Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
09-05-2019, 12:50   #31
pixelburp
Moderator
 
pixelburp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyprincess View Post
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.
pixelburp is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
09-05-2019, 14:20   #32
Nody
Servant of Cthulhu
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelburp View Post
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.
Nody is offline  
09-05-2019, 14:31   #33
Chips Lovell
Waging war on tan sidewalls
 
Chips Lovell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 21,286
Mod Note

Reminder of the charter

Quote:
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".
Chips Lovell is offline  
Thanks from:
09-05-2019, 14:50   #34
SVI40
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 335
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.
SVI40 is offline  
(3) thanks from:
09-05-2019, 16:02   #35
oscarBravo
Custodiam ipsos custodes
 
oscarBravo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 26,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVI40 View Post
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.
oscarBravo is offline  
Advertisement
09-05-2019, 16:33   #36
AbusesToilets
Registered User
 
AbusesToilets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,114
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.
AbusesToilets is offline  
Thanks from:
09-05-2019, 19:22   #37
Belfast
 
Belfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,197
Does any know what the changes to the recognition of foreign divorces are?
Belfast is offline  
09-05-2019, 19:25   #38
Maryanne84
Registered User
 
Maryanne84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belfast View Post
Does any know what the changes to the recognition of foreign divorces are?
To actually recognise them.
Maryanne84 is offline  
09-05-2019, 19:34   #39
SVI40
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscarBravo View Post
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
SVI40 is offline  
Advertisement
09-05-2019, 23:18   #40
Belfast
 
Belfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maryanne84 View Post
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 is offline  
10-05-2019, 09:48   #41
Maryanne84
Registered User
 
Maryanne84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belfast View Post
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/famil...eign-divorces/

Last edited by Maryanne84; 10-05-2019 at 09:52.
Maryanne84 is offline  
10-05-2019, 10:17   #42
FreudianSlippers
Registered User
 
FreudianSlippers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maryanne84 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belfast View Post
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):
Quote:
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.
FreudianSlippers is offline  
10-05-2019, 13:57   #43
average_runner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVI40 View Post
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
average_runner is offline  
10-05-2019, 16:08   #44
Loafing Oaf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 6,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by igCorcaigh View Post
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.
Loafing Oaf is offline  
10-05-2019, 16:55   #45
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 8,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVI40 View Post
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..
....... is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet