Andrew Ducker (andrewducker) wrote,
Andrew Ducker
andrewducker

Interesting Links for 17-02-2017


Original post on Dreamwidth - there are comment count unavailable comments there.
Tags: adhd, android, antibiotics, birthcontrol, brain, contraception, divorce, economics, europe, geology, germany, hacking, india, iphone, law, links, marriage, men, microbiome, neuroscience, newzealand, phones, politics, security, spying, surgery, tonyblair, toys, uk
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

  • 19 comments
Why is this case even happening? Surely it is time to amend the law such that "I do not want to be married to this person anymore" is enough of a reason to get divorced. I had no idea the law was so antiquated in this regard.
Well legislation was passed over 20 years ago, but it was never put into force.

I think the Scottish law on divorce is sufficiently different that a divorce would be granted based on the facts disclosed in the article.
Yeah, I had a discussion about this on twitter pointing out that in Scotland the rules are different. I wasn't sure it would be automatic - because they are still co-habiting and *she* had the affair - but it certainly sounds like unreasonable behaviour on his part to me.
Isn't there also a "and after 2 years you can get divorced whatever happened" rule?
The circumstances that will lead to a finding by the court that there is an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage are:

the defender's adultery;[4]
behaviour of the defender that makes it unreasonable for the pursuer to live with the defender;[5]
not living as husband and wife for one year and there is consent to the divorce from both parties;[6]
not living as husband and wife for two years when one party objects to the divorce.[7]


She's still living there, so it would depend on how "living as husband and wife" is interpreted.
I had to wait two years for New Jersey to grant my divorce. They also made us do two marital counseling sessions.
Ah, the summary I'd read said 'co-habiting', 'living together _as husband and wife_' seems like there's a reasonable argument to be made that separate rooms on top of the emotional case she's citing would meet that criteria.
Under teh same roof, joint bank account or joint paying of the bills counts as "living as husband and wife" legally in America.
I meant Scots law. (I appreciate that in England you have to go to court to get a divorce.)
That quote is from the Scot's Law page, and matches what I'm finding elsewhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_Scotland#Grounds_for_divorce

Here's what CAB Scotland says:
your partner has behaved unreasonably
adultery
you've lived apart for at least one year and you both agree to the divorce
you've lived apart for at least two years but one of you doesn’t agree to the divorce.
which is basically the same thing.

And in Scotland it still goes through a court, although if undefended neither of you has to turn up (source, my lawyer, two weeks ago).
Ah, sorry! And apologies for trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs.
Not at all. I get things wrong all the time, and would much rather be held to account (or told where I'm talking nonsense) than not.
There is a volume of case law on what is known as the "deserter stay at home" in Scots law on what counts as co-habiting as husband and wife but it was pretty well established that just physically living together in the same house was not living together as husband and wife. (See also the now sadly defunct marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute.) Can't remember the details sadly and I suspect that the issue was largely one of fact and therefore to be determined by the jury or the judge at first instance. The case law might also have been changed by the revision to the statues since I was at law school.

I think in Scotland the wife would also stand some chance on the second ground of behaviour that makes it unreasonable to expect the pursuer to live with the defender. From memory an important consideration is the actual nature of the couple. The same behaviour might or might not trigger this provision depending on the particulars of the people involved. For example a situation where the husband has been arrested for being involved in a drunken brawl. For couple A, where the couple has a long history of partying, gettting drunk and squabbling noisely and the wife is known to like the fact that her husband is a bit of a tough who gets in to fights it might not be unreasonable to expect Wife A to remain married after Husband A gets arrested for his fairly standard Friday night Fight. For Couple B who are teetotal Quakers, it might be different.

So the fact that she's miserable might well make it unreasonable for her to cohabit with her husband. Or it might not. I'm not sure how reasonable it is to expect someone who is miserable to walk away from a marriage rather than try to improve things or put up with them.
It's an excellent question. And one where I suspect there's significant differences in opinions across the country. Particularly depending on history, children, etc.
It is an interesting question with three strands.

How miserable does one have to be, taking all relevant circumstances in to account, before society will let one withdraw from a marriage?

What are the relevant circumstances? Children, length of the relationship, previous good faith attempts to improve the relationship?

How comfortable are we as a society in making marriage an institution?

By institution I mean a solemn undertaking which has genuine benefits but is also difficult to get out of. Are we happy to say to people - stable relationships are good for society so if you are prepared to enter a state sponsored stable relationship you will get benefits, e.g. tangible tax breaks, intangible social status, administrative ease but you should expect society to require you to make it work and that might be unpleasant at times? Or do we treat marriage as largely symbolic and therefore something that ought to be easy to enter and easy to leave?

If we favour collectively supporting stable relationships is making divorce difficult actually helpful from a utilitarian point of view?

(I don't know.)

(Also, I appreciate that questions of this nature might not be of mere intellectual curiousity to you right just now.)
It lots of America just hating the person isn't enough for a divorce. You have to either spend two years not living together or be able to prove they haven't had sex with you for a year (which is very hard to prove in court) or else have grounds.

I had to wait two years. I tried arguing that since I was dating other people I was clearly committing adultery, but they said that was fine while we were "seperated" i.e. not living together.
It's one thing to call Tony Blair "arrogant and undemocratic," but it doesn't look so straightforward when the charge is coming from IDS.
It is a very disconcerting feeling to be so completely in agreement with anything Tony Blair says.