header-logo header-logo

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

Nobody's fault

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

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
Britain’s new acknowledgement that Israel’s occupation is unlawful, and accompanying settlement-goods ban and sanctions, is significant but overdue, argue Danny Friedman KC and Victor Kattan in NLJ this week
New planning fee rises, wider trade union access rights and a service-by-email trap feature in Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
back-to-top-scroll