Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill

Written evidence submitted by Sue Kincaid (DDSB04)

The proposals make complete sense and are long overdue in today's society.

Requirement to provide evidence of conduct - a sensible solution to replace this with a Statement of Irretrievable Breakdown.

An individual's conduct is disregarded by a Judge anyway, so means nothing! It is also often "one person's word against the other" - which cannot be proven or denied.

In my divorce, any old lay person may as well have divorced us, instead of paying a Judge's huge salary - since the Judge completely ignored the law! In our circumstances, based on the errant statements and false declaration by my former husband (Applicant) [- where he had none - and gave - NO examples of bad behaviour by myself] - the Judge would've been bound to make further enquiries i.a.w.The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973. Instead, he simply "ticked the box" without reading the statements! I was unable to appeal in time, since he chose NOT to respond to my enquiries within the timespan allowed. His unacceptable eventual response was "I did as I saw fit!  

The revised position will save hours of court time, preparation of paperwork, paying staff to process/hear cases, and the anger/stress caused to those involved, resulting in time delays before getting on with their lives.

Removing the possibility of contesting the decision to divorce - no one can FORCE an individual to stay with another against their will! Again, this was a ludicrous law, so should be repealed!

{Unfortunately, it'll take until 2020 to amend the statute - i.e. the year before which Mrs Tina Owens (Supreme Court - Owens v Owens) is not legally allowed to obtain a divorce from her husband! The "powers that be" determined, i.a.w. current law, that she HAS TO REMAIN MARRIED to Mr. Owens 'til then!}

Introduce the new option of a Joint Application - another sensible solution!

Currently, the law allows the "wrong-doer" in a relationship to be the Applicant - this is in the Public Domain - regardless that the Respondent may have done nothing wrong. In my case, my ex husband needed a quick divorce before he could legally marry the person he'd been having an affair with. I have to live with the fact that I'm deemed to be the 'Respondent', which, to all intents and purposes, suggests I was at fault! 

Update terminology - yet another sensible solution to bring the law into the 21st century!

June 2019

 

Prepared 3rd July 2019