While I read with interest your review of changes to the adversarial system of obtaining a divorce (see [2007] Gazette, 18 October, 18), I was surprised by the 'Jesus Bolt' quip, which was undoubtedly intended as a bit of light humour in the piece at the convenient expense of the American jurisprudential model.


As an American attorney with experience with the divorce courts in the US, I would observe that alternative methods of resolving an acrimonious divorce have been around far longer than the vaunted four years that they have existed here in the UK.



For example, in the state of Colorado, there are family court facilitators who routinely conduct mediations, and alternative dispute resolution is actively encouraged throughout the entire process. Of course, I am unaware of any jurisdiction which still requires an individual to allege fault of the other spouse. Certainly, if one were looking for a way to reduce rancour in a divorce, it would be to remove the need to air the ghosts before the court.



Perhaps I miss the point, but I fear I do not. The author of the piece, while doing a very nice job on the whole, was interested in scoring a 'ho-ho' moment at the expense of the American courts. Unfortunately, it had little basis in reality (except maybe in the movie 'Kramer v Kramer').



Daniel Gallagher, Bury St Edmunds