Should the divorce laws be updated?

S

shesells

Registered User
Messages
2,207
In the 90s when this country finally woke up to the reality that marriage doesn't always work out and voted to allow divorce in this country. After several failed referenda, usually full of "we'll be like America and England where people can get married one day, divorced the next and marry someone else the next day" scaremongering, the government took the option to put a lengthy waiting time before divorce is allowed into the text.

As it stands you have to be separated for 4 out of the previous 5 years before you can apply for a divorce. This is longer than many prison sentences, people trapped in a marriage they want to get out of. In all the talk of law reform I haven't heard anything about this time period being revisited but in my opinion it should be halved, particularly in the current economic climate, people should be free to try to start over sooner.

I really don't understand why this isn't a bigger issue?
 
yes you are 100% right it should change to 1 or 2 years. Also length of maintenace obligations are nuts but thats another argument.

I think reasons its not seen as big an issue as it should be are:
1 working classes dont bother getting married anymore - a bit of generalisition I know but a factor
2 Living with someone is accepatble even for middle classes offspring which it wasn't before. Hence mammy or daddy shacking up with a new partner is less a big deal..

Just my thoughts
 
If people want to get married today, divorced the next day and married again the day after.... Why not if they want to?
 
The_Banker said:
If people want to get married today, divorced the next day and married again the day after.... Why not if they want to?
Click to expand...

Why bother getting married in the first place.

Marriage starts out as a lifelong commitment,not something that should be entered into lightly or on a whim,there are usually children involved,if you have even the remotest doubt about your suitability either to your partner or to the institution of marriage then stay away from it but to propose flitting in and out of it on a near weekly basis as a constitutional right that you are unfairly denied,is well...Nuts.

There is a way around this unfortunate conundrum,stay single,date as many women/men as you like and change them out on a weekly/monthly/yearly basis and save us all a small fortune on wedding presents.;)
 
Cards on the table, I am someone who wants to divorce. Thought what we had was forever, married almost a decade but in truth the marriage was over a few years before we separated. At the stage where we don't even like each other now and want to be free. No children involved.

I'm not suggesting a free for all divorce regime but 4 years is downright cruel!
 
I agree, 4 years is totally excessive and there is also the consideration of womens fertility - which doesnt last forever.

I personally know someone whose husband left her. A couple of years later she met someone else, they wanted to settle together and have children, she was in her mid 30s, they couldnt wait the period required by law for her to be divorced without risking her fertility so they forged ahead and she became pregnant and when she gave birth (still within the 4 years) her ex husband was, under Irish law, considered the father of the child and even liable for maintenance (which he wasnt happy about!!). Not only that but the biological fathers parents who were very religious were really upset that their first grandchild was conceived in an adulterous relationship and born to a married woman! All this upset caused because she couldnt get divorced until the 4 years were up.

Eventually she was divorced and engaged to marry the father of her child and then due to the HSE requirement of 3 months notice to marry (but a wait of almost 3 months for the appointment to notify them) she ended up being pregnant again and walking up the civil ceremony aisle with a bump, once again upsetting the religious parents of the groom who actually considered the marriage 'not real' because it wasnt in a church. Guess you cant please everyone eh?

I dont understand what purpose it serves to make people wait so long to be divorced?

Im inclined to agree with mtk - people these days couldnt care less re 'living in sin' so people just get on with their lives in whatever relationship they want and dont worry about the religious or legal trappings.
 
4 years to get divorced is too much - the lengthy time limit should be imposed on how soon you can get remarried. That way the flighty people will have a good long time to go cold on the next love of their life.
 
truthseeker said:
she became pregnant and when she gave birth (still within the 4 years) her ex husband was, under Irish law, considered the father of the child and even liable for maintenance (which he wasnt happy about!!).
Click to expand...


LOL, not true but funny story.

Nothing stopping people separating, even getting a legal separation, or a nullity ( circumstances providing). It's just the divorce you must wait for. A judicial separation can be obtained after one year by consent, after three years if no consent.

Also nothing stopping people having a new relationship, getting pregnant etc.

Really the only thing you can't do is remarry. I don't think that's a big deal and I think that it is important that we try to remember that a marriage carries legal ( not to mention moral) rights that can't be entered into or left lightly.
 
Vanilla said:
Really the only thing you can't do is remarry. I don't think that's a big deal and I think that it is important that we try to remember that a marriage carries legal ( not to mention moral) rights that can't be entered into or left lightly.
Click to expand...

My ex is still my legal next of kin, which is something I don't want. I know I am free to do lots of things but he is still my husband. I don't want that any more. Re-marrying doesn't enter into it. Freedom does.
 
shesells said:
I really don't understand why this isn't a bigger issue?
Click to expand...

I can't answer your question . . . but, I reckon until we come up with a cheaper alternative to using our expensive legal profession for obtaining a divorce the issue will not become a bigger one.
 
Vanilla said:
LOL, not true but funny story.
Click to expand...

Whats not true about it?

In Ireland, the Status of Children Act maintains that children are the offspring of their mother's husband unless it is proved otherwise -[broken link removed]

In this case the ex husband was completely unhelpful as regards signing an affidavit stating he wasnt the childs father - which was needed to register the birth of the child with the correct fathers name (he had also been unhelpful regarding getting a legal seperation so the paperwork did not prove seperation for more than 10 months). So the solicitor pointed out to him that he could be as unhelpful as he liked but was leaving himself open to having to pay maintenance as the legal father of his wives child - you can be sure he signed the paperwork quick smart then.
 
if you are not in a mad hurry to run out and get married again what difference dose the four years make?
 
blueband said:
if you are not in a mad hurry to run out and get married again what difference dose the four years make?
Click to expand...

Besides children in a new relationship, presumably as marriage carries tax and inheritance implications you have that hanging over you with someone you no longer wish to be associated with.

And of course the most basic and obvious thing of all, to allow people closure and not feel like their life is on hold waiting to be divorced from their ex.

What difference would it make to have it less than 4 years? What is the 4 years achieving?
 
truthseeker said:
Besides children in a new relationship, presumably as marriage carries tax and inheritance implications you have that hanging over you with someone you no longer wish to be associated with.

And of course the most basic and obvious thing of all, to allow people closure and not feel like their life is on hold waiting to be divorced from their ex.

What difference would it make to have it less than 4 years? What is the 4 years achieving?
Click to expand...


What would you cut it to though? A few are sying one or two years, but should the time frame be cut away altogether?
 
MrMan said:
What would you cut it to though? A few are sying one or two years, but should the time frame be cut away altogether?
Click to expand...

Yes, possibly it should. It takes a year or so to go through the process of separating your affairs legally anyway so why put a time frame on it?
 
MrMan said:
What would you cut it to though? A few are sying one or two years, but should the time frame be cut away altogether?
Click to expand...

Why not match it to the notice of intention to marry - 3 months. Why should getting out of marriage be harder than getting into it?

Unlikely anyone would get away with it that quickly due to the legals - but I honestly cant see any purpose in making people wait.
 
truthseeker said:
the biological fathers parents who were very religious were really upset that their first grandchild was conceived in an adulterous relationship and born to a married woman!
Click to expand...
They sound like the sort of people who would not have been much happier if their first grandchild was born to a divorced woman.
truthseeker said:
she ended up being pregnant again and walking up the civil ceremony aisle with a bump, once again upsetting the religious parents of the groom who actually considered the marriage 'not real' because it wasnt in a church. Guess you cant please everyone eh?
Click to expand...
And it's the state that is the problem and not the groom's parents? I'm pretty sure that unless the first husband was a non-Catholic heathen, they would not have been allowed to have a church wedding anyway, bump or no bump... Sounds to me like the groom's parents would not have been any happier no matter what the divorce laws allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top