The Times (UK)
18 December 2000
Irvine will scrap 'no fault' divorce
By Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

THE Lord Chancellor is expected to announce this week that he is scrapping reforms that would have enabled married couples to obtain a "no fault" divorce.

Lord Irvine of Lairg has decided not to proceed with the main plank of the ill-fated Family Law Act 1996 after research has shown it to be unworkable and likely, if implemented, to cost up to £50 million a year.

Now ministers are expected to announce plans to strengthen support for families and marriage, including an enhanced role for marriage registrars in counselling couples. Couples would have more time to reflect before they marry, with both parties attending the register office to make the first arrangement. Marriage counselling and support services would also be boosted.

At the same time, a current review of the Children Act 1989 is likely to lead to stronger powers for courts to refuse divorces where arrangements for children are not in place.

The 1996 Family Law Act liberalised divorce by allowing couples to obtain a termination of their marriage without the need to cite adultery or some other fault-based ground. Divorce would be granted after one year or 18 months in the case of children, provided the couple had first sorted out arrangements over both children and money.

The reforms were one of the last acts of John Major's Government. But the original plans for "no fault" divorce were criticised by traditionalists who said that they weakened marriage. The result was a series of concessions which, according to lawyers, have made the package unworkable. The key concession, which has now forced the Lord Chnacellor to rethink the whole idea, was a new compulsory information meeting for all people wanting to start a divorce.

The idea was that a meeting would identify "saveable marriages" and steer couples who were uncertain to counselling. Those who did want to take part would be encouraged to use mediation services, rather than lawyers. But research has found that the meetings served only to reinforce in people's minds the need for legal advice and the need to consult a lawyer.

It has been estimated that it could cost between £40 million and £50 million to arrange information meetings for everyone who gets divorced, money which could be better spent on support and counselling.

Last year Lord Irvine announced that he was shelving the reforms for one year, pending the final outcome of research findings. The Family Law Act, which amounted to the biggest reform of divorce laws for decades, has been the butt of widespread criticism despite wide support for its aim of removing some of the bitterness from divorce. The Labour minister Paul Boateng, when he was opposition legal affairs spokesman, condemned it as a "dog's dinner".

Ministers have been nervous about proceeding with implementation of its main provisions, but equally there is concern that to leave a key reform passed by Parliament unimplemented may lay them open to legal challenge.

Mark Harper, a member of the Law Society family law committee, said that the law as passed was clearly unworkable but that scrapping the no-fault plan was bad news for divorcing couples. "No-fault divorce would reduce unnecessary bitterness and antagonism which exists under the current law by having to make up allegations of unreasonable behaviour."

[Rubbish! I've noticed no diminishment of (unnecessary) bitterness and antagonism. On the contrary, it has only grown more frequent and more intense, with children used as cash cow and revenge weapons. Ed]

------------------------- The Times (UK)
18 December 2000

The family way

Lord Irvine is right to be wary of no-fault divorce Family policy has become a political minefield. Those who think the Government should take a neutral stance on personal relationships are attacked for undermining family values and the fabric of society; supporters of the traditional family risk alienating struggling single parents, many of whom have been bereaved or abandoned. Governments and the public still tend to agree that, in an ideal world, children fare better emotionally, physically and educationally in a stable two-parent home. But, other than the restoration of the married couple's tax allowance, few politicians have any concrete proposals for boosting marriage. Meanwhile, in the real world, 40 per cent of marriages end in divorce.

If they cannot agree on how, or even whether, actively to promote marriage, pragmatism dictates that politicians should acknowledge that over-long, messy, expensive divorces help neither parents nor children. But the proposed solution of "no-fault" divorce has proved a political and practical nightmare since John Major's Government passed the Family Law Act in 1996. The key section, giving legal grounding to the machinery of fault-free divorce, was due to be put into effect in 1998. But last year the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, announced that pilot schemes had been a failure and delayed its implementation. This week he is likely to abandon the controversial second part of the legislation altogether.

Most couples will be relieved at the decision to scrap compulsory "information meetings" for those contemplating divorce. Despite extensive and expensive trials they proved unsuccessful. Information was delivered in a standardised format that could not possibly reflect the uniquely personal circumstances of every marriage breakdown. Worse, as family lawyers confirm, most people think long and hard before opting for a divorce and the obligation to attend an intrusive meeting does nothing to change their minds.

The issue of fault itself is more worrying. A balancing act must somehow be struck between reducing strife on one hand and making sure on the other that those spouses who have behaved badly should never be exonerated in the interests of speed, cost savings or an "easy life". Whatever the moral dilemmas posed by the law, ministers are right to acknowledge that as it stands, the no-fault section is administratively unworkable. Amendments lengthen and complicate the process of divorce rather than shortening it. It is, as Paul Boateng said when he was shadow legal affairs spokesman, a "dog's dinner". A separate part of the Act, already in operation, which favours mediation over costly legal aid, is also ripe for reform. Public support for mediation remains low. Research has shown that husbands and wives continue to seek legal help even after mediation, increasing costs rather than reducing them. A Lord Chancellor serious about reform would rapidly add this flawed provision to his list of priorities.

If Lord Irvine does abandon the "no fault" framework this week, he will at least remove the State's heavy hand from one area of divorce proceedings. Money wasted on compulsory meetings will instead be channelled into voluntary marriage counselling. More importantly, a review of the 1989 Children Act will put greater emphasis on ensuring that children are properly catered for before divorces can go ahead.

Sadly, marriages will not be saved by prolonging the agony of divorce. No-fault law did not live up to its name and couples and families will be better off without it.

Top of Page

Visit the DADs Australia Website