Forcing a separated spouse to sell the house?

[Alan Lee]

A friend is in a situation which is getting complicated, and she has
little money to resolve it.
She has been separated from her husband for 3+ years, but due to
financial constraints, she has stayed in their jointly owned home, in
separate bedrooms, and has as little contact with the estranged husband
as possible. She moved out 6 months ago, so the Husband is the only
occupant there now.
She has asked for a divorce, he says he will contest it, but, AFAIAA,
contesting it will do nothing, as they have been spearated 3 years now.
What is causing her real hardship is that he will not agree to sell the
house.

She cannot get any legal aid, as she has an asset worth £150k+ (half
share of the house).
Is there any way she can force him to sell, and, in effect, evict him?
Of course, keeping costs down is paramount, as she has no ready money to
pay Solicitors bills, and would really like to keep as much value as she
can without incurring large fees, which she thinks is what he is
planning, by contesting everything.
Any ideas on what she could do?
Thanks.

--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

[David McNeish]

On Sunday, 5 November 2023 at 21:22:20 UTC, Alan Lee wrote:

> Is there any way she can force him to sell, and, in effect, evict him?
> Of course, keeping costs down is paramount, as she has no ready money to
> pay Solicitors bills, and would really like to keep as much value as she
> can without incurring large fees, which she thinks is what he is
> planning, by contesting everything.

Assuming they are divorcing, the house is going to be dealt with as part
of that (along with all their other finances). And yes, in general joint owners
can force a sale, whether divorcing or not.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 19:02:41 +0000, Alan Lee <al...@darkroom.plus.com> wrote:

>Is there any way she can force him to sell, and, in effect, evict him?
>Of course, keeping costs down is paramount, as she has no ready money to
>pay Solicitors bills, and would really like to keep as much value as she
>can without incurring large fees, which she thinks is what he is
>planning, by contesting everything.
>Any ideas on what she could do?

If she thinks he's going to play awkward then she absolutely has to get a
soicitor. The cost of not doing so will vastly outweigh the fees she will
incur by getting legal advice and representation.

As far as the house is concerned, then it would be normal for either party
to be able to force a sale if no agreement can be reached. This would be
routine work for a solicitor to deal with.

It doesn't matter that she has little money at the moment. She will have
£150,000 once it's all over, and will be able to pay her solicitor's fees
out of that. Divorce solicitors are used to this kind of situation, they
won't want payment up front provided they have a reasonable expectation that
their fees will be covered by the proceeds of splitting the property. And
most of them will also offer a free initial consultaion, which will be a
much more useful source of advice than random people on the Internet.

Mark

[Simon Parker]

The new(ish) so-called "no fault" divorces became law in April 2022.

The press release is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/blame-game-ends-as-no-fault-divorce-comes-into-force

(Normally, I'd quote the underlying legislation, but that press release
is more than sufficient in the circumstances.)

The changes from the perspective of your friend are of vital importance.

She can file for a divorce on the grounds of "unreasonable behaviour"
and there is little to nothing that can be done to contest it.

The following is from memory, so please double check but my recollection
of the process is, which I studied in detail in the run-up to the change:

Either spouse can apply for the divorce, or they can apply jointly.

If she applies individually, her husband will be served the divorce
application within a few days and he will be asked to answer three
questions:

(1) Does he currently reside in England / Wales?
(2) Were they married in England / Wales?
(3) Does he accept the authority of the court in England / Wales?

If the answer to those three questions is "Yes", the conditions for a
no-fault divorce are met and there is little to nothing he can do to
contest it. No less than 20 weeks after he answers those questions
(which is a maximum of 28 days after he receives them), your friend can
apply for a "Conditional Order" (formerly Decree Nisi) and no less than
6 weeks and 1 day after the granting of the Conditional Order, she can
apply for the "Final Order" (formerly Decree Absolute) at which point
the marriage is dissolved.

The court fee for a no-fault divorce is £593 so your friend will need
that much to start the process.

If she and her husband cannot agree to a reasonable division of assets
by the time the Conditional Order is granted then either party can apply
for a court imposed order but negotiation, mediation, arbitration,
collaboration or a combination of some, most or all of these should be
exhausted before applying for a court imposed order.

There's a minimum of 20 weeks to agree all this prior to the granting of
the Conditional Order and by this stage, the reality of the situation
should have sunk in for the husband as should the fact that being
awkward is only wasting money.

In the name of completeness, I recommend seeking legal advice prior to
deciding to divorce and, given the value of assets involved, a solicitor
should be involved to advise on division of assets and it would be
highly advisable to obtain a court order finalising the financial
arrangements, even if everything can be agreed amicably (more so if not).

Some solicitors will offer an initial consultation for free and a fixed
fee for the whole process if she's worried about escalating costs, or
signing a "blank cheque" at the start of the process.

Regards

S.P.

[GB]

On 05/11/2023 19:02, Alan Lee wrote:

Unfortunately, divorces are often acrimonious, and it appears the
husband may think that by being awkward he can drive a better bargain.
To a limited extent, that may be correct.

If the husband thinks he will deliberately waste much of the wife's
share of the matrimonial property, then he's unwise. Judges are not
fools, and they have some leeway about how they split the assets.

The best course for the wife is undoubtedly to get a solicitor on board,
as Mark advised. There's no need to force a sale of the house separately
from the divorce proceedings, as this will be dealt with as part of the
divorce.

Unfortunately, if the husband is living in the house on his own, he has
no incentive to make it easy to sell. So, he won't necessarily encourage
viewings, or tidy up, etc. If the wife can do so, she may be wise to
move back into the house until it is sold.

[JNugent]

On 05/11/2023 07:02 pm, Alan Lee wrote:

> A friend is in a situation which is getting complicated, and she has
> little money to resolve it.
> She has been separated from her husband for 3+ years, but due to
> financial constraints, she has stayed in their jointly owned home, in
> separate bedrooms, and has as little contact with the estranged husband
> as possible. She moved out 6 months ago, so the Husband is the only
> occupant there now.

Ok...

> She has asked for a divorce, he says he will contest it, but, AFAIAA,
> contesting it will do nothing, as they have been spearated 3 years now.
> What is causing her real hardship is that he will not agree to sell the
> house.

Will he contest the "separation", and thereby, the divorce petition?
That strikes me as the more immediate issue here.

>
> She cannot get any legal aid, as she has an asset worth £150k+ (half
> share of the house).

She might have been better off doing that whilst still living inthe house.

> Is there any way she can force him to sell, and, in effect, evict him?

Not really. All she can do is seek her half, or share, of the equity. He
might decide to re-mortgage in order to raise her share and buy her out.
That's if he can afford to.

[TTman]

Thanks, that's very useful 'up to date' guidance.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kqqrhh...@mid.individual.net...

> On 05/11/2023 07:02 pm, Alan Lee wrote:
>
>> A friend is in a situation which is getting complicated, and she has
>> little money to resolve it.
>> She has been separated from her husband for 3+ years, but due to
>> financial constraints, she has stayed in their jointly owned home, in
>> separate bedrooms, and has as little contact with the estranged husband
>> as possible. She moved out 6 months ago, so the Husband is the only
>> occupant there now.
>
> Ok...
>
>> She has asked for a divorce, he says he will contest it, but, AFAIAA,
>> contesting it will do nothing, as they have been spearated 3 years now.
>> What is causing her real hardship is that he will not agree to sell the
>> house.
>
> Will he contest the "separation", and thereby, the divorce petition? That
> strikes me as the more immediate issue here.

Proof of separation is no longer a requirement

>From the source cited by Simon Parker

selective quotes:

Published

6 April 2022

Specifically, the measures from the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation
Act that come into force today include:

*Replacing the current requirement to evidence either a conduct or
separation 'fact'*

The changes mean that a spouse, or a couple jointly, can now apply for
divorce by stating their marriage has broken down irretrievably.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/blame-game-ends-as-no-fault-divorce-comes-into-force

unquote:


bb

[JNugent]

What happens when one of the couple denies that the marriage has broken
down?

Doe the statement of the other party prevail without further ado?

As we might recall, there was a case along those lines a few years ago.

> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/blame-game-ends-as-no-fault-divorce-comes-into-force
>
> unquote:
>
>
> bb
>
>
>
>

[Simon Parker]

On 06/11/2023 17:45, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/11/2023 04:01 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kqqrhh...@mid.individual.net...

>>> Will he contest the "separation", and thereby, the divorce petition?
>>> That
>>> strikes me as the more immediate issue here.
>>
>> Proof of separation is no longer a requirement
>>
>>> From the source cited by Simon Parker
>>
>> selective quotes:
>>
>> Published
>>
>> 6 April 2022
>>
>> Specifically, the measures from the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation
>> Act that come into force today include:
>>
>> *Replacing the current requirement to evidence either a conduct or
>> separation 'fact'*
>>
>> The changes mean that a spouse, or a couple jointly, can now apply for
>> divorce by stating their marriage has broken down irretrievably.
>>
> What happens when one of the couple denies that the marriage has broken
> down?

I'll use the legal terminology, as far as practicable:

For a "sole application", the applicant completes the paperwork (which
can be done electronically) and submits it to the Court along with the
fee of £593.

The respondent (spouse) will then be served with divorce papers through
the post which will contain an "acknowledgement of service" which they
must complete and return confirming stating either that they agree to
the divorce or that they want to dispute the divorce. (Technically,
there is no "I agree to the divorce" or "I wish to dispute the divorce
check boxes. More on that later...)

For a "joint application", both apply for the divorce together (same fee
of £593) whereupon each party will be sent an "Acknowledgement Receipt"
which they must return to the Court.

For a sole application, the respondent can dispute the divorce on very
limited grounds only and must pay a fee of £245 [1] to file the dispute.
(A sample "Answer Form", used to dispute the divorce, can be seen here
[2])

I outlined the grounds in my previous post but they are:

(1) the respondent does not agree that the courts have jurisdiction to
deal with the proceedings;
(2) the respondent has proof that the marriage [3] was never valid; or
(3) the respondent has proof that the marriage has already legally ended.

(The astute will have noticed that options (2) and (3) are not exactly
ideal options for keeping the marriage going so the only real option to
dispute a so-called "no fault" divorce is that the respondent does not
accept that the courts have jurisdiction in the matter which would, I
suggest, take some explaining, FMOTLer divorce applications
notwithstanding.)

Each of the above options has a corresponding check box on the Answer
Form. Under the heading: "Please treat this as my answer to the
application.", the question is asked "On which ground do you wish to
dispute the application?" with only the above three options being listed.

"I love my spouse and do not want the marriage to end" is not a valid
ground upon which to dispute the divorce and were one to attempt to
submit this as a ground upon which to dispute the divorce the court
would refuse to accept this and would inform the applicant that they can
proceed with the divorce regardless of the claimed dispute, keeping the
respondent's £245 for processing their "answer form" despite it
containing no legal grounds upon which to dispute the divorce.

> Doe the statement of the other party prevail without further ado?

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: The law now acknowledges that it takes two to make a
marriage work. If one mate states that the marriage has irretrievably
broken down and that they want out, then the marriage is over. It might
take the legal system a while to acknowledge this fact but the marriage
is effectively over as soon as one party has decided they're not
prepared to work to keep it going. The "while" it now takes is
considerably shorter than it used to be and the process considerably
less acrimonious. It doesn't have to be anybody's "fault" any more.
Nor is there a need to separate for two/five years or prove adultery,
unreasonable behaviour or the like.

If one or both mate(s) decide(s) the marriage is over and makes a
submission to the court to that effect (tendering the appropriate fee)
then that is that.

> As we might recall, there was a case along those lines a few years ago.

Ah yes, Owens v Owens which went all the way to the Supreme Court
([2018] UKSC 41 [4]), by which time Mrs Owens could file for divorce
anyway as the 5 year separation rule had been met.

Some might consider this case a trigger for the change in legislation to
bring divorce law into the 21st Century to prevent a spouse being
trapped in a loveless marriage for 5 years (the requisite period for
separation for a contested divorce under the old system) merely because
their spouse insists on contesting the divorce on specious grounds.

Regards

S.P.

[1] Thread Convergence: the Court accepts payment via credit / debit
card or a cheque made payable to HMCTS. They do not accept cash, even
"legal tender", regardless of whether or not it contains £20 coins. :-)
[2]
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1138047/D8B_0223_save.pdf
[3] For all references to "marriage" read "marriage or civil partnership"
[4] https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0077-judgment.pdf

[JNugent]

That seems to answer my question, at least.

My question, now snipped, I see, can be paraphrased along the lines of
"If the non-applicant spouse disputes that the marriage has broken down
, does the statement of the applicant to the contrary trump that of the
non-applicant?".

And see below.

I expect that someone thought that that was an improvement.

>
>> As we might recall, there was a case along those lines a few years ago.
>
> Ah yes, Owens v Owens which went all the way to the Supreme Court
> ([2018] UKSC 41 [4]), by which time Mrs Owens could file for divorce
> anyway as the 5 year separation rule had been met.
>
> Some might consider this case a trigger for the change in legislation to
> bring divorce law into the 21st Century to prevent a spouse being
> trapped in a loveless marriage for 5 years (the requisite period for
> separation for a contested divorce under the old system) merely because
> their spouse insists on contesting the divorce on specious grounds.

Yes, that was the one.

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:kquuek...@mid.individual.net...
..

>
> My question, now snipped, I see, can be paraphrased along the lines of "If
> the non-applicant spouse disputes that the marriage has broken down , does
> the statement of the applicant to the contrary trump that of the
> non-applicant?".

How can it ?

Does it take two to tango, or does it not ?

Most people would agree that it takes two to tango.

If you want to insist that it doesn't take two to tango,
then clearly there is an "irretereivable breakdown" between
yourself and most other people on this matter.

Or are you going to deny that, as well ?

bb

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:kquuek...@mid.individual.net...

>
> My question, now snipped, I see, can be paraphrased along the lines of "If
> the non-applicant spouse disputes that the marriage has broken down , does
> the statement of the applicant to the contrary trump that of the
> non-applicant?".

Of course it does ! ( Formerly known as "how can it ?")

Does it take two to tango, or does it not ?

Most people would agree that it takes two to tango.

If you want to insist that it doesn't take two to tango,
then clearly there is an "irretereivable breakdown" between
yourself and most other people on this matter.

Or are you going to deny that, as well ?

The very fact that the two parties are disgreeing about
something so fundamnatal, simply proves the very point at
issue surely ?.


bb

[Simon Parker]

I thought my answer was comprehensive and even included a link to the
form that will be sent to the respondent enabling you to see it for
yourself.

I can but apologise if my answer failed to meet the quality and standard
of answer you were expecting. Perhaps you could advise why it only
"seems to answer [your] question at least." For example, if you can
detail what information you were expecting that was missing, I might be
able to provide an answer more to your liking upon receipt your next query.

> My question, now snipped, I see,

Your question wasn't snipped, it is still there at the top of this post.
As is the second question you asked which is still there below too.

> can be paraphrased along the lines of
> "If the non-applicant spouse disputes that the marriage has broken down
> , does the statement of the applicant to the contrary trump that of the
> non-applicant?".

Your question doesn't need paraphrasing, it is still available verbatim
above and was: "What happens when one of the couple denies that the
marriage has broken down?"

I answered by outlining the process using reference to the form the
respondent will receive. There is no option to say, "I do not believe
that the marriage has broken down" and what will happen should a spouse
attempt this.

In the name of completeness, I also outlined the process followed when
both parties agree that the marriage has ended.


> And see below.

Indeed!

The government clearly thought so and as they're responsible for
introducing new legislation they were able to follow through on what
they considered to be "a good idea" with legislation.

I am aware of a situation where it hasn't led to an improvement for
those involved though. A colleague is married to a person that suffers
from mental health issues which affects their overall happiness. They
are convinced that if they do <x>, they will be happy. Having tried
numerous values of <x> over several decades of married life, it is clear
that the person will never be happy but their partner accommodates their
wishes for <x> when possible.

Around five years or so ago, the person convinced themselves that their
partner was making them unhappy and if they get divorced, they'll be
happy. My colleague was been able to stall this by delaying the divorce
application because of the need for 2 or 5 years separation knowing that
well before that time had elapsed, their partner would realise that a
divorce won't make then happier and it is their mental illness that led
them to thinking this so the process stops before it even got started.

However, the latest occurrence of this was after April of last year so
the partner was able to apply for and be granted a divorce in under a
year and there was nothing anyone could do to prevent it.

They aren't happy and the effects of their current mental health crisis
will lessen sometime soon but it will be too late. They are divorced
and there will be no remarriage.

I imagine such incidents are few and far between and the general
benefits for the majority far outweigh incidents like the above which
are very much in the minority.

>>> As we might recall, there was a case along those lines a few years ago.
>>
>> Ah yes, Owens v Owens which went all the way to the Supreme Court
>> ([2018] UKSC 41 [4]), by which time Mrs Owens could file for divorce
>> anyway as the 5 year separation rule had been met.
>>
>> Some might consider this case a trigger for the change in legislation
>> to bring divorce law into the 21st Century to prevent a spouse being
>> trapped in a loveless marriage for 5 years (the requisite period for
>> separation for a contested divorce under the old system) merely
>> because their spouse insists on contesting the divorce on specious
>> grounds.
>
> Yes, that was the one.

It is a very well-known case in family law circles.

Regards

S.P.

[JNugent]

Has marriage now been reduced to the level of importance of an
invitation for the next dance (a tango, preferably)?

What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
regarded as a trivial side-issue?

[JNugent]

An interesting approach to contract law (and marriage IS a contract).

A contract freely-entered into may be ended at any time on the assertion
of one party to that contract, irrespective of the views or interests of
the other party.

Does it apply retrospectively or only to contracts entered into on or
after the date of the coming-into-force of the new legislation?

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:kr1ceh...@mid.individual.net...

Precisely the opposite.

Unless you think its a good idea for children to witness their parents
arguing all the time ?


bb









>

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:kr1ceh...@mid.individual.net...

> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>

In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
relationships,

"If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
and lose custody of the children"

For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
prospect is it ?


bb

[Max Demian]

On 08/11/2023 12:12, JNugent wrote:
> On 07/11/2023 07:04 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kquuek...@mid.individual.net...

>>> My question, now snipped, I see, can be paraphrased along the lines
>>> of "If
>>> the non-applicant spouse disputes that the marriage has broken down ,
>>> does
>>> the statement of the applicant to the contrary trump that of the
>>> non-applicant?".
>>
>> How can it ?
>>
>> Does it take two to tango, or does it not ?
>>
>> Most people would agree that it takes two to tango.
>>
>> If you want to insist that it doesn't take two to tango,
>> then clearly there is an "irretereivable breakdown" between
>> yourself and most other people on this matter.
>>
>> Or are you going to deny that, as well ?
>
> An interesting approach to contract law (and marriage IS a contract).
>
> A contract freely-entered into may be ended at any time on the assertion
> of one party to that contract, irrespective of the views or interests of
> the other party.
>
> Does it apply retrospectively or only to contracts entered into on or
> after the date of the coming-into-force of the new legislation?

Perhaps that just shows that marriage is a lot more than a contract.
Actually, you can't just break a contract if it is for a particular
period. Perhaps marriage is sort of still regarded as "till death do us
part" with special legal measures to terminate it.

--
Max Demian

[Brian W]

As it happens, I agree with you, albeit possibly for different reasons.

For me, the starting point is to ask why we have the system of civil marriages (i.e. as opposed to religious marriages, which are controlled by the relevant religions, each of which imposes its own rules as to how (if at all) a marriage can be ended) in the first place. It seems to me that the reason is that the state considers it desirable to encourage stability in peoples' relationships and living arrangements. So there's a quid pro quo - if people voluntarily enter into an arrangement which makes it harder (to some degree) to walk out of a relationship, the state rewards that by offering favourable tax treatment etc.

That's fine, but if the state then varies the rules to make it easier to end a marriage, the underlying rationale - encouraging stability - is eroded. I recall that after the Owen v Owen decision, some campaigners sought a change in the law which would enable people simply to end a marriage at any time. I don't think the changes in the law were quite that extreme, but I really couldn't (and still can't) see the point of a marriage system which enables people to end a marriage at any time. It has always been possible to structure ones living arrangements in such a way - simple co-habitation - and a system of marriage which replicates co-habitation would in my view be completely pointless.

For what it's worth, I thought it would have been better to reform the rules by reducing the 5 year period of separation which was required (where one spouse doesn't consent) down to, say, 2-3 years. However, that ship has sailed.

[JNugent]

So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion and
divorce the most palatable option?

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:kr239c...@mid.individual.net...

In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced, or
possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do you
suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
their "contract" ?


bb

[JNugent]

Oh yes... the old "It's better for the children to have divorced
parents" argument.

[Roger Hayter]

To my mind the most important quality of marriage, as opposed to cohabitation,
is that it commits both parties to permanently share their assets, especially
if one (not always a woman!) sacrifices career and personal income to care for
children. Obviously this does not apply to all marriages, but I still think
this is the important feature.

With the exception of the feckless, and the occasional gold-digger of either
sex, most people really want to make it work. But if it doesn't work for at
least one party then the sooner it is dissolved the better. And better for any
children involved too.

So I strongly disagree with you that marriage is pointless if people don't
stick to it even when they cannot be happy.




--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Because it nearly always is.

--
Roger Hayter

[JNugent]

Is there the slightest sliver of proof for that?

I can see that is a useful alibi, easily asserted and apparently having
no need of any evidence.
>

[JNugent]

On 08/11/2023 08:34 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kr239c...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kr1ceh...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
>>> relationships,
>>>
>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
>>> and lose custody of the children"
>>>
>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
>>> prospect is it ?
>>
>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion and
>> divorce the most palatable option?
>
> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced, or
> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do you
> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
> their "contract" ?

There is no law against separation. There never has been.

[Max Demian]

On 08/11/2023 20:34, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kr239c...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kr1ceh...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
>>> relationships,
>>>
>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
>>> and lose custody of the children"
>>>
>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
>>> prospect is it ?
>>
>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion and
>> divorce the most palatable option?
>
> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced, or
> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do you
> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
> their "contract" ?

"Coercive control" is all the rage. I wonder whether it applies to a
woman controlling a man? Perhaps that doesn't correspond to the
preferred narrative.

I not sure an entirely equal relationship is possible or desirable.

--
Max Demian

[Roger Hayter]

There are several recorded cases which have resulted in criminal or civil
action.

>
> I not sure an entirely equal relationship is possible or desirable.

Equality of agency is entirely possible. Two identical personalities less so.



--
Roger Hayter

[billy bookcase]

"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:uiihs2$26f84$1...@dont-email.me...

Wherever has it been implied, that that might not be the case ?

This "preferred narrative" of yours, would appear to be entirely of your own
making.


bb

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:kr2iru...@mid.individual.net...

> On 08/11/2023 08:34 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kr239c...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kr1ceh...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
>>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
>>>> relationships,
>>>>
>>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
>>>> and lose custody of the children"
>>>>
>>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
>>>> prospect is it ?
>>>
>>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion and
>>> divorce the most palatable option?
>>
>> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced, or
>> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do you
>> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
>> their "contract" ?
>

> There is no law against separation. There never has been

Indeed.

There had never been any law preventing the aggrieveed party from being
forced to leave the matrimonial home. Possibly as a result of oppression,
coercion, or physical violence, real or threatened. And due to lack of
resources being forced to leave their children at the mercy of a
coercive and quite possibly sociopathic parent.

You're right. There never *has* been a law against that !

Hence the perceived need for a change.

What a lot of people simply wont admit is that marriage, far being
a contract cementing a fruitful and loving relationship between two
equals, both of whom who are fully committed to making it work, is
instead very often a contract exploited indeed welcomed by the
strong minded and dominant individuals possibly bordering on the
sociopathic as representing a lifetimes opportunity to dominate
coerce and manipulate and possibly assault the other party; with
the full blessing of the law and indeed, possibly society behind
them.

The burgeoning of divorce figures with the progressive loosening
of the law far from being evidence of growing irresponsibility
simply shows how many people were stuck in unhappy marriages,
possibly for the whole of their lives, about which they could do
absolutely nothing,


bb

[Brian W]

I can't point you to any evidence, as it is completely outside my field of expertise. However, in fairness, to what extent have you looked to see if there is any evidence?

[Brian W]

You make a fair point. I accept that marriage does serve a purpose other than encouraging stability. I continue to maintain, however, that the main purpose of civil marriage is encouraging stability, and that purpose falls away if people can simply end a marriage on a whim.

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:kr2iru...@mid.individual.net...

> There is no law against separation. There never has been

Indeed.

There had never been any law preventing the aggrieveed party from being
forced to leave the matrimonial home. Possibly as a result of oppression,
coercion, or physical violence, real or threatened. And due to lack of
resources being forced to leave their children at the mercy of a
coercive and quite possibly sociopathic parent.

You're right. There never *has* been a law against that !

Hence the perceived need for a change.

What a lot of people simply wont admit (unless they're trolling
at least ) is that marriage, far being a contract cementing a

[JNugent]

I have never encountered any. Perhaps some will be cited.

Plenty of unsupported assertions, though, as well as a certain amount of
evidence for the damage done to children *by* divorce (not by its absence).

Examples:

<https://www.kabirfamilylaw.co.uk/effects-of-divorce-on-children/>

<https://www.healthline.com/health/parenting/effects-of-divorce-on-children#academic-struggles>

I think it would be hard to find evidence that divorce or permanent /
indefinite separation is *good* for chlidren. A relevant case would be
unusual, probably involving something like sexual abuse. Even that
wouldn't be good, only less bad.

[JNugent]

Yes, there had.

Assault has been an offence for a very long time.

> And due to lack of
> resources being forced to leave their children at the mercy of a
> coercive and quite possibly sociopathic parent.
>
> You're right. There never *has* been a law against that !
>
> Hence the perceived need for a change.
>
> What a lot of people simply wont admit (unless they're trolling
> at least ) is that marriage, far being a contract cementing a
> fruitful and loving relationship between two equals, both of whom
> who are fully committed to making it work, is instead very often
> a contract exploited indeed welcomed by the strong minded and
> dominant individuals possibly bordering on the sociopathic as
> representing a lifetimes opportunity to dominate coerce and
> manipulate and possibly assault the other party; with the full
> blessing of the law and indeed, possibly society behind them.

Dear me.... I didn't know that Spare Rib was still being published.

>
> The burgeoning of divorce figures with the progressive loosening
> of the law far from being evidence of growing irresponsibility
> simply shows how many people were stuck in unhappy marriages,
> possibly for the whole of their lives, about which they could do
> absolutely nothing,

The rule was quite simple and quite clear following a set of changes
made (IIRC) in the second half of the 1960s). A divorce could be
available after five years' separation without the consent of the
non-applying party.

Only in a small proportion of cases could that be claimed to be "...the
whole of ... [life]...".

[Fredxx]

I would call that a life-style choice rather than a sacrifice. Children
vs career is a choice.

I am also aware of a couple that didn't initially intend to have
children but when the wife was passed over for promotion that was the
catalyst to start a family.

>> Obviously this
>> does not apply to all marriages, but I still think this is the
>> important feature.
>>
>> With the exception of the feckless, and the occasional gold-digger
>> of either sex, most people really want to make it work. But if it
>> doesn't work for at least one party then the sooner it is dissolved
>> the better. And better for any children involved too.
>>
>> So I strongly disagree with you that marriage is pointless if
>> people don't stick to it even when they cannot be happy.
>
> You make a fair point. I accept that marriage does serve a purpose
> other than encouraging stability. I continue to maintain, however,
> that the main purpose of civil marriage is encouraging stability, and
> that purpose falls away if people can simply end a marriage on a
> whim.

Unfortunately marriage can also encourage abuse. I have spoken to many
where one party has changed after marriage with various expectations
being amplified.

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:kr5bho...@mid.individual.net...

So that all anyone living with a violent partner had to do, was
report them to the police, give evidence against them in Court
and they'd immmediately stop being violent or making threats.
And would possibly even stop drinking. And then everyone
would then live happily ever after.

I see.

>> s being forced to leave their children at the mercy of a
>> coercive and quite possibly sociopathic parent.
>>
>> You're right. There never *has* been a law against that !
>>
>> Hence the perceived need for a change.
>>
>> What a lot of people simply wont admit (unless they're trolling
>> at least ) is that marriage, far being a contract cementing a
>> fruitful and loving relationship between two equals, both of whom
>> who are fully committed to making it work, is instead very often
>> a contract exploited indeed welcomed by the strong minded and
>> dominant individuals possibly bordering on the sociopathic as
>> representing a lifetimes opportunity to dominate coerce and
>> manipulate and possibly assault the other party; with the full
>> blessing of the law and indeed, possibly society behind them.
>
> Dear me.... I didn't know that Spare Rib was still being published.

What makes you think anything I've written specifically applies to
either sex ? Are you suggesting there can't possibly be any strong
minded and dominant women out there. who marry weak minded
men so as to simply manipulate them, possibly using violence ?
Or simply humiliate them in front of others.

Who as things stand, it could be said, are at an even bigger
disadvantage than women; first because many people would simply
laugh at them; or secondly, as in your case apparently overlook
their very existence.

>>
>> The burgeoning of divorce figures with the progressive loosening
>> of the law far from being evidence of growing irresponsibility
>> simply shows how many people were stuck in unhappy marriages,
>> possibly for the whole of their lives, about which they could do
>> absolutely nothing,
>
> The rule was quite simple and quite clear following a set of changes made
> (IIRC) in the second half of the 1960s). A divorce could be available
> after five years' separation without the consent of the non-applying
> party.

I can't quite see how five years of bickering really solves anything.

All it did was put the aggrieved party at a severe financial disadvantage,
given that a legal separation of any kind, still requires the consent of
*both* parties in respect of any *financial* arrangements

Which isn't to say there might role for outside intervention in any of
this, by way of reports mediation sessions etc. But this is a matter of
weeks or at least months. Not five whole years.

While speaking of children, the very fact that there may be children
involved is surely testament to the fact that the aggrieved party
cannot be said to be treating the matter in any way lightly.or
frivolously.

And sure children from "broken homes" may suffer in various ways.
Certainly as compared with the children of lifelong sweethearts

But that rather conveniently overlooks the fact that broken homes
are themselves are often the result of dysfunctional
parents/adults and that the children of dysfunctional parents/adults
are going to suffer by comparison in any case. Whether inside a
marriage where they are subject to constant bickering or
outside.




bb

[Roger Hayter]

Indeed you could say that. But part of the bargain that is marriage is that
the choice can be made without inevitably committing oneself to poverty in
later life.

> I am also aware of a couple that didn't initially intend to have
> children but when the wife was passed over for promotion that was the
> catalyst to start a family.
>
>>> Obviously this
>>> does not apply to all marriages, but I still think this is the
>>> important feature.
>>>
>>> With the exception of the feckless, and the occasional gold-digger
>>> of either sex, most people really want to make it work. But if it
>>> doesn't work for at least one party then the sooner it is dissolved
>>> the better. And better for any children involved too.
>>>
>>> So I strongly disagree with you that marriage is pointless if
>>> people don't stick to it even when they cannot be happy.
>>
>> You make a fair point. I accept that marriage does serve a purpose
>> other than encouraging stability. I continue to maintain, however,
>> that the main purpose of civil marriage is encouraging stability, and
>> that purpose falls away if people can simply end a marriage on a
>> whim.
>
> Unfortunately marriage can also encourage abuse. I have spoken to many
> where one party has changed after marriage with various expectations
> being amplified.

--
Roger Hayter

[JNugent]

There were other measures available in addition, or instead of.

>
>>> s being forced to leave their children at the mercy of a
>>> coercive and quite possibly sociopathic parent.
>
>>> You're right. There never *has* been a law against that !
>
>>> Hence the perceived need for a change.

How did a law change achieve that?

There is no law against a parent leaving and taking the children with
them. But one must remember that "it takes two to tango" and that one
person's view of the position may or may not be justified.

>
>>> What a lot of people simply wont admit (unless they're trolling
>>> at least ) is that marriage, far being a contract cementing a
>>> fruitful and loving relationship between two equals, both of whom
>>> who are fully committed to making it work, is instead very often
>>> a contract exploited indeed welcomed by the strong minded and
>>> dominant individuals possibly bordering on the sociopathic as
>>> representing a lifetimes opportunity to dominate coerce and
>>> manipulate and possibly assault the other party; with the full
>>> blessing of the law and indeed, possibly society behind them.
>
>> Dear me.... I didn't know that Spare Rib was still being published.
>
> What makes you think anything I've written specifically applies to
> either sex ? Are you suggesting there can't possibly be any strong
> minded and dominant women out there. who marry weak minded
> men so as to simply manipulate them, possibly using violence ?
> Or simply humiliate them in front of others.

Now you mention it, I too remember "The Larkins" on TV and the Andy Capp
strip cartoons.

>
> Who as things stand, it could be said, are at an even bigger
> disadvantage than women; first because many people would simply
> laugh at them; or secondly, as in your case apparently overlook
> their very existence.
>
>>> The burgeoning of divorce figures with the progressive loosening
>>> of the law far from being evidence of growing irresponsibility
>>> simply shows how many people were stuck in unhappy marriages,
>>> possibly for the whole of their lives, about which they could do
>>> absolutely nothing,
>
>> The rule was quite simple and quite clear following a set of changes made
>> (IIRC) in the second half of the 1960s). A divorce could be available
>> after five years' separation without the consent of the non-applying
>> party.
>
> I can't quite see how five years of bickering really solves anything.

The law was framed in that way in order to prevent "instant divorce". No
part of it obliged a married couple to live together if that could no
longer be tolerated

>
> All it did was put the aggrieved party at a severe financial disadvantage,
> given that a legal separation of any kind, still requires the consent of
> *both* parties in respect of any *financial* arrangements

Almost every separation puts a (former) household into financial
difficulties.

Two households, whether or not both alike in dignity, cannot live as
cheaply as one.

It goes with the territory, except for those with very significant
resources.

> Which isn't to say there might role for outside intervention in any of
> this, by way of reports mediation sessions etc. But this is a matter of
> weeks or at least months. Not five whole years.

> While speaking of children, the very fact that there may be children
> involved is surely testament to the fact that the aggrieved party
> cannot be said to be treating the matter in any way lightly.or
> frivolously.

*Really*?

>
> And sure children from "broken homes" may suffer in various ways.
> Certainly as compared with the children of lifelong sweethearts
> But that rather conveniently overlooks the fact that broken homes
> are themselves are often the result of dysfunctional
> parents/adults and that the children of dysfunctional parents/adults
> are going to suffer by comparison in any case. Whether inside a
> marriage where they are subject to constant bickering or
> outside.
>

I don't care what the root causes are.

The effects are undesirable.

[Roger Hayter]

If they are living separately and at least one of them intends that to be
permanent then no-one except a religious zealot would see any point whatever
in them remaining married. There is no rational reason to do so.




snip

--
Roger Hayter

[Brian W]

There's an enormous gap between "instant divorce" and "waiting five years". In my opinion, the better thing to have done would have been to reduce the 5 year period to 2-3 years. All academic now, though.

[JNugent]

How about a witnessed and legally-recorded sworn vow to remain together
until death?

Is that totally meaningless and unenforceable?

[Robert Marshall]

Though it rather depends on what language was used in the original vows?

https://www.rochdale.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/choose-vows-declaration

has 2 of the options not mentioning life together until death.

Robert
--
Robert Marshall twitter: @rajm

[JNugent]

There's nothing about that at the URL you cited.