bring back at fault divorce

[arabian]

I think that is a pretty whacko statement from a family court judge to make. A person hired a week ago can be fired, no questions asked.

[lulubuttons]

Instead of no-fault divorce, why don't we bring about change and reform in family law. Right now there is no accountability and many get the screw job.

I believe if people want to divorce they will find a way, regardless of whether the law says fault or no-fault.

[murphyslaw]

If people had to do a course in divorce and custody before they got married ,many would never get married at all.

[arabian]

Can you imagine how clogged up the courts would be with "fault" divorces? It would be a massive free for all "he said she said" sort of thing. Can't imagine the attraction of working as a family lawyer or family court judge for that matter.

[murphyslaw]

Imagine the amount of spouses that would have "accidents" or "disappear".As is, most secrets about bad behaviour can be hidden from the spotlight.Less reason for unstable people to make a permanent solution to their problems.In order to get a divorce things would be brought up that could lead to people losing jobs licences to practice etc etc.No fault is a good thing for everyone involved, especially for the children.

[standing on the sidelines]

Can you imagine how clogged up the courts would be with "fault" divorces? It would be a massive free for all "he said she said" sort of thing. Can't imagine the attraction of working as a family lawyer or family court judge for that matter.

very true, its bad enough now in the court system. I agree with a previous poster the reasons for divorce do not need to change, the way a divorce is handled in the courts, that needs to change.

When it comes down to it does it really matter why two people are divorcing? The only thing that matters is that one or both no longer wants to be in the union for whatever reason. I could see if we had "at fault" divorce it would take longer and be more expensive with legal fees in the long run. Best to make it as quick and painless as possible. What needs to be fixed is how assets etc are dealt with. If a person owns a home before the marriage its not fair that once they are married the other person owns half without putting a cent. IMHO the whole mat. home thing should be changed.

[murphyslaw]

It is completely unfair that decent hardworking people be punished because they married someone who was completely lacking responsibility.(funnily enough they usually more than make up in cunning).If partner A ,works and saves and is fiscally responsible and partner B wastes money and blows it on frivolous things .....both will leave the marriage as equals even though Partner A did the right thing and Partner B will be back in the courts demanding more money in a years time.

[standing on the sidelines]

It is completely unfair that decent hardworking people be punished because they married someone who was completely lacking responsibility.(funnily enough they usually more than make up in cunning).If partner A ,works and saves and is fiscally responsible and partner B wastes money and blows it on frivolous things .....both will leave the marriage as equals even though Partner A did the right thing and Partner B will be back in the courts demanding more money in a years time.

totally agree with you. It isnt fair to the person who worked hard.

[Canadaguy]

Trying to point who's at fault is counter productive. What would be more productive as murphyslaw said to take a course.

Educate people. Better yet have them write a marriage agreement before leaving the class, that way when 50% of them after class get divorced, they already have a seperation/pre-nup agreement in place.

[shellshocked22]

Totally agree that it should be MANDATORY to have a thorough course BEFORE getting married of Family Law; in particular how it screws over the higher earning spouse. Love the idea of having a default "sep agrment" (as far as you could detail at that point).

I find it very interesting why the govt is so keen on making a mandatory course when divorce is just starting BUT won't make it mandatory prior to marriage. Honestly, I think a significant number of engagements would be terminated once both parties understood the incredibly complicated and generally unfair financial contract they were in effect signing. Honestly, if I knew about Family Law what I now know I would NEVER have gotton married. Would you buy a car that had a 50% chance of exploding when you turned the key lol ?

If the govt really felt the laws were "fair" why don't they insist on future spouses be familiar with at least the broad strokes. Most people truly don't understand what they are setting themselves up for.

Luckily, I think word is slowing getting out there and the smart ones are avoiding marriage and common law like the plague !

Such a joke that marriage makes one more "committed". Either party can bolt and screw the other one on a whim !

Any young person (especially those with good future earnings potential) should be severely cautioned about the potentially life destroying financial contract they are de facto signing when they get married. If they are still willing to roll the dice, so be it but at a minimum they should be made aware of the potential nightmare they are signing up for !

[OrleansLawyer]

I believe if people want to divorce they will find a way, regardless of whether the law says fault or no-fault.

This was historically true before no-fault divorces.

Can you imagine how clogged up the courts would be with "fault" divorces? It would be a massive free for all "he said she said" sort of thing. Can't imagine the attraction of working as a family lawyer or family court judge for that matter.

There are family law lawyers who will fire a client if they insist on using adultery or abuse as grounds. It is one of the surest ways to get a trial and an abominable way to rack up many thousands in legal fees. At least if you set a pile of money on fire you only get a headache if you stand in the smoke.

If a person owns a home before the marriage its not fair that once they are married the other person owns half without putting a cent. IMHO the whole mat. home thing should be changed.

Without expressing an opinion on the subject I would refer you to efforts made by lobby groups in the 80's and concerns about the feminization of poverty due to the breakdown of marriage.

It is completely unfair that decent hardworking people be punished because they married someone who was completely lacking responsibility.

And they are not responsible for their choice in who to marry? If your spouse isn't pulling their weight (in your opinion) then you can either take steps - such as a domestic contract or separation - that protect your assets or you can accept their behavior. If you have made the decision to accept it then you are as responsible for the fallout as they are. Abrogating responsibility comes from a misguided desire to play the victim.

I think a significant number of engagements would be terminated once both parties understood the incredibly complicated and generally unfair financial contract they were in effect signing.

I agree that most people do not appreciate the financial significance of a marriage, the details are public knowledge. If people elect to ignore the legal responsibilities they are taking on, is it the government's place to hold their hand?

If the govt really felt the laws were "fair" why don't they insist on future spouses be familiar with at least the broad strokes. Most people truly don't understand what they are setting themselves up for.

Ignorance is not a defence.

in particular how it screws over the higher earning spouse.

In different situations, different parties can wind up with the short end of the stick. The dismissal of the lower income spouse's contributions to the family, and the effect they have on the higher income spouse's ability to earn that higher income, is telling.

[murphyslaw]

T

And they are not responsible for their choice in who to marry? If your spouse isn't pulling their weight (in your opinion) then you can either take steps - such as a domestic contract or separation - that protect your assets or you can accept their behavior. If you have made the decision to accept it then you are as responsible for the fallout as they are. Abrogating responsibility comes from a misguided desire to play the victim.

Think its fair to say if you have already left them that that point is rather pointless...However it also should be noted that people lie(I know,what a crazy concept),they cheat and lie some more.If your potential spouse walked up to you and said.Hi,im going to clear out your bank account ,write off your car and use the overdraft as my personal petty allowance...would you still marry them ?Most likely not.When embarking on a relationship we have to take people at face value.We have to accept whatever they present to us as being their true nature.
Or we can hire a private investigator.

[OrleansLawyer]

Most likely not.When embarking on a relationship we have to take people at face value.We have to accept whatever they present to us as being their true nature.

That is very true. My comments about sharing responsibility were intended for those who enable their partner knowingly. If they have gone behind your back on it I have nothing but sympathy and the suggestion to get a lawyer to work on fixing it.

[arabian]

I was married at 23 - what the hell did I know at that age? In your 20's you're naive as you simply don't have much life experience.

[caranna]

"If your spouse isn't pulling their weight (in your opinion) then you can either take steps - such as a domestic contract or separation - that protect your assets or you can accept their behavior."

OrleansLawyer;

Is a domestic contract similar to a prenup agreement?