# Separation or Divorce - Best Option?



## clareG (15 Aug 2006)

I have been living apart from my husband for 3 years. We have had no normal marital relations for seven years and have not spoken for 5 years even thought we shared the same house.  I moved out as I just wanted out of the situation.  I am now ready to make things legal, and wonder if there is any advantage to going straight for a divorce instead of a seperation.  We have no dependent children and my husband still lives in the family home. Thanks for any advice.


----------



## Vanilla (16 Aug 2006)

*Re: Seperation or Divorce - Best Option?*

A seperation if done by agreement can be swift and relatively cheap. Divorce will have more finality and will enable both parties to remarry. If you think there will be a possibility of conflict on the terms of the separation you could consider mediation to try to resolve matters amicably which will hugely reduce legal fees. I would advise you to make an appointment to see a solicitor to discuss your options- they will advise you on counselling, mediation and the relative benefits of separation and divorce relevant to your own particular circumstances.


----------



## usual (16 Aug 2006)

not sure it matters much in this country. Would  love to know myself .Does divorce have more finality?? or is it just to enable people to remarry?


----------



## ClubMan (16 Aug 2006)

might help. A key point is that in _Ireland_, unlike some other jurisdictions, there is no such thing as a clean break divorce and each spouse still retains a potential claim on certain assets of the other thereafter. I guess divorce is more final than separation, and certainly allows each partner to marry again, but it's not totally final if you know what I mean.


----------



## RainyDay (16 Aug 2006)

usual said:


> not sure it matters much in this country. Would  love to know myself .Does divorce have more finality?? or is it just to enable people to remarry?



I heard an Irish divorce lawyer on the radio last weekend complaining about the lack of finality in the Irish system, where either party can come back for another bite of the cherry, long after an agreed seperation/divorce.


----------



## Tricksy (17 Aug 2006)

Apparently it gives you more protection legally as it is the most final stage you can bring it to in Ireland.  But it should be final.  No one should be able to keep coming back for more.  I don't think this benefits either person involved.


----------



## mf1 (17 Aug 2006)

But remember this lack of finality is precisely what we voted for. Such was the opposition to Divorce in the 1990's ( it is astonishing looking back only some 10 years ago) that I believe the Divorce referendum would not have passed if there had been that element of finality. As I recall there were only 8000ish votes between the ayes and the nays.   

For the practitioners and the parties involved it can be very frustrating but will the legislature deal with it and amend the legislation? I don't know if it would still be such a hot potato.  

mf


----------



## clareG (17 Aug 2006)

Thank you all for the replies. I think I will go for the divorce.


----------



## MOB (17 Aug 2006)

"But remember this lack of finality is precisely what we voted for. Such was the opposition to Divorce in the 1990's ( it is astonishing looking back only some 10 years ago) that I believe the Divorce referendum would not have passed if there had been that element of finality. As I recall there were only 8000ish votes between the ayes and the nays. "

Well said.  Might I add:

1.  There was foul weather coming in from the West on the evening of the referendum.  Many people on the Western Seaboard (in areas which might be expected to be more against divorce) did not venture out that evening.  So divorce was brought in by bad weather.

2.   The divorce issue is an almost perfect illustration of the way in which our print and broadcast media utterly fail to represent the broad spectrum of views in our population, preferring instead the "Dublin 4" consensus.  If the divorce referendum had failed to pass, does any one seriously believe that the media would have remained utterly silent about the possibility having another referendum?  In effect, the 50% of the country (at the time) who were against divorce have never had any effective mass media outlet to promulgate their views on the issue.


----------



## ClubMan (17 Aug 2006)

MOB said:


> So divorce was brought in by bad weather.


Proof, if it were needed, that every cloud has a silver lining? 


> 2.   The divorce issue is an almost perfect illustration of the way in which our print and broadcast media utterly fail to represent the broad spectrum of views in our population, preferring instead the "Dublin 4" consensus.  If the divorce referendum had failed to pass, does any one seriously believe that the media would have remained utterly silent about the possibility having another referendum?  In effect, the 50% of the country (at the time) who were against divorce have never had any effective mass media outlet to promulgate their views on the issue.


Ah - so it was a _Dublin [4] _conspiracy? Well spotted _Sherlock_. *If*, as you claim, some people who were utterly opposed to this amendment were put off voting by a bit of inclement weather then that's their hard cheese.


----------



## Gordanus (17 Aug 2006)

As I remember there was a lot of scaremongering about inheritance rights, which seemed to be mainly going on down the country.  "Your husband will divorce you and you'll be thrown off the farm and you kids will have no inherit....blah blah"  It was a legitimate concern and -aas usual in this country - not adequately addressed beforehand.


----------



## MOB (17 Aug 2006)

"Ah - so it was a Dublin [4] conspiracy?

Well spotted Sherlock

If, as you claim, some people who were utterly opposed to this amendment ...."

I am sorry if I seem to have touched a raw nerve.  I didn't suggest a conspiracy (though I think I would go so far as to call it a cosy-but-unrepresentative consensus).   

I didn't say that the weather kept in people who were utterly opposed to divorce (I think that the 'swing' voters were probably far more relevant- not everybody was utterly for or utterly against divorce).


----------



## runner (18 Aug 2006)

_I didn't say that the weather kept in people who were utterly opposed to divorce (I think that the '*swing' *voters were probably far more relevant- not everybody was utterly for or utterly against divorce_).

I didnt think there were that many swingers on the voting register


----------



## ClubMan (18 Aug 2006)

MOB said:


> I didn't say that the weather kept in people who were utterly opposed to divorce (I think that the 'swing' voters were probably far more relevant- not everybody was utterly for or utterly against divorce).


Then the following suggests that you believe the weather stopped those who were likely to swing to "no" from voting...


MOB said:


> So divorce was brought in by bad weather.


----------



## Sherman (18 Aug 2006)

MOB said:


> 2. The divorce issue is an almost perfect illustration of the way in which our print and broadcast media utterly fail to represent the broad spectrum of views in our population, preferring instead the "Dublin 4" consensus. If the divorce referendum had failed to pass, does any one seriously believe that the media would have remained utterly silent about the possibility having another referendum? In effect, the 50% of the country (at the time) who were against divorce have never had any effective mass media outlet to promulgate their views on the issue.


 
Fair enough if that's what you think MOB. 

However, if you're going to make that argument, you must realise that the anti-divorce side was not without powerful means of getting its argument across via the still-powerful Catholic Church.

In fact, I'd say in the mid-1990's, Catholic Church versus mainstream media was a fair match in terms of power and influence...more people go to mass regularly than read the Irish Times...


----------



## Ger (18 Aug 2006)

As far as I know, you should be living apart for 4 years.But the process is so slow, in all probability,you will be apart for this period by the time anything happens.
Property and pension issues should be finalised in divorce.However maintenance can be varied due to changing circumstances.
In Ireland,former spouses always have some responsibility for one another. One of the arguments for this was that divorce would cost the taxpayer a lot of money (e.g. lone parent allowance,house rent allowance) and the taxpayer should not have to foot the bill for abondened and destitute spouses and their children. Its a valid argument.


----------



## michaelm (25 Aug 2006)

Sherman said:


> In fact, I'd say in the mid-1990's, Catholic Church versus mainstream media was a fair match in terms of power and influence...more people go to mass regularly than read the Irish Times...


As MOB pointed out the Referendum result was very close, approx 1 extra vote per ballot box in favour, which shows why it's important to vote.  The government spent taxpayers money campaigning for a Yes which is something that, following the McKenna judgement, they cannot do these days.


----------



## Lumpsum (25 Aug 2006)

MOB is right about the weather.  I remember being in front of a telly with a bunch of pro-divorce people on polling day and when the weather forecast was for rain coming in from the west an enormous cheer went up. Apart from the weather it was John Bruton wot won it: This conservative, grey, middle aged farmer arguing on radio and TV for a Yes vote must swayed a considerable number of middle Irelanders.

On the OP's substantive question, whatever you do, exhaust all possibility of mediation and agreement before being sucked into legal conflict which will do your head - and bank balance - in.  It will also take forever.

Good luck.


----------



## clareG (28 Aug 2006)

Thanks again for the helpful advice but the other half refuses to talk to me and mediation is out out the question even though I have requested it.  I am in for the long haul I think.


----------



## KatieC (28 Aug 2006)

clareG said:


> I have been living apart from my husband for 3 years. We have had no normal marital relations for seven years and have not spoken for 5 years even thought we shared the same house.


 
I believe that you can apply immediately for a divorce since you say that you have not had normal relations for seven years.  Even though you shared the same house, time began counting then.  The longest wait is for a court date so if you are certain that this what you want, I would get the wheels in motion asap.  If you are anywhere in the county cork area I can pm you an excellent family law solicitor.  

All the best

Katie


----------



## clareG (28 Aug 2006)

Thank you Katie, I am in Dublin and I have the name of a Solicitor who has been recomended.


----------



## lagel (1 Sep 2006)

I could have done with an ex law solicitor.  Does anyone know is there any law in this land that can MAKE a spouse respond?  I'm still waiting and going on 7 years with legal costs mounting.  My barrister has been in court & b4 county registrar a few times but it seems nobody can make a person respond if they chose not to.  We're waiting a long time for a Cert of Readiness to be lodged in Court with the poss it won't happen.  I've often wondered about getting a UK divorce as we're all european citizens now & I was married in a London registry office - however, that doesn't settle the house problem.


----------



## DrMoriarty (1 Sep 2006)

Sherman said:


> ...the anti-divorce side was not without powerful means of getting its argument across via the still-powerful Catholic Church.
> 
> In fact, I'd say in the mid-1990's, Catholic Church versus mainstream media was a fair match in terms of power and influence...more people go to mass regularly than read the Irish Times...


Not wishing to sidetrack the OP's question further, but bear in mind the many hundreds (if not thousands) of anti-divorce votes garnered by the mass ferrying of elderly and religious — including nuns from silent/enclosed orders — to the polling stations, in coaches and minibuses organised and paid for by the Church and, ehm, certain political figures of the time...

That said, I'd agree with mf1 that without the particularly Irish 'fudge' enshrined in the text of the constitutional amendment, the referendum would probably have failed once again.

End of rant(?). To clareG, I would say that the choice between legal separation and divorce — since neither is truly 'final' — would hinge principally on the question of whether either of you foresees a future remarriage in this country. Best of luck, and do take Vanilla's advice above!


----------



## RainyDay (1 Sep 2006)

DrMoriarty said:


> but bear in mind the many hundreds (if not thousands) of anti-divorce votes garnered by the mass ferrying of elderly and religious — including nuns from silent/enclosed orders — to the polling stations, in coaches and minibuses organised and paid for by the Church and, ehm, certain political figures of the time...


My aunt is a nun in an enclosed order, and they never needed any coaches or minibuses to get them to the polls. Any voting day (election or referendum) was seen as a great excuse to get out of the convent. They would vote as soon as the polls open and then disappear off for a day of shopping and visiting the relatives. One evening, I dropped her back to the convent around 8pm and she was highly apologetic to the Mother Superior about her lateness. She asked 'Am I the last one back' to be told 'No, you're the first actually'.


----------



## DrMoriarty (2 Sep 2006)

I have an aunt who's a nun too, and she'd certainly fit into that category, RainyDay!  

But I do remember, at the time of the divorce referendum (and others), witnessing several such minibuses full of elderly/infirm people being assisted or wheelchaired into the local polling station by orderlies or clergy. Don't get me wrong — their votes are perfectly as valid and as important as anyone's; indeed; I have a lot more admiration for people with mobility problems who nonetheless make it their business to get out and cast their vote than for the masses of disillusioned (read: 'couldn't-be-orsed') 'yoof' who have more pressing matters on their agenda.

I'm just agreeing with Sherman and Gordanus' points above that there was — as with all big socio-political issues in this State — a high degree of skilful and extremely effective manipulation of the 'swing' vote by the Catholic hierarchy and other conservative forces.

Anyway, enough digression...


----------

