What's this about
Chamber Of Debate
10 December 11
Chamber of Debate
FAMILY - divorce - fault
"Essentially, what has happened is that the Courts have virtually turned the Law upside down, contrary to the express intention of Parliament, and created a situation whereby people can break up marriages and obtain the same financial benefits as would only have been received had the other party broken up the marriage. Since actions may be taken without consequences, there is no incentive to refrain from those actions.
The law applies a subjective and not an objective test to unreasonable behaviour, so that behaviour which the average man or woman would not regard as unreasonable was treated as unreasonable if the party claiming it said that they found it unreasonable. This opened a floodgate of petitions n grounds which Parliament never contemplated, and this round became by far the most popular ground for divorce whereas it had been the least used (under the name of cruelty) before he 1970 Act.
'Conduct' was no longer relevant unless it was "gross and obvious" and effectively the Courts rarely hold any conduct to be relevant, or if they do, pay lip service to it and otherwise ignore it. If the wife broke up the marriage the Courts would treat her in a way as if it had been her husband who had broken up the marriage. Whereas, if the husband did break up the marriage, he could rely upon being treated with greater harshness.
The Courts announced that they would not enforce their own access Orders. The affect was rather like saying that in future burglars would not be prosecuted. You get a wave of burglaries. The specious ground for this was that if the custodial parent was upset the child would be upset. You might say to the contrary that the image to the child not seeing the non custodial parent would be much more serious.
Since the Courts take the view that wives may break up their marriage without any consequence, it is not surprising there is more of divorce. The "unreasonable demeanor petition" is that the vast majority are thoroughly bad and reflect no more than boredom with the marriage and more so the majority of cases what triggers off the divorce is the arrival of the boyfriend hidden in the background."
Should no-fault divorce be abolished and the concept of fault re-introduced in divorce proceedings?
Our Unique Parallel Polling System
(One Member One Vote)
(One Member Multiple Votes)
AAA Awarded members only.
Responsibility is the key issue. The greatest responsibility anyone ever has is to bring up their children. Parents cannot do this by leaving their children! So divorce and separation are not an option!
Parents need to discipline their behaviour in the interests of their children.
"The love a child receives from their parents is their emotional foundation for the rest of their life".
And children learn by copying their parents, probably until they are 25 years old (and this age is getting older every year).
Time to bring "responsibility" back to the top of the social agenda and culture. Not "individual rights" to do whatever I want to because it is my right. The ultimate in selfishness.
Why not introduce a new category of marriage?
Make the traditional "until death do us part" marriage much harder to break, but also introduce a number of time-limited marriages of say 10, 15, 20, 25 years duration which automatically end at that time (but can be renewed) and which are much easier to break up.
Joyce Grenfell said that her parents had stopped loving one another but remained together for her sake, until at least she reached young adulthood. The parents were aware they had to act out the parts of mother & father for her benefit, but she couldn’t tell the difference, & later she was grateful to them for providing her with a nice childhood. In those days too you had fault-divorce. No doubt it usually was unrealistic to place all the fault on one side or the other, but the process of attending the High Court tended to put the brakes on divorce, made it exceptional, stigmatised it, & a return to it would be greatly welcomed today - in what the Sun newspaper calls ‘Broken Britain’. Needless to say, the government should also restore tax allowances to married couples, especially those with children. If the state must interfere at all let it do so to show its approval of the normal family which is not broken - rather than enforcing & endorsing dead-end PC notions such as the supposed equality between hetero- and homosexual partnerships.
Of course, when Joyce was a child, homosexuals went to prison. But that is another poll!
Marriage is a LIFELONG CONTRACT, and this is the safest way to bring up children and for them to learn what control is.
Divorce should be a last resort thing where the marriage cannot continue.
Marriage needs to become the institution it once was. The breakdown of family life is the cause of the breakdown in society we are seeing at the moment. A proper family life teaches children values, and respect for their elders. Instead, we have today, a generation of morons who have no idea!!
Marriage is NOT about saying "I love you until I no longer love you" - it ought to be regarded as a CONTRACT to bring up offspring together. Not "getting" this means disadvantaging our children, leaving them to the tender mercies of their step-parents or our new partenrs who would quite understandably prefer that our children did not exist and want them out of the way.
The law should therefore support marriage and discourage divorce by making it more expensive to live apart and impute fault when a marriage breaks up.
There are many times when a marriage just fails through the transition of time. It is no ones fault, it just happens.
All comments are subject to approval.
- My Profile
- Edit My Profile
- Reset My Password
- Quick Search
- Advanced Search
- Name Search
- Saved Search
- Who is Online
- List of Correspondents
- Blocked Members
- Refer a Friend
- Chamber of Debate
- Classified Advertisements
- AAA Award
What's this about
, All Rights Reserved