Fault lines rock Actfew lawyers lamented last month's breaking up of the family law act 1996.

victoria maccallum traces its troubled birth and discovers a desire to be reunited with no-fault divorceEvery government has its millstones: Margaret Thatcher had the poll tax; the current administration has the white elephant that is the Millennium Dome; and the Major government had the Back to Basics programme and the troubled Family Law Act 1996.To say the Act had a difficult birth would be a huge understatement - the parliamentary horse-trading surrounding its passage resulted in an almost unrecognisable piece of legislation - but the current government appears to have finally admitted defeat.The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, last month scrapped the highly criticised pt II of the Act - which introduced the concept of 'no-fault divorces', along with compulsory 'information meetings' for couples, and compulsory mediation for couples requesting legal aid - describing the legislation as 'unfeasible' and 'too complicated'.Pilot studies for the information meetings, which were intended to 'save saveable marriages' and which cost almost 6.5 million, showed that rather than doing this, they in fact pushed couples towards divorce.This, combined with equally unfavourable results from the pilot mediation groups, and the estimated 30 million cost of the scheme, meant that the government was forced to call time on the Act.Family lawyers have broadly welcomed this decision, with Rosemary Carter, chairwoman of the Solicitors Family Law Association (SFLA) and partner at London firm Barnett Sampson, describing the Act as 'cumbersome', and a 'dog's breakfast'.However, despite this, she remains committed to the concept of no-fault divorce, as she explains: 'It is absurd for couples who have decided to part amicably to have to scrabble around trying to find some form of fault in order to get a divorce.' This stance seems to sit uneasily with her relief at the Act's demise, and raises the question: what went wrong? 'Family law is a political hot potato,' explains Peter Watson-Lee, chairman of the Law Society's family law committee and a partner at Christchurch-based Williams Thompson.

He adds: 'Every politician has an opinion on family law, and so getting any new legislation through is a nightmare.' The seeds of the Family Law Act germinated from the Law Commission's 1990 report The Grounds for Divorce.

One of the report's main conclusions was that the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 - which allowed divorce on the grounds of 'irretrievable breakdown' of the marriage if adultery, desertion, living apart or unreasonable conduct could be proved - provoked 'unnecessary hostility, bitterness and resentment' by encouraging couples to make allegations of fault against one other to support their petition.The recent 'quickie' divorce of Oasis singer Noel Gallagher from Meg Matthews illustrated the problem.

Although the divorce petition cited 'irreconcilable breakdown arising from admitted adultery', Gallagher was later widely quoted as saying he only admitted to adultery in order to get the divorce over quickly.The Law Commission suggested the introduction of 'no-fault divorces' - crucially, without recommending compulsory information meetings, and without forcing compulsory mediation on couples seeking legal aid.It was here that problems began.

'Whether because of the views of Lord Mackay [the Lord Chancellor at the time], officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department, or the government at the time,' says Mark Harper, a partner at City firm Withers, 'the Law Commission proposals were amended drastically.'Specifically, the report did not recommend compulsory information meetings or mediation; neither did it recommend that all financial arrangements should be resolved before the divorce was granted - all proposals which were added by the government, and all of which combined to produce an unworkable Act.

Mr Watson-Lee sees religion as playing a part in the death of the Bill.

'The government at the time was Conservative, and there were a lot of very religious people in power who were concerned that the Bill would devalue marriage, and make divorce too easy.' This view was echoed by the Daily Mail, which ran a campaign against the Bill, warning in an editorial of 1995 that it would 'undermine the institution of marriage' and even, somewhat melodramatically, that it 'contained the seeds of a social disaster'.

These powerful influences, combined with the government's wafer-thin majority, meant that amendment after amendment was agreed to by Lord Mackay, to ensure the Bill's passage through the Commons.

'The Bill became mangled,' says Mr Harper.

'Because of the government's tiny majority, the right wingers in the Tory party had to be persuaded to vote for it with amendments to the Bill, eventually making it unworkable.' The power of the Bill's opponents was not to be underestimated.

The first draft recommended a one-month moratorium on divorce proceedings after the information meeting, and then an 11-month wait until the divorce was granted.

To avoid a Commons defeat, the moratorium after the information meeting was increased to three months, and the waiting period until the final order to 15 months.

Ms Carter says: 'It makes the process cumbersome - why should couples who have agreed all their arrangements be forced to wait for a year? It's also not in the interests of the children to let matters drag on for such a long time.'But matters could have been worse: one rejected amendment put to Lord Mackay at the time attempted to protect children by forbidding a couple with children under 16 or 18 to divorce at all.

The measure was dismissed as 'going too far' by the then Lord Chancellor.Mediation for divorcing couples is an approach that most family lawyers approve of, but - as with many aspects of the Act - the proposed methods of doing it were seen as wrong.'Compulsory mediation is playing it far too strongly,' says William Massey, a partner at City firm Manches.

'There are a lot of cases where there is simply no point in couples going to mediation, where there is no hope of saving the marriage.

The pilot scheme showed that where people would have gone to mediation, they would have gone regardless of whether or not it was made compulsory.'And the idea of information meetings - to give couples information about mediation services, the divorce process and legal aid - was arguably not a bad one in principle, but again suffers from practical problems.'The meetings are too straightjacketed about what information they can and can't give out to couples,' says Ms Carter.

'They don't give out information specifically tailored to each couple, and they also come too late in the process.'Research by Professor Janet Walker at Newcastle University showed that 'information about marriage support made little difference to the majority, primarily as it came too late'.Family lawyers may be united in their delight to see the end of the 'nightmare Act', as Mr Watson-Lee calls it, but there is no doubt that it leaves a looming legislative hole.

'I'm amazed that the government has not said what will come in the Act's place,' says Mr Harper, adding: 'Are they planning on leaving us with a30-year-old divorce law? The easy option is to do nothing about it: family law is political dynamite, and politicians seem to think that it's better to avoid anything that looks like a touch-paper.'However, most lawyers seem cautiously optimistic about the future for no-fault divorce.

'It is certainly the way forward for couples,' according to Mr Massey.

He says: 'There will be future legislation on the matter, but I think it's been put on the backburner for the time being, as the government has realised the cost of the information meetings is far higher than expected.'The legal profession - and divorcing couples - hope to see no-fault divorce plans return, albeit it in a more palatable form.

Mr Harper says: 'No-fault divorce was an option for couples to divorce with dignity.

Unfortunately, it had become so muddled and unworkable that the baby had to be thrown out with the bathwater.'