{"title":"DIVORCE IN ENGLAND AND WALES: TIME FOR REFORM","authors":"M. Welstead","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V24I1.390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The clamour of voices crying out for reform of the law relating to financial provision on divorce is regularly heard. The judiciary, the academic community, lawyers and prospective divorcees have all expressed concern about the problematic nature of the current law and the urgent need for change.1 Yet these same voices rarely draw attention to the major defects inherent in divorce law itself. The battle for divorce reform which dominated the family law debate during the latter part of the 20th century appears to have been abandoned, along with the decision in 2001 by Lord Irvine of Lairg, the then Lord Chancellor, not to bring into force the major reforms to divorce law contained in Part II of the Family Law Act 1996 (see below). There is now an uneasy and, for the most part, a silent acceptance that the majority of spouses who want to bring their relationship to a legal end will find a way of doing so. The fact that they might have to resort to a massaging of the law, which may at times border on outright dishonesty, to secure their freedom and the right to embark on a new legal relationship, is largely ignored. Indeed in many family law textbooks and family law courses, the topic of divorce is barely discussed. It is viewed as an administrative process with little legal content to it. The few cases which do come before the courts are given similar scant treatment, even when they draw attention to the fundamental problems in the current law, a law which is both outdated and confusing.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"390 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Denning Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V24I1.390","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
经常可以听到要求改革有关离婚经济规定的法律的呼声。司法部门、学术界、律师和准备离婚的人都对现行法律的问题性质和迫切需要作出改变表示关切然而,这些声音很少引起人们对离婚法本身固有的主要缺陷的注意。在20世纪后半叶主导家庭法辩论的离婚改革之战似乎已被放弃,随着2001年时任大法官欧文勋爵(Lord Irvine of lairing)的决定,1996年《家庭法法案》第二部分所载的离婚法重大改革不生效(见下文)。现在有一种不安的,而且在很大程度上是一种无声的接受,即大多数想要合法结束婚姻关系的配偶会找到这样做的方法。事实上,他们可能不得不诉诸于法律上的欺骗,有时甚至接近于彻底的欺骗,以确保他们的自由和开始一种新的法律关系的权利,这在很大程度上被忽视了。事实上,在许多家庭法教科书和家庭法课程中,离婚的话题很少被讨论。它被视为一个行政程序,几乎没有法律内容。法院审理的少数几起案件也同样得不到充分的处理,即使这些案件引起了人们对现行法律中一些基本问题的注意,而现行法律既过时又令人困惑。
The clamour of voices crying out for reform of the law relating to financial provision on divorce is regularly heard. The judiciary, the academic community, lawyers and prospective divorcees have all expressed concern about the problematic nature of the current law and the urgent need for change.1 Yet these same voices rarely draw attention to the major defects inherent in divorce law itself. The battle for divorce reform which dominated the family law debate during the latter part of the 20th century appears to have been abandoned, along with the decision in 2001 by Lord Irvine of Lairg, the then Lord Chancellor, not to bring into force the major reforms to divorce law contained in Part II of the Family Law Act 1996 (see below). There is now an uneasy and, for the most part, a silent acceptance that the majority of spouses who want to bring their relationship to a legal end will find a way of doing so. The fact that they might have to resort to a massaging of the law, which may at times border on outright dishonesty, to secure their freedom and the right to embark on a new legal relationship, is largely ignored. Indeed in many family law textbooks and family law courses, the topic of divorce is barely discussed. It is viewed as an administrative process with little legal content to it. The few cases which do come before the courts are given similar scant treatment, even when they draw attention to the fundamental problems in the current law, a law which is both outdated and confusing.