A quicker, cheaper and more amicable divorce?

Ha ha! What a laugh!

Most people I've known who've used mediation say it's the biggest waste of time and money ever (it's not free). The mediator (a busybody who likes a ruck, with no overseeing body like the Law Society) just lights various touchpapers, sits back and gloats.

Does this 'mediation' mean (a) trying to keep the couple toghether or (b) sorting out their arguments like who gets the sideboard or garden pots before a definite divorce?

£140? That's so much cheaper than a single letter from a solicitor or divorce lawyer.

When I was going through separation/divorce, my solicitor advised me that it would be best if my then wife and I could settle things between ourselves and use the lawyers as little as possible. It actually strengthened our post-divorce relationship, so I can still talk with her now.

I reckon mediation is a sensible and pragmatic step in most cases, removing the raw emotions from the situation.

3. At 10:17am on 23 Feb 2011, teedoff wrote:
"...I reckon mediation is a sensible and pragmatic step in most cases, removing the raw emotions from the situation..."
++++++++++++++
It's down to the sincerity of the mediator, and unfortunately the reverse of what you describe often happens. People go into mediation on fairly tolerable terms and come out wanting to kill each other. There's no professional code that compels the mediator to act responsibly. Sometimes they just entertain themselves.

Good idea and could be of real benefit, if done properly.

But stuff like this rarely is and it's being done to save money rather than anything else. Which is the wrong reason to be doing it.

However, we'll wait and see.

If mediation is not a workable option, for example one party refuses to take part in it, the case can proceed to court.

Then the reality is that an extra layer of expense has been added for many couples.

The fact is, is also that one partner can refuse to accept paperwork etc and not respond and a divorse can drag out years upon years, especially if solicitors come and go as well.

I think that if there has been a proven seperation for at least 2 years then divorces should be granted automatically without the other party being needed to be contacted etc.

Much of the complication and expense is due to the legal system, solicitors/barristors, whos financial intersts are in lengthy cases.

The divorce laws in UK prevent many people from getting on with their own lives and need to be made much more simpler and accessible, without the already high expense, which this new mediation service should not just be allowed to inflict greater expense.

Mediation will not replace the courts as there will always be individuals who simply cannot readily accept, and get over, the breakdown of a once loving relationship.

Mediation does however give a healthy percentage of separating couples the chance to constructively resolve issues which are almost always blighted by highly charged (albeit temporary) negative emotion.

I myself used a lawyer to act purely as a mediator during my own divorce and, though not an easy process (it makes you eat humble pie), having an objective and 'emotionally uninvolved' party to assist helped us to get to a positive outcome with the least possible damage to our child (and that in the end is what it's all about - securing the emotional and mental health of your children during their parents separation).

This is a good and highly progressive move by the Justice minister.

There was an interesting article in the latest Readers' Digest about pre-nuptial agreements.

The lady being interviewed - a top NY divorce lawyer - said that too many people enter a marriage with love foremost, and so don't prepare for the possibility of divorce. When divorce comes anger clouds their judgement so the pre-nup is a way of redressing the emotional balance.

I would normally expect a mediator to be properly trained and qualified - perhaps something in psychology would be appropriate - and they should attempt to get past the emotion to the business end of things.

Again, from the RD article, it seems that there is usually one sticking point where couples decide to battle it out. Find that and you can at least clear the decks of everything else. And as I said in my previous post - £140 is much less than a single letter from a law firm.

As 100% of divorce is caused by marriage anyway, why not derecognise the whole miserable business and put a few lawyers into the labour market?

For those who are unable to afford a mediation session then it could cause more problems than it solves. More people trapped in unhappy marriages, more domestic disputes for police to deal with etc. If couples are able to get this funded, where necessary, then it's not a bad idea. What happens if another session is required as the first session will only really get to understanding the issues and not resolve them. Don't forget Relate is there as well.

This really does send out the wrong signals to people that divorce can be quick, easy and without effort.

Marriage is tough but too mnay people call it a day without enough effort and this proposal just makes it easier - seems like a get out of jail free card to me.

Mediation should be an option but to try and keep couples together.

Wot? An idea borrowed from deepest, darkest New Labour territory?

Mediation whereby a disinterested party takes two people, sits them in a room, swears them to secrecy, pounds them insensitively with their sensitivities and, when they are both rendered completely speechless, says "Well done you are cured".

This is hardly new: I was referred to mediation 5 years ago. Is the government trying to look like it's doing something by announcing measures that already exist?

If marriage is the declaration of eternal love until death do us part and all that, what do we call divorce? The exit? An escape?

From what I can tell divorce is the effect of one person not loving the other anymore and so they split. How much the other person is still in love decides how much hastle is involved.

To make things simpler we could just do away with marriage. That way the lawyers dont get the money, its a simple relationship without business dealings. Easy.

How mediation helps it make the process of divorce much quicker,forcing all the emotion out of the settlement, and sorting the family issues' =less time and money so the courts and legal system make more profit out of it, a massive saving of everyones tax money and time. The best advices' is dont get married, in the first place the odds are stacked against you. {Old saying Why buy the cow? you can get a pint of milk anytime}

3. At 10:17am on 23 Feb 2011, teedoff wrote:
£140? That's so much cheaper than a single letter from a solicitor or divorce lawyer.

-----------------

You just made that up.

Considering British peoples blase' attitude towards marriage, bringing up children and infidelity and STD's within marriages, add that to the highest domestic violence figures in europe, i think its a good idea. I think mediation shuld also include a parental test as british parents have to be the worlds worst! Big Brother and celeb sexx stories are more important in most british households than social responsibility!

A well known, if frowned upon, quasi religious group, use a system called 'auditing' whereby a question is repeated until you stop answering (for reasons you understand if you try it). I suggest the Coalition may be slowly introducing torpor to us all by repeating the question "Have You Had Enough Yet?" so by 2015 when there is supposed to be a general election we will not notice there isn't one....

Warring couples? That is only the beginning.

1. At 10:15am on 23 Feb 2011, Eddy from Waring wrote:

Ha ha! What a laugh!

Most people I've known who've used mediation say it's the biggest waste of time and money ever (it's not free). The mediator (a busybody who likes a ruck, with no overseeing body like the Law Society) just lights various touchpapers, sits back and gloats.

9. At 10:30am on 23 Feb 2011, Eddy from Waring wrote:

As 100% of divorce is caused by marriage anyway, why not derecognise the whole miserable business and put a few lawyers into the labour market?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like you are a very unhappy person who has difficulty in relating to others.

The most effective way to avoid mediation or divorce or falling foul of the ridiculous divorce laws is not being stupid enough to go and get married in the first place.

Rubbish this does not work for everyone...having worked in the Legal world it amazing how many woman & men especially woman who accuse the other of violence/abuse either by way of physical or psychological so they need not attend mediation. These lies are harmful to children and affect the alleged accused spouse. Women are believed more than males in that situation. It makes me ashamed to be a female when thy abuse the system.

12. At 10:34am on 23 Feb 2011, From before AD wrote:
Wot? An idea borrowed from deepest, darkest New Labour territory?

Mediation whereby a disinterested party takes two people, sits them in a room, swears them to secrecy, pounds them insensitively with their sensitivities and, when they are both rendered completely speechless, says "Well done you are cured".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely correct in many cases.

Pay lots of money for a marriage.
Pay lots of money for a divorce.

Talking about wasting money for nothing.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The best solution would be not to bother getting married in the first place. It nearly always ends in tears!

Couples who desire decoupling to the extent that they have already taken steps to finalise it, desire above all else: speed, simplicity and a minimum of legal expense.
Mediation therefore, at this stage, is a waste of time.

Mediation can work, and it can prevent endless correspondence spiralling out of control.

But you DO need a good mediator who knows what they're doing.

If it takes some of the acrimony out of divorce and the restricted access that fathers often have - the children happen to have gone out to play with friends when he was due to see them - I think it should be given a chance to work.

It might work where there are no children but where they are involved its a whole different ball game. For a start the distribution of assets is no longer 50:50 and all of a sudden the state enables one partner to "steal" assets from another party in divorce cases. Hence the fact that lawyers are used as one party knows what the law will allow them to grab while the other party is prepared to pay lawyers to try and reduce the asset grabbing. And then the battle over access to the children starts! Far better a review of divorce to restore balance in the outcomes. There wont be the need for costly legal battles.

19. At 10:45am on 23 Feb 2011, Darwins Chimp wrote:

"...Sounds like you are a very unhappy person who has difficulty in relating to others..."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A very wise lady once explained to me when I was young, that when anyone makes a personal remark, it almost always reveals their own major flaw. She's been proven right countless times, I've found.

I think the posters and readers here are interested in mediation, not what you think of me, old chum.

3. At 10:17am on 23 Feb 2011, teedoff wrote:
£140? That's so much cheaper than a single letter from a solicitor or divorce lawyer.
**********

You hit the nail on the head. My father has told me about how he was forced to waste money on replying to these letters. They'd be about the most trivial things, such as who gets to keep a £1 car windscreen sun deflector. I'm sure many couples will sort much more out for less.

Why should the taxpayer pay anything for a civil matter like divorce through legal aid?

I went through mediation a couple of years back and my wife and I are still together. So did it work? Not really.

We stayed together because we were too old to divorce, we realised we would lose our house, everything (particularly my wife realised she would lose her precious cats).

During the mediation I repeatedly outlined what I saw as my wife's behaviour, she just refused point blank to accept that she was ever in the wrong. Whilst I admited my faults (which I think she took as a sign of weakness) she refused to accept any criticism, even threatening to end the mediation when it stopped going her way.

I did some research into divorce, as it is today and for a man it makes pretty dismal reading.

As she didn't work my wife got legal aid, free advice. My solicitor wouldn't start helping me until I handed over several hundred pounds on account. I was told by MY solicitor that a man defending a divorce was wasting his money, why?

Well it turns out that the rules for divorce are that it can only be given on the grounds of marital breakdown. This can be defined as, desertion, adultory, unreasonable conduct. If only one party wants the divorce they must wait 5 years and live seperately.

The man is persuaded that he will eventually be divorced, even if he doesn't want to. And it will cost him. If he is divorced and his wife has legal aid (most do) he will be liable to pay her solicitor at TWICE what they would have got from legal aid.

So he is bullied into accepting a divorce he doesn't want or often doesn't deserve. Usually on the grounds of 'unreasonable behaviour', which can mean anything (my wife claimed I didn't 'help around the house', when she didn't go out to work and I was out sometimes for 60 hours a week in full-time employment).

So the man is pressed into making a statement that admits his behaviour is unreasonable, whilst at the same time denying his wife's claims. The couple get their 'quicky' divorce and the wife gets everything she wants, particularly if there are children informed.

There are over two million men in the UK that have gone through this process and lost everything, their home, their family, just because his wife wants it.

Don't get me wrong, if a wife is unhappy and wants to end the marriage, then so be it. I have spoken to a couple of female work colleagues who told me horror stories of their ex-husbands behaviour. And as for millionaires, footballers and film stars, they get what they deserve.

If we are going to modernise divorce, then lets make it fair. If the man has to pay then so should the woman. If the woman wants out she no longer has the automatic right to take the kids. If there is access given to the father and the mother objects (because Daddy has a new girlfriend - I know this from the experiance of friends)she should be taken to court and the kids taken away from her until she agrees - and does - behave reasonably, (so no more lame excuses about the kids being unwell or the mother 'says' the kids do not want to go).

As for mediation, it will only work if BOTH parties want it to, if one side or the other doesn't play ball then the mediation should end and that fact taken into account during the divorce. So no talky-talky no money-money.

Rather than try and tackle the mechanics of modern divorce, today's society needs to look at the other end of the marriage spectrum.

I don't usually read other posts until later, but No. 1 (Eddy from Waring) caught my eye as an interesting example of the shocking frequency with which divorce occurs nowadays. Surely something is very wrong when just one individual knows of so much marital disharmony; it must be destabilizing him, let alone the couples concerned.

I doubt whether many newlyweds today really know what marriage means. In an age of spiralling personal debt, and "must have now" attitudes, the focus today seems to be more on status and possessions than building a relationship on sound footings and maintaining a commitment to one another. Furniture just has to be brand-new, holidays are compulsory, and so are the weekly "boys" and "girls" nights out.

It wasn't like that not so long ago. Newlyweds rented while they saved for a deposit on their first home, and furnishings were mostly second-hand, with nothing bought on credit. Couples worked together to make their marriages succeed and, in the process, grew to love each other that much more.

20. At 10:47am on 23 Feb 2011, Lord Horror wrote:


The most effective way to avoid mediation or divorce or falling foul of the ridiculous divorce laws is not being stupid enough to go and get married in the first place.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Unfortunately the social engineers have cottoned on that a lot of people now think that way, so are proposing to give cohabiting unmarried couples the same property rights as if they were married. (Only to save public money in the event of a split where there are kids. Justice is not a consideration, I'd reckon).

The birthrate of the historic population of these islands will probably fall close to zero as a result, as rational people give up on the whole idea!

What are we to advise our sons and daughters? It's a toughie.

After seeing one of my daughters and the children go through nearly two years of stress, anxiety and huge bank breaking costs for her and us, as parents trying to help out....I would caution anybody about the mediation system. Don't expect a spouse who has been unpleasant, bullying or dishonest from the time you split up to change his/her attitude in the mediation system. My son in law used it as a way to have another go at issues he had conceded to my daughter via her lawyer and cause her more hassle to make her give in.If there are major issues about money or the kids that you feel strongly about...mediation will only put pressure on you (and your ex) to give way on things so that the mediators can claim to have reached a settlement when, really, it is a fudge neither of you are satisfied with. Costly though it is, stick to your guns if yopu think you are being ripped off and get a court decision and order your spouse can't wriggle out of. Mediation is just another money making process for legal firms and a whole new "profession" of "experts". If you are under stress, get the money from somewhere and put you divorce in the hands of a lawyer...your health and state of mind is more important than money.

If people have to pay for it themselves rather than legal aid then they are more likely to go through mediation.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Eddy from Waring wrote:

20. At 10:47am on 23 Feb 2011, Lord Horror wrote:


Unfortunately the social engineers have cottoned on that a lot of people now think that way, so are proposing to give cohabiting unmarried couples the same property rights as if they were married. (Only to save public money in the event of a split where there are kids. Justice is not a consideration, I'd reckon).

The birthrate of the historic population of these islands will probably fall close to zero as a result, as rational people give up on the whole idea!"


As someone who has been one half of an happily unmarried couple for 12 years I am completely against the whole idea of the Nanny State simply assuming proprietor rights on our behalf.

If my partner or I want these rights then we would get married or sign a formal contract acknowledging that we accept those legal obligations.

For the government or the courts to lazily imply those "legal obligations" and to proscribe them indiscriminately because they are unable to cope with how people actually choose to live their lives in the modern world is something that all rational people who understand individual liberty and personal responsibility should fiercely resist.

As an ex professional working with emotional and mental health problems people have when going through a divorce, or suffer from afterwards. I suggest if only they thought of spending as much money in trying to fix, the relationship or identying why they originaly got together would give more in return, not mentioning the trauma it causes to children when involved, often leaving scars of making and maintaining relationships rsst of there life.

Sadly some people in todays society all to often thinking of now only, without thought of 20 years time, or what pain they are causing others, even the many innocent people that are affected.

More understanding of what the commitment is when entering into marriage is an important element too. Instant divorce is surely not a solution. I'm also not comfortable with paying to support the children of a failed marriage or children begat cynically to garner advantage from a broken system. What's required is more commitment to each other not even less than there is now.

Surprised at some of the apathy, probably written by those who never got married let alone divorced. If handled correctly it could save lots of couples a good deal of heartache and money. There will always usually be an injured party but they usually end up a lot more injured by the legal bills that follow and any children involved get embroiled in a tug of war. Mediation could have its place in helping to prevent divorce or where it is irrepairable a fair seperation of assetts etc could be used to help those involved move on. A number of my friends have got divorced and observations lead me to believe that Lawyers involvement always involves a bitter fight !! Like a lot of things the quality of service will be variable but the same can be said for the legal route plus large costs.

16. At 10:39am on 23 Feb 2011, CarlRigby wrote:
3. At 10:17am on 23 Feb 2011, teedoff wrote:
£140? That's so much cheaper than a single letter from a solicitor or divorce lawyer.

-----------------

You just made that up.

-----------------

No, I didn't. I received a grand total of 2 letters during my divorce, before my wife moved to England and the process had to begin all over again (under English law this time). Those two letters cost me £600, and that was a decade ago. As I can't see lawyers dropping their prices over a ten year period I feel able to categorically state that £140 is much less than a law firm charges for correspondence in a divorce procedure. If you up-to-date figures that gainsay this then please publish them. Thanks,

When I got divorced, in 1993, those involved were my wife, two teenage children and me (plus the dog!). Neither of us had other partners, we had just grown apart. We both sought advise and what we got told was, in effect, have a fight. That way the solicitors get the chance to write more letters, have more meetings, drag the matter out and fleece both of us. We managed to sit down together and put together our own agreement. I wanted her to keep the house with the boys (and the dog!) and would pay her more than was neccessary in way of maintenance for the boys. I wanted full access to the boys and would be living over a hundred miles away - where my work was - so wanted to visit and stay at weekends. All agreed, documented and presented to the solicitors. Again, "you can get more than this" or "you dont need to pay that" in other words, have a fight. We both stuck to our guns and said no, do what that says. Result a bill of about £500 each (1993).

A friend is currently going through a messy divorce, his wife is Spanish and has returned to Spain with their son. Access rights are contested, there's all sorts of fights and arguments and his bill is currently just short of £30k and still rising, I'll guess hers is similar.

£140 is not much, give it a go and see. Just remember, solicitors are out to cause conflict and argument, it lines their pockets.

35. At 11:12am on 23 Feb 2011, newageoracle wrote:
After seeing one of my daughters and the children go through nearly two years of stress, anxiety and huge bank breaking costs for her and us, as parents trying to help out....I would caution anybody about the mediation system. Don't expect a spouse who has been unpleasant, bullying or dishonest from the time you split up to change his/her attitude in the mediation system. My son in law used it as a way to have another go at issues he had conceded to my daughter via her lawyer and cause her more hassle to make her give in.If there are major issues about money or the kids that you feel strongly about...mediation will only put pressure on you (and your ex) to give way on things so that the mediators can claim to have reached a settlement when, really, it is a fudge neither of you are satisfied with. Costly though it is, stick to your guns if yopu think you are being ripped off and get a court decision and order your spouse can't wriggle out of. Mediation is just another money making process for legal firms and a whole new "profession" of "experts". If you are under stress, get the money from somewhere and put you divorce in the hands of a lawyer...your health and state of mind is more important than money.

===============================================


I have to agree with the aspect you raise (although in my own line of work I have seen good outcomes from mediation). But it is a bit like any therapy, I suppose, it will only be beneficial if you actually go along with it.

Everything depends on the quality of the mediator and the willingness of the participants. Who is going to ensure that mediators are properly trained and properly supervised? What if one of the parties accepts a deal after mediation that turns out to be not in their interest?

Also, sometimes men assume a female mediator will take the wife's side or women assume a male mediator will take the husband's side.

Yes, it is cheaper than a solicitor but a mediator is just there to smooth things over, a solicitor is there to get you the best deal.

so now the government are going to treat people like children...just another control plan...maybe they should put their own house in order first

I am not a new member

If you really wanted to simplify things:

Each former partner gets 50% of property (and owes 50% of any outstanding debts).

Each former partner is responsible for 50% of the cost of raising any children, according to a set 'this is how much raising a child costs' formula.

The children get to choose who they live with, the 'absent' partner gets to see them for 50% of the school holidays.

Anyone not content with the above is responsible for paying lawyers to sort it all out. No reason why we should pay for them.

Breach of the above without having arranged and paid for your own arrangements becomes a criminal offence.

This sounds like a typical Tory idea, fine in principle and yes grownups should be capable sorting things out without going to court but I see the idea turning out to be another private pension fiasco where inexperienced money grabbing busy bodies will be able to fleece people totally unregulated.

Why should the taxpayer fund the divorce costs of married couples? If they find they can no longer get on together, that's their problem surely? These people are meant to be adults and if they find they made a stupid decision, as adults they should be responsible, not the state.

Divorce proceedings should be funded by the couple themselves and if they can't afford it then they have the choice of staying together or splitting up on some default arrangement that ensures any children are funded from one or other parent before state support is even considered.

In some cases one partner may be being abused by the other in which case charities can fund any legal costs as part of the "Big Society" initiative.

Jonathan Djanogly, when he had a proper job was a trainee solicitor for a London law firm. Mediation taking work away from the legal system? I don't think so.

A compulsory mediation session costing £140: have they found non-jobs for all those people who trained up to do HIPs for when you wanted to sell your house?

35. At 11:12am on 23 Feb 2011, newageoracle wrote:
After seeing one of my daughters and the children go through nearly two years of stress, anxiety and huge bank breaking costs for her and us, as parents trying to help out....I would caution anybody about the mediation system. Don't expect a spouse who has been unpleasant, bullying or dishonest from the time you split up to change his/her attitude in the mediation system. My son in law used it as a way to have another go at issues he had conceded to my daughter via her lawyer and cause her more hassle to make her give in.If there are major issues about money or the kids that you feel strongly about...mediation will only put pressure on you (and your ex) to give way on things so that the mediators can claim to have reached a settlement when, really, it is a fudge neither of you are satisfied with. Costly though it is, stick to your guns if yopu think you are being ripped off and get a court decision and order your spouse can't wriggle out of. Mediation is just another money making process for legal firms and a whole new "profession" of "experts". If you are under stress, get the money from somewhere and put you divorce in the hands of a lawyer...your health and state of mind is more important than money.

Tragic, but why should the state fund the fallout from the poor judgement and life choices made by your daughter and/or her husband?

16. At 10:39am on 23 Feb 2011, CarlRigby wrote:
3. At 10:17am on 23 Feb 2011, teedoff wrote:
£140? That's so much cheaper than a single letter from a solicitor or divorce lawyer.

-----------------

You just made that up.

-----------------

How do you know? lol

This from the party who says it is going to do away with the Big Government.

Seems like Tory boy knows the answer to everything?.If so can he tell us the date of the next general election.

11. At 10:33am on 23 Feb 2011, chezza100 wrote:
This really does send out the wrong signals to people that divorce can be quick, easy and without effort.

Marriage is tough but too mnay people call it a day without enough effort and this proposal just makes it easier - seems like a get out of jail free card to me.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

"get out of jail free".. interesting turn of phrase to describe marriage. Says it all really.

My parents divorced relatively amicably a couple of years ago, despite this my mum still sunk her claws in and walked away with the house, a wad of cash and two of my father's pensions. For me this is where the real problem lies with divorce in this country - stop people (inc. lawyers and legal firms) making such gains from divorce and you'll see the rate drop overnight!

Why does this government insist so much on encouraging marriage in the first place? It's completely unnatural.

These politicians never fail to amaze me- they now believe that they can come up with a formula for 'amicable divorce'!!!!!!!!!!

i see dave the moderator is at the desk.it his a bit of a liberty to demand people to unergo a modern take of the spanish inquisition,taking away my right to say yes or no.while in the same time frame "dave"and his adorable foreign minister are trveling the middle east telling everone that will listern how big they are on,get this,"human rights" and the rights of the workingman along with thier support in thier struggle for freedom and civil liberties.also divorce,a sad experiance with out children being involved,is a thousand times worse when they are,
and with the report on the abismal figures on child poverty harnessed to the cuts ,this is the last thing familys in this situation wants..i hope this comment is fair and exceptable......

13. At 10:35am on 23 Feb 2011, grumpy old man wrote:
This is hardly new: I was referred to mediation 5 years ago. Is the government trying to look like it's doing something by announcing measures that already exist?
-----------------------
At that point in time it was voluntary or the first point of call, you could though skip it and go straight to court if you wanted to, if you felt that mediation would be a waste of time.

This governement is proposing to make it compulsory, it is the first thing a divorcing couple have to do, no ifs or buts, no access to court until mediation has been performed first. If that fails and no agreement is met, then court.

Maybe the government is doing this to free up the time of the courts? As many of these battles are lengthy which is un-necessary.

As ever I am reminded of one of my favourite bits of movie dialogue: from the abyss, when main character bud has just argued with his wife and slammed the phone down on her, in front of his colleague hippy.

Bud: 'god, I hate that *****!'

Hippy: 'well then, you probably shouldn't have married her.'

I'll tell you exactly how to make it cheaper for divorcing couples.
'Dont use a solicitor' they will rip you off blind as they did me.
Sending unnecessary letters at £25 a shot. 12k later after the solicitors couldn't justify anymore letters......In the end I ditched my solicitor and solved it myself in one court hearing. They also cause arguments deliberately so they can make more money. They are quite disgusting.

We refused mediation as we both new it was over even if the autorities did'nt.
So your kidding yorselves Mr Cammeron. The decisions have already been made by the time you decide to get a divorce. Its just another hairbrained scheme by the Condems to make more money from the tax payer to help fund the courts but to disguise it as something else...as usual!
Totally detached from reality!!!!

Why would anyone want to get divorced when there is talk of the lib/cons giving married couples a tax break.

LOL..............Live in SIN (Satan Is Next), works for me......

Can informal mediation break the deadlock of asset allocation? Unlikely one suspects.

Divorce will never be amicable whilst one party gets to destroy the life of another by grabbing more than their fair share.

Lawyers and solicitors are also to blame as it is not in their interests to settle disputes.

It would be beter to follow the following.

1. All assets owned before marriage remain with the previous owner.(i.e. automatic pre-nup)
2. There should be no requirement to maintain anothers lifestyle. I.e. a footballers wife should get the same as another woman or man regardless of someones wealth.
3. Post marriage assets split 50:50 where possible.
4. Disputes should be listed and settled by an independent arbitor. Not a mediator.
5. failure to abide results in court action.
6. CSA payments should be standard for everyone regardless of how wealthy the main income earner is.

tion to the problem would be to reduce the amount the lawyers and solicitors can charge an hour.

Its terrible the rates they charge and their interests may not match your own.

How much does it does for them to send a letter !

16. At 10:39am on 23 Feb 2011, CarlRigby wrote:
3. At 10:17am on 23 Feb 2011, teedoff wrote:
£140? That's so much cheaper than a single letter from a solicitor or divorce lawyer.

-----------------

You just made that up.

-----------------

No, I didn't. I received a grand total of 2 letters during my divorce, before my wife moved to England and the process had to begin all over again (under English law this time). Those two letters cost me £600, and that was a decade ago. As I can't see lawyers dropping their prices over a ten year period I feel able to categorically state that £140 is much less than a law firm charges for correspondence in a divorce procedure. If you up-to-date figures that gainsay this then please publish them. Thanks,

-------------------

Um, it wasn't the letters that cost you £600. It was the time you spent talking about your situation to your solicitor, the communication between your's and your ex's solicitors, the setting up of a proper clean-break agreement so that your ex can't claim against your pension or property decades later ( that could potentially be hundreds of thousands of pounds ) and court costs ( even if you don't attend ). You paid for the professional advice of someone who actually knows the law and for someone to promote your best interests during the divorce.

So when you say that you paid £600 for 2 letters, you are making it up.

I have used Court mediation for a completely different legal matter and the satisfactory result negated the need to go to Court to take the matter further. The basis of mediation is so that you can assure the Court that you have explored and exhausted all other means to resolve the matter before going to Court. But for me, mediation in the case of a divorce requires careful and sensitive handling in some cases. For instance, in cases of alleged domestic abuse/violence, sexual abuse/assault, adultery, paedophilia, etc. But if mediation is going to be introduced, I also think couples should be encouraged and advised where to seek pre-marital advice through publicity perhaps, to help couples understand the challenges of marriage after the novelty has worn off, to understand that on occasion they will disagree with eachother, they will shout at eachother, they will annoy eachother and basically they will encounter difficult and challenging problems together. It is part of married life, it isn't all about love, love, love but more about not unduly jeopardising the marriage, respecting your partner and resolving the problems you encounter...together. If you are not prepared to accept "for better or for worse" within reason of course, then you may not be serious about marriage and marriage may not be for you.

Will this also apply to luvvies & the obscenely rich? Probably not as they'll just either buy their way out or use a pet judge to put a gagging order on things.....

I cannot believe this government. The middle east is in melt down, unemployment is rife and rising, inflation is up, we are at war in Afganistan - come on guys, govern the country!!!!

Divorce is a private matter between two individuals (like marriage or any other relationship), what has it got to do with call me Dave and his cronies. Who is paying for all these mediators? Who gets the £140? Is this a new CONDEM tax on divorce?

Stop interfering in things that are none of your business (Big Brother is here!!!) and start sorting out the countries problems. Are these politicians really so bored that they have time to come up with all this drivel? Why don't they go and volunteer for the Big Society and give us all some peace?

54. At 11:57am on 23 Feb 2011, Toxic Tel wrote:
Seems like Tory boy knows the answer to everything?.If so can he tell us the date of the next general election.
-------------

Yes, 7th May 2015.

Going for the soft option of mediation, that already exists! Its already open to choice if you want to go. Why dont you sort of the CSA MrCammeron? a bin full of waste if there ever was.
He takes the easy options all the time, hadn't you noticed yet? Then claims they are bigger than they are and it was a conservative idea.
This is a prime example of Mr Cammerons weird and wonderful thinking.

62. At 12:17pm on 23 Feb 2011, PipeVVorm wrote:
I'll tell you exactly how to make it cheaper for divorcing couples.
'Dont use a solicitor' they will rip you off blind as they did me.
Sending unnecessary letters at £25 a shot. 12k later after the solicitors couldn't justify anymore letters......In the end I ditched my solicitor and solved it myself in one court hearing. They also cause arguments deliberately so they can make more money. They are quite disgusting.

We refused mediation as we both new it was over even if the autorities did'nt.

===================================


Mediation in this instance is NOT about helping people stay together, it is about working through both parties' needs so that there are no lengthy disputes in correspondence and then in court.

If you consider that your solicitor acted unprofessionally you can report them.

71. At 12:32pm on 23 Feb 2011, drcarol wrote:
I cannot believe this government. The middle east is in melt down, unemployment is rife and rising, inflation is up, we are at war in Afganistan - come on guys, govern the country!!!!

Divorce is a private matter between two individuals (like marriage or any other relationship), what has it got to do with call me Dave and his cronies. Who is paying for all these mediators? Who gets the £140? Is this a new CONDEM tax on divorce?

============================================

The money paid out from the Legal Aid Fund where parties continue to argue because they do not have to foot the bill is not a private matter.

72. At 12:36pm on 23 Feb 2011, Khuli wrote:
54. At 11:57am on 23 Feb 2011, Toxic Tel wrote:
Seems like Tory boy knows the answer to everything?.If so can he tell us the date of the next general election.
-------------

Yes, 7th May 2015.

..

I doubt the Condem goverment will last that long, then we'll be back with NewLieMore - swapping one bunch of fools for another!

Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly said … mediation is "a quicker, cheaper and more amicable alternative" to the over-worked family courts.

Well, hey Jonathan, that’s very useful information. People who are heading for the divorce courts should be given that advice so that they can take it if they want.

No, hold on… “Any couple wanting to use the courts will have to undergo a compulsory mediation assessment session first...”

Here we go again. Big nanny state. Tell me what my choices are and then let me get on with it. But not with nanny. Oh no. Nanny says “it’s bad to smoke, so I’ll take away your pocket money so you can’t”. Nanny says “you’re a very naughty boy if you don’t eat properly, so I’ll control how much salt is in your food”. Nanny says “mediation is "a quicker, cheaper and more amicable alternative" to the over-worked family courts – so you’re going to do that”.

There are laws that need to be enforced – the government should work out how to enforce them. There are new laws to be made – so make them. There is advice that should be given – but for crying out loud give me the advice and then let me make my judgment. I’m a big boy now nanny, I don’t need you to force me to do what you think is the best.

74. At 12:39pm on 23 Feb 2011, ruffled_feathers wrote:
62. At 12:17pm on 23 Feb 2011, PipeVVorm wrote:
I'll tell you exactly how to make it cheaper for divorcing couples.
'Dont use a solicitor' they will rip you off blind as they did me.
Sending unnecessary letters at £25 a shot. 12k later after the solicitors couldn't justify anymore letters......In the end I ditched my solicitor and solved it myself in one court hearing. They also cause arguments deliberately so they can make more money. They are quite disgusting.

We refused mediation as we both new it was over even if the autorities did'nt.

===================================


Mediation in this instance is NOT about helping people stay together, it is about working through both parties' needs so that there are no lengthy disputes in correspondence and then in court.

If you consider that your solicitor acted unprofessionally you can report them.


===============
Yes I did report them, the next problem you have is to find a solicitor that will fight another.....they simply dont do it, its a closed network, they simply wont do it.

And mediation for us was about trying to get us to get back together again, so dont tell me any different please. I take it by the way you speak that your an expert on the subject and have been through the perverbial mill? I'm not but I can tell you my experience of it, and thats what I have done.

I've got a better idea. When you get married you make a personal commitment to another human being. How about sticking by it.

Ref: JohnH @ Post #32

Totally agree, and nicely put. My own experience backs much of this up too, when my second wife (I know, I'm not a quick learner) filed for divorce

Her (female) solicitor told her, "Let's hit him where it hurts. In the pocket"

My (male) solicitor told me, "You're screwed. Marriage has become a pension scheme for women who get bored and know their ex will have to provide for them"

So. If a certain type of woman is taking we men to the cleaners, are these mediators jumping on the bandwagon (gravy train) trying to enrich themselves before all our money goes on settlements and solicitors?

Lets face it, most people get married for one or more of three reasons, lust, companionship or love.

Most get married for the first two, very rarely for love and much rarer all three, (except on TV and film).

So a couple get married and after the lust goes 6 months to 2 years on average, they stay together because they get along. Then after the home is set-up, the kids are produced and they 'settle-down' they realise this is not what they wanted at all. And their partner has not turned out to be the person they 'thought' they were marrying.

So they decide to end it, the marriage, and that is where the problems begin. Because our society is built around work, and all men work (or should) then when it comes to paying for a divorce the costs fall on the one with the most money or income, usually (but not always) the man.

We were told when the no-fault divorce was being introduced that divorce would be simpler, well it isn't. Wives in their thousands complained that there husbands would be dumping them for a younger partner. So we got the concept of 'maintenance' (proberbly the main reason why women are paid less than men, by men).

Because a woman usually earns less than the man, she gets the best out of a divorce. Costs payed, maintenance, the family home (if there are kids), the man gets little beside his freedom (that he usually can no longer afford to enjoy).

I know women who have had unhappy and abusive (non-violent) marriages they were more than happy just to walk away from. I also know of male friends who are serial adulterers, and don't understand the misery they create. And yet I know of many women who want it all, from the engagment ring, through the marriage, big house, kids, holidays, and then a 'free' life-style paid for by their ex.

I would say that in our more and more secular world we should treat marriage as a joining together of two people for as long as they want. And if someone wants to leave they should. With a 50% share of assessts (raised during the marriage, you cannot claim anything that the other partner had before or after it) and a 'clean-break'. No maintenance, if the woman wants sole rights to the kids she pays.

The 'wimmin' will no doubt scream that this is unfair. But maybe, just maybe, they will get off their backsides and do something during the marriage to help them when it's over. If you want to marry a millionaire, then enjoy your life in the sun while you can.

I would say however that this is proberbly academic, as a lot of posts here have said, why would anyone actually 'want' to get married today anyway.

18. At 10:42am on 23 Feb 2011, holly_bush_berry wrote:

A well known, if frowned upon, quasi religious group, use a system called 'auditing' whereby a question is repeated until you stop answering (for reasons you understand if you try it). I suggest the Coalition may be slowly introducing torpor to us all by repeating the question "Have You Had Enough Yet?" so by 2015 when there is supposed to be a general election we will not notice there isn't one....

Warring couples? That is only the beginning.


=====================================================================

Stop it you will have people wired to Auditing machines next. Do not give the government ideas.

By the way you are being filmed by you know who ssshhh:

2. At 10:17am on 23 Feb 2011, Hazel wrote:
Does this 'mediation' mean (a) trying to keep the couple toghether or (b) sorting out their arguments like who gets the sideboard or garden pots before a definite divorce?
-------------------------------------
From the article:
"The measures for England and Wales, focused on child custody and financial disputes, come into force on 6 April."

Why do people insist on commenting without even reading the story they are commenting on?

From the article:
"Under the change, anyone wanting to use the courts will have to undergo a compulsory mediation assessment session first, which could cost some couples up to £140.
If mediation is not a workable option, for example one party refuses to take part in it, the case can proceed to court."

So basically it is about as compulsory as gym membership.

It would be a lot simpler and a lot cheaper if we taught couples to recognise what their problems were, to outline possible solutions to the problem and to evaluate which is the best solution for them, before implementing it.

Often couples in difficulty consult their friends to discuss issues and to gain advice which is given freely.Solving problems does not always have to come with a price-tag.

What we need is a cheap DIY method by which couples, who know their marriage has been irretrievably damaged, can fill in paperwork outlining their grounds along with a mutually agreed settlement, which can be examined and ratified by a court.

"If marriage is the declaration of eternal love until death do us part and all that, what do we call divorce? The exit? An escape?"

I was baptised, confirmed and married in church. My marriage lasted 29 years and I found it very difficult, considering the vows that I had made, to go through the divorce procedure. I thought about the "...'til death us do part...' in a different way. The vow doesn't specify who or what has to die so I was able to get through it by telling myself that the marriage had died. It had. Mediation would not have held us together.

78. At 12:52pm on 23 Feb 2011, PipeVVorm wrote:
74. At 12:39pm on 23 Feb 2011, ruffled_feathers wrote:
62. At 12:17pm on 23 Feb 2011, PipeVVorm wrote:
I'll tell you exactly how to make it cheaper for divorcing couples.
'Dont use a solicitor' they will rip you off blind as they did me.
Sending unnecessary letters at £25 a shot. 12k later after the solicitors couldn't justify anymore letters......In the end I ditched my solicitor and solved it myself in one court hearing. They also cause arguments deliberately so they can make more money. They are quite disgusting.

We refused mediation as we both new it was over even if the autorities did'nt.

===================================


Mediation in this instance is NOT about helping people stay together, it is about working through both parties' needs so that there are no lengthy disputes in correspondence and then in court.

If you consider that your solicitor acted unprofessionally you can report them.


===============
Yes I did report them, the next problem you have is to find a solicitor that will fight another.....they simply dont do it, its a closed network, they simply wont do it.

And mediation for us was about trying to get us to get back together again, so dont tell me any different please. I take it by the way you speak that your an expert on the subject and have been through the perverbial mill? I'm not but I can tell you my experience of it, and thats what I have done.

=========================================================

No, my experience is from a different perspective. There are good mediators out there. Even with no mediation, for the papers filed at the divorce court a solicitor has to declare that they have discussed reconciliation.

If you had trouble finding a solicitor to represent your complaint the Law Society should have been able to provide you with the names of some firms, but the Legal Ombudsman should deal with the matter.

67. At 12:24pm on 23 Feb 2011, Slave to the System - I am not a number wrote:
tion to the problem would be to reduce the amount the lawyers and solicitors can charge an hour.

Its terrible the rates they charge and their interests may not match your own.

How much does it does for them to send a letter !

------------
They have to charge high fees to pay back their student debt.

No-one should have the right to insist two other people remain married. It's ridiculous and yet another piece of nonsense dicated by archaic religious and sexist views. Marriage has nothing whatever to do with fidelity, with responsible parenting or with happiness.

70. At 12:30pm on 23 Feb 2011, W Fletcher wrote:
Will this also apply to luvvies & the obscenely rich? Probably not as they'll just either buy their way out or use a pet judge to put a gagging order on things.....
---------------

And buying your way out is different from mediation how?

A quicker, cheaper and more amicable divorce?
What on earth is going on with this country? Advice on divorce, why would anyone have any faith in this government to get anything right? As I write our prime minister is touring the middle east with a group of arms dealers trying to sell more of the same weapons that are being used to kill peaceful protesters in the neighboring countries! Why not try and sell a few tear gas cannisters to those having marital problems, you never know after a good old weep they might decide to stay together. I bet the foreign office is waiting to shove Hague back on a plane to Libya to get a reassurance from Gaddafi that the BP contract will stand, and maybe throw in a few riot shields while he is there.

51. At 11:53am on 23 Feb 2011, WiseOldBob wrote:
Jonathan Djanogly, when he had a proper job was a trainee solicitor for a London law firm. Mediation taking work away from the legal system? I don't think so.

A compulsory mediation session costing £140: have they found non-jobs for all those people who trained up to do HIPs for when you wanted to sell your house?
---------------------------
Building surveyors mediating divorces?
Are they going to offer a free damp inspection with every out of court settlement?

80. At 12:55pm on 23 Feb 2011, Muppet_Master wrote:
Ref: JohnH @ Post #32

Totally agree, and nicely put. My own experience backs much of this up too, when my second wife (I know, I'm not a quick learner) filed for divorce

Her (female) solicitor told her, "Let's hit him where it hurts. In the pocket"

My (male) solicitor told me, "You're screwed. Marriage has become a pension scheme for women who get bored and know their ex will have to provide for them"

So. If a certain type of woman is taking we men to the cleaners, are these mediators jumping on the bandwagon (gravy train) trying to enrich themselves before all our money goes on settlements and solicitors?
__________________________________________________________________-

I totally agree, both solicitors said the same to us. Disgusting!
And yes I lost everything to her. 1/4 mill house, everything I owned inc. stealing 20K from my account and getting away with it, and I still have to pay £650 a mont to the CSA to support this 'woman' 11 years later.
The whole system is sick to the core. and Why Mr Cameron is takling the easy option.

80. At 12:55pm on 23 Feb 2011, Muppet_Master wrote:
Ref: JohnH @ Post #32

Totally agree, and nicely put. My own experience backs much of this up too, when my second wife (I know, I'm not a quick learner) filed for divorce

Her (female) solicitor told her, "Let's hit him where it hurts. In the pocket"

My (male) solicitor told me, "You're screwed. Marriage has become a pension scheme for women who get bored and know their ex will have to provide for them"

So. If a certain type of woman is taking we men to the cleaners, are these mediators jumping on the bandwagon (gravy train) trying to enrich themselves before all our money goes on settlements and solicitors?

=======================================================================

Too true I now pay my ex x amounts of pounds because she had an affair and various other things.If she gets married again she loses my pension,but if she lives with someone I continue to pay out,lets make a law saying living together is the same as marrige I get my pension back and she gets the chance to get "bored" again...

86. At 1:02pm on 23 Feb 2011, Hazel wrote:

"If marriage is the declaration of eternal love until death do us part and all that, what do we call divorce? The exit? An escape?"

I was baptised, confirmed and married in church. My marriage lasted 29 years and I found it very difficult, considering the vows that I had made, to go through the divorce procedure. I thought about the "...'til death us do part...' in a different way. The vow doesn't specify who or what has to die so I was able to get through it by telling myself that the marriage had died. It had. Mediation would not have held us together.

--------------------------

Kudos for sticking to the religious approach. Changing the statement 'Till death do us part' into 'until a non-physical died'. Its interesting.

I understand you growing apart and such but I have no respect for religion for the exact reason you stated. Its all interpretation and personal perspective. So if we are allowed to just change our minds then the marriage means nothing in the first place.

Maybe all would be cheaper if we didnt get married. But then a lot of insecure people will have to deal with their insecurities.

88. At 1:03pm on 23 Feb 2011, Billy wrote:
67. At 12:24pm on 23 Feb 2011, Slave to the System - I am not a number wrote:
tion to the problem would be to reduce the amount the lawyers and solicitors can charge an hour.

Its terrible the rates they charge and their interests may not match your own.

How much does it does for them to send a letter !

------------
They have to charge high fees to pay back their student debt.

=========================================================

What really pushes lawyers' fees up are the clients who constantly change their instructions.

However, whilst a client presenting their solicitor with their bank statements and other documentation is quite familiar with those documents, the information contained in them is new to the lawyer. Items may need to be queried. Interesting to spend a week working with solicitors to see what they actually do. It's quite a lot.

84. At 12:59pm on 23 Feb 2011, Billy wrote:
From the article:
"Under the change, anyone wanting to use the courts will have to undergo a compulsory mediation assessment session first, which could cost some couples up to £140.
If mediation is not a workable option, for example one party refuses to take part in it, the case can proceed to court."

So basically it is about as compulsory as gym membership.
-----------------------
I would assume that if that were the case, someone refusing to go to the mediation and thus the reason for going to court straight away, that there decision to refuse to go to mediation would count against them and that the judge would see this and take it into account when making their decision.
That is what I would hope for from the justice system, seeing as I am a law student and planning to take part in that system.

87. At 1:03pm on 23 Feb 2011, ruffled_feathers wrote:

you replies are based on theroy, can you not speak from experience?
As I said yes I did complain to the ombusman, his reply was 'you need to find a solicitor that is willing to fight another....if you can'

you see the quango? or are you a solicitor too?

It's all just a diversion tactic to take joe public's mind off what the government are really doing - dismantling the state - give it a couple of weeks and if there is an outcry they will cancel it and blame it on Labour

90. At 1:07pm on 23 Feb 2011, Khuli wrote:
70. At 12:30pm on 23 Feb 2011, W Fletcher wrote:
Will this also apply to luvvies & the obscenely rich? Probably not as they'll just either buy their way out or use a pet judge to put a gagging order on things.....
---------------

And buying your way out is different from mediation how?
---------------

Buying your way out = Because you can afford to give the other person whatever they want to get rid of them.
Mediation = Because you don't have money to throw away and court is going to cost you a hell of alot more!
I think that's the difference..