, done on consent between the parties and there is in my mind zero reason these should be dragged out excessively.


As an aside, I do not miss doing divorces! Commercial law is way less personal and messy!

pixelburp

hairyprincess wrote: »

It shouldn’t take five years to break out of a legal contract that only took three months to get into. Reduce to two years and increase the notice period to a year at least.

That's kinda the nub of it, especially against those that might argue that the "sanctity of marriage" is somehow undermined by reducing what amounts to divorce limbo time.

As you say, it only takes 3 months to do the legal legwork (and we found it to be the least glamorous and most underwhelming part of the process), yet I hear no arguments about some form of cooling off period in case of whirlwind, kneejerk marriages. When it's time to marry everyone wishes you well, yet when it's time to divorce some might plead... what exactly? If it's not meant to be, tethering two adults for 4 years out of some abstract, high-minded waffle about 'marriage' isn't doing anyone favours. It feels accidentally spiteful, and somewhat insulting to the two parties, that they don't know in their own mind that it might be time to pull the plug.

Nody

pixelburp wrote: »

That's kinda the nub of it, especially against those that might argue that the "sanctity of marriage" is somehow undermined by reducing what amounts to divorce limbo time.

As you say, it only takes 3 months to do the legal legwork (and we found it to be the least glamorous and most underwhelming part of the process), yet I hear no arguments about some form of cooling off period in case of whirlwind, kneejerk marriages. When it's time to marry everyone wishes you well, yet when it's time to divorce some might plead... what exactly? If it's not meant to be, tethering two adults for 4 years out of some abstract, high-minded waffle about 'marriage' isn't doing anyone favours. It feels accidentally spiteful, and somewhat insulting to the two parties, that they don't know in their own mind that it might be time to pull the plug.

This oh so much this; had a friend who got married to a person who turned into a very abusive and possessive husband to the point he insisted on her walking out her work at 17:30 on the dot or he accused her of flirting with people in the office and refused her to be allowed to leave the house (he drove her to work and back and those were the only times she was allowed to leave the house) and of course she needed "attitude adjustment" for that for her own good. When she finally managed to get around to leaving the guy (crushed self confidence etc.) he was "kind enough" to put up printed A4 papers with her picture on it with lovely statements such as "I forgive you my whore come back to me" etc. all over the local area.

She ended up leaving the country due to him and still had to wait 5 years to go to court to be able to officially divorce him (only to have his friend ask her to consider getting back to him). Sorry but the divorce laws are f***ing ridiculous and needs to be moved into the 21st century and divorced (pun intended) from any church influence.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Reminder of the charter

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument. Examples would be referring to other people or groups as scumbags, crusties, sheeple, shills, trolls, traitors or saying that recently deceased people should “rot in hell” or similar. Repeated use of terms like that will result in a ban from the forum.

In other words, don't be calling people "a prick".

SVI40

As someone who got separated in 2001, and divorced in 2007, I can understand the current 4 year wait, plus, it was a barrister friend to explained the rationale of it to me at the time.

When there is a marriage break up, most just want the whole episode to be put behind them, and to move on with their life. However, there is a HUGE change to your circumstances, lifestyle and finances. You need time to adjust to these changes, and to accustom yourself on how they are impacting your life. This can take time. Inevitably one party may have to move out, there may be issues of maintenance to be paid, access to children, so many issues to be taken into account. It takes time, a lot of time, for these changes to settle down, the full impact of them to be realised, on how much of a change to you life there actually is.

This is not the best time to be making decisions in a divorce case, where any agreement between the parties, made in haste to end the marriage, is made an order of the courts. Decisions that will affect you for years or decades to come.

The 4 year period was to give you time to get your head in order, and not make any rash decisions you may regret later. For me, the question is, is 4 years too long, or is 2 years to short? In my case, the 4 years gave ME time to come to terms with everything, and had it been 2 years back then, I would have definitely agreed to terms I would have later regretted.

oscarBravo

SVI40 wrote: »

As someone who got separated in 2001, and divorced in 2007, I can understand the current 4 year wait, plus, it was a barrister friend to explained the rationale of it to me at the time.

When there is a marriage break up, most just want the whole episode to be put behind them, and to move on with their life. However, there is a HUGE change to your circumstances, lifestyle and finances. You need time to adjust to these changes, and to accustom yourself on how they are impacting your life. This can take time. Inevitably one party may have to move out, there may be issues of maintenance to be paid, access to children, so many issues to be taken into account. It takes time, a lot of time, for these changes to settle down, the full impact of them to be realised, on how much of a change to you life there actually is.

This is not the best time to be making decisions in a divorce case, where any agreement between the parties, made in haste to end the marriage, is made an order of the courts. Decisions that will affect you for years or decades to come.

The 4 year period was to give you time to get your head in order, and not make any rash decisions you may regret later. For me, the question is, is 4 years too long, or is 2 years to short? In my case, the 4 years gave ME time to come to terms with everything, and had it been 2 years back then, I would have definitely agreed to terms I would have later regretted.

While appreciating that you have your perspective on the matter, other people's circumstances will differ, and there's something paternalistic about the state insisting that you remain married for four years just to make sure you're not rushing into anything.

There are many, many life choices whose repercussions will be felt for decades to come - very few of them come with a state-mandated cooling-off period of several years.

AbusesToilets

The 4 years aspect is ludicrous. Nowadays, marriage boils down to 2 people agreeing to share their possessions, under contract. The historical social necessity for marriage has largely disappeared, with access to sex/ children/ housing etc. It doesn't take 4 years to work out how to divide up your possessions, and if that proves to be a challenge, the courts are there to assist.

Belfast

Does any know what the changes to the recognition of foreign divorces are?

Belfast

Belfast wrote: »

Does any know what the changes to the recognition of foreign divorces are?

To actually recognise them.

SVI40

oscarBravo wrote: »

While appreciating that you have your perspective on the matter, other people's circumstances will differ, and there's something paternalistic about the state insisting that you remain married for four years just to make sure you're not rushing into anything.

There are many, many life choices whose repercussions will be felt for decades to come - very few of them come with a state-mandated cooling-off period of several years.

Absolutely, I was only giving my view on some reasons for the 4 year wait. It's one of those things, where there will never be a "right" solution.

Maybe ban marriage :pac::pac:

Belfast

Deleted User wrote: »

To actually recognise them.

all of them?

So it could be possible to go over seas and get and faster divorce than allowed under Irish law?

Belfast

Belfast wrote: »

all of them?

So it could be possible to go over seas and get and faster divorce than allowed under Irish law?

I don’t know how easy it is to get a foreign divorce, but some foreign divorces are only recognized if both parties were resident in the state where the divorce was granted at the beginning of the proceedings.

“Recognition of Foreign Divorces
Under Irish law, foreign divorces are recognised if both spouses were domiciled resident in the particular jurisdiction or state of the court granting the divorce at the date of the beginning of the proceedings.
The law concerning the recognition of foreign divorces
The Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act, 1986 governs the recognition of foreign divorces. In addition, Brussels II bis provides a uniform set of rules for automatic recognition of divorces, separation and nullities granted in the courts in other EU Member States.
The recognition of foreign divorce is based on satisfying formal jurisdiction criteria. If the foreign court did not properly have jurisdiction over the couple, that court did not have jurisdiction to grant the divorce and the law of that country is irrelevant. A divorce granted by a court with insufficient jurisdiction over a couple to divorce them will always be decided by Irish law.
The meaning of Domicile
Domicile is a complicated legal concept. Stated very broadly, a person is domiciled in the country where he/she is born or, having emigrated, where he/she is resident and intends to reside permanently or at least indefinitely.
Pre 1986 rules
The pre 1986 rules provided that the recognition of foreign divorce was dependant on the principle of Domicile. A pre 1986 foreign divorce would be recognised once either of the parties was domiciled in the foreign jurisdiction.
Application to the court
The Family Law Act, 1995 permits the court to seek a declaration that a divorce is entitled to recognition within the state.”
https://www.hoc.ie/private-law/family-law/recognition-of-foreign-divorces/

FreudianSlippers

Deleted User wrote: »

To actually recognise them.

The State already recognises certain foreign divorces; this amendment does nothing to change the current legal position of recognition of foreign divorces. What it does is remove the underlying Constitutional prohibition on remarrying from the Constitution and puts the legislative powers squarely within the Oireachtas.

Simply put:-

Current position: Unless your divorce is explicitly recognised by Irish law there is a Constitutional ban on you remarrying.

Yes position: The Oireachtas has the inherent power to legislate for recognition of foreign divorces.

In effect, "yes" on this simply removes the presumption of a Constitutional ban.

Belfast wrote: »

all of them?

So it could be possible to go over seas and get and faster divorce than allowed under Irish law?

No - you wouldn't be able to (but under a yes vote you wouldn't really need to anyway). There are plans to update the legislation after the referendum passes, but it is unlikely to significantly change from the current legislation (most likely change will be to include all EEA countries).

Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorce Act (as amended):

5.— (1) For the rule of law that a divorce is recognised if granted in a country where both spouses are domiciled, there is hereby substituted a rule that a divorce shall be recognised if granted in the country where either spouse is domiciled.

(2) In relation to a country which has in matters of divorce two or more systems applying in different territorial units, this section shall, without prejudice to subsection (3) of this section, have effect as if each territorial unit were a separate country.

(3) A divorce granted in any of the following jurisdictions—

( a) England and Wales,

( b) Scotland,

( c) Northern Ireland,

( d) the Isle of Man,

( e) the Channel Islands,

shall be recognised if either spouse is domiciled in any of those jurisdictions.

(4) In a case where neither spouse is domiciled in the State, a divorce shall be recognised if, although not granted in the country where either spouse is domiciled, it is recognised in the country or countries where the spouses are domiciled.

(5) This section shall apply to a divorce granted after the commencement of this Act.

(6) Nothing in this section shall affect a ground on which a court may refuse to recognise a divorce, other than such a ground related to the question whether a spouse is domiciled in a particular country, or whether the divorce is recognised in a country where a spouse is domiciled.

(7) In this section—

“ divorce” means divorce a vinculo matrimonii;

“ domiciled” means domiciled at the date of the institution of the proceedings for divorce.

average_runner

SVI40 wrote: »

As someone who got separated in 2001, and divorced in 2007, I can understand the current 4 year wait, plus, it was a barrister friend to explained the rationale of it to me at the time.

When there is a marriage break up, most just want the whole episode to be put behind them, and to move on with their life. However, there is a HUGE change to your circumstances, lifestyle and finances. You need time to adjust to these changes, and to accustom yourself on how they are impacting your life. This can take time. Inevitably one party may have to move out, there may be issues of maintenance to be paid, access to children, so many issues to be taken into account. It takes time, a lot of time, for these changes to settle down, the full impact of them to be realised, on how much of a change to you life there actually is.

This is not the best time to be making decisions in a divorce case, where any agreement between the parties, made in haste to end the marriage, is made an order of the courts. Decisions that will affect you for years or decades to come.

The 4 year period was to give you time to get your head in order, and not make any rash decisions you may regret later. For me, the question is, is 4 years too long, or is 2 years to short? In my case, the 4 years gave ME time to come to terms with everything, and had it been 2 years back then, I would have definitely agreed to terms I would have later regretted.

But you could still wait 5 years to divorce if ye both agree on it ? Others can do it quicker. Suits all

Loafing Oaf

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Which I interpret as another watering down of the commitment that marriage entails.

I'd like to see more debate about this.

My instinctive feel is to vote yes, which is almost certainly what I will do, as I have voted yes to divorce in the past and also yes to SSM.

My personal feeling is that a loving relationship has to be voluntary, but I also feel that this issue has to be debated properly, like all others.

When there's no organised opposition to the proposal, it's hard to get any substantive debate going. I don't watch/listen to current affairs programmes much any more, but my impression is they're devoting as little time to this topic as they can get away with.

.......

SVI40 wrote: »

In my case, the 4 years gave ME time to come to terms with everything, and had it been 2 years back then, I would have definitely agreed to terms I would have later regretted.

But that is not true for everyone and no one would be stopping you from taking 4 years if that is what you needed.

But the current law forces 4 years on people who dont want or need it and worse, it produces situations where people cannot move on properly with their lives and suffer stress etc..

Charles Babbage

....... wrote: »

But that is not true for everyone and no one would be stopping you from taking 4 years if that is what you needed.

But the current law forces 4 years on people who dont want or need it and worse, it produces situations where people cannot move on properly with their lives and suffer stress etc..

There is nothing stopping people ending their marriages for all intents and purposes. The restriction only delays their marrying again, which is reasonable enough as they didn't go a great job the last time.



Marriage is an institution of the State that offered people legal advantages at the expense of other people. It is quite appropriate for the State to please reasonable restrictions on mutiple use of the advantage.

Jim2007

Charles Babbage wrote: »

There is nothing stopping people ending their marriages for all intents and purposes. The restriction only delays their marrying again, which is reasonable enough as they didn't go a great job the last time.



Marriage is an institution of the State that offered people legal advantages at the expense of other people. It is quite appropriate for the State to please reasonable restrictions on mutiple use of the advantage.

Absolute BS. You think someone who through no fault of their own ends up in an abusive marriage, should have to wait four years, just be cause of your superior attitude. Shame on you.

sandbelter

SVI40 wrote: »

As someone who got separated in 2001, and divorced in 2007, I can understand the current 4 year wait, plus, it was a barrister friend to explained the rationale of it to me at the time.

When there is a marriage break up, most just want the whole episode to be put behind them, and to move on with their life. However, there is a HUGE change to your circumstances, lifestyle and finances. You need time to adjust to these changes, and to accustom yourself on how they are impacting your life. This can take time. Inevitably one party may have to move out, there may be issues of maintenance to be paid, access to children, so many issues to be taken into account. It takes time, a lot of time, for these changes to settle down, the full impact of them to be realised, on how much of a change to you life there actually is.

This is not the best time to be making decisions in a divorce case, where any agreement between the parties, made in haste to end the marriage, is made an order of the courts. Decisions that will affect you for years or decades to come.

The 4 year period was to give you time to get your head in order, and not make any rash decisions you may regret later. For me, the question is, is 4 years too long, or is 2 years to short? In my case, the 4 years gave ME time to come to terms with everything, and had it been 2 years back then, I would have definitely agreed to terms I would have later regretted.

I have to agree, that's the one thing I've also learned from my ongoing divorce.

I also think two years might be on the short side and has the capacity to be very unfair. In my case, my partner walked in after I made them breakfast and just said.."we need to talk" and it was over just like that.....9.5 years of marriage, had no idea they had found someone else and were now in a new relationship, three days later they want to talk property split, four days later they posting it on facebook and my mother is ring me asking me what's going on.

What I've also learned this what divorce looks like in circa 80% of cases.....my divorce is statistically very boring and very typical.

The reason the time period is important and that shorter isn't better as vast majority of respondent's don't see it coming ...they should be allowed to heal and they need it, divorce is one of the peak triggers for severe depression, suicide and alcohol abuse.

Its taken me a three months of serious therapy just to keep functioning and hold my job down....and I'm actually one of the tough ones I only spent three months in the divorce daze...I know know other people who spend 12 months in that daze and couldn't adjust until the first anniversary arrived for them to accept "its over". People need the time to adjust to huge changes, and not just them but their families as well.

I think all these factors should be considered as well, it's not all about the applicants " desire to get on with it", they are only 50% of a divorce and in 80% have moved on and have the facebook photos to prove it. The others do need the time.

I agree 4 years is not unreasonable, some couple could divorce before this, but not not all. I think it should be more a case of 4 years, and by mutual consent the court can take it down to a shorter period to a minimum of 2 years.

In response to my earlier post, No I'm not convinced politicians will get it....because until go through a divorce you really don't understand it.

But you shouldn't think of divorce as a bash the RCC/Iona opportunity...divorce is legal....your choosing the process of divorce ....make your decision on what's best for the applicant or the respondent and best enables them to get on with their livee. They're ones that have to live with it ....and no one who I'm aware of who gets divorced thinks it will ever happen to them....So don't assume it can't happen to you. Trust me I learned that one the hard way too.

ILoveYourVibes

Charles Babbage wrote: »

There is nothing stopping people ending their marriages for all intents and purposes. The restriction only delays their marrying again, which is reasonable enough as they didn't go a great job the last time.



Marriage is an institution of the State that offered people legal advantages at the expense of other people. It is quite appropriate for the State to please reasonable restrictions on mutiple use of the advantage.

Then the state is as bad as the catholic church imo.

jimmycrackcorm

sandbelter wrote: »

I have to agree, that's the one thing I've also learned from my ongoing divorce.

I also think two years might be on the short side and has the capacity to be very unfair. In my case, my partner walked in after I made them breakfast and just said.."we need to talk" and it was over just like that.....9.5 years of marriage, had no idea they had found someone else and were now in a new relationship, three days later they want to talk property split, four days later they posting it on facebook and my mother is ring me asking me what's going on.

What I've also learned this what divorce looks like in circa 80% of cases.....my divorce is statistically very boring and very typical.

The reason the time period is important and that shorter isn't better as vast majority of respondent's don't see it coming ...they should be allowed to heal and they need it, divorce is one of the peak triggers for severe depression, suicide and alcohol abuse.

Its taken me a three months of serious therapy just to keep functioning and hold my job down....and I'm actually one of the tough ones I only spent three months in the divorce daze...I know know other people who spend 12 months in that daze and couldn't adjust until the first anniversary arrived for them to accept "its over". People need the time to adjust to huge changes, and not just them but their families as well.

I think all these factors should be considered as well, it's not all about the applicants " desire to get on with it", they are only 50% of a divorce and in 80% have moved on and have the facebook photos to prove it. The others do need the time.

I agree 4 years is not unreasonable, some couple could divorce before this, but not not all. I think it should be more a case of 4 years, and by mutual consent the court can take it down to a shorter period to a minimum of 2 years.

In response to my earlier post, No I'm not convinced politicians will get it....because until go through a divorce you really don't understand it.

But you shouldn't think of divorce as a bash the RCC/Iona opportunity...divorce is legal....your choosing the process of divorce ....make your decision on what's best for the applicant or the respondent and best enables them to get on with their livee. They're ones that have to live with it ....and no one who I'm aware of who gets divorced thinks it will ever happen to them....So don't assume it can't happen to you. Trust me I learned that one the hard way too.

What is the point in forcing a four year wait? You're not getting back together. There is no science behind that number.

What about cases where both parties are happy to get divorced and want to get on with their lives. Why should they be punished?

Your post just sounds like the motivation to keep four years waiting is just down to vindictiveness for the OH leaving for someone else.

sandbelter

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What is the point in forcing a four year wait? You're not getting back together. There is no science behind that number.

Simple, and I agree I'm not getting back. My experience....most people take a year to adjust, then about six months to get the paper work done...then its starts kicking off re property (we have no kids so ours is simpler) ....did I mention the word valuations? In the mean time I have to pay the bills and pay for a divorce lawyer (so does my ex) which slows down the process down...all up I'd expect it to take about typically three years to get ready....if you read my post you know that I suggested four years with the court authorized to reduce it to two by mutual consent .....personally I could do 2 years, but I'm aware I'm the exception and now most of my friends are divorcees so I know couldn't due to the depression ....even if we go to two years I would expect most divorces to string out past that due to financial wrangling....once you introduce a financial position it gets ugly.

What about cases where both parties are happy to get divorced and want to get on with their lives. Why should they be punished?

Hence my suggestion of flexibility by mutual consent.

Your post just sounds like the motivation to keep four years waiting is just down to vindictiveness for the OH leaving for someone else.

You stereotyping me as an angry divorcee? That fine, actually it's odd part of me is actually relieved it's over. I get angry with the games being played out in the divorce process ...but I actually wish the best for them both....One it did do is gives you the potential to be happier. But I keep stressing this, there is divorce the event and divorce the process...they are not the same.