The UK forces woman into marriage

[Wilfire]

A woman who wants to divorce her husband of 40 years because she says their marriage is unhappy has lost her case. Supreme court judges “reluctantly” told her she must remain his wife, because a joyless marriage is not adequate grounds for a divorce if one spouse refuses to agree.

Five judges at the UK’s highest court unanimously upheld rulings by a family court and the court of appeal that Tini Owens, 68, must stay married to Hugh Owens, 80, despite her complaint that the marriage was loveless and had broken down.

“The appeal of Mrs Owens must be dismissed. She must remain married to Mr Owens for the time being,” the supreme court judge Lord Wilson said in the majority ruling. “Parliament may wish to consider whether to replace a law which denies to Mrs Owens any present entitlement to a divorce in the above circumstances.”

Tini’s case has thrust the country’s lack of provision for no-fault divorce into the spotlight. Even spouses mutually seeking to end a marriage must, unless they have been living apart, assign blame and make often damaging allegations that lawyers say inflame potentially amicable proceedings.

Tini and Hugh Owens married in 1978, lived together in Broadway, Worcestershire, and have two grownup children. Tini first consulted solicitors about a divorce in 2012, but despite her having an affair the couple continued to live together until February 2015.

In May of that year, Tini petitioned for divorce, alleging that her husband had prioritised his work over their home life, his treatment of her lacked love and affection, he was often moody and argumentative, he had disparaged her in front of others, and that she had grown apart from him.

Hugh denied the allegations about his behaviour, and while admitting that their relationship had never been – in the paraphrase of Lord Wilson – emotionally intense, he said the couple had learned to “rub along”. He said he still hoped his wife would change her mind and return to live with him.

In an initial hearing in October 2015, a judge allowed Tini to expand her grounds for divorce to 27 examples. But he nevertheless dismissed her petition, ruling that her case was flimsy and exaggerated. The judge said that while Hugh was “somewhat old-school”, Tini was more sensitive than most wives.

She took her petition to the court of appeal, where it was again dismissed. The three appeal court judges said she had failed to establish, in the legal sense, that her marriage had irretrievably broken down, despite one saying she had reached her conclusion with “no enthusiasm whatsoever”.

The supreme court’s judgment on Wednesday morning was her last hope.

The justices analysed the rival legal arguments, which revolved around concepts of “unreasonable” behaviour and “fault”, at a hearing in London in May. They delivered their ruling on Wednesday.

Lord Wilson noted in the judgment that Tini would be able to divorce in 2020, when the couple will have been separated for five years and she will be eligible for a divorce without consent or evidence of fault.

In a concurring judgment, his colleague Lady Hale said she found it “a very troubling case”, but that it was not for judges to change the law.

Resolution, an organisation that represents 6,500 lawyers working in family law and supports the introduction of no-fault divorce, said the judgment confirmed there was a “divorce crisis” in England and Wales.

It is rare for spouses to defend a petition for a divorce, but legislation makes it difficult for even mutual divorces when, in the absence of a period living apart, one party must provide evidence of unreasonable behaviour or adultery before the marriage can be ended.

Nigel Shepherd, the body’s former chair and longtime campaigner for no-fault divorce, said: “Resolution intervened on behalf of Mrs Owens because we believed that under the current law there should be a way to free her from a marriage that is clearly over.

“In practice, our current laws can often create unnecessary conflict in divorce – forcing couples to blame each other when there is no real need, other than a legal requirement, to do so. For over 30 years Resolution has been campaigning for a system fit for a modern age, where separating couples are treated like responsible adults and supported to resolve their differences as amicably as possible.”

Simon Fisher, a divorce lawyer at the solicitors Gardner Leader, said it was “likely that we’ll see a rise in divorce petitions containing embellished and inflammatory grounds for divorce to ensure that applications proceed without any issues as in the Owens’ case”.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018...ini-hugh-owens

Just another example of common law failing to protect basic human rights and enforcing abusive situations. What's so hard about drawing up a constitution that's modern and based on common sense instead of relying on archaic case rulings?

[Masark]

What's so hard about drawing up a constitution that's modern and based on common sense instead of relying on archaic case rulings?

The UK's conceptualization of parliamentary supremacy basically precludes the possibility of a singular codified constitution like most other nations, as it would result in a parliament limiting a future parliament.

Also, this wouldn't involve constitutional law, but rather just the law regarding marriage and divorce.

[zenkai]

What the actual fuck?

[klogaroth]

It's not her being forced into marriage.

It is being denied a divorce due to not meeting the current requirements of divorce under the law. The supreme court stated that their judgement was reluctant, but that it is not their place to rewrite a law. They can interpret, but their function is not to act as lawmakers. They determined that the law could only be interpreted in such a way that meant that there was not grounds for a divorce in this case, at this time. Their suggestion was that on the back of this, parliament shoulds get around to reviewing the law as it currently stands. That's how the system works, and that is how the system is supposed to work.

[Scathbais]

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018...ini-hugh-owens

Just another example of common law failing to protect basic human rights and enforcing abusive situations. What's so hard about drawing up a constitution that's modern and based on common sense instead of relying on archaic case rulings?

Of course the lawyers are schilling for no-fault divorce. They want to get paid.
No fault divorce in the US has allowed the pendulum to swing in the exact opposite direction. Women hold the upper hand once their are children involved and if they decide on a whim that partying is more fun than marriage, they can get divorced, keep the kids, stay in the house and the man has little say in the matter.
Or better yet, like my brother-in-law and his neighbor right across from him, their wives decided to go out every night to bars on their own and basically abandoned their families. My brother in law divorced and got majorly screwed. His neighbor continues to live with his wife, despite her bad behavior, because he can't afford to pay child support, alimony, and an apartment for himself.

[nymphetsss]

Divorcing should be as simple as going to the local registrar and signing a piece of paper, making it harder isnt going to stop the archaic institution of marriage from its downward spiral

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Divorcing should be as simple as going to the local registrar and signing a piece of paper, making it harder isnt going to stop the archaic institution of marriage from its downward spiral

It's never that simple as you put it.

[Holofernes]

nonobody is forced into marriage, as the title suggests.

its about that marriage is a legal contract, that cannot be terminated at will without a legal cause. contract is contract, and women is denied from illegaly breaking contract.

and it rises the question of what a legal cause for termination of marriage is or should be.

- - - Updated - - -

Divorcing should be as simple as going to the local registrar and signing a piece of paper, making it harder isnt going to stop the archaic institution of marriage from its downward spiral

marriage is not like buying a pack of chewing gums on amazon and sending it back if it doesnt taste like you expected...

[Teph]

wtf. If you don't like the other person anymore you should be able to get a divorce. The party initiating the divorce sholdnt get any assets of course.

[stevenho]

Just another example of common law failing to protect basic human rights and enforcing abusive situations. What's so hard about drawing up a constitution that's modern and based on common sense instead of relying on archaic case rulings?

While I agree that this kind of law has to be adapted to the changing social standards, I wonder what "enforced abusive situations" are you talking about in this context?
Is it the fact that she cheated on him a few years ago?

[HumbleDuck]

Do you even read the articles you post, or do you choose a controversial title for a post and then find the best fitting article to attach to it?

[klogaroth]

While I agree that this kind of law has to be adapted to the changing social standards, I wonder what "enforced abusive situations" are you talking about in this context?
Is it the fact that she cheated on him a few years ago?

There are no enforced abusive situations, since that would be grounds for a divorce. If he had cheated on her, that would be grounds for a divorce. Had the divorce been initiated by him in this case, it would have gone through due to her affair.

[Better]

Tini and Hugh Owens married in 1978, lived together in Broadway, Worcestershire, and have two grownup children. Tini first consulted solicitors about a divorce in 2012, but despite her having an affair the couple continued to live together until February 2015.

in the absence of a period living apart, one party must provide evidence of unreasonable behaviour or adultery before the marriage can be ended.

Is this one of those English things, where words don't mean what they mean everywhere else? If she had an affair, could she not just present evidence that she committed adultery, or would her husband have to bring that evidence forward? I have no idea how UK courts work.

[AcidicSyn]

Is this one of those English things, where words don't mean what they mean everywhere else? If she had an affair, could she not just present evidence that she committed adultery, or would her husband have to bring that evidence forward? I have no idea how UK courts work.

I am not versed in UK courts either. But I believe it is more or less the bolded bit. As she was the offender; her affair only gives the husband cause to file for divorce.

[Gestopft]

TIL UK doesn't have no-fault divorce. Better question, honestly, is for the spouse though? Why persist in a marriage when his wife clearly wants to divorce him?

[Deleted]

What a click baity title.

No one forced her INTO the marriage.

[Deleted]

Jesus, talk about clickbait.. The attention on this case may result in no-fault divorce over here, as it stands the woman will have to wait another 18 months to divorce on the grounds of estrangement, at that point not having lived as man/wife for 5 years.

[AeneasBK]

Title is a bit bullshit really.

- - - Updated - - -

abusive situations.

Lol .

[stevenho]

Better question, honestly, is for the spouse though? Why persist in a marriage when his wife clearly wants to divorce him?

Well, the guy is 80 so not quite a whole life ahead of him, and his wife cheated on him, so why would he indulge her divorce whim? There are consequences to every action, according to Newton

[Jonnusthegreat]

I mean, if she complied with the 'til death do us part' portion, then she forced herself into marriage?