Woman must stay in unhappy marriage, judges rule, as they urge Parliament to change divorce law

by Guest Wed Jul 25, 2018 5:40 pm

First topic message reminder :

Supreme Court judges have "reluctantly" forced a woman to stay in an unhappy marriage as they urged Parliament to change the law on divorce.

The unanimous decision by five senior judges means Tini Owens, 68, must remain married to husband Hugh, 80, until at least 2020 because she has been unable to show sufficiently good grounds for the proposed split.

Judges said the case "generates uneasy feelings" and suggested that the current system, in which partners must demonstrate bad behaviour by their spouse, was out of date.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/25/woman-must-stay-unhappy-marriage-judges-rule-urge-parliament/

Beggars belief

by Guest Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Subjective

What evidence do you have on the above?

Claims to Jesus walking on water?

Evidence of what? If you're going to get abusive and keep dragging religion into it, the debate is ended.

How was I abusive?

Are you now going to burn houses down and murder people on what I said?

Again, how are you offended to believe its abusive?

by Syl Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:30 am

There have been calls to change the divorce laws for ages, making it easier, quicker, and without the need for one party to accept blame.....this was written last year but has been repeated recently since the case in the OP became public.

"Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, has called to hasten steps to "de-link" divorce and financial proceedings as well as usher in online divorce.
In the latest 'View from the President's Chambers', Sir James Munby, who is the most senior family law judge in England and Wales, advocated strongly for the changes, which would see divorce proceedings completely separated from a couple’s financial disputes."

https://vardags.com/family-law/munby-de-linked-online-divorce

by Original Quill Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:12 pm

I simply don't understand the state's interest in personal matters like marriage. Is it some paternalistic interest in people living healthy, invigorating life styles? Hey...here's a no-brainer: pass a law against smoking before you dabble in peoples' bedrooms.

There should be no penalty if one or both parties want to split. What is the interest in fiddlin' with peoples' private lives? Is there some magic in pair-bonding? It makes no sense.

by Guest Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:I simply don't understand the state's interest in personal matters like marriage. Is it some paternalistic interest in people living healthy, invigorating life styles? Hey...here's a no-brainer: pass a law against smoking before you dabble in peoples' bedrooms.

There should be no penalty if one or both parties want to split. What is the interest in fiddlin' with peoples' private lives? Is there some magic in pair-bonding? It makes no sense.

+1

by Sponsored content

Woman must stay in unhappy marriage, judges rule, as they urge Parliament to change divorce law

Woman must stay in unhappy marriage, judges rule, as they urge Parliament to change divorce law

Re: Woman must stay in unhappy marriage, judges rule, as they urge Parliament to change divorce law

Re: Woman must stay in unhappy marriage, judges rule, as they urge Parliament to change divorce law

Re: Woman must stay in unhappy marriage, judges rule, as they urge Parliament to change divorce law

Re: Woman must stay in unhappy marriage, judges rule, as they urge Parliament to change divorce law

Re: Woman must stay in unhappy marriage, judges rule, as they urge Parliament to change divorce law