header-logo header-logo

11 March 2020 / Graeme Fraser
Issue: 7878 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce
printer mail-detail

The search for equality in divorce reform

17373
Gender equality demands flexibility & discretion, not blunt instruments says Graeme Fraser

Dr Michael Arnheim makes some important points in his article ‘Divorce reform: time to recognise gender equality?’, not least in noting the problem of what he describes as ‘yo-yo cases’ that bounce between the courts for years. I agree that more certainty and predictability would be desirable, and gender equality is obviously a laudable goal. However, his arguments taken as a whole perhaps go too far in valuing clear structures and principles, while undervaluing the necessity of flexibility in accommodating the messiness and complexity of everyday life, to an extent that would be detrimental to gender equality.

 

No-fault divorce

 

Dr Arnheim may have misunderstood the rationale behind the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill when he claims that it ‘misses the mark’. The evidence is clear that artificially bringing blame into the divorce process sets the tone for the whole divorce, leading to unnecessary acrimony and suffering for divorcing couples and their families.

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll