header-logo header-logo

Nobody's fault

16 March 2007 / Andrew Greensmith
Issue: 7264 / Categories: Opinion , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Removing fault from the divorce process would dignify proceedings, says Andrew Greensmith

Resolution has always been supportive of the institution of marriage. The association addressed the concept of no fault divorce in its response to the government’s initiative in the early 90s, when it published a green paper in 1993 entitled Looking to the Future—Mediation and the Ground for Divorce. Resolution believes the time is right for the subject to be debated again. Hopefully, this time change will be effected.

To understand why it is a natural progression to move to a no fault divorce, and to see why such a move does not undermine marriage, we need to consider what purpose the divorce process is intended to serve.

When two people marry they are making a public statement that they wish to be recognised as a married couple and, usually, that they wish to live together as an ‘item’. When they divorce, they are signalling to the world that their marriage has broken down and that they wish, once again, to be recognised

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll