Woman who was ‘cheated on’ says law fails to give those wronged ‘time to heal’ 

• New ‘no-fault’ legislation has come into force in England and Wales from today
• Couples will be able to split without apportioning blame and ‘dredging up past’
• Campaigners have branded it biggest shake-up of divorce law in half a century
• But one woman told BBC Radio Four that the legislation forgets cheated partners
• How will the no-fault divorce law impact your situation? Will you accept no fault divorce from a cheating partner?: Contact: james.robinson@mailonline.co.uk 

New legislation allowing ‘no-fault divorces’ will help amicable splits but has left behind those who have suffered ‘pain’ and ‘betrayal’ at the hands of cheating partners, it has today been claimed.

Unhappily married couples can divorce more amicably from today as part of new laws now in force in England and Wales.

Campaigners have heralded the development as the biggest shake up of divorce law in half a century, and a ‘hallelujah moment’ for couples wishing to split without apportioning blame.

How will the ‘no fault divorce’ impact your situation?

Have you waited for the new laws to be introduced? Or are you reluctant to accept a ‘no fault’ divorce from a cheating partner?: Contact: james.robinson@mailonline.co.uk 

It is hoped the new legislation, which will include a statutory five month period for ‘meaningful’ reflection, will allow for more amicable divorces where two people have simply fallen out of love without infidelity or improper treatment.

But those who have suffered at the hands of cheating partners say those who have suffered infidelity have been forgotten about in the new legislation.

One woman today told BBC Radio Four’s Woman’s Hour how her ‘runaway’ husband had cheated on her before ‘getting up and never coming back’ and then demanding to sell the house months later.

And while she praised the idea of ‘no-fault divorces’ in cases of amicable splits, she said the legislation failed to provide ‘time to heal’ for those who had been wronged by their partners.

The woman, who gave her name as Helen, said: ‘I do agree that a no fault divorce in cases where this is no fault, where a couple have grown apart, I think is a really really good thing. 

‘I think if it keeps things amicable, it’s fantastic. But… I had a case of adultery and a runaway husband who literally got up, left and never came back.

With her voice cracking as she spoke, she said: ‘It’s tough. I can’t begin to explain to you the pain and the fear and the worry and the anguish the whole process puts on you. 

‘And you are expected to just sit down and discuss the finances like none of that has happened.

‘If the courts can spend so much effort in creating this fast process for a no fault divorce, can there not be some time put in to the person that has been betrayed and has been left to heal?’

How no-fault divorces have divided opinion since being floated as potential legislation in 2015

No fault divorce first came onto the political agenda back in 2015, when Conservative MP Richard Bacon presented the House of Commons with the No Fault Divorce Bill. 

Since then, campaigners have been pushing for UK divorce law to be overhauled so that couples can be granted a divorce purely on the basis that their marriage has irretrievably broken down, without the need to lay blame on one person.

Former President of the Supreme Court, Baroness Hale, has been an advocate for the introduction of no fault divorce into UK law. 

She believes that being able to say the relationship has simply failed, without holding either person accountable, could ease some of the stress and pain that couples often endure during separation.

She also believes that this process would make it easier for couples to settle the terms of their divorce, without getting caught up in long-winded, acrimonious legal battles in court.

Other campaigners suggested that the current process for divorce can cause the relationship between the divorcing couple to deteriorate even further, as one person dredges up and documents evidence of the other’s behaviour.

On the other side of the coin, some people have been opposed to the introduction of no fault divorce into UK law. 

Some believe that making the divorce process easier could be damaging to the sanctity of marriage. They argue that couples may not think carefully enough before entering into a marriage if they feel that they can easily divorce if it doesn’t work out.

Some cited other potential risks associated with making divorce more straight-forward and more accessible, feeling that this could lead to more couples opting for divorce as soon as difficulties arise instead of taking the time to try to save their relationship.

It was also argued that a spouse who had committed adultery or behaved unreasonably should not be able to get divorced without being held to account.

Source: Co-op legal services

Speaking about her experience, she said: ‘He (my husband) got up in 2019 and left and never came back and by September he was saying the house had to go up on the market and I wasn’t ready.

‘I was so raw. I was so all over the place. I just wish there was some law in place that, if you have been at the butt of this, you are afforded some time to get over it.

‘I understand the need to speed things and ease things for marriages that have not worked, I think that is admirable that it has been done, but I think consideration needs to be afforded to those of us, where speed is not the thing that is needed when you just expected to be throwing away the man that I loved and gave my life to.’ 

However another caller to Woman’s Hour said she was pleased at the change in legislation, saying she had to make up a reason to get a divorce from her ex-husband after they had agreed to amicably split.

The woman, who gave her name as Savannah, said: ‘We (me and my husband) came to a very amicable realisation that we would just be better of not being married. We have three children together and we didn’t want to put them through a big acrimonious divorce.

‘We sat down together and decided what we thought was fair and reasonable with the division of our assets and did it online. And we made it all up.

‘We literally wrote completely a falsified divorce claim blaming one another and having to elaborate the language to be taken seriously.

‘We made it up. We claimed one of us had been unfaithful because there were only three reasons you could get divorced in the past.’

The reforms, which have long been called for by legal experts and campaigners, will allow couples to end their marriage jointly, without pointing the finger of blame.

Under the new law, couples will no longer be able to make allegations about the conduct of a spouse, instead making a statement of irretrievable breakdown, either individually or together.

This of itself will be ‘conclusive evidence’ that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

There will then be a new minimum period of 20 weeks, for ‘meaningful’ reflection, between starting proceedings and applying for a conditional order, and it will no longer be possible to contest a divorce, except on limited grounds, including jurisdiction.   

Until this week, unless someone could prove there was adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion, the only way to obtain a divorce without their spouse’s agreement was to live apart for five years. 

Baroness Fiona Shackleton told Radio Four’s Today Programme on Tuesday that the new law will ‘change the culture’ of divorce but falls short in the area of finances.

The Peer and legal expert said the original pain of attributing blame may be removed, but added: ‘What this act doesn’t do is sort out the money, and most of the torture is sorting out the finances.

‘Historically, most people could get a divorce by putting anodyne behaviour petition particulars into the court – it takes away that, which is a big improvement, but it’s not a panacea for speedy, painless divorce.

‘The torture is dealing with the money, and the money law as it stands today is 50 years old, it needs to be overhauled and fast. 

‘Pre-nuptial contracts came into recognition in 2011 when the Supreme Court said in certain circumstances that pre-nuptial contracts work… they suggested the Government dealt with this, the government did a law commission paper in 2014, eight years later, nothing has happened.’ 

Vijay Mehan, head of family law at Co-op Legal Services, explained: ‘When it comes to the division of matrimonial assets, there is no change to the law – the court will consider the same factors as it did before. 

What you need to know about the new divorce law which comes into effect in England and Wales from April 6 

Here is a breakdown of what the divorce law reforms will look like and how no fault divorce will work from April 6

1. Divorce can be granted without one person (spouse) blaming the other

The most important element of no fault divorce is, of course, the removal of fault or blame from the divorce process. Under the new laws, couples will be able to get divorced solely on the basis that the marriage has broken down, without needing to cite one of the 5 reasons for divorce (as is currently required).

This means that if the couple agrees to a divorce and the divorce is amicable or uncontested, there won’t be a requirement for one person to blame the other for the breakdown of the marriage.

2. Couples will be able to apply for divorce jointly

Under current laws, one spouse needs to issue divorce proceedings against the other. The person who starts the divorce is called the petitioner and the other person is called the respondent. Under the no fault divorce system, both people will be able to make the application jointly. 

3. Divorce terminology will be updated

Some of the wording used in the divorce process has been flagged as outdated, so this is being brought up to date. The person applying for the divorce will be called the applicant, instead of the petitioner. The decree nisi will become the conditional order and the decree absolute will be called the final order.

4. There will be a minimum of 20 weeks between the application and conditional order

A minimum timeframe of 20 weeks is being introduced between the application and the conditional order. This timeframe has been introduced to counter concerns that the reforms will make divorce a quicker and easier option for couples than trying to save their marriage. This ‘period of reflection’ will give couples an opportunity to reflect and work through their differences before committing to a divorce.

There will then be a minimum 6 week period between the conditional order and the final order.

Another option for couples is to enter into a separation agreement, which is a written agreement outlining the terms of the separation. A separation agreement will not end the marriage, but it can enable both people to agree on the terms of the separation.

5. It will no longer be possible to contest a divorce

Under the current system, one person submits a divorce petition, citing their spouse’s behaviour or a period of separation as the reason for the divorce, and their spouse can contest this. This is exactly what has happened in the high-profile divorce case of Tini and Hugh Owens. Under the new no fault divorce system, this option will be removed.

Current divorce process in England and Wales

In order to be granted a divorce in England or Wales, the court needs to be convinced that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, to a point where it can’t be saved.

Under current laws, unless a couple lives separately for at least 2 years they can only get a divorce if one person blames the other for this irretrievable breakdown of their marriage, and this must fall into the category of either adultery or unreasonable behaviour.

These blame-based options are two of 5 legally recognised reasons for the breakdown of a marriage under current laws. 

Source: Co-op legal services

‘If individuals wish for the court to consider the behaviour of the former spouse during the relationship, this can still be done as part of any proceedings dealing with finances.

‘The new law means that a spouse can no longer defend a divorce and if the person applying to the court declares that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the person responding cannot challenge. 

‘However, there are limited circumstances where they could be challenged. 

‘An example being where there is an issue as to which country the proceedings should take place in (jurisdiction), or if there is an allegation that there was no marriage (validity).’

Speaking to MailMoney in March, former Pensions Minister Steve Webb and family law barrister Rhys Taylor warned that one spouse might only hear about the divorce just before the first divorce order.

‘They may be dismayed to discover that there is little or nothing they can do to stop or delay the process if the other partner is insistent on going ahead,’ they wrote.

‘They will have to deal with a range of practical issues including care of any children, impact on living arrangements and short-term financial support post-divorce.

‘They may also be reluctant to raise pension issues for fear of being seen to be ‘obstructive’ or ‘difficult’, in a new system designed to reduce conflict and the need to prove fault.’ 

But Stuart Ruff, partner at the south London and Kent law firm Thackray Williams, said the new law was the ‘legal watershed that couples have been desperately waiting for.’

He added: ‘It is truly a hallelujah moment and will save couples untold pain of having to blame somebody for a divorce.’

Meanwhile Tini Owens, whose case sparked the campaign for a law change almost four years ago, called the move an ‘important milestone’.

She lost a Supreme Court fight in 2018 after failing to convince judges that her 40-year marriage should end.

She said: ‘No-one should have to remain in a loveless marriage or endure a long, drawn out and expensive court battle to end it.

‘This change in the law guards against that happening and I welcome it.’

Her solicitor, Simon Beccle – partner at Payne Hicks Beach, said the change ‘does not come soon enough’.

He said: ‘In addition to reducing potential conflict by removing the issue of blame from the divorce law, there are lots of positives to be taken from the new law, not least in allowing joint applications for divorce for the first time, removing the ability of one spouse to defend a divorce and simplifying the divorce terminology and language.’

Anyone thinking this law change will usher in ‘quickie divorces’ would be mistaken, he said, as there is a minimum 20 weeks between starting proceedings and applying for a conditional order, and a further six-week period before divorce is granted.

The online divorce service Amicable said the move signals a ‘huge narrative shift to separation’ and will go some way to healing the ‘blame-laden’ system

Co founder Kate Daly said the group ‘fiercely contest’ claims that the new legislation will undermine the sanctity of marriage, instead saying it enables divorce to be achieved ‘in a less punishing, more collaborate way’.

Elspeth Kinder, partner and head of family law at JMW Solicitors, said there is likely to be a temporary spike in applications because some couples have delayed acting until the rules change.

She said couples applying for divorce together ‘may well become the standard process as lawyers seek to minimise conflict’ and the new legislation will ‘massively speed up’ the process for couples who previously would have elected to divorce on the basis of two years’ separation.

The National Family Mediation charity said it is preparing for what it expects to be its busiest month ever, with its mediators ready for a ‘flood of enquiries’.

Experts warned the move could bring some unintended consequences.

The minimum 20-week wait ‘will irritate many’, warned Sarah Anticoni, partner at Charles Russell Speechlys.

She added: ‘Divorce lawyers have rightly spent years lobbying for the end of the often-toxic “blame game”. 

However, if couples no longer articulate the demise of their marriage in this way, it is unclear where the feelings of loss, grief and anger will manifest themselves.

‘This may need to be addressed through other services, including counselling.’

There also fears the delay will prove ‘unhelpful’ to people in abusive relationships. 

Sheena Cassidy Hope, Managing Associate at Mishcon de Reya in the Family Law team, said: ‘The reforms are welcome in terms of reducing potential acrimony at the outset of proceedings. In particular, the new system is likely to reduce the opportunity for abusers to weaponise the divorce process.

‘However, the new procedure imposes a minimum period of 20 weeks between the divorce application and the applicant being able to apply for the first part of the divorce (a ‘conditional order’). 

‘Once a conditional order is made, there will be a further minimum wait of six weeks before a final order can be made, making the process for obtaining a divorce under the new law potentially slower than under the ‘fault-based’ regime.

‘The practical result is that the marriage will legally continue for a minimum of six months after a divorce application is made and the applicant has confirmed that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. 

‘For survivors of abuse seeking to exit a marriage as swiftly as possible, this built-in delay seems unhelpful.

‘No fault’ divorces offer greater scope for abuse of pension tax relief, warn experts 

Speaking to MailMoney earlier this month, former Pensions Minister Steve Webb and family law barrister Rhys Taylor said new ‘no fault’ divorces could lead to more pension fraud.

They said: ‘Under current HMRC rules, each member of a couple can enjoy a lifetime allowance of £1,073,100 in pension saving whilst benefiting from pension tax relief.

‘But where one spouse has reached their lifetime limit and the other has not, there is no process to transfer unused LTA from one partner in a marriage to the other.

‘In the event of a divorce, this situation can change. If pension rights are shared as part of the divorce settlement this will often mean that the spouse with the greater pension wealth transfers some of his or her pension to the spouse with less pension wealth.

‘If the spouse with greater pension wealth was previously at the LTA, the situation postdivorce is that he or she now once more has capacity to save into a pension whilst benefiting from tax relief.

‘Although current divorce law would in theory allow couples to ‘max out’ on pension tax relief limits as described above, in practice there may be several practical barriers. The quickest way to secure a divorce would be for one party to allege that the other party is ‘at fault’ for the divorce.

‘This may not be a pleasant process, especially where children are involved, and it would be necessary for this to be proved to the satisfaction of the court.

‘Alternatively, if an irretrievable breakdown is claimed with consent by both parties this could only happen after a two-year separation. In the new system these barriers are greatly reduced.

‘One possible scenario is that a couple agree to divorce and ‘go through the motions’ of demonstrating that their relationship has broken down.

‘Pensions are then shared, only to be followed by an apparently remarkable reconciliation (and possibly even remarriage) a short period thereafter.

‘Very large sums of tax may be dishonestly avoided in this scenario. This strategy is dishonest and may breach the criminal law. It may not, however, be easily detected, save by tipping off to the HMRC.’

‘Whilst the reforms are expected that this will reduce acrimony in many cases, the reforms should also permit survivors of abuse to exit a marriage in a way that reduces the likelihood of repercussions from the perpetrator and should avoid the system being used for further abuse.’

Groups also called for more support for children whose parents split up.

The Family Solutions Group welcomed the introduction of no-fault divorces but said it is ‘only one part of the jigsaw’, calling for more help to reduce conflict for children whose parents are separating.

The Positive Parenting Alliance said the positive move is ‘far from the great leap forward that’s needed to provide the fundamental changes required to safeguard the mental health of children around parental breakdown’. 

Founder James Hayhurst said: ‘Now we need to start thinking very differently and more broadly about the whole issue of relationship breakdown and divorce, which should be treated as an urgent health and wellbeing issue – for both parents and children.

‘This may need to be addressed through other services, including counselling.’

The law change was partly inspired following the unusual case of Owens v Owens.  

Tini Owens, the wife of a mushroom farmer, who said she was trapped in a loveless marriage, lost her long-running legal battle to divorce her husband in 2018.

Mrs Owens wanted to end her 40-year marriage to Hugh Owens, insisting their relationship had broken down. 

But Mr Owens refused to agree to the split.

Despite his wife having had an affair and the couple living in separate houses, he claimed she was just ‘bored’ and insisted they still had a ‘few years’ to enjoy life together. 

Five Supreme Court judges waved away Mrs Owens’ pleas to let her end the union and ruled she must stay married.

Top judges backed previous court rulings that Mrs Owens has failed to establish that her marriage had irretrievably broken down, as was required by law.

A number of justices expressed their reluctance to make the ruling, but said they were bound by the law.  

Speaking after the judgment was delivered, Mrs Owens’ solicitor, Simon Beccle, said many people would find the Supreme Court decision ‘hard to understand’.

He said she had hoped judges would make a decision which would be ‘forward-thinking and fit with the current social mores’. 

‘Mrs Owens is devastated by this decision, which means that she cannot move forward with her life and obtain her independence from Mr Owens,’ her lawyer added.

Mr and Mrs Owens married in 1978 and lived in Broadway, Worcestershire, judges have heard. Mrs Owens petitioned for divorce in 2015 after moving out. 

A judge ruled she would be able to divorce her husband in 2020 as by that time, five years would have passed since their separation, allowing her to file for a divorce without consent or evidence of fault.

‘You cannot underestimate the shockwave that the Owens case spread through the whole family law world,’ Daniel Monk, a professor of law at Birkbeck, previously told the i. 

‘It’s exceptional to have a contested divorce, and then it’s exceptional that a judge refused the divorce. It really highlighted the unfairness of it all.’ 

• How will the no-fault divorce law impact your situation? Have you waited for the new no fault divorce legislation to push forward with your amicable break-up? Or are you reluctant to accept a no fault divorce from a cheating partner?: Contact me: james.robinson@mailonline.co.uk

 

My divorce was so torturous. But now I fear we’re making it far too easy: AMANDA PLATELL argues new ‘no-fault’ divorce law will lead to more wrecked marriages

By Amanda Platell for the Daily Mail 

Five months to end a marriage.

Five months not only to absorb the news that the husband or wife whom you took for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, is leaving, but also five months in which to process recriminations, attempt reconciliation and divide marital assets. And — oh yes — work out who gets custody of the children.

It doesn’t seem long, does it? As we all know, five months is considerably less time than most women spend planning their weddings.

But with the ‘no-fault’ divorce law coming into force today, either party can apply to end their marriage and it will all be over within that time (plus six weeks for the decree absolute — or final order as it will be called — to land on your doormat).

So in theory, you can tell your husband you no longer love him at Christmas and be single by Midsummer’s Day.

The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act has been fought hard for by feminists and hailed as a giant leap forward for women (and for men), but is it really?

Campaigners say the new law takes the pain out of divorce. No blame, no bitterness, no need to cite any of the former grounds for divorce, such as unreasonable behaviour, adultery or desertion. Worthy aims, but is the law grounded in reality?

My fear is such simplicity will lead to more divorces. After all, there’s now no need to work through the rough patches that happen in any marriage; it can all be over in months.

Imagine sitting your children down and saying: ‘Mum and Dad have some bad news and some good news. First, we’re getting divorced. Second, it’ll all be over in five months,’ knowing that it can take children years to process something so devastating as the break-up of their family.

Then there are decisions about who gets to live in the family home, or whether it is sold, and who is entitled to what from each other’s pensions, savings and investments.

That is the ugly reality of divorce, where the real bitterness begins. Deciding to go your separate ways is the easy bit, as I know personally.

My marriage was short, yet we both spent many thousands of pounds on lawyers and two years fighting over a tiny flat, a beaten-up old car and our two cats, Ronnie and Reggie.

How can any couple divide everything they may have spent decades building together in the 20 weeks the new law suggests is the ‘cooling off’ period? How can any couple navigate the process of dividing one life into two in such a short space of time?

Divorce expert Claire Reid of Hall Brown Family Law says even in cases where there is not a lot of money or assets involved, it could take 18 months to resolve. So we’ll still need a fortune to pay the lawyers.

From my own experience, I’d say five months is nowhere near long enough to attempt reconciliation.

It took me much longer than that to even apply for a divorce after I discovered that my husband was having an affair.

We parted due to his mistakes and also mine. I wasn’t a very good wife. Yet I changed the locks, made pride my shield, the wronged woman my sympathy calling card. I had two years to consider our choices and conclude that divorce was best for both of us.

When my friends threw me a ‘divorce party’ on the day my decree absolute came through, I felt far from jubilant. In fact, it was one of the saddest times of my life.

However much this law tries to redefine the dissolution of a marriage as ‘quick’ and ‘no fault’, the undeniable truth remains that divorce hurts. It hurts everyone involved. Yet I know plenty of women who, after a suitable breathing period, made a different choice to mine.

One friend decided after her husband left her and their two children for a younger model she would win him back.

So she had an ‘affair’ with her husband behind his mistress’s back, they rekindled their romance and are still happily married 20 years later.

Had she been offered a five-month escape route, I suspect she may well have taken it.

I quote these examples as marriages are not just legal contracts; they are nuanced, born of love, full of conflict and can sometimes be worked out.

Unless one party is a psychopath, there are always degrees of fault on both sides, as in my case.

Many couples I know worked through the tricky spells in their marriages, believing their wedding vows were something worth fighting for. I salute them. Not all of us can be so lucky, or so wise.

My fear is that this new law heralds haste, the antithesis of lifelong commitment and the embodiment of our throwaway society. Marriage is the last institution we should be chucking in the recycling bin.

Perhaps, too, it may serve to be a warning that if you divorce in haste, you may well repent at leisure.