Report comment

Let’s just note:
1 we have already no fault divorce;
2 the campaign is actually for speedier no fault divorce;
3 the consequences of ensuring an appropriate financial settlement is reached may mean the divorce process takes time anyway (have you ever tried getting pension information??);
4 in reality does the fault based system really cause that much acrimony (cant you manage your client’s responses?) or is it in fact the reasons for the marriage ending that causes acrimony which will exist whatever system of divorce is used? (in other words if the question asked by researchers is “did having to assert fault make the process more acrimonious?” then one has to be cautious if in fact “if the divorce process was acrimonious why was that?” would be a better question);
5 should there not also be a review of arrangements for children and consideration of a 50/50 presumption (remember Bob Geldof?);
6 what about the Respondent in all of this?;
And
7 what about the use of contact with children as a controlling and coercive tactic by (mostly) women against men?

Are there not in fact a host of issues that require review not just the speed of the divorce process?

I fear that we have reached a position a bit like in our Nation’s political life where anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly agree with the propositions of the great and the learned about certain issues is just plain wrong. Let’s see.