Why people have Affairs

[Prudence V]

This article exemplifies the moribund law on divorce in the UK. There is currently no provision for “no fault” divorce - other than living separately for five years, and only the wealthy can afford to do that without the financial settlement (finalised during divorce) being in place. It’s a highly discriminatory law - given that women’s financial position is usually worse than their husbands’ - and I’m surprised that EU legislation doesn’t have something to say on the matter.

 

But for those who cry, “why not just get divorced? It’s so easy!” here is evidence that it’s not, if you’re in the stone ages (UK).

[carhill]

I saw that on a smaller scale with MW's chained to large family ranches or businesses with spouses with powerful families and deep pockets to make anyone's life miserable for a long, long time. I recall one finally did get a divorce after a number of affairs, three of which I knew of personally, and her D took nearly 7 years of legal wrangling. By the time it was over, the kids were adults and one of them already was married and had a child of her own. I'll bet she still hasn't gotten the child support arrears H owed her. I remember seeing the court filings and encouraged her to go back to court to get what he hadn't provided since the settlement had a legal fee clause regarding deficiencies.

 

Anyway, sometimes marriages are simple, like mine was, and sometimes they're very, very involved and complex. Of course, some make for a quite a spectacular lifestyle when they're going well. Watch out though when things go sideways.

 

I'm watching one right now like that, a lifestyle marriage, a long one, with affairs on both sides. Which way will it go? I'd never heard the MW ever mention separation or divorce until recently. I encouraged her to make every effort to get past that and, no matter what, don't have another affair. Heard the 'no sex' and 'little affection' stuff. Yup, I know, it's tough. Can empathize. Lots of whys.

[somanymistakes]

Even in England that five years thing is very rare, most spouses aren't stubborn enough to refuse to agree to a divorce after two years of someone saying they want one. IIRC you don't absolutely have to be living in separate premises during the separation either. Many US states also allow for in-home separation before a divorce, though not all.

 

It was worse in the past. Many years ago in England there was no way AT ALL to get a divorce other than proving adultery. There used to be a whole cottage industry of fake affair hotels where you could conveniently "get caught" having an affair so that you could have a divorce!

 

Afaik most English people these days just agree to a fault divorce of 'unreasonable behavior', or if they don't want to do that, they go for the two years of separation with agreement.

 

In my book though it's not an affair t all once you're actually separated, rather than just claiming to be separated in order to pick up dates. The problem is telling the difference. People say "just ask the spouse to confirm" like a real separation is going to be totally amicable and cool with that. Not true. There's often a lot of hurt feelings at play and it's very rude to rub your new dates in your mostly-ex-spouse's face.

[Echo74]

Wow. I suppose I can see the point where they want you to really consider everything before marrying. But at the same time, people and circumstances change. In my state, a person can divorce without the consent/signature of the spouse.

[PegNosePete]

In my state, a person can divorce without the consent/signature of the spouse.

You can in England and Wales too. Most just use unreasonable behaviour. There must be a reason you want out of the marriage after all. Almost every spouse can get a divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour, and whilst consent/signature makes it quicker and soother, it is not necessary.

 

Only a fool would wait 5 years living separately to get a divorce. In fact most people who use that ground were foolish enough to file under "2 years separation with consent", only to find that their spouse's consent was not forthcoming for whatever reason, and then found that changing to unreasonable behaviour was too difficult/expensive and waiting for 5 years was easier. If only they had used unreasonable behaviour in the first place they would be divorced and free much sooner (and cheaper).

 

Afaik most English people these days just agree to a fault divorce of 'unreasonable behavior'

Yes exactly. And even if they don't "agree" to it, it's by far the best way to proceed, unless you're totally sure your spouse will give their consent after 2 years separation. Any hint of a doubt that they might change their mind, use UB instead. A lot can change in 2 years, living situations, relationships, kids, amicable arrangements can turn acrimonious; and they don't need to provide a reason for withholding their consent, they simply bin the paperwork and your divorce is scuppered.

Edited July 27, 2018 by PegNosePete