Tag Archives: Alternative Dispute Resolution

“Court costs?? I don’t have to worry about lawyer’s fees! I’ll represent myself!!”

This was the thought of Mr Veluppillai who decided to represent himself against his wife in divorce proceedings recently in what the judge called “a routine needs case after 20 years of marriage.” Not only did Mr Veluppillai not save himself money, he ended up with a costs order against him of £150,000.It seems that the Judge found in favour of his wife whose proposals were described by commentators as eminently sensible. A lose lose situation for Mr Veluppillai.

Picture1

Admittedly this case is extreme. Here, the husband did cause there to be over 30 hearings in front of the court, he ended up assaulting his wife’s barrister and his wife in court, was convicted of assault, fled the country and sent the court abusive emails saying he had a fatal illness and that the proceedings should be adjourned indefinitely! The eventual outcome was that an order was made allowing the wife to sell off one property to pay off the mortgage on another and this also provided a fund for her to set up a business, amongst other things.

The point to take from this is that going to court, whether in person or with your lawyer, means engaging in a battle, starting a fight and sometimes people lose perspective in their desire to win. But there is no winner here. The bottom line is that there is less money available to divide between the separating couple at the end of the day. And immense bad feeling between them.

Another approach is mediation. In mediation we start from the place where separating couples say: “it went wrong, we can’t put it right but by blaming and punishing nothing is mended. Let’s work together to build workable futures for us both”.

Yes. We do tell clients that this is hard work.  But a lot less stressful than fighting and cheaper than the £150,000 that Mr Veluppillai will be handing over to his ex-wife’s lawyers.

Control, Leverage and Letting Go of Relationships

As mediator I see hundreds of couples at the point where they are negotiating their arrangements for separation and divorce. It is fascinating. Many of them say they ‘Just want what is fair’ and that ‘They just want to sort it all out as quickly as possible’. They may well then embark on behaviour and an approach to negotiations that will ensure exactly the opposite happens, it does not get sorted quickly and what they want is what the want and it may not be fair. They bring their couple boundaries into mediation where they have to be managed by me as the mediator to achieve a fair negotiating balance between the parties to mediation. So the so-called controller will have to let go of his or her influence over their ex partner and they will find this very hard. As mediation progresses it often becomes clear that the couple will never agree what is fair because this is an opinion seen through the lens of their self interest. It is possible to argue endlessly about fairness and people often feel very strongly about certain things, even when in law these things may make no difference at all. In most cases the main question is ‘How can these assets provide for you both and any children? What is practical?’ On divorce there is no forensic accounting and handing back of contributions made 20 years ago and the partner who has worked in the home childrearing and housekeeping is treated equally to the partner who has earned the income on which the family has lived.

91-437-304-77-0-300-303

Controllers may seek to use their historic influence in negotiating their settlement in mediation. An effective mediator helps the couple to re-define their couple boundaries, especially the ones relating to influence and control and re-balance the two people on a consciously more equal footing, something both necessary and extremely uncomfortable. An example may help:

Towards the end of the mediation when the issues have almost been resolved, one party may hesitate, and delay booking the final session. They may raise additional issues and appear to start new or old arguments, running the risk the mediation will collapse and court will be the only option, this holding the couple stuck in their existing boundaries for longer with historic levels of control and influence. What are they afraid of? They may be unconsciously afraid of losing control or influence of their nearly ex partner.

My heart always sinks if I hear someone worrying about ‘Leverage’. That is not a good word, it imports a world of meaning associated with the exploitation of a dominant negotiating position to exercise non consensual control. The controller will fear loss of control mightily and will seek to retain it. They may well also complain bitterly about lack of communication with the controlled or leveraged person. They will not understand the connection between the leverage they are accustomed to exercising and their poor communication with their victim. As I said to one divorcing man recently, as he twitched nervously about his loss of financial leverage on settling his finances with his ex wife, ‘Have you ever thought if you didn’t have any leverage over her, your relationship with her might improve and with it your ability to communicate over your children?’ He looked at me with real fear and lack of comprehension, so I held his eyes and said ‘Just think about it!’

Mediation: Oxford Divorce Stress Buster

Oxford house prices were quoted in the Oxford Times recently as the highest in the UK apart from London. This places extra stress on separating couples who now need two places to live instead of one, but it doesn’t look affordable

January and February are tough months for everybody. They’re especially tough if you have just worked through a strained Christmas and decided that you can’t hold your marriage together any longer: you’ve decided to separate. The year ahead looks impossible. Were will you each live? How will you share the children? Talking has become dangerous. Rows erupt, important issues are no-go areas, communication is at an all-time low, along with your spirits.

oxford

Mediation with Focus Mediation in Oxford is designed to cope with all this stress. It is run by Caroline Friend, who lives near Oxford, she understands Oxford problems and has helped many local people with all the same issues you are now facing. You might do well to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone this way before you.

You start by coming to a MIAM: a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting. This is time spent alone with your Focus mediator, who will listen to your story and then explain the process of divorce and of how mediation works in detail. Then the joint sessions start, spaced to suit you, your timetables and your budgets. Mediation gives you a safe, neutral environment in which you can tackle your impossible problems.

Sally thought she and Jo were putting their marriage back on track, and was deeply shocked when Jo chose the week before Christmas to announce he was filing for divorce. The next two weeks were grim: you could cut the atmosphere at home with a knife. However, once the mediator had seen them both, they could get a handle on what they needed to do: a session looking at their income and outgoings, so as to work out what rent Jo could afford, and time spent working out a child-care pattern that both parents felt comfortable with: it wasn’t ideal – not seeing your children every day will never be that – but it respected the children’s needs and gave both parents plenty of time with them. All that was completed in two weeks and reduced the stress considerably.

A couple more sessions dealt with the bigger picture of the house and how to share the equity in it. The mediator encouraged both parents to put the children’s stability first, and helped them take difficult decisions in the light of current court practice. She helped them identify any maintenance that would be appropriate, and dealt with any disparity in their pensions. Even more importantly, they established ways of communicating with each other to make arrangements for the children without quarrelling.

Focus Mediation is there to help. It might make all the difference to your new year.

House prices, Living Standards and Separating in London

Londoners are considered to enjoy to most affluent living standards in the UK. With salaries above the national average and house prices considered to be out of reach of those not already on the London property ladder, might be less fraught.

The reality however can be far from that. London house prices are out of kilter with the rest of the UK. The Evening Standard reported recently house price increases of 18.8 per cent in the last year and that is on prices already massively higher than anywhere else in the country. When a couple is considering what to do with their family home and where they can both live if they split up, ever rising house prices make it difficult for them just to agree a valuation. What may be accurate at the start of their separation can within a matter of months have changed out of all recognition if the market has risen madly.

london house

London Focus Mediators are aware of the particular difficulties facing London couples and will help both parties throughout their mediation face the tricky issues specifically relating to living in London.

It is of note that whilst house prices are higher than anywhere else in the UK the Evening Standard goes on to report there is an increasing crunch on London family budgets.

“The fall in average London pay is likely to be caused partly by smaller City bonuses, and cuts in the number of relatively well paid managers in the public sector.”

November 2014 figures suggested the era of falling real wages since the banking crisis may finally be ending, with pay just starting to outpace inflation.  But today Matthew Whittaker, chief economist at the Resolution Foundation think tank, said that in real terms wages were at the same level as in 2000.

“Today’s bleak figures contrast with signs last week that the UK’s six-year pay squeeze was coming to an end,” he added.  “While the [new] data relates to April — a period in which we already knew pay was falling— the depth of decline highlights just how tentative any recent recovery remains.”

Faced with these economic peculiarities, It is key to work with a mediator in touch with the problems facing Londoners. The process of mediation allows such issues to be flagged up at the outset and dealt with in a controlled and professional way, helping separating couples to set their agenda and deal with the particular issues affecting them and their family.

For more information or to contact us CLICK HERE

Jacket Pockets

When people split up they often try to get the better of the other person. They most often fight about money. Resources feel scarce. You may think if the other person has more, you will have less. This seems unfair and a struggle for money can begin. However, our instincts lead us astray so often in this situation. Why? Simply because if the case is decided by a judge or when it is settled by agreement, all the assets and liabilities are added up and the total divided very often equally but in any event what each person has spent has gone, so making your ex pay for something makes no difference, as their position is taken onto account and you’ll pay half. Whatever has been spent on anything is effectively paid pretty mulch equally once those assets are split, as each party’s current position is added into the pot and that effectively takes their spending pre settlement into account. Examples include:

  • Bank accounts and investments
  • Properties
  • Pensions
  • Credit cards and debt

The way to think of it is as a jacket with lots of pockets. The pockets have money or debt in them. The up to date value of the pockets will normally be used in the settlement or judgment. Very occasionally someone may succeed in an adding back argument, for example, adding back a significant value they argue the other person has squandered in some way or applied in a way that is prejudicial to the outcome. Much would depend on scale and if the application of money was unusual and prejudicial to the person who had no control or say in it.

jacket

Very often couples argue fiercely over which pocket something is paid from. They don’t want it paid from ‘their’ pocket, it must come from the other person’s pocket. This is an illusion when the pockets are totalled as it simply makes no difference.

Recently I was mediating a case where everyone got very bogged down in pockets arguments. Even their advisers struggled to remember it was all one jacket. Each was taking the same drawings from their business and getting their bills paid on top, they were ticking over OK, but one wasn’t paid any child support, the other wanted child support. This would mean the other person didn’t have enough to live on, they would have to take more from the business or get into debt. It was a joint business, so very much a one jacket situation. There needed to be a discussion about the extra costs of the children and an agreement for that to be met where it arose. However there was a feeling of outrage no child support was being paid. It looked as though an application to the Child Maintenance Service would be made. This would result in an assessment on historic and very high figures that would necessarily involve the paying person having to take more from one jacket pocket to pay it, even if it was overdraft and debt, and then later it would be taken into account. These people has agreed to take less from their business not more, so the whole argument was a pointless totemic argument over the contents of the pockets of the same jacket, the jacket they were going to be splitting between them anyway and they had agreed it would be split equally! Other examples include:

  • Someone making a big pension contribution to take money off the balance sheet and out of their pocket – it does no such thing, as the pension is part of the jacket and the contribution and its tax relief is included and split!.
  • Buying an expensive car then seeking to depreciate it as it isn’t new any more – this takes money off the balance sheet, but the car is usually included at its purchase price
  • Leaving money undrawn in a business controlled by one party, in the hope no one will include the full value of the undrawn capital or take into account the undrawn income as relevant to maintenance. It has to be one or the other. It is usually quantified and included.

I have lost count of how often this type of thing happens and people think their thinking is so original and they are so clever and they will get more in ‘their’ pockets and be better off. People who work with separating couples for long will have come across all this countless times, they know where the bodies are buried!  How ferociously people fight over all this – when it doesn’t matter. Thought you should know, just in case it affects you. You’d be better of saving your breath to cool your porridge, as they say. For more case studies, please visit: http://www.focus-mediation.co.uk/case-studies

Bloody mindedness

When people are hurt, they often like to hurt back.

An eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth and all that. If s/he left me to go off with that bastard/bitch, they must suffer for it. They will suffer, I’ll make sure of it, even if I lose out too, it will be worth it!  Does anyone ever say that in mediation? Rarely if ever, but they may think it and take up inexplicable negotiating positions or prolong arguments over nothing. They can be very bloody minded over sorting the simplest things out. There are reasons for this, such as they cannot let go of the relationship, cannot leave the connection with their ex, they are desperate to ‘win’ so have to keep fighting, they want to have the ‘last word’ and/or their fury fuels the conflict and then the conflict finds an outlet in:

  • Quarrelsome solicitors’ letters setting out endless arguments about anything and everything, much of may be it immaterial to settling the important issues like who gets the house or is it sold, what happens about pensions and the maintenance? If people fight over silly things you know you are in trouble, so the food mixer or kettle is an indication they are dredging the bottom of the barrel and this is caused by their feelings, not the importance of the bottom of the barrel.
  • Putting forward extremely unfair positions that would make the other person lose out massively (punishment, ‘make them suffer’)
  • And worst of all, arguing through the children, using them as weapons and instruments of revenge, getting them ‘onside’ and trying to turn them against their other parent.
"Divorce Your Loved One With Dignity" Bob Willoughby © , Frank Sinatra, on the Warner Brothers set of Marriage On The Rocks, 1965

Bob Willoughby © Frank Sinatra, on the Warner Brothers set of Marriage On The Rocks, 1965

On the surface you have an argument, often translated into a legal narrative of this statute and these cases, versus a countering position and cases. That is the lawyers’ attempts to try and reduce the fighting into something logical, with rational arguments that can be explained and reasoned. Mostly the parties don’t give a damn about all that, what they mind about is getting back at the bastard/ bitch who has ruined their life. This isn’t every case by any means, but it is common enough to be classified as a type of case I think of as ‘Bloodymindedness’.

If you know someone who has embarked on a divorce in this manner and you really care about them, you won’t simply listen to their rantings, you’ll gently question some of their statements and turn some of their thoughts on their head. For example, you might ask what the costs of fighting have been so far and talk about the type of holiday, car or suchlike they could have bought for that instead. If they blame it all on the other person, you might ask them what they did to try to change the dynamic. If they have tried, and many will have done, you might observe it is very difficult to get two warring people to make peace simultaneously, as they often both try, but at different times and get a bad response.

The beauty of mediating your settlement, arrangements for the children, divorce, whatever, is you go off from your first session together with a shared action-plan and joint commitment to changing boundaries and behaving differently. You can develop functional separated boundaries, with some rules you put in place about what ever is causing difficulty. Solicitors’ letters will not accomplish that. Mediation can turn things around and put you on a better path, people need to understand about that possibility, because it is game changing, and thank goodness for it.

Think of it as an escape hatch from misery for families who are splitting up.

Financial Settlements on Family Breakdown – How to Get it Done.

Mediators and lawyers have their own role to play in helping you to reach decisions following on from your separation.  Most of the hard work is done by you both during the mediation sessions.  The two of you will discuss the issues that need to be resolved, with the help of the mediator.  The mediator is there to help you to communicate in a constructive way while your respective lawyers will help you individually by advising you about the proposals.   They can then translate the settlement proposals into a legally binding agreement or submit it to the court for the court’s approval.

An out of court settlement is something you often hear about.  It is a settlement that is often reached within the mediation process.  It can then be endorsed and approved by the court to make it legally binding.

two mannequins fighting over 100 dollars

For a financial settlement to be binding it is important that both of you disclose to each other your respective financial positions.   This would be the same whether your settlement was reached through mediation, through solicitors or through court.  You cannot come to an agreement if you don’t know what the assets and incomes are.  This process is called full financial disclosure.  You are then able to have discussions and negotiate a settlement   Even in court most settlements are reached through discussion and negotiation rather than the Judge making your decisions for you.  In mediation, you can go straight to those discussions after the financial disclosure stage, without waiting for the court to give you appointments and paying for costly court fees, and solicitors’ and barristers’ costs.

Just because you and your ex can’t communicate doesn’t mean that you have to go to court.  Mediation can help you look at how your relationship can be improved to enable you to resolve your issues, particularly communication.  You can become more co-operative and make your own decisions together.  The benefit of mediation is that it is the two of you who will be making the decisions about you and your children, rather than having a Judge decide what is best for your future.

Do you think that you will be better able to communicate if you have solicitors writing letters between you?  No, I suspect not too.  Often what you said and what you meant can get misunderstood or blurred by using a third party.  The advantage of mediation is that you are both putting forward your views and the other can listen and respond at the time, not 2 or 3 weeks later.  The mediator can help by translating and clarifying if necessary.  Then, in a constructive and problem-solving way you talk through the options and work out what is best for your separated family. Then you do it, job done!

Whatever.  The importance of ‘Whatever’ in History.  

The countless aeons of history that have gone before us are full of fighting and killing, full of domination and oppression, full of taking over and wiping out, conversion, subjection and vanquishing, the growth and decline of empires and peoples. The strong overcome; weakness is obliterated and suffers.

Does extremism make people violent or do psychologically disturbed people get attracted to the violence, power, fear and atrocities possible in the life devoted to the evangelism of the mad, bad and truly horrific Whatever? Does war and violent evangelism offer an apparently pure excuse for the anger and alienation of some young people, waiting for their lives to start? I say “Whatever” because historically the motive for aggression can be anything, that’s the point really.  Some wars are simply about land and resources – we want ‘your’ this, that or the other and we will kill as many of ‘you’ as we have to in order to get it. Oh, and the rest of ‘you’ can be our slaves.

Then there are the crusades – our religion or philosophy, culture or Whatever is right and yours is wrong, so we will kill as many of you as we have to, to convert you to our ways plus we will destroy your homes and cities and flatten your country until there is no one left to oppose us. Then we will have won and you will believe what we believe or you’ll be annihilated and that will be the victory of our Whatever.  In the Middle Ages the English kings led the crusades to the East to convert the people they broadly called the infidel to Christianity.  It seems mad today doesn’t it? Now we have the descendants of those peoples waging jihad against their peoples and neighbours to establish their caliphate, because they think if they kill and destroy enough, they will be able to take over and rule, convert and build an empire, like Hitler or Stalin or any other mad megalomaniac from the countless centuries that have gone before trying to impose their Whatever by force.

 math-conflict

Of course, each thinks that their Whatever is different, theirs is the Real Whatever, but for everyone else coping with the consequences of the onslaught, it’s the onslaught that matters, that gets noticed, the Whatever is the price of peace. So here we are again, there always seems to be somewhere in the world where someone is trying to convert to Whatever by killing. It used be to Ireland. For hundreds of years there was fighting and killing on the face of it between two types of Christians, the Catholics and the Protestants. Any of them knew what they were doing was wholly contrary to their Christian beliefs, to the “in my Father’s house there are many mansions” of the Bible they were purporting to defend. Everyone could see it wasn’t really about religion, it was wholly anti-religious. So is the killing, maiming and destruction that occurs in the name of religion going on today, whether it is between Jews and Arabs, different types of Muslims or different types of anyone else. The text is always “We are right you are wrong, mend ‘your’ ways to our ways, or die” but the subtext is always that of fighting, killing and destruction.

The apparent motive for the aggression must be on the face of it a pure and totemic idea, that people can be blindly and suicidally committed to. However, the apparent motive can be almost anything, “Whatever.”  The main requirement is that death in its cause will create martyrs, so the young can be recruited and turned to its service and kill and die and yet live forever in heaven. Interestingly, those dying in the Christian crusades were martyrs, as are those dying today in the jihads. Everything changes, but nothing changes, the death and destruction are the same, only the names of the protagonists are different.  Whatever.

What is it about mankind that attracts large numbers of people to war, fighting and death? The defenders are fighting for their lives, for peace and survival. The attackers are usually fighting to impose their Whatever on others. Why? When will we ever learn? We were getting there. There is little appetite in the Western world for war, we have seen its terrors and want none of it. So it is all the more frightening that in some parts of the world now education is vilified and girls cannot be educated, women live like prisoners in their homes, while boys and men are indoctrinated in “Whatever” and prepared for modern crusades. Ignorance is our greatest enemy; ignorance and starvation and the desperate fight for survival that leads peoples out of their barren starved, parched lands to seek water and life. What will we do about them?

The problems we face as humans are so massive and all encompassing; we surely have to find new ways to resolve our differences and those problems. Yet how can the mediation of peaceful solutions wage war on terror, death and destruction? We have a race on our hands to answer that question, because it is an idea whose time has come and we have to make it happen fast. Mankind must stop fighting and start talking about how to solve the problems of the world together. Unless we start to prioritise the mediation of solutions and agreements that are life affirming, tolerant and create a peaceful world we are all dead. That is my Whatever.

The Unreported Flaws Behind Penelope Leach’s ‘Toxic Truth’

Parenting guru Penelope Leach’s recent claim that after parents split, no child under four can spend even one night away from their primary carer – usually their mother without the risk of lasting damage – has caused a storm of controversy in family law. Her latest book, Family Breakdown, cites “undisputed evidence” that overnight separation from mum can adversely affect a child’s brain development.

These trenchant certainties threaten to have an enormous impact on parents and judges who are often confused about what is best after couples split.

Leach’s influence is even more worrying because science shows her “undisputed evidence” may well be wrong. She relies on a study from Australia (McIntosh el al 2010) Responding to this study, the American Psychological Association (APA) has published a paper, Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report,  endorsed by 110 of the world’s leading child mental health experts from 15 countries, repudiating its conclusions. The lead author of the Australian study has subsequently dropped the conclusions that Leach relies upon, stating: “Cautions against overnight care during the first three years are not supported.” Sadly for so many children and their parents, Leach does not include this addendum in her book.

article-2661981-1EE779B900000578-10_634x402

We cannot afford for such important questions about child welfare to become an ideological battleground. Parents, mediators, lawyers  – and the judiciary – need clear guidance grounded in sound evidence. That’s why the APA review is so valuable, since it provides an overview of 45 years of settled and accepted research.

“We found no support for the idea that children under four (some say under six) need to spend nearly all their time living with only one parent, when their other parent is also loving and attentive,” the lead author Professor Richard Warshak said. “Warnings against infants and toddlers spending overnight time with each parent are inconsistent with what we know about the development of strong, positive parent-child relationships. Babies and toddlers need parents who respond consistently, affectionately and sensitively to their needs. They do not need, and most do not have, one parent’s full-time, round-the-clock presence.”

At Focus we can, in many cases if you and your children want, talk to your children in confidence about their thoughts, wishes and feelings.  It won’t be easy for either of you, but at the end of it we hope that you will have reached an agreement that you both feel works for you and most importantly your children.

So much for justice, we’ve learned to live with an unfair dysfunctional system and find weird ways around the worst problems it causes. Just don’t expect it to make sense!

Many Divorces are based on lies, but you can’t defend them. 

Countless times it turns out in mediation that two people, who experienced the same event, interpreted it totally differently. Each understood what was happening in their own way, then afterwards, thought about it and overlaid it with different layers of meaning from their reflections about what happened. The most common issue in the early stages of family breakdown is whose fault it was that the marriage broke down. One may say it was the affair, but the other may say it was the constant rows, their poor relationship that pre-dated the affair. It will often feel desperately important to people to feel their conscience is clear and the break up wasn’t their fault. Many people find it impossible to believe that if it’s not your fault you don’t get a better settlement. Of course, they may think if they make the other person feel bad enough, guilt may help them to a greater share of the money. That is usually not the case.

Whilst defended divorces are rare these days they do still happen. The person who defends usually does so because they feel the divorce petition is a lie. They usually agree the marriage is over and then they usually cross petition, as they want the divorce to be granted on the basis the other person was to blame, and so their cross petition sets out all the reasons their spouse has actually caused the marriage to end.

 justice

In a divorce based on fault not separation, the petition has to be based on adultery or unreasonable behaviour and in either case it has to be the cause of the breakdown of the marriage in the sense of make that particular petitioner feel they can’t live with that respondent. So it is very personal to them and doesn’t have to reach a level of proof such that a reasonable person would find it intolerable to live with the petitioner. If the petitioner has forgiven the behaviour or adultery, then it cannot be used in the petition, so it’s no good dragging up ancient history. Forgiven has a specific meaning and if you have lived with the respondent for a period or periods together totalling six months or more since you found out about the behaviour or adultery, then you cannot rely on it in your divorce petition. This can cause a lot of injustice. So a spouse who tried hard to forgive someone for committing adultery and struggled on in the marriage but later called it a day, may not be able to rely on that adultery to divorce their spouse, unless it is continuing or continued to within six months of the petition.  It doesn’t matter that it was actually the reason for the break-down. To add insult to injury, if after separation the injured party then has an affair, most people would say that didn’t cause the marriage break-down, but it is still legally adultery and what’s more it may well be the only adultery that can be used in the petition, as it hasn’t been legally forgiven!  To make it even worse, if you are the respondent you can find yourself facing an order you pay the divorce costs! So plenty of room for unfairness and dispute.

Where petitions based on adultery are concerned, you only need a sentence saying the respondent has committed adultery with someone the respondent doesn’t name, they find it intolerable to live with the respondent and seek a divorce. You can no longer muck rake by dragging in the name of the person who you think they committed adultery with, so no more co-respondents.

The other fault-based petition is founded on unreasonable behaviour and more detail has to be given to justify the divorce. There is an old rule of thumb of half a side of A4 and a few paragraphs. So typically a few lines of general outline, followed by the first, the worst and the last, then a concluding paragraph saying the effect the unreasonable behaviour has had on the respondent, for example, made them depressed, miserable, sleepless, feel deeply unhappy and unloved – and importantly that the marriage is over and they seek to end it with a divorce.

In those rare cases when divorces are defended, the court does everything in its power to stop it. We at Focus Mediation have over our fifteen years and approaching ten thousand cases, mediated a number of defended divorces with cross petitions. They usually end in the same way. Either and usually both the petition and cross petition is amended to remove the most offensive allegations, then the divorce proceeds on the basis of both petition and cross petition, with usually no order for costs. Normally the costs by then will be £3,000 – £10,000 between the parties, money completely down the drain and each will usually pay their own costs. Many hours will be spent arguing over the detail of the reasons for the divorce, because it feels so important to that couple, but not actually because it is important in any way that matters.

Sometimes the respondent may feel that the allegations touch on and criticise their handling of the children and might cause troubles over them having the children if not challenged. There is even a way around this. You can say the divorce particulars are not agreed, but you’ll allow the divorce to proceed on the basis that the fact you have not defended it does not mean you accept the petition and the fact it wasn’t defended cannot be relied on as evidence it was true in the context of any other proceedings. Job done, you can produce that letter at court if you need to in those other proceedings if such ever occur. Then it’s likely the court would make you plead that behaviour again and prove it in those other proceedings.

Judges hate defended divorces with a passion and they do all they can to stop them. If you defend you can expect a drubbing at court, even though you may feel outraged at what is happening to you, the judge will be just as outraged you could defend a divorce in their court, so not much sympathy there.

So in conclusion, divorce petitions must follow technical rules and cannot just be about what you feel is the reason for the divorce. Often they will be about something different, but it qualifies as the legal grounds for the divorce, which may not be the real reason your marriage ended at all. This may make you mad and upset, but as we all know the Law’s an ass, so don’t expect the judge to agree with you or think you’ll get “Justice” because you won’t. Sorry, but don’t be silly! You can’t  go to court for justice on your divorce, who cares whose fault it is? Only you.  The judge will not let you have your day in court, not if they can help it.

The answer is to change the Law to stop all this, they were going to do that many moons ago, but dropped it. The tabloids were out-raged that people would just get divorced for no reason; the government had to drop the Bill. So here we are still with antiquated divorce laws that make a sad situation worse and make people wash their dirty linen in public, so to speak. Mad, bad and stupid divorce laws do nothing to ease the path of broken hearts to a civilised divorce. They encourage arguments then deny the right of reply and the use of the courts to establish truth. So many divorces are based on lies and lawyers can do nothing about it, save advise people to bite the bullet and let it go – along with the marriage.
Mediation at least helps you end it with dignity and kindness.

%d bloggers like this: