Our Blogs

A study conducted by researchers at the University of the Basque Country in Bilbao, Spain, has added weight to what Quickie Divorce have always claimed: that it is the way children are parented following a divorce, and not divorce itself, that can have long-lasting and negative effects on children of divorce. Professor Priscila Comino gathered data on a total of 416 children aged between 4 and 18, 214 being children of divorce, whilst the remaining 202 were the children of parents who are still married. Its findings showed that, provided the children’s parents can create appropriate arrangements and maintain an affable relationship following their divorce, there was ultimately no reason why children of divorce should encounter problems that were greater than those encountered by children whose parents remain married. It was also found, however, that children of divorce that the children of married parents generally enjoyed greater psychological wellbeing than children of divorce, though the majority of children whose parents divorce still grew up to be emotionally stable. Divorce, the study concludes, is only a problem when parents are unable to adapt to the changes, create suitable arrangements, avoid clashing with one another and engage in collaborative co-parenting. When parents were able to create suitable arrangements, then children of divorce displayed no more behavioural problems than children whose parents remain married. So, provided couples can put their children’s needs before their own following a divorce, there is no reason why children of divorce should be disadvantaged.

Earlier this week, the UK’s most senior family law judge, Sir Nicholas Wall, advocated the benefits of no-fault divorce and called for the government to reform laws which ‘represent the values of a bygone age’.

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 the process of making this decision 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, lead 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.

Quickie Divorce has long espoused the benefits of an amicable uncontested divorce and it seems like others are starting to cotton on. On the 29th 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 divorcing couple are all too often portrayed in a negative light in publications the lean to the right of the political spectrum. Often viewed as the destroyers of familial ties, these couples’ decisions to divorce are viewed with contempt. Some publication’s editorial inches even claimed that divorce, separation and the absent parents were to blame for the riots that plagued the UK last summer. Such claims, of course, are completely absurd. I have yet to come across an individual that took their decision to divorce lightly, I am also yet to come across a couple that did not consider the possibility of marital reconciliation before arriving at the decision to divorce. In most cases, in fact, it is given serious consideration. The vast majority of couples that choose to divorce – irrespective of what naysayers may claim – are making the right decision. In spite of this, many are claiming that couples should be further encouraged to ‘repair broken marriages’ and address peoples’ willingness to ‘recycle their partners’. At the risk of repeating myself, these claims, and their orator’s desire to create a pressure group to extol the virtues of marital reconciliation are nothing short of preposterous. More worrying sill is the fact that these proposals have been backed by several MPs, with Tory MP Julian Brazer even going as far as to claim that family judges have had too much of an influence of family law for the past two generations. Who is better placed to make assessments of and suggest changes to the law exactly? The simple fact is that any such group will be found to be superfluous within a very short period of time. Couples are already more than capable of deciding whether marital reconciliation or a divorce is right for them.

With divorce month now in full swing, our adviser’s phones are red hot. People, concerned about the divorce process in the UK, understandably have an awful lot of questions to ask and we’re all too happy to oblige, starting by answering one of the questions we hear on a regular basis: what is a divorce petition? Also known as a D8, a divorce petition is a document which is used to both request that the courts grant the individual applying for a divorce (the petitioner) from their spouse (the respondent) and inform the courts of why the petitioner is seeking to end their marriage. The divorce petition is broken down into ten separate parts, the majority of which is basic information such as the petitioner and respondent’s names, their addresses and their occupations. If applicable, the names and dates of birth of their children or children who lived as part of the family during their marriage will also be required as will an additional form if any of the children are under 18, but we’ll discuss that in a separate post. As we have alluded to previously, the divorce petition is not only used to request that the court grant you a divorce, it is also used to show the courts that the marriage in question has broken down irretrievably and that a divorce can be granted as a result. This is why part five and six, or ‘the facts’ and ‘statement of facts’ portions of the petition are so important. Within section 5, the petitioner is asked to select one of five ‘facts’ in support of their application for divorce. Within section 6, they are then required to add a statement in support of the facts on which they rely. The information that is required in this section will differ depending upon which ‘facts’ the petitioner intends to rely (and a series of separate posts on this will follow,) but a date of separation and the reasons why the marriage has irretrievably broken will always need to be provided. The remainder of the form, fortunately, is uncomplicated and easy to understand. So, that’s the divorce petition explained. Keep checking this blog for more posts on court forms and their purpose including the ‘Statement of Arrangements for Children,’ ‘Affidavit in Support of Divorce’ and the dreaded ‘Application for a Fee Remission’.

Admist the January divorce rush, Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly has once again encouraged couples seeking a divorce in the UK to avoid taking their disputes to the family courts and instead settle contentious issues amongst themselves or with the help of a trained mediator. Many have dismissed Mr Djanogly’s comments, claiming that they constitute little more than a trite attempt to offset cuts in legal aid. Quickie Divorce, however, fully advocates his recommendations. Whilst cutting the legal aid budget in areas such as medical negligence and social welfare law is irrational, there are several affordable alternatives available to couples that may be seeking a divorce in the UK provided, that is, that they can agree to the divorce, the division of assets and childcare arrangements. Agreeing to these matters can, and probably will, be a difficult and time consuming task, but provided that both parties can remain mature, open-minded and considerate, then they will be able to formulate a fair agreement that meets the reasonable needs of both parties. Following this, there will be no need for the couple to ask the court to determine matters and they can instead pursue an uncontested divorce. An uncontested divorce is less stressful than a contested one and is also far quicker. It is also far cheaper as there is no need for the couple to instruct a solicitor. Instead, they can complete the documentation and file for a divorce themselves or instruct an online divorce provider such as Quickie Divorce to complete all of their documentation and then file these papers for them. The benefits of uncontested proceedings are more than financial, however. A contested divorce will leave both parties and their children with significant emotional scars. An uncontested divorce, whilst still painful, wields far less destructive power and its amicable nature will assist both spouses’ recoveries immensely. Divorce will never be pleasant, but if a couple can avoid the courts and pursue an uncontested divorce, then the experience need not be as harmful as you might think.

The Telegraph last night reported that the government are set to reject the recommendations of last year’s Family Justice Review and provide parents who divorce or separate with a legal right to see their children. The article claimed that, should legislation be passed, then courts will be required to ‘ensure’ that both a child’s mother and father will be afforded contact when ruling on divorce settlements. Both Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and the Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith have endorsed the proposal and it is believed that the Conservatives will also add their support. The Family Justice Review, published in October of last year, advised against creating legislation that ‘creates or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to substantially shared or equal time for both parents,’ but the children’s minister Tim Loughton seems to have rejected this proposal, claiming that the government wants to ensure that all children are afforded a relationship with both of their parents following a divorce, adding that every effort must be made to improve the family justice system in order to give children the best chance of ‘growing up with two loving parents.’ It is understood that this legislation could be introduced via either an amendment to the 1989 Children’s Act or the government could instead choose to advocate a backbench bill, currently led by Tory MP Charlie Elphicke, which is due to be discussed in parliament later this month. Campaign groups are believed to welcome the plans, with Nadine O’Connor, the campaign director of Fathers4Justice, having said that the introduction of such legislation would represent ‘a massive step forward.’ Recent research has shown that approximately 3.8 million children do not live with their fathers as a result of divorce or separation. Other proposals outlined within the Family Justice Review, such as the endorsement of DIY divorce and the creation of parenting agreements which would determine how the children of a marriage would be cared for following a divorce, are set to receive government backing.

Following divorce day – which in our opinion should be renamed divorce month – the internet is awash with articles advising those couples who have decided to end their marriages on a plethora of topics; from how to end a marriage amicably to surviving as a single parent. What surprises us at Quickie Divorce, though, is the distinct lack of advice that is being given to those couples who, having recognised that they can agree on how to split their assets and new childcare arrangements, have chosen to avoid unnecessary costs, refrain from instructing a solicitor and pursue a DIY divorce. Yes, there is the odd article lurking in the internet’s deepest recesses, but the vast majority of these contain only generic information relating to the divorce process itself and provide very little beyond that. As a result, Quickie Divorce has decided to prepare a few posts within which we address some of the questions we are often asked by our clients whilst their divorce is being finalised, starting with how to obtain financial information from an estranged spouse. This may seem unusual as all of our clients are pursuing uncontested divorces and will already have agreed the division of their finances and there should, you would assume, be no need to obtain such information. As we strongly advise all of our customers to obtain a Consent Order to make the agreement legally binding and prevent either spouse from claiming any of the other’s assets following the divorce, coupled with the fact that such an agreement simply cannot be compiled without this information, it is absolutely essential that many of our customers gather this information. This is not a problem if the couple are still on good terms, but as they will have often grown apart over time and the prospect of contacting an estranged spouse and asking for, say, the value of their home or pension can be intimidating, many of our customers are unsure of where to start or how to phrase the necessary questions. There is no right way of requesting this information and the petitioner should use whichever medium they are most comfortable, whether it be email, text message, a phone call and so on. All that Quickie Divorce would advise is that the information is requested in a calm manner. When deciding whether or not to take a formal or informal tone, the individual should consider their relationship with their former spouse. If the couple remain on good terms, then an informal approach is perfectly acceptable, whereas formal communication is advised if the relationship is more strained. Many also feel that their spouse will be unwilling to disclose this information and whilst only turns out to be true in a minority of cases, it is still extremely worrying for the affected party. Anyone that finds themselves in this situation would do well to remember that the consent order will be just as beneficial to their spouse as it will to them. It protects both parties’ future assets and it is therefore in their best interest to disclose the required data. Once the relevant spouse has been advised of this, they will more than likely hand over the information and the couple’s divorce can be finalised.

It has been reported this morning that senior High Court judge Sir Paul Coleridge is to head a campaign designed to promote the institution of marriage and discourage couples from separating or filing for divorce. Coleridge – who once infamously claimed that it is easier for a couple to divorce than it is for an individual to obtain a driving license – has argued that children born to married parents enjoy benefits that are not afforded to those born to cohabiting couples, adding that divorce and separation ‘condemns children to unstable homes’. Read between the lines and Coleridge’s message is clear: divorce harms children and parents should avoid it at all costs. On the face of things, this is a reasonable assessment. When it is subjected to gentle analysis, however, it soon becomes clear that it is a simplistic and unsophisticated conclusion. This is not to suggest that all of Coleridge’s contentions are lacking in persuasive force. It is certainly unacceptable that as many as 3.8m children are currently caught in the midst of legal proceedings concerning custody, as is the fact that a worryingly large percentage of children lose contact with non-resident parents following a separation or divorce. Encouraging unhappy parents to remain unhappily married may well have a positive effect on these figures, but at what cost? Growing up in an unhappy household is not in the best interest of any child and research has proven that it is the way that parents behave following a divorce or separation that has the most significant effect on children. The break-up itself has negligible effects whilst witnessing arguments and one parent deriding the other had a significant effect upon the child’s confidence and sense of security. Any child who shares a home with unhappy parents is certain to see such disputes on a regular basis and, as a result, it is only logical to conclude that they too will suffer from diminished confidence and no sense of security. Parents whose relationships are salvageable should be encouraged to stay together of course, but if their attempts at reconciliation are unsuccessful, then there is little sense in discouraging them from divorcing one another. A campaign designed to encourage parents to create and maintain suitable contact arrangements following a divorce or separation would be far more pertinent.

It’s hard for investors at the moment. Deepening financial crisis within the Eurozone has negated the profitability of traditional forms of investment and wily financiers have had to diversify as a result, starting by investing in divorce. This may seem like an unusual tactic to employ, but with many divorce settlements totalling tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds and investors taking a significant cut of any award issued, such speculation could result in a substantial pay-out if the backed spouse is successful. This is not to suggest that there is no risk involved (litigation is notoriously hard to predict), but it is certainly no more treacherous than playing with a worryingly unpredictable stock market. Consider for example the on-going matter between Scot and Michelle Young. Following a bitter divorce battle, Scot was ordered to pay Michelle £27,500 a month in maintenance, as well as various properties worth an estimated £150 million in December 2009. In 2010, however, Scot declared himself bankrupt claiming that he had lost his money in a failed investment. Michelle has claimed that her former husband has actually hidden his vast fortune in various offshore accounts. The matter is currently being heard in the High Court and it is believed that Michelle has borrowed as much as £3 million in order to fund her case. Reports have suggested that the firm backing Michelle could be set to receive as much as £150 million if her case is successful. A survey conducted last year by accountancy firm Grant Thornton revealed that 86% of divorce solicitors and other legal practitioners believed that spouses were hiding assets during divorce proceedings.

Whilst divorce may be more socially acceptable today than at any other time in recent memory, there are still those who would argue that marital dissolution is one of the biggest problems facing society.

Such claims are not entirely without merit. Divorce can, and occasionally does, result in children losing contact with their parents, deserted spouses becoming severely depressed and, in the very worst cases, single-parent families residing in destitution. Fortunately, though, such outcomes are rare and we at Quickie Divorce are of the opinion that divorce can actually be a force for good.

Some of the reasons why divorce is beneficial are obvious. It allows people to leave unhappy marriages, rebuild their lives and find new and fulfilling relationships. Recent academic research, though, has revealed a surprising fact: as the divorce rate has risen, rates of domestic violence have fallen.

According to Evergreen State College’s professor of history and women’s studies Stephanie Coontz, rates of domestic violence increased significantly during the Great Depression of the 1930’s and that this increase coincided with a falling divorce rate attributable to the fact that fewer couples could afford to divorce one another.

Following the Great Depression having come to an end, the divorce rate began to rise and rates of domestic violence subsided. Furthermore, following no-fault divorces (the American term for uncontested divorce), which made it significantly easier for couples to obtain a divorce, being introduced in the 1970s, rates of domestic violence decreased by between 20 and 30%.

Coontz also noted that significantly fewer wives committed suicide and that a smaller number of husbands were murdered by their wives following no-fault divorce having become the norm.

So, divorce – as Koontz herself puts it – provides unhappy couple with a ‘safety valve’ and, rather than bring about social degradation, significantly reduces the possibility of a spouse being harmed by their partner. Divorce, then, can indeed be beneficial to society

It may be more commonly referred to as the season of goodwill or the time to be jolly, but to those who work in the ‘divorce arena’ Christmas is far more commonly known as the holiday that precedes an influx of couples seeking a divorce.

The stress of Christmas can erode a marriage in the same way that ice erodes rock: it finds its way into pre-existing cracks and widens them further. These cracks then become an unmanageable burden and one spouse or both decide that a divorce is their only option.

With the housing market still yet to experience its long awaited recovery and with fewer and fewer people possessing any meaningful disposable income, however, many couples that decided to pursue a divorce in the new year will be unable to purchase or even rent new properties. As a result, they will be left with no option but to share the matrimonial home post-separation.

This may seem like a thoroughly unpleasant scenario, but whilst it is certainly less than ideal, sharing a home with your soon to be former spouse need not be the traumatic experience that many would expect it to be. Provided that the affected couple can maintain their respect for one another and adhere to a reasonable rota, then both can live in a relatively harmonious household.

In order to achieve such an arrangement, though, the need for the couple to engage in reasoned and dispassionate communication cannot be understated. Following the decision to divorce having been reached and it having been decided that neither spouse can afford to vacate the matrimonial home, the first thing that a couple will need to agree on are new living arrangements, starting with bedrooms.

A separate bedroom for each spouse is absolutely essential following a separation both literally and symbolically. On a literal level, it is important that each spouse has a room of their own for practical reasons. Symbolically, separate rooms indicate the finality of the couple’s impending divorce and will assist them greatly in preparing for the inevitable changes it will bring.

Following this, discussions should revolve around the division of household chores, when each spouse can use the kitchen and, if necessary, new childcare arrangements such as when each spouse should collect the children from school, assist them with their extracurricular activities and so on.

Whilst this article is far from exhaustive, it is a solid starting point from which a couple can plan cohabitation following them having decided to divorce and adhering to it might just make cohabiting after separation that little bit more tolerable. It is worth remembering that a couple can still divorce one another whilst sharing a home, but as additional information will need to be included within their divorce petition, it is advisable that any couple that still cohabit seek advice before proceeding.

If you have any question regarding divorce and cohabitation then you can contact Quickie Divorce here.