Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Divorce Referendum
Comments
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,327 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 16355
That's kinda the nub of it, especially against those that might argue that the "sanctity of marriage" is somehow undermined by reducing what amounts to divorce limbo time.
As you say, it only takes 3 months to do the legal legwork (and we found it to be the least glamorous and most underwhelming part of the process), yet I hear no arguments about some form of cooling off period in case of whirlwind, kneejerk marriages. When it's time to marry everyone wishes you well, yet when it's time to divorce some might plead... what exactly? If it's not meant to be, tethering two adults for 4 years out of some abstract, high-minded waffle about 'marriage' isn't doing anyone favours. It feels accidentally spiteful, and somewhat insulting to the two parties, that they don't know in their own mind that it might be time to pull the plug.
She ended up leaving the country due to him and still had to wait 5 years to go to court to be able to officially divorce him (only to have his friend ask her to consider getting back to him). Sorry but the divorce laws are f***ing ridiculous and needs to be moved into the 21st century and divorced (pun intended) from any church influence.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 22734
Mod Note
Reminder of the charterKeep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument. Examples would be referring to other people or groups as scumbags, crusties, sheeple, shills, trolls, traitors or saying that recently deceased people should “rot in hell” or similar. Repeated use of terms like that will result in a ban from the forum.
In other words, don't be calling people "a prick".0 -
As someone who got separated in 2001, and divorced in 2007, I can understand the current 4 year wait, plus, it was a barrister friend to explained the rationale of it to me at the time.
When there is a marriage break up, most just want the whole episode to be put behind them, and to move on with their life. However, there is a HUGE change to your circumstances, lifestyle and finances. You need time to adjust to these changes, and to accustom yourself on how they are impacting your life. This can take time. Inevitably one party may have to move out, there may be issues of maintenance to be paid, access to children, so many issues to be taken into account. It takes time, a lot of time, for these changes to settle down, the full impact of them to be realised, on how much of a change to you life there actually is.
This is not the best time to be making decisions in a divorce case, where any agreement between the parties, made in haste to end the marriage, is made an order of the courts. Decisions that will affect you for years or decades to come.
The 4 year period was to give you time to get your head in order, and not make any rash decisions you may regret later. For me, the question is, is 4 years too long, or is 2 years to short? In my case, the 4 years gave ME time to come to terms with everything, and had it been 2 years back then, I would have definitely agreed to terms I would have later regretted.0 -
As someone who got separated in 2001, and divorced in 2007, I can understand the current 4 year wait, plus, it was a barrister friend to explained the rationale of it to me at the time.
When there is a marriage break up, most just want the whole episode to be put behind them, and to move on with their life. However, there is a HUGE change to your circumstances, lifestyle and finances. You need time to adjust to these changes, and to accustom yourself on how they are impacting your life. This can take time. Inevitably one party may have to move out, there may be issues of maintenance to be paid, access to children, so many issues to be taken into account. It takes time, a lot of time, for these changes to settle down, the full impact of them to be realised, on how much of a change to you life there actually is.
This is not the best time to be making decisions in a divorce case, where any agreement between the parties, made in haste to end the marriage, is made an order of the courts. Decisions that will affect you for years or decades to come.
The 4 year period was to give you time to get your head in order, and not make any rash decisions you may regret later. For me, the question is, is 4 years too long, or is 2 years to short? In my case, the 4 years gave ME time to come to terms with everything, and had it been 2 years back then, I would have definitely agreed to terms I would have later regretted.
While appreciating that you have your perspective on the matter, other people's circumstances will differ, and there's something paternalistic about the state insisting that you remain married for four years just to make sure you're not rushing into anything.
There are many, many life choices whose repercussions will be felt for decades to come - very few of them come with a state-mandated cooling-off period of several years.0 -
The 4 years aspect is ludicrous. Nowadays, marriage boils down to 2 people agreeing to share their possessions, under contract. The historical social necessity for marriage has largely disappeared, with access to sex/ children/ housing etc. It doesn't take 4 years to work out how to divide up your possessions, and if that proves to be a challenge, the courts are there to assist.0
-
Advertisement
-
Does any know what the changes to the recognition of foreign divorces are?0
-
-
oscarBravo wrote: »While appreciating that you have your perspective on the matter, other people's circumstances will differ, and there's something paternalistic about the state insisting that you remain married for four years just to make sure you're not rushing into anything.
There are many, many life choices whose repercussions will be felt for decades to come - very few of them come with a state-mandated cooling-off period of several years.
Absolutely, I was only giving my view on some reasons for the 4 year wait. It's one of those things, where there will never be a "right" solution.
Maybe ban marriage :pac::pac:0 -
Deleted User wrote: »To actually recognise them.
So it could be possible to go over seas and get and faster divorce than allowed under Irish law?0 -
all of them?
So it could be possible to go over seas and get and faster divorce than allowed under Irish law?
I don’t know how easy it is to get a foreign divorce, but some foreign divorces are only recognized if both parties were resident in the state where the divorce was granted at the beginning of the proceedings.
“Recognition of Foreign Divorces
Under Irish law, foreign divorces are recognised if both spouses were domiciled resident in the particular jurisdiction or state of the court granting the divorce at the date of the beginning of the proceedings.
The law concerning the recognition of foreign divorces
The Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act, 1986 governs the recognition of foreign divorces. In addition, Brussels II bis provides a uniform set of rules for automatic recognition of divorces, separation and nullities granted in the courts in other EU Member States.
The recognition of foreign divorce is based on satisfying formal jurisdiction criteria. If the foreign court did not properly have jurisdiction over the couple, that court did not have jurisdiction to grant the divorce and the law of that country is irrelevant. A divorce granted by a court with insufficient jurisdiction over a couple to divorce them will always be decided by Irish law.
The meaning of Domicile
Domicile is a complicated legal concept. Stated very broadly, a person is domiciled in the country where he/she is born or, having emigrated, where he/she is resident and intends to reside permanently or at least indefinitely.
Pre 1986 rules
The pre 1986 rules provided that the recognition of foreign divorce was dependant on the principle of Domicile. A pre 1986 foreign divorce would be recognised once either of the parties was domiciled in the foreign jurisdiction.
Application to the court
The Family Law Act, 1995 permits the court to seek a declaration that a divorce is entitled to recognition within the state.”
https://www.hoc.ie/private-law/family-law/recognition-of-foreign-divorces/0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »To actually recognise them.
The State already recognises certain foreign divorces; this amendment does nothing to change the current legal position of recognition of foreign divorces. What it does is remove the underlying Constitutional prohibition on remarrying from the Constitution and puts the legislative powers squarely within the Oireachtas.
Simply put:-
Current position: Unless your divorce is explicitly recognised by Irish law there is a Constitutional ban on you remarrying.
Yes position: The Oireachtas has the inherent power to legislate for recognition of foreign divorces.
In effect, "yes" on this simply removes the presumption of a Constitutional ban.all of them?
So it could be possible to go over seas and get and faster divorce than allowed under Irish law?
No - you wouldn't be able to (but under a yes vote you wouldn't really need to anyway). There are plans to update the legislation after the referendum passes, but it is unlikely to significantly change from the current legislation (most likely change will be to include all EEA countries).
Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorce Act (as amended):5.— (1) For the rule of law that a divorce is recognised if granted in a country where both spouses are domiciled, there is hereby substituted a rule that a divorce shall be recognised if granted in the country where either spouse is domiciled.
(2) In relation to a country which has in matters of divorce two or more systems applying in different territorial units, this section shall, without prejudice to subsection (3) of this section, have effect as if each territorial unit were a separate country.
(3) A divorce granted in any of the following jurisdictions—( a) England and Wales,
( b) Scotland,
( c) Northern Ireland,
( d) the Isle of Man,
( e) the Channel Islands,
shall be recognised if either spouse is domiciled in any of those jurisdictions.
(4) In a case where neither spouse is domiciled in the State, a divorce shall be recognised if, although not granted in the country where either spouse is domiciled, it is recognised in the country or countries where the spouses are domiciled.
(5) This section shall apply to a divorce granted after the commencement of this Act.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect a ground on which a court may refuse to recognise a divorce, other than such a ground related to the question whether a spouse is domiciled in a particular country, or whether the divorce is recognised in a country where a spouse is domiciled.
(7) In this section—“ divorce” means divorce a vinculo matrimonii;
“ domiciled” means domiciled at the date of the institution of the proceedings for divorce.0 -
As someone who got separated in 2001, and divorced in 2007, I can understand the current 4 year wait, plus, it was a barrister friend to explained the rationale of it to me at the time.
When there is a marriage break up, most just want the whole episode to be put behind them, and to move on with their life. However, there is a HUGE change to your circumstances, lifestyle and finances. You need time to adjust to these changes, and to accustom yourself on how they are impacting your life. This can take time. Inevitably one party may have to move out, there may be issues of maintenance to be paid, access to children, so many issues to be taken into account. It takes time, a lot of time, for these changes to settle down, the full impact of them to be realised, on how much of a change to you life there actually is.
This is not the best time to be making decisions in a divorce case, where any agreement between the parties, made in haste to end the marriage, is made an order of the courts. Decisions that will affect you for years or decades to come.
The 4 year period was to give you time to get your head in order, and not make any rash decisions you may regret later. For me, the question is, is 4 years too long, or is 2 years to short? In my case, the 4 years gave ME time to come to terms with everything, and had it been 2 years back then, I would have definitely agreed to terms I would have later regretted.
But you could still wait 5 years to divorce if ye both agree on it ? Others can do it quicker. Suits all0 -
igCorcaigh wrote: »Which I interpret as another watering down of the commitment that marriage entails.
I'd like to see more debate about this.
My instinctive feel is to vote yes, which is almost certainly what I will do, as I have voted yes to divorce in the past and also yes to SSM.
My personal feeling is that a loving relationship has to be voluntary, but I also feel that this issue has to be debated properly, like all others.
When there's no organised opposition to the proposal, it's hard to get any substantive debate going. I don't watch/listen to current affairs programmes much any more, but my impression is they're devoting as little time to this topic as they can get away with.0 -
In my case, the 4 years gave ME time to come to terms with everything, and had it been 2 years back then, I would have definitely agreed to terms I would have later regretted.
But that is not true for everyone and no one would be stopping you from taking 4 years if that is what you needed.
But the current law forces 4 years on people who dont want or need it and worse, it produces situations where people cannot move on properly with their lives and suffer stress etc..0 -
But that is not true for everyone and no one would be stopping you from taking 4 years if that is what you needed.
But the current law forces 4 years on people who dont want or need it and worse, it produces situations where people cannot move on properly with their lives and suffer stress etc..
There is nothing stopping people ending their marriages for all intents and purposes. The restriction only delays their marrying again, which is reasonable enough as they didn't go a great job the last time.
Marriage is an institution of the State that offered people legal advantages at the expense of other people. It is quite appropriate for the State to please reasonable restrictions on mutiple use of the advantage.0 -
Charles Babbage wrote: »There is nothing stopping people ending their marriages for all intents and purposes. The restriction only delays their marrying again, which is reasonable enough as they didn't go a great job the last time.
Marriage is an institution of the State that offered people legal advantages at the expense of other people. It is quite appropriate for the State to please reasonable restrictions on mutiple use of the advantage.
Absolute BS. You think someone who through no fault of their own ends up in an abusive marriage, should have to wait four years, just be cause of your superior attitude. Shame on you.0 -
As someone who got separated in 2001, and divorced in 2007, I can understand the current 4 year wait, plus, it was a barrister friend to explained the rationale of it to me at the time.
When there is a marriage break up, most just want the whole episode to be put behind them, and to move on with their life. However, there is a HUGE change to your circumstances, lifestyle and finances. You need time to adjust to these changes, and to accustom yourself on how they are impacting your life. This can take time. Inevitably one party may have to move out, there may be issues of maintenance to be paid, access to children, so many issues to be taken into account. It takes time, a lot of time, for these changes to settle down, the full impact of them to be realised, on how much of a change to you life there actually is.
This is not the best time to be making decisions in a divorce case, where any agreement between the parties, made in haste to end the marriage, is made an order of the courts. Decisions that will affect you for years or decades to come.
The 4 year period was to give you time to get your head in order, and not make any rash decisions you may regret later. For me, the question is, is 4 years too long, or is 2 years to short? In my case, the 4 years gave ME time to come to terms with everything, and had it been 2 years back then, I would have definitely agreed to terms I would have later regretted.
I have to agree, that's the one thing I've also learned from my ongoing divorce.
I also think two years might be on the short side and has the capacity to be very unfair. In my case, my partner walked in after I made them breakfast and just said.."we need to talk" and it was over just like that.....9.5 years of marriage, had no idea they had found someone else and were now in a new relationship, three days later they want to talk property split, four days later they posting it on facebook and my mother is ring me asking me what's going on.
What I've also learned this what divorce looks like in circa 80% of cases.....my divorce is statistically very boring and very typical.
The reason the time period is important and that shorter isn't better as vast majority of respondent's don't see it coming ...they should be allowed to heal and they need it, divorce is one of the peak triggers for severe depression, suicide and alcohol abuse.
Its taken me a three months of serious therapy just to keep functioning and hold my job down....and I'm actually one of the tough ones I only spent three months in the divorce daze...I know know other people who spend 12 months in that daze and couldn't adjust until the first anniversary arrived for them to accept "its over". People need the time to adjust to huge changes, and not just them but their families as well.
I think all these factors should be considered as well, it's not all about the applicants " desire to get on with it", they are only 50% of a divorce and in 80% have moved on and have the facebook photos to prove it. The others do need the time.
I agree 4 years is not unreasonable, some couple could divorce before this, but not not all. I think it should be more a case of 4 years, and by mutual consent the court can take it down to a shorter period to a minimum of 2 years.
In response to my earlier post, No I'm not convinced politicians will get it....because until go through a divorce you really don't understand it.
But you shouldn't think of divorce as a bash the RCC/Iona opportunity...divorce is legal....your choosing the process of divorce ....make your decision on what's best for the applicant or the respondent and best enables them to get on with their livee. They're ones that have to live with it ....and no one who I'm aware of who gets divorced thinks it will ever happen to them....So don't assume it can't happen to you. Trust me I learned that one the hard way too.0 -
Charles Babbage wrote: »There is nothing stopping people ending their marriages for all intents and purposes. The restriction only delays their marrying again, which is reasonable enough as they didn't go a great job the last time.
Marriage is an institution of the State that offered people legal advantages at the expense of other people. It is quite appropriate for the State to please reasonable restrictions on mutiple use of the advantage.
Then the state is as bad as the catholic church imo.0 -
sandbelter wrote: »I have to agree, that's the one thing I've also learned from my ongoing divorce.
I also think two years might be on the short side and has the capacity to be very unfair. In my case, my partner walked in after I made them breakfast and just said.."we need to talk" and it was over just like that.....9.5 years of marriage, had no idea they had found someone else and were now in a new relationship, three days later they want to talk property split, four days later they posting it on facebook and my mother is ring me asking me what's going on.
What I've also learned this what divorce looks like in circa 80% of cases.....my divorce is statistically very boring and very typical.
The reason the time period is important and that shorter isn't better as vast majority of respondent's don't see it coming ...they should be allowed to heal and they need it, divorce is one of the peak triggers for severe depression, suicide and alcohol abuse.
Its taken me a three months of serious therapy just to keep functioning and hold my job down....and I'm actually one of the tough ones I only spent three months in the divorce daze...I know know other people who spend 12 months in that daze and couldn't adjust until the first anniversary arrived for them to accept "its over". People need the time to adjust to huge changes, and not just them but their families as well.
I think all these factors should be considered as well, it's not all about the applicants " desire to get on with it", they are only 50% of a divorce and in 80% have moved on and have the facebook photos to prove it. The others do need the time.
I agree 4 years is not unreasonable, some couple could divorce before this, but not not all. I think it should be more a case of 4 years, and by mutual consent the court can take it down to a shorter period to a minimum of 2 years.
In response to my earlier post, No I'm not convinced politicians will get it....because until go through a divorce you really don't understand it.
But you shouldn't think of divorce as a bash the RCC/Iona opportunity...divorce is legal....your choosing the process of divorce ....make your decision on what's best for the applicant or the respondent and best enables them to get on with their livee. They're ones that have to live with it ....and no one who I'm aware of who gets divorced thinks it will ever happen to them....So don't assume it can't happen to you. Trust me I learned that one the hard way too.
What is the point in forcing a four year wait? You're not getting back together. There is no science behind that number.
What about cases where both parties are happy to get divorced and want to get on with their lives. Why should they be punished?
Your post just sounds like the motivation to keep four years waiting is just down to vindictiveness for the OH leaving for someone else.0 -
jimmycrackcorm wrote: »What is the point in forcing a four year wait? You're not getting back together. There is no science behind that number.
Simple, and I agree I'm not getting back. My experience....most people take a year to adjust, then about six months to get the paper work done...then its starts kicking off re property (we have no kids so ours is simpler) ....did I mention the word valuations? In the mean time I have to pay the bills and pay for a divorce lawyer (so does my ex) which slows down the process down...all up I'd expect it to take about typically three years to get ready....if you read my post you know that I suggested four years with the court authorized to reduce it to two by mutual consent .....personally I could do 2 years, but I'm aware I'm the exception and now most of my friends are divorcees so I know couldn't due to the depression ....even if we go to two years I would expect most divorces to string out past that due to financial wrangling....once you introduce a financial position it gets ugly.
What about cases where both parties are happy to get divorced and want to get on with their lives. Why should they be punished?
Hence my suggestion of flexibility by mutual consent.
Your post just sounds like the motivation to keep four years waiting is just down to vindictiveness for the OH leaving for someone else.
You stereotyping me as an angry divorcee? That fine, actually it's odd part of me is actually relieved it's over. I get angry with the games being played out in the divorce process ...but I actually wish the best for them both....One it did do is gives you the potential to be happier. But I keep stressing this, there is divorce the event and divorce the process...they are not the same.0 -
Advertisement
-
IMO it should be 1 year, or 1.5 max, Been living separate lives for years since married. Seperate arrangements by the choice of the other party from almost immediately after getting married, whatever of abusive husbands, women are equally capable of that and manipulation. While I thought it might be possible to work out, now completely separate lives, no intention of ever getting married again, but I'm now tied to a person for another potentially 5 years, even 2 is too much and the state now seem to be suggesting dragging their feet on implementing that. The only thing stopping me making enquiries now is the 2 years and the fear of getting shafted as the person who entered the relationship financially solvent and with a property.0
-
sandbelter wrote: »I think it should be more a case of 4 years, and by mutual consent the court can take it down to a shorter period to a minimum of 2 years.
This is a terrible idea tbh and would just result in people using it vindictively to punish the other as much as they can.0 -
this would have been a perfect time to allow pre-nups too but they missed that boat.
Definitely should be reduced to a year , I know so many men who have had themselves emotionally and financially drained for years just trying to move on with their lives.0 -
sandbelter wrote: »I agree 4 years is not unreasonable, some couple could divorce before this, but not not all. I think it should be more a case of 4 years, and by mutual consent the court can take it down to a shorter period to a minimum of 2 years.0
Advertisement