“With ever increasing media interest in celebrity break-ups and divorces, one could be forgiven for thinking that every separation involves raking through the history of the marriage for every unpleasant detail.” remarks Emma Hamilton Cole, Partner with Coles Miller Solicitors of Poole, Bournemouth and Broadstone. “Divorce through the eyes of the media is often presented as a battle between competing views of what went wrong and ‘who’s to blame but it doesn’t necessarily have to be the case.”

Divorce petitions in England and Wales are all based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, and supported by one of five ‘facts’ specified by law which include the best known ‘adultery’ and ‘unreasonable behaviour’ grounds. These petitions do not necessarily have to go into every last detail of the history of the marriage. A petition based on the unreasonable behaviour of the other party should by and large include sufficient details to satisfy the Court that the marriage has indeed broken down irretrievably, but otherwise need not say all that could be said. “The advantages are obvious, “ explains Mrs Hamilton Cole “a petition which is less likely to be defended results in a smoother procedure all round. The details can where appropriate be agreed between the parties before the petition is issued. The fact of the matter is that with almost half of marriages ending in divorce, many couples see the benefit of remaining on speaking terms for the benefit of any children, and in the interests of proceedings involving less stress and generally also less time and costs. The advantages of proceeding in this way are most clear when contrasted with, for example, the bitter wranglings of the Mills –McCartney divorce played out in the press. One can only wonder at the additional stress and anxiety this has caused families of the parties which might have been otherwise minimised or avoided.”

Best practice amongst family lawyers requires consideration of the agreement of terms of the petition before issue and also omitting reference to any third party in divorce petitions based on adultery. Although the naming of a third party is still possible, and does still take place, it is generally recognised as mainly unnecessary and can simply serve to inflame the situation. In turn this can lead to a breakdown in communications making children and money matters harder to resolve as well as longer proceedings.

It is perhaps therefore not surprising to learn that the Government is presently considering changing the law surrounding divorce. It is thought that the move would remove the possibility of naming the third party in adultery proceedings, and is generally welcomed by family lawyers as a way of cutting down acrimony in these cases. How this might be achieved remains a matter of debate and the issue of a wholesale review of the laws covering divorce may result.

If you would like any further information on divorce or family law please contact Emma Hamilton Cole on 01202 694891 or email ehamiltoncole@coles-miller.co.uk