Mankind & Marriage : Love & Law – or ———————-> 0600 ———-> 1630 W 27 09 17


Love and Law   (&) ampersand (&) Mankind and Marriage  ? 

http://lordsoftheb  –  Barioness Deech has posted a concern about “No Fault Divorce”

and “we” have responded :-


No Fault Divorce

Baroness DeechResolution, formerly the Solicitors’ Family Law Association, is pushing hard for the introduction of no-fault divorce. This is currently understandable because of the embarrassing and avoidable litigation of Owens Owens, where a wife who had good reasons to want to divorce her husband found that the law stood in her way. I can see arguments on both sides. But, note, we already have no fault divorce. Separation for 2 or 5 years are grounds, no reasons needed. The grounds of adultery and unreasonable behaviour are immediate, subject to procedure, but involve allegations as specified. So the essence of the demand for reform is speed.

I wrote a pamphlet more than 20 years ago when a similar proposal was on the table ( explaining why reform would, in the end, achieve little. The essence of my argument was this: repeatedly over the last 100 years reformers have told us that the law relating to the grounds of divorce has to be amended to bring it into line with reality, because behind the facade of statute, consensual decrees are being obtained without substantiating the grounds, or are being withheld contrary to common sense. When the reform campaign succeeds, the black letter law is then brought into line with practice and reality. The divorce rate rises (though now this will be tempered by the existence of fewer marriages and more cohabitation), and soon we find that divorce practice is again out of step with the law. That’s what happened with the 1937 Matrimonial Causes Act, 1969 Divorce Reform Act and 1977 Special Procedure.

Unless we are going down the talaq route, in a no-fault reform plan there must surely be some fixed time delay (6 months is proposed) between initiating the proceedings and the dissolution of the marriage, so the delay will become the new (irritating) obstacle, as it is now. Speed is everything. The adoption of no-fault divorce now would be likely to be portrayed by the media as New Quickie Divorceand would convey the impression that promises, responsibilities and children’s welfare come second to an easy end of obligations with a clear conscience. The consent of the non-initiating spouse will apparently not be required.

I say reform would bring little benefit because the real harm in the divorce process is, first, to the children (who will probably be unaware of the legal grounds, but most affected by the actual separation of their parents), and second, the ghastly state of our financial provision law. It is so expensive in legal costs that it can eat up the assets of all but the richest, and so confrontational that it makes the substantive divorce mild by comparison. That is where reform should be directed. I suggest that all that is needed by way of substantive divorce reform of the “fault” grounds, is a slowing up, e.g no decree absolute for 12 months from the service of the petition.

3 comments for “No Fault Divorce”

  1. 22/09/2017 at 5:32 pm

    Cart-before-Horse, still.

    What is needed is deep and “up-enabling” reform
    beginning with progressive NVQ-type training for prospective marriage-couples and parents

    similar training for all those in “human-development” and “human-supportive” workforces

    not stopping at focal and progressive NVQ training for “relationships”, “escorts” “companions” “carers” and “sex industry workers”

    and including NVQ courses for such other human-interaction workers as Police, Medical, Nursing, Waiters/Waitresses, Shop attendants, public-transport workers, church-‘welcomers’ and so on and so forth.

    Without such essential training
    everyone falls short
    of a “Sustainworthy” personal human-ness
    and hopelessly short of developing a longest-term future Sustainworthy Human Civilisation;

    – and “No Fault” divorces and suchlike will still be only ‘scratching-the-surface’ and ‘band-aiding’.

  2. 22/09/2017 at 7:45 pm

    I don’t really see how a “no fault divorce” can not require the “consent of the non-initiating spouse”. Surely if only one party agrees with the divorce, that implies some sort of fault on the part of the other? For it to be “no fault”, both parties should have to agree with the divorce. Where the action is one-sided, the existing arrangements should suffice.

  3. maude elwes
    24/09/2017 at 2:30 pm

    Unfortunately, similarly to my friends, who married last week in Poland, I no longer have any faith in GB’s meaning of, or, lack of meaning, in marriage. And as an addendum, to requirements for this jurisdictions divorce laws. Which were ‘readjusted’ to satisfy SSM contracts on fidelity. I consider marriage an event that occurs only between a man and a woman who are devoted to the concept of sanctity within that marriage and would not consider any vows made by myself in a ceremony where those promises are considered outdated.

    Therefore, it is not proper to remark one way or another on new divorce laws here in the UK. As it no longer is a place I would wish to wed or comply with divorce. And the middle class trend in this matter is growing. So many are taking their wedding plans to countries that adhere to traditional concepts and deeply held beliefs this event implies.

  4. 27/09/2017 at 4:29 am

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    maude, jonathan, the baroness
    – and those unable-to or otherwise not commenting or ‘visibly participating’ –

There remains the both overshadowing and underlurking failure
of both “Church and State”
in whatever Country –
to whole-of-body-emotions-mind and spirit
honour and administrate
“Holistic-Individual-and-Collective human Development”
and therin somewhar ‘crucially’

all as a part of the overall long-known natural-evolutionary and civilised human-development “NA-RNA-DNA Design”
as laid out in the individually-and-collectively divinely-innate 7-fold Sacramental/Sefirotal/Chakraic/Somatopsychic guidance sources available through
“Lifestreams” by David Boadella;
“Analysis of the Spirit” by Caroline Myss,

and in perhaps imminently-foundation-faculty-worthy Somatics –
(see “Somatics” by Thoimas Hanna
and perhaps both
“Somatic Psychology” and “Wisdom of the Body Moving” by Linda Hartley. …

that should be enough to show that there is also a “case” for underpinning all of that 7-foldness with a ‘notional’ “Chakra 0” being the ground one is standing on and the Earth beneath it
and one’s initial bodily contact with that “support” –
before proceeding up the legs to the Baptismal/Root/Grounding centre “number 1” at the tailbone and ‘rectum’ ‘and company’ –

– before proceeding upwards to the ‘breadbasket’
and it’s perhaps second or third sub-content namely
the genital and procreational organs)

– PS here maude, why didn’t you expressly mention
“for the familial purpose of procreating and/or the raising of children” ?
And no-one has even mentioned our need
to seriously-practically start “co-living”
the express distinction between “contractuals” (shackled to Law and Money) and “covenantals” ( ‘rooted-in’ and ‘founded-on’ Love and Marriage)…
I give way –

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  0537  Wednesday 27 september 2017 ============  voluntary not-fore-profit =

Furether submissions:

  1. Senex
    27/09/2017 at 9:44 am

    What if a wife or husband is unsuitable? Unable to fulfil the promise of marriage. It appears some have simply to say the words “Talaq! Talaq! Talaq!” WOMAN, or should that be man, know your place.

    Ref: If your wife is useless say Talaq! Talaq! Talaq!

    • 27/09/2017 at 3:48 pm
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.New “Life-Enablement” qualifications
      would do much to ‘obviate’ such “unsuitableness” obstacles

      [Lifeplace equivalent “enablements” to Workplace “NVQ skillings”]