A representative of a body of legal professions informed the government that it’s an unfair practice for divorced partners to wait for a further 6 months for the divorce completion process to be finalised particularly for those who don’t have children. After the recent completion in the consultation in making changes to divorce laws, the justice ministry is in a process of testing whether a decree can be granted six months later prior to the divorce completion process.
According to the ministry of justice, a further 6 months will give the divorced parties a chance to re-examine the consequences of the step they had taken and allow them to cancel or continue with the process after they have reached a suitable solution. Nevertheless, the waiting period will have no effects to the divorcing parties’ children.
On the other hand, the Bar council considers the act as a dangerous step in extending the waiting period which recently stands at 6 weeks and 1 day as part of their response. Six months would be a considerably long period of time especially for those parties who don’t have children and are well established with enough finances.
The Bar questioned the issue further by asking if there exists an empirical or anecdotal proof that shows whether the recent waiting period is too short and if so explanations for its extension should be tabled to show the need for it to be extended. The decree period had to be a minimum and the law courts has to be assured that an absolute decree will have no adverse effects before it makes the ruling. Furthermore, if the divorcing couples had children then they have to prove that the wellbeing of their children is well organised and catered for.
Moreover, the Bar stated that a further 6 months extension suggestion would not give enough focus towards serious contemplations hat the parties give in the outset petitioning of the divorce process in place of the time between decree nisi and absolute decrees.
Nevertheless, the Bar commented on the government’s suggestions of omitting the divorcing requirements that proves more than one fact in the process by considering it as an act which usually looks into inconsistency among marriages and partnerships in civil matters, whether in divorce Ormskirk matters or any others.
According to the Bar Council, adultery is main divorce ground which revolves around marriages. However, adultery cannot form grounds for separation between parties in a civil partnership. The Bar defined adultery as an act of demanding or needing sex from an individual of the opposite gender. Likewise, involvement of one marriage partner or a civil partner in sexual practices with another person of the same sex is not regarded as an adulterous act. This act however in most occasion leads to permanent breakups both in the civil partnerships and marriages.
The ministry ended the consultation process on Monday after a series of many individual and legal bodies’ efforts in pushing for the reforms to be done on the divorce laws. The government was also advised by the Law Society to reinstate the legal assistance to advice divorcing parties in advance.