Divorce: Reform of the 15th Amendment

Pherekydes · 06-07-2015 11:59PM

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 · 07-07-2015 12:00AM

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 · 07-07-2015 12:17AM

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 · 07-07-2015 12:19AM

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 · 07-07-2015 12:53AM

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 · 07-07-2015 12:57AM

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 · 07-07-2015 01:00AM

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 · 07-07-2015 01:06AM

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 · 07-07-2015 01:29AM

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 · 07-07-2015 01:37AM

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 · 07-07-2015 01:49AM

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 · 07-07-2015 01:54AM

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 · 07-07-2015 01:59AM

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 · 07-07-2015 02:01AM

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 · 07-07-2015 02:58AM

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 · 07-07-2015 03:49AM

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 · 07-07-2015 08:18AM

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 · 07-07-2015 08:37AM

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 · 07-07-2015 09:01AM

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.

07-07-2015 09:52AM

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.

Mr. CooL ICE · 07-07-2015 09:56AM

My aunt and her husband first separated about 12 years. Without going into too much detail, there was a lot of emotional abuse and he refused to agree to a divorce and pretty much refused to leave her alone. It wasn't until things got violent and she requested a restraining order (whilst sporting a shiner) that she was able to get the separation recognised. Divorce is due to be completed this year.

I'm all for making any sort of amendment to prevent this from happening to anyone else.

SpaceTime · 07-07-2015 10:16AM

Average time for an agreed divorce in England and Wales is 33 weeks btw, not 2 years and that is largely just down to administrative slowness not some kind of patronising policies.

People make mistakes, things go wrong.

But this is backwards little old Ireland where everything's perfect and until 1995 all marriages were perfect, shortly before that nobody was gay and a few years before that nobody even had sex outside marriage and sure we didn't need condoms at all due to the fact that nobody had sex unless they wanted a baby.

Of course these days one can't get pregnant due to rape and fatal abnormalities during pregnancy don't happen...

An aspect of this country lives in some kind of conservative, moralising cloud cuckoo land !

Gay marriage passed - well done on being the 2nd last country in Western Europe to implement it (other than Northern Ireland) and they are still appealing it in court so it's not even passed until they appeal is hopefully rejected on the 30th of the month despite our recent referendum.

Don't congratulate yourselves too much for being slightly less conservative than the Vatican.

Ush1 · 07-07-2015 10:36AM

Why not abolish marriage completely? Bit of a silly social construct.

The Corinthian · 07-07-2015 11:13AM

Ush1 wrote: »

Why not abolish marriage completely? Bit of a silly social construct.

One reason is that it would cost the government too much.

If an unmarried couple split up and one is working and the other is unemployed, then the former has no obligation to financially support the latter, forcing the latter to either go out and get a job or seek social assistance from the government. If married, then the former does have an obligation to financially support the latter, significantly decreasing the need for the state to step in.

Note, this is separate to child maintenance, which is the same regardless of the marital status of the parents and in addition to any spousal maintenance. To put it in context:

"At present, the District Court can award any amount up to €500 per week for a spouse/civil partner, and €150 per week for each child. If sums greater than these amounts are being sought, you will need to apply to the Circuit Court." Source

That's a lot of money the government can save, which is why when the cohabitation bill was brought in, it included an automatic measure whereby similar financial obligations would kick in after between two (where there's a child) and five years - with one in three children being born out of marriage in Ireland, it has undoubtedly saved the government tens of millions per year.

So, while there are numerous other reasons why no government would want to abolish marriage, this is one I can't see any government wanting to sacrifice.

07-07-2015 01:01PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Why not abolish marriage completely? Bit of a silly social construct.

Whats silly about it?

It gives you next of kin rights, tax exemptions, parental rights etc etc on top of it being a declaration of people desire to be together forever. W

Whats silly is some people nowadays who don't treat it with the respect it deserves.

The Corinthian · 07-07-2015 01:13PM

Bentley Gorgeous Yachtsman wrote: »

on top of it being a deceleration of people desire to be together forever.

Actually, if you listen to it at weddings, it's actually a deceleration of people desire to be together forever.

Whats silly is some people nowadays who don't treat it with the respect it deserves.

One might argue that reducing it to only a desire to be together forever isn't really treating it with the respect it deserves.

Ush1 · 07-07-2015 01:42PM

Bentley Gorgeous Yachtsman wrote: »

Whats silly about it?

It gives you next of kin rights, tax exemptions, parental rights etc etc on top of it being a deceleration of people desire to be together forever. W

Whats silly is some people nowadays who don't treat it with the respect it deserves.

You just answered your own question.

07-07-2015 02:22PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, if you listen to it at weddings, it's actually a deceleration of people desire to be together forever.

One might argue that reducing it to only a desire to be together forever isn't really treating it with the respect it deserves.

Well I used the word desire but I probably should have said it differently as yes you are right if you get married there should be no desire to be together for ever you should be together for ever if you are doing it right.

07-07-2015 02:40PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, if you listen to it at weddings, it's actually a deceleration of people desire to be together forever.

I'd expend a lot less effort avoiding weddings if I was promised people decelerating together. In formation, preferably. With a comedy soundtrack ideally.

Velocity is over rated.

kunst nugget · 07-07-2015 02:48PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

remember? Hello divorce, bye bye daddy!

But then having two daddys was a bad thing in the marriage equality referendum… make up your mind conservative people!!!

Divorce: Reform of the 15th Amendment

Comments