# Should the divorce laws be updated?



## shesells (20 Oct 2012)

In the 90s when this country finally woke up to the reality that marriage doesn't always work out and voted to allow divorce in this country. After several failed referenda, usually full of "we'll be like America and England where people can get married one day, divorced the next and marry someone else the next day" scaremongering, the government took the option to put a lengthy waiting time before divorce is allowed into the text.

As it stands you have to be separated for 4 out of the previous 5 years before you can apply for a divorce. This is longer than many prison sentences, people trapped in a marriage they want to get out of. In all the talk of law reform I haven't heard anything about this time period being revisited but in my opinion it should be halved, particularly in the current economic climate, people should be free to try to start over sooner.

I really don't understand why this isn't a bigger issue?


----------



## mtk (20 Oct 2012)

yes you are 100% right it should change to 1 or 2 years. Also length of maintenace obligations are nuts but thats another argument.

I think reasons its not seen as big an issue as it should be are:
1 working classes dont bother getting married anymore - a bit of generalisition I know but a factor
2 Living with someone is accepatble even for middle classes offspring which it wasn't  before. Hence mammy or daddy shacking up  with a new partner is less a  big deal..

Just my thoughts


----------



## The_Banker (20 Oct 2012)

If people want to get married today, divorced the next day and married again the day after.... Why not if they want to?


----------



## Guest105 (20 Oct 2012)

The_Banker said:


> If people want to get married today, divorced the next day and married again the day after.... Why not if they want to?


 

Well I wouldn't be able to cope with that, too much hard work imho


----------



## Knuttell (21 Oct 2012)

The_Banker said:


> If people want to get married today, divorced the next day and married again the day after.... Why not if they want to?



Why bother getting married in the first place.

Marriage starts out as a lifelong commitment,not something that should be entered into lightly or on a whim,there are usually children involved,if you have even the remotest doubt about your suitability either to your partner or to the institution of marriage then stay away from it but to propose flitting in and out of it on a near weekly basis as a constitutional right that you are unfairly denied,is well...Nuts.

There is a way around this unfortunate conundrum,stay single,date as many women/men as you like and change them out on a weekly/monthly/yearly basis and save us all a small fortune on wedding presents.


----------



## shesells (21 Oct 2012)

Cards on the table, I am someone who wants to divorce. Thought what we had was forever, married almost a decade but in truth the marriage was over a few years before we separated. At the stage where we don't even like each other now and want to be free. No children involved.

I'm not suggesting a free for all divorce regime but 4 years is downright cruel!


----------



## Knuttell (21 Oct 2012)

shesells said:


> I'm not suggesting a free for all divorce regime but 4 years is downright cruel!



I agree four years is excessive.


----------



## truthseeker (21 Oct 2012)

I agree, 4 years is totally excessive and there is also the consideration of womens fertility - which doesnt last forever.

I personally know someone whose husband left her. A couple of years later she met someone else, they wanted to settle together and have children, she was in her mid 30s, they couldnt wait the period required by law for her to be divorced without risking her fertility so they forged ahead and she became pregnant and when she gave birth (still within the 4 years) her ex husband was, under Irish law, considered the father of the child and even liable for maintenance (which he wasnt happy about!!). Not only that but the biological fathers parents who were very religious were really upset that their first grandchild was conceived in an adulterous relationship and born to a married woman! All this upset caused because she couldnt get divorced until the 4 years were up. 

Eventually she was divorced and engaged to marry the father of her child and then due to the HSE requirement of 3 months notice to marry (but a wait of almost 3 months for the appointment to notify them) she ended up being pregnant again and walking up the civil ceremony aisle with a bump, once again upsetting the religious parents of the groom who actually considered the marriage 'not real' because it wasnt in a church. Guess you cant please everyone eh?

I dont understand what purpose it serves to make people wait so long to be divorced?

Im inclined to agree with mtk - people these days couldnt care less re 'living in sin' so people just get on with their lives in whatever relationship they want and dont worry about the religious or legal trappings.


----------



## mandelbrot (21 Oct 2012)

4 years to get divorced is too much - the lengthy time limit should be imposed on how soon you can get _*remarried*_.  That way the flighty people will have a good long time to go cold on the next love of their life.


----------



## Vanilla (21 Oct 2012)

truthseeker said:


> she became pregnant and when she gave birth (still within the 4 years) her ex husband was, under Irish law, considered the father of the child and even liable for maintenance (which he wasnt happy about!!).


 

LOL, not true but funny story.

Nothing stopping people separating, even getting a legal separation, or a nullity ( circumstances providing). It's just the divorce you must wait for. A judicial separation can be obtained after one year by consent, after three years if no consent. 

Also nothing stopping people having a new relationship, getting pregnant etc. 

Really the only thing you can't do is remarry. I don't think that's a big deal and I think that it is important that we try to remember that a marriage carries legal ( not to mention moral) rights that can't be entered into or left lightly.


----------



## shesells (21 Oct 2012)

Vanilla said:


> Really the only thing you can't do is remarry. I don't think that's a big deal and I think that it is important that we try to remember that a marriage carries legal ( not to mention moral) rights that can't be entered into or left lightly.



My ex is still my legal next of kin, which is something I don't want. I know I am free to do lots of things but he is still my husband. I don't want that any more. Re-marrying doesn't enter into it. Freedom does.


----------



## Leper (21 Oct 2012)

shesells said:


> I really don't understand why this isn't a bigger issue?


 
I can't answer your question . . . but, I reckon until we come up with a cheaper alternative to using our expensive legal profession for obtaining a divorce the issue will not become a bigger one.


----------



## truthseeker (21 Oct 2012)

Vanilla said:


> LOL, not true but funny story.



Whats not true about it?

In Ireland, the Status of Children Act maintains that children are the offspring of their mother's husband unless it is proved otherwise -[broken link removed]

In this case the ex husband was completely unhelpful as regards signing an affidavit stating he wasnt the childs father - which was needed to register the birth of the child with the correct fathers name (he had also been unhelpful regarding getting a legal seperation so the paperwork did not prove seperation for more than 10 months). So the solicitor pointed out to him that he could be as unhelpful as he liked but was leaving himself open to having to pay maintenance as the legal father of his wives child - you can be sure he signed the paperwork quick smart then.


----------



## blueband (22 Oct 2012)

if you are not in a mad hurry to run out and get married again what difference dose the four years make?


----------



## truthseeker (22 Oct 2012)

blueband said:


> if you are not in a mad hurry to run out and get married again what difference dose the four years make?



Besides children in a new relationship, presumably as marriage carries tax and inheritance implications you have that hanging over you with someone you no longer wish to be associated with.

And of course the most basic and obvious thing of all, to allow people closure and not feel like their life is on hold waiting to be divorced from their ex.

What difference would it make to have it less than 4 years? What is the 4 years achieving?


----------



## Purple (22 Oct 2012)

4 years is nuts.
It should be one or two.


----------



## MrMan (22 Oct 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Besides children in a new relationship, presumably as marriage carries tax and inheritance implications you have that hanging over you with someone you no longer wish to be associated with.
> 
> And of course the most basic and obvious thing of all, to allow people closure and not feel like their life is on hold waiting to be divorced from their ex.
> 
> What difference would it make to have it less than 4 years? What is the 4 years achieving?




What would you cut it to though? A few are sying one or two years, but should the time frame be cut away altogether?


----------



## Purple (22 Oct 2012)

MrMan said:


> What would you cut it to though? A few are sying one or two years, but should the time frame be cut away altogether?



Yes, possibly it should. It takes a year or so to go through the process of separating your affairs legally anyway so why put a time frame on it?


----------



## truthseeker (22 Oct 2012)

MrMan said:


> What would you cut it to though? A few are sying one or two years, but should the time frame be cut away altogether?



Why not match it to the notice of intention to marry - 3 months. Why should getting out of marriage be harder than getting into it?

Unlikely anyone would get away with it that quickly due to the legals - but I honestly cant see any purpose in making people wait.


----------



## orka (22 Oct 2012)

truthseeker said:


> the biological fathers parents who were very religious were really upset that their first grandchild was conceived in an adulterous relationship and born to a married woman!


They sound like the sort of people who would not have been much happier if their first grandchild was born to a divorced woman.





truthseeker said:


> she ended up being pregnant again and walking up the civil ceremony aisle with a bump, once again upsetting the religious parents of the groom who actually considered the marriage 'not real' because it wasnt in a church. Guess you cant please everyone eh?


And it's the state that is the problem and not the groom's parents? I'm pretty sure that unless the first husband was a non-Catholic heathen, they would not have been allowed to have a church wedding anyway, bump or no bump... Sounds to me like the groom's parents would not have been any happier no matter what the divorce laws allowed.


----------



## truthseeker (22 Oct 2012)

orka said:


> And it's the state that is the problem and not the groom's parents?



No, Id moved on from that point. The bit about the grooms parents was just an aside in the remarriage tale. Try to keep up


----------



## blueband (22 Oct 2012)

Purple said:


> 4 years is nuts.
> It should be one or two.


or why not not have it like the states where you can just walk in the next day and file for divorce!


----------



## Purple (22 Oct 2012)

blueband said:


> or why not not have it like the states where you can just walk in the next day and file for divorce!



It should take some time; it's not like selling a car.


----------



## shesells (22 Oct 2012)

I quite like the idea of the divorce time being the same as the intention to marry ie 3 months. But a year, even two would be bearable. 4 years is just way too long to be tied (in the legal sense) to someone you don't want to be tied to.


----------



## Knuttell (22 Oct 2012)

shesells said:


> But a year, even two would be bearable. 4 years is just way too long to be tied (in the legal sense) to someone you don't want to be tied to.



A year is long enough,never realised it was four.


----------



## shesells (23 Oct 2012)

It's not something most people would ever need to know


----------



## Leper (23 Oct 2012)

I dont have great knowledge of the divorce laws in Ireland. The laws are complex at best and I can see where lots of time can be exhausted before divorce is delivered. But, there must be cases where Man and Woman can't live together, can't breathe the same air and call their marriage anything other than a sham. I mean as both just want to call the whole thing "Quits, let's separate, let's divorce asap" - That would be great, share the spoils equally. In such cases divorce should be as near to pronto as makes no difference.

But, there is much involved, children, family home, land, cash reserves, investments, lifestyle, even the family dog or a chance of a future lotto jackpot win. Enter the Legal Profession (the greatest benefactors in divorce proceedings) and suddenly you have a Somme situation where both sides labour and labour through every blade of grass, every cent etc.

I remember asking a question in a Christian Brothers school I attended many years ago concerning divorce. I asked why should a woman (or man) who is being constantly beaten, abused, etc by the spouse stay in marriage. I was informed that the receiver of all the abuse should remember the good times and marriage was a contract with God for life. Back in the 60's I used to hear politicians saying the same. It's no wonder that our marriage laws are in the state they are.

I dont know if there are agencies other than the legal profession who can "fast-forward" divorces, especially the "easy" ones. I concede that where child(ren),family home, land, are involved there is a case for using the legal profession. However, I think this should be a last chance only situation.


----------



## blueband (23 Oct 2012)

you can always go for a DIY divorce, costs very little if everything is straight forward!
to be honest in this day and age i cant undestand why people bother with marrage at all! its only a piece of paper at the end of the day. maybe its for tax reasons, or a nice day out at the church.


----------



## Time (25 Oct 2012)

I took the Ryanair option and divorced in the UK. I was never going to wait 4 years.


----------



## truthseeker (25 Oct 2012)

Time said:


> I took the Ryanair option and divorced in the UK. I was never going to wait 4 years.



Do you not have to divorce in the country in which you both live?

I was going to ask about that earlier in the thread, clearly a marriage abroad is valid and recognised in Ireland (with the exception of same sex marriages), is it the same for divorces?


----------



## Time (25 Oct 2012)

No it is not. Ireland picks and chooses what divorces it recognises. 
I divorced and then immediately remarried in the UK. Nothing Ireland could do about it.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2012)

Time said:


> No it is not. Ireland picks and chooses what divorces it recognises.
> I divorced and then immediately remarried in the UK. Nothing Ireland could do about it.



Don't you have to be resdent in the UK for over a year to do that?


----------



## Time (5 Nov 2012)

Nope. All you need is an address and usually a solicitor who drafts the papers will provide one.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2012)

Time said:


> Nope. All you need is an address and usually a solicitor who drafts the papers will provide one.



I didn't know that. Is this common?


----------



## Firefly (5 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> I didn't know that. Is this common?


 
Why do you ask?  Keyboard warrier


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2012)

Firefly said:


> Why do you ask?



That's for me to know


----------



## Firefly (6 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> That's for me to know


 
You used to say that Mrs Purple reads your posts didn't you?


----------



## Purple (6 Nov 2012)

Firefly said:


> You used to say that Mrs Purple reads your posts didn't you?



I don't think so...


----------



## Firefly (6 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> I don't think so...


 
You're grand so, carry on


----------

