Our Blogs

Yesterday, Sir Paul Coleridge, one of the UK’s most prominent family court judges, launched his campaign to extol the virtues of marriage and discourage divorce and, it would appear, cohabitation: The Marriage Foundation. 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.