The review, published in November of last year, advised that the introduction of any legislation that implied that shared parenting would automatically be granted could be harmful to children. This assessment has been criticised by politicians, however, and it was announced yesterday that consultations into legal changes that would make it easier for divorced or separated parents to, wherever possible, have a meaningful relationship with their children are due to be held in the near future.

The Children’s Minister, Tim Loughton, also added that it was necessary to repair the public’s faith in the courts and that, through legislation, the government would ‘stress the importance of children having an on-going relationship with both of their parents following a divorce or separation.’

Loughton also stated that the need to cut the length of time it takes to finalise family court cases and simplify the adoption process would also be discussed during these consultations.

It was also revealed that fathers will be afforded up to nine months of parental leave, with officials having claimed that current laws regarding paternity leave are out-dated and discriminatory.

Over the past few days, this campaign has been lauded and maligned in equal measure. Some have applauded Coleridge’s desire to promote familial stability (much of the campaign is centred on the fact that children that are brought up in traditional nuclear families are more advantaged than those that do not,) whilst others believe his ideologies are out-dated and misconceived.

Now, Quickie Divorce has written about Coleridge, his beliefs and, indeed, criticised him in the past and it may well seem like we are re-treading old ground as a result. But the purpose of this article is not to merely reiterate that which has already been written here, it is to provide a more in-depth explanation of why Quickie Divorce – whilst agreeing that the overall intentions of The Marriage Foundation are admirable – is concerned with its formation.

As many that read this will undoubtedly have already concluded that Quickie Divorce opposes this campaign simply because it will result in fewer divorces and directly affect our profitability, I would like to dispel such accusations immediately. The only marriages that are likely to be saved because of the efforts of The Marriage Foundation are those which would have been ended when one or both spouses act without due consideration. In other words, couples or individuals that have simply given up on their marriages without having made any attempt to address their marital dissatisfaction and, as the individuals that instruct Quickie Divorce have never made the decision to divorce without having made significant efforts to try and save their marriage, this campaign is unlikely to affect us. So, having hopefully addressed such concerns and trepidations, I will now discuss the reasons why I have taken umbrage to The Marriage Foundation.

The first thing that I would like to discuss is the foundations intention to reaffirm marriage as the “gold standard” for couple relationships. Now, that’s a bit too sanctimonious for my taste. Why, exactly, are couples that choose to cohabit in a lesser or inferior relationship to those that are married. Purchasing a home with one another is, after all, a significant display of devotion. It may be true that the legal rights of cohabiting couples are unclear, but with it having been shown that the vast majority of cohabiting couples believe that their legal rights concerning the communal property etc. are identical to those of married couples, then the majority of cohabiting couples are, as far as they are concerned, making just a strong as a commitment to their partners as those that choose to exchange vows.

Secondly, Coleridge has suggested that he, as a member of the family court’s judiciary is better placed to extol the virtues of marriage and the negative effects of divorce than others. As Guardian columnist Zoe Williams quite correctly point out, though, this is simply not the case. A family judge will preside over the worst divorce cases only and the vast majority are relatively amicable.

Finally, whilst the foundation’s website claims that they will not ignore evidence, they have paid no heed whatsoever to the many studies that note that children born to married couples are at no significant advantage compared to those who grew up with cohabiting or single parents. They have also ignored a recent study conducted by the University of the Basque Country that showed that the negative effects that divorce can have on a child are all but negated if the parents can formulate positive co-parenting plans following their separation.

Ultimately, a campaign designed to promote positive co-parenting following separation would have made infinitely more sense.

The rise in the number of individuals seeking DIY divorce is, according to several family court judges, causing significant delays in the UK’s courts with DIY divorces taking on average twice as long to process as those where both parties are represented.

With rising economic pressures, though, it is hardly surprising that more and more people are seeking a cheaper alternative to solicitors. What is surprising is the fact that, whilst mediation has been compulsory for all separating couples unable to agree on matters such as the division of assets and finances from April of last year, only a third of solicitors are actually referring their clients to mediators. More surprising, still, is the fact that nearly 80% of courts are not checking whether or not this compulsory mediation had been undertaken following them having received an application for a divorce. In other words, a method of dispute resolution which could, in many instances, help divorcing couples arrive at an agreement and allow them to pursue a straightforward, uncontested divorce is simply not being utilised. Take this into consideration, and it isn’t hard to see why more and more people are declining the services of solicitors in an attempt to save money.

Whilst mediation can bring about a cost-effective divorce solution by helping couples to agree contentious issued and preventing lengthy legal disputes, many individuals that are seeking a divorce are, it would seem, not being informed of this and with traditional solicitor-led divorces costing thousands of pounds, it would not surprise Quickie Divorce if many people have informal discussions with solicitors, received a costs estimate, baulk at it and decided to represent themselves.

Now, many solicitors may argue that mediation is only effective when both spouses are willing to commit themselves to it and that, as their client was highly embittered, mediation would have been unable to produce the necessary results and a referral was therefore unnecessary. Whilst previous research may provide such arguments with some credibility, however, it is hard to gauge just how successful mediation could be when people aren’t being made aware of it.

Alternatively, it could be claimed that an individual or indeed a couple could instruct a mediator themselves, but this contention is also flawed. Whilst online divorce providers, solicitors and the courts are fully aware of the services offered by mediators, the same cannot be said of the general public. As a result, solicitors should be – least of all because it is now compulsory – informing would be clients, and indeed existing clients, of alternative dispute methods such as mediation.

So, if you’re reading this and are considering or even going through a divorce and have been unable to agree everything with your spouse, please consider mediation. Not only could it save you money, it could also turn an otherwise acrimonious divorce into a relatively amicable one.

You see, when applying for a divorce, you need to pay court fees. These total £385 and are paid in order to cover the court’s costs. Fortunately, though, many are entitled to a significant reduction in these fees, whilst some won’t even need to pay a penny.

Unfortunately, few people realise that courts in England and Wales can waive or reduce their fees under certain circumstances and even those who are aware are unsure of what would entitle them to an exemption or remission or how to go about getting one. The purpose of this article, then, is to inform our readers of what would entitle them to a full or part remission of these fees and how to apply for them.

In order to apply to have your court fees fully waived, you will need to be in receipt of certain state benefits, specifically income based jobseekers allowance, income support, working tax credit (but not if you also receive child tax credit,) pension credit guarantees or income-related employment and support allowance. You’ll need to get a letter from the relevant authority as proof of the fact that you’re receiving these benefits, but provided you meet these circumstances, then completing the form needed

Alternatively, if your gross annual income is below £13,000. If you live with a partner, then your combined gross annual income will need to be below £18,000. This limit increases by £2,930 for every dependent child that lives with you, so a single person that cares for two children would be entitled to a full remission if their gross annual income was less than £18,860, for example. You will be required to provide evidence of all forms of income such as wage slips, rent books and bank statements.

Finally, even if you are not entitled to a full remission, you might well be entitled to a reduction on the fees that the courts require in order to process a divorce. The courts require a fee of £345 when a divorce petition is filed, but, if your monthly disposable income is less than £790. Be wary when applying on these grounds, though, disposable income is classed as any money you have left after paying your mortgage/rent, and fixed allowanced for your partner and children (if applicable) and general living expenses which are capped at £159, £244 and £315 per month respectively. It’s also worth noting that you’ll need to have a disposable income of less than £180 per month in order to get any sort of reduction when applying for your Decree Absolute as the courts only require a £45 to process this. As with all of the examples above, though, you’ll need to send evidence of your income and outgoings.

Once you have done your sums, you’ll need to complete an EX160 form and send this instead of a cheque, both when you file your Divorce Petition and when you apply for your Decree Absolute.

For more information, please visit the HMCTS website.

In many respects, the difference between a divorce and dissolution are academic. They are both, ultimately, terms used to describe the legal process of ending a covenant between two people, the only difference is that one term is used when the couple are married and the other is used when they are civil partners.

The process of obtaining either a divorce or dissolution is – following these new procedures having been introduced – more or less identical too. Civil partners will be unable to apply for their partnership to be dissolved until it has existed for at least a year, just as a married couple will need to have been married for a year before they can apply for a divorce. They will also need to prove that their union has irretrievably broken down which, again, is exactly what a married couple would be required to do. It has also been established that financial settlements regarding dissolutions should be determined in exactly the same way as they would during divorce proceedings. So how, exactly, is dissolution different to divorce?  The answer lies within the terminology itself.

Just as a union between two individuals of the same sex cannot be called a marriage because of a need to placate certain individual’s archaic beliefs, the end of a civil partnership cannot be referred to as a divorce. Just as calling civil partnerships marriages would offend these people, referring to dissolution as divorce would provoke ire also.

So, a divorce and a dissolution differ in name only and this difference exists solely because there are still people that believe that a couple of the same sex cannot be treated in the same way as a couple comprised of two individuals of opposing sexes – what a shame.

Responses to Wall’s comments have been, as you would expect, mixed: the right arguing that no-fault divorce would make it too easy for couples to end their marriages, the left claiming that it should no longer be necessary for dissatisfied spouses to prove that their partner was at fault in order to obtain a divorce. Quickie Divorce, as the title of this article suggests, agree with the latter.

Any argument that the introduction of no-fault divorce will result in a surge in the number of individuals filing for a divorce is misplaced. Anyone that has been swayed by this argument needs to consider just how often spouses decide to end their marriages on little more than a whim. Ask any spouse that has decided to leave their partner about their decision and they will, on nearly every occasion, inform you of the indecision they fought with, the hopes of reconciliation that they toyed with and the pain that their decision has caused not just their husband or wife, but themselves too.

The decision to end a marriage is, in itself, arduous and saddening. So much so, that it is not unreasonable to argue that making this decision and then proceeding with a divorce is far more likely to deter an unhappy spouse from divorce than the legal process itself. It is rare if not unheard of for an individual that has decided to divorce their spouse to initiate a reconciliation following them having discovered that they will need to blame their spouse for the end of their marriage. If their spouse has done nothing wrong and they’re unable to file for divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour or adultery, they’ll simply wait two or five years before they apply. Fault divorces do little more than delay the inevitable and, in many instances, leads spouses to make false claims about their partners, turning otherwise amicable divorces into acrimonious ones in the process.

Sir Nicholas Wall has been quoted as saying that he can see no credible arguments against the introduction of no-fault divorce, and Quickie Divorce agrees wholeheartedly.

Yes, their claims that any individual that has sex with a third party when they’re still technically married to their spouse is committing an act of adultery – no one is denying that – but an act of adultery that takes place post-separation cannot be cited for one simple reason: it cannot possibly be the reason for the couple in question having separated.

When filing for a divorce on the grounds of adultery or unreasonable behaviour every incident that the petitioner relies upon must have taken place within the six months period that preceded the date of separation. Anything which occurs after separation is moot: it’s that simple.

In spite of this, Quickie Divorce regularly assists customers who, having received legal advice, wish to end their marriages and are convinced that these grounds are sufficient. Inevitably, we inform them that different grounds must be used and assist them appropriately.

So as to avoid any confusion, the purpose of this article is not to discourage anyone that may be seeking legal advice before instructing us – we actually recommend that you do. It is, instead, to advice anyone that is receives legal advice to take said guidance with a pinch of salt and, above all else, seek and consider a second opinion.

During my absence, there has been, as usual, a glut of divorce related news has been reported throughout the media sphere. Rather than select just one topic to write about today, then, I shall summarise the events of the past several weeks both succinctly and nonchalantly:

• Dragon’s Den mogul Duncan Bannatyne’s on-going divorce is proving to be so expensive, that he will be unable to make further investments and appear on the next series of the popular show as a result. Well, that’s what the papers claimed, at least. The plutocrat moved swiftly to dispel these rumours, though he did admit that both his and his estranged wife’s lawyers were ‘costing him a fortune’. Should have called Quickie Divorce, Duncan!

• A group of solicitors were accused of encouraging divorce recently, following them having erected a large advertisement that encouraged unhappy spouses to contact them and discuss their options in Birmingham City Centre. One city councillor even went as far as to claim that the advert ‘attacked’ the notion of family. Reports of previously happy couples rushing to divorce courts throughout Birmingham following this advert having been erected are yet to be confirmed.

• A group of Swedish academics have identified that women who carry a mutated gene are 50% more likely to experience divorce than those that don’t. Apparently it’s the oxytocin receptor gene that’s to blame. Oxytocin is a hormone that encourages feelings of closeness and is released in larger quantities following a woman having given birth in order to help them bond with their baby. Unfortunately, a faulty receptor gene makes women less receptive to its effects and, according to researchers, struggle to maintain relationships.

• Finally, multimillionaire Henry Silverman has remarried just days after his divorce from former wife, Nancy. Silverman had previously attempted to use scientific evidence to prove that he had acquired his vast fortune as a result of his genius alone and that Nancy was not entitled to a penny as a result. Unsurprisingly, his arguments were rejected and the couple later arrived at an amicable agreement.

On the 29^th February, etiquette experts Debrett’s will release a guide on how to divorce harmoniously and avoid feelings of stress or spite whilst a marriage is coming to an end; a sure sign that attitudes towards the act of divorce are changing.

Divorce, unfortunately, is still viewed by many as a confrontational process in which two spouses instruct their solicitors and engage in a war of attrition and fight tooth and nail over every little asset. Whilst these representations may be accurate in some case, however, fewer and fewer couples are now divorcing in this way.

Collaborative lawyers, mediators and online divorce providers have all boomed in recent years for one simple reason: more and more couples want to avoid a confrontational divorce, instead preferring to resolve any contentious issues as peacefully as possible. In fact, thousands upon thousands of couples are agreeing on the division of finances and new childcare arrangements without assistance from any third parties at all.

These couples can then instruct an online divorce provider like Quickie Divorce and get themselves a quick, uncontested divorce that’s not only cheaper, but much less stressful.

In fact, judging by how busy Quickie Divorce has been this January, uncontested divorce is all the rage.

The study reviewed the divorces of 457 couples with the median age of 43.5 and whose marriages had lasted for an average of 15.5 years. Most of the respondents had children and were well educated.

Researchers found that the guiltier a spouse felt about their divorce, the more likely they were to accommodate the other’s requests. They also found that guilty spouses were more likely to engage in reasonable negotiation and refrain from attempting to force their spouse to agree to an unfair settlement.

Whilst the study’s author claimed that regret had little effect on the divorce process, spouses who are ashamed of their divorces were more likely to be uncooperative and to try and force their partner into an unfair agreement.

Although a spouse’s feelings of guilt can lead them to be more cooperative throughout the divorce process, the study’s authors warn that guilty spouses must balance their need to rectify their feelings of guilt with their need to obtain a fair divorce settlement with the study’s authors claiming that an insufficient settlement will more than likely result in the spouse needing to enlist further litigation in the future.