In Australia, the concept of no-fault (and therefore a simple) divorce was introduced by the Family Law Act in 1975. And despite criticisms by conservative politicians and commentators, most notably Bob Santamaria during the 1980s, the easily obtained divorce has been a feature of our family law.
Recent murmurings from Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott have suggested family lawyers look at no-fault divorce or, at least, the easily obtained divorce. Recently, the Centre for Marriage Studies in the US has proposed a novel way for separating couples to be more proactive in their divorce arrangements. Effectively, absent circumstances making such a process non-viable (such as in domestically violent or abusive relationships), married couples would not be entitled to a decree of divorce until they had first established a co-parenting regime (agreed or otherwise) and property / maintenance settlement. Without introducing fault into the equation, separating couples would thereby be given greater incentive to resolve their differences without, at least, the delay that accompanies litigation.
The proposal deserves consideration. The obvious difficulty at the outset is that marriages (which require a divorce to end) would be differently treated from de facto relationships, which can end upon a whim. Having said that, divorce is still something married couples must do to end the marriage. If we expedite a conclusion to conflict for some of those people, surely that is a good thing?
Recent murmurings from Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott have suggested family lawyers look at no-fault divorce or, at least, the easily obtained divorce. Recently, the Centre for Marriage Studies in the US has proposed a novel way for separating couples to be more proactive in their divorce arrangements. Effectively, absent circumstances making such a process non-viable (such as in domestically violent or abusive relationships), married couples would not be entitled to a decree of divorce until they had first established a co-parenting regime (agreed or otherwise) and property / maintenance settlement. Without introducing fault into the equation, separating couples would thereby be given greater incentive to resolve their differences without, at least, the delay that accompanies litigation.
The proposal deserves consideration. The obvious difficulty at the outset is that marriages (which require a divorce to end) would be differently treated from de facto relationships, which can end upon a whim. Having said that, divorce is still something married couples must do to end the marriage. If we expedite a conclusion to conflict for some of those people, surely that is a good thing?
No comments:
Post a Comment