|
Post by baza on Nov 1, 2017 21:07:53 GMT -5
While on my mail run out in the bush today, I was listening to talkback radio, during which the broadcaster mentioned that there are moves afoot in the UK to introduce an online divorce facility to cut out a heap of red tape and get a couple through the process in about 6 weeks.
Now as we all know, talkback radio is a highly credible (!!!) communication medium so perhaps this has some factual basis behind it, and where the divorce is amicable, this could conceivably work quite well.
Anyway, as I was dodging kangaroos and tractors out in the sticks, I was thinking - along these lines - - - - - - - - "If" it was easier to divorce than it presently is in your jurisdiction, would you be any more likely to undertake such a step ? - - -
I thought about it for quite a while during the rest of the mail run. Eventually, I came down on the side that it would most likely not make a bit of difference.
My reasoning was / is that divorce is a horrendously difficult path to take, and whereas the process could be made "simpler" it can't be made "easier". I figure that people would not be any more likely to take this drastic step than they were before.
What do you reckon ?
|
|
|
Post by Caris on Nov 1, 2017 21:12:59 GMT -5
I think you are right, Baz.
|
|
|
Post by workingonit on Nov 1, 2017 21:36:07 GMT -5
Yes, I think you are right. The practical parts are hard and seem annoying but I think the rest of it would still be a barrier.
It seems to me from what research I have done that one can get a cheap no contest divorce in Massachusetts with a simple wait period. I am still not leaping into it. The process of deconstructing what we have spent 17 years building is complicated, messy, painful, and hard. It is not the red tape that is slowing it down.
|
|
|
Post by misssunnybunny on Nov 1, 2017 21:38:25 GMT -5
I agree. My divorce was done via mediation, and went about as well as a divorce can go (not much in the way of arguing). Still, it wasn't easy. The process can change, but the emotions remain the same, and the emotional part is often the biggest hurdle...
|
|
|
Post by ironhamster on Nov 1, 2017 21:39:29 GMT -5
In my case, it would make no difference.
I have obligations to my children, to see that they are raised in a stable and loving home. Once that is over, it does not matter if the process is hard or quick.
For couples without children, I could see this making divorce more likely.
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Nov 1, 2017 21:42:50 GMT -5
It might be beneficial to a small minority. I'm thinking of the few that can do an uncontested divorce. The young, no children, no house, sharing a rental unit, separate incomes, divorce.
|
|
|
Post by baza on Nov 2, 2017 0:48:07 GMT -5
It might be beneficial to a small minority. I'm thinking of the few that can do an uncontested divorce. The young, no children, no house, sharing a rental unit, separate incomes, divorce. For what it is worth, in my jurisdiction (Australia), divorce is no-fault - and according to official stats from 2015 - 75% of divorces are negotiated to resolution outside of the court system and are then recorded by the court. That is to say, only 25% of divorces end up in front of the court for a judge to rule on. Most of the time, the spouses come to their senses and negotiate something mutually acceptable within the *no fault* guidelines. I take your point though, "uncontested" doe's not necessarily mean "amicable".
|
|
|
Post by dinnaken on Nov 2, 2017 1:32:16 GMT -5
I'm in the UK and I heard the news report yesterday. It was on the BBC, so it must be true.
I'm with all of the above comments. I'm newly separated, I now have to wait for two years and then file for an uncontested divorce on the grounds of 'irretrievable breakdown'.
However, for me all of the hard work and distress was getting to this point. I see the actual divorce as a formality.
My marriage is over - that's it. I am now getting on with the hard work of dealing with what happened to me during it. I would imagine that that is much more important to all of us.
|
|