共享题干题The absence of no-fault divorce in England and Wales looks updated. People stay in loveless marriages for many reasons: anxiety about the impact of splitting up on their children; financial dependency on a spouse; fear of loneliness. Tina Owens is stuck in hers because a judge refused to give her a divorce. She said that her husband’s treatment of her, including scolding her in front of their housekeeper and ignoring her over a meal, amounted to unreasonable behavior, grounds for divorce.
The judge, however, disagreed, saying they were “minor altercations...to be expected in a marriage”. Since her husband has refused to consent to the break-up, she must wait five years. Ms. Owens has asked the Court of Appeal to overturn the ruling. Her position would be simpler if England and Wales did not insist on blame being part of divorce. As well as unreasonable  behavior, marital breakdown can be demonstrated by evidence of adultery or desertion. The alternative is at least two year’s separation. But the notion of fault is often little more than a charade.
Kerstin Beyer, a family lawyer, cites a case where the“unreasonable” behavior involved the wife pursuing an “independent social life”. Insisting that somebody must be to blame makes an already difficult process harder. This week Lord Wilson, a Supreme Court judge, added his voice to those calling for “no-fault” divorce.
Others in favor include Sir James Munby, president of the family division of the High Court, Lady Hale, another Supreme Court justice, most of those working in family law and organizations such as Relate, a charity that provides relationship counselling.
In 1996 the government tried to introduce no-fault divorce, but the legislation was repealed in 2001 after requirements on the parties to attend “information meetings” to encourage  reconciliation proved unworkable. In 2015 Richard Bacon, a Conservative MP, introduced a  private members’ bill proposing no-fault divorce with a year’s cooling-off period, but it failed to get a second reading.
There has always been a sensitivity around the notion of undermining marriage, says Nigel Lowe, an emeritus professor of law at Cardiff University who is also a member of the Commission on European Family Law, a group of academics. This is clear in debates over same-sex and civil  unions. Opponents of no-fault divorce worry that it might make ending marriage too easy.
Other countries, such as America, the Netherlands and even largely Catholic Spain allow couples to divorce without allocating blame. The evidence from elsewhere suggests that fears of a spike in divorces may be overblown. Scotland, England’s closest neighbor geographically and  jurisdictionally, introduced no-fault divorce in 2006. In the next two years the divorce rate rose, Perhaps as some previously made to wait hurried through their split. But then it continued to fall.
If both parties want to break up, Mr. Lowe asks, Why should it be in the state’s interest to hold up the process? Sorting out the division of assets and arranging for the custody and future care of children are always the hardest aspects of ending any marriage. Eliminating questions of who is to blame for the split would allow those involved to focus on dealing with these.