Just Divorce?
In Search of Clarity and Justice In Family Law
Crowd Funding Appeal
Themis – The Greek Goddess of Legality, Justice and Human Relationships
The goddess Themis was the second wife of Zeus and the representative of divine legality and justice which applies to every human circumstance. She was responsible for maintaining and scrutinising rights in human relations, between man and woman, the basis of the properly ordered family and society. She was also the protector of all institutions and especially of hospitality and of justice, punishing those that infringed their duties. The scale in her right hand represents justice. The chain and sword in her left hand symbolise the strict application of justice
“Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable… Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.”
Summary: This is my request for your financial assistance and support in my twin applications at the High Court for clarity and justice in the family law system.
My first High Court case seeks a declaration that aspects of the divorce and financial (spousal) settlement laws breach several of our collective Human Rights and also undermine a number of our Common Law rights. (My action does not touch on child maintenance. That is a separate issue in law and in fact).
My second application seeks to ensure that The Lord Chancellor, The Lord Chief Justice and the Ministry for Justice perform their constitutional duty to ensure that the Family Law Courts abide by laws passed by parliament. All public officials from the Prime Minister down are obliged to act within the law. All judges are public officers.
The divorce system must protect those who need to escape abusive and controlling behaviour.
We need to fight for a just divorce system that as well as providing a safety valve makes provision for services that give people time, space and support to reconcile their differences where that is possible or desired by one side.
Due to illegal manipulation and abuse of the divorce and financial settlement laws by the Family Courts and by the legal profession, there is more protection in law for employees and for tenants than there is for the recipient of a divorce petition who wishes to save his or her marriage.
Surveys by The Newcastle Centre For Family Studies and by Gwynn Davis and Mervyn Murch have established that in nearly 50% of divorce applications either one or both parties did not want a divorce1.
A former Lord Chancellor has made a statement to parliament affirming the results of those surveys. He acknowledged that initiating divorce proceedings is often a cry for help.2 Where is that help?3
Despite that promise for help, the recent passing into law of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill – June 2020 has made the situation even worse. What little protection there had been for the reluctant 50% has been swept away.
We must challenge this unfair and unjust law that tears up sections 39 and 40 of The Magna Carta. A law that ushers in Unilateral Divorce on Demand. A law that renders the marriage vows as totally irrelevant and meaningless.
A revised divorce law should prevent people being needlessly sucked into the machinery of divorce and into the grasp of an avaricious legal profession as happens now.
We need to fight for a just financial settlement system that is not a life sentence for one side and a meal ticket for life for the other side. Scotland has manged to do this quite satisfactorily. Why can’t we south of the border do the same?
We need a combined divorce and financial settlement system that truly respects The Rule of Law and Human Rights. Justice and the preservation of dignity for all those unfortunate enough to become acquainted with the divorce process must be the guiding principle of any updated divorce and financial settlement law. Currently, financial settlement details are frequently made available on the internet by the Family Court for all to see.
We are entitled to a judiciary that is true to the Judicial oath of office. An oath that is supposed to guarantee impartiality and fairness for all.
We are entitled to impartiality in Family Courts. We should not be exposed to an institutional mind-set that is opposed to the concept of defended divorce as a starting position, because that is not justice.
Our constitution requires that laws passed by parliament are plainly stated and clearly defined so that each and every one of us knows where their rights and responsibilities in family life start and end. The current law of divorce and financial settlement is vague and nebulous in several areas.
We need to fight for a just Family Court System that abides by the letter and the spirit of laws passed by parliament. A judiciary that itself abides by the Rule of Law and is accountable to parliament.
We need to put a break on precious family recourses being hoovered up by the legal profession to the detriment of all family members especially the children and grandchildren of the marriage.
We also need to robustly tackle the scourge of Parental Alienation.
Divorce and Parental Alienation can and does affect people from all walks of life, all social classes, all colours, creeds and religions. The twin scourge takes place in all age groups. These two campaigns are for EVERYBODY who has suffered.
I have a dream that together we can devise a system that truly protects and supports marriage, but that also provides a safety valve where necessary.
I have a dream that together we can reduce the number of marriages ending in divorce and reduce the additional conflict caused by the divorce process itself.
I have a dream that together we can provide support to reduce those destructive emotions that lead to Parental Alienation.
I have a dream that we can travel together to a society where justice in family law is plainly defined and can be clearly explained to all those involved.
I have a dream that we can travel together to a society where justice in family law is administered with impartiality and with accountability.
“Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.”
My dream is for Everybody from all walks of life, all social classes, all colours, creeds and religions. anybody who has ever suffered.
I have a dream that together we can reach that promised land.
“Take the first step in faith. You don’t have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.”
With thanks to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
All extracts and quotes that I have referenced are in the public domain and are taken from government commissioned research documents and reports, independent studies on divorce and financial settlement. Also, there are quotes from court cases and judges, legal representative bodies and parliamentary debates.
Be sure to read the article “Divorce lawyers are greedy, malevolent and second rate” by an anonymous divorce lawyer as published in the Mail on Sunday on 20th June1999.
Charles Ayeh-Kumi – July 2020
| Footnote Title | Footnote Description |
|---|---|
| 1in nearly 50% of divorce applications either one or both parties did not want a divorce | Gwynn Davis and Mervyn Murch - Grounds for Divorce - Clarendon Press, Oxford 1988 Our own research also suggests that there is a potential for reconciliation in a significant number of divorce cases. Even in the course of the Special Procedure survey (from which initially defended cases were excluded) 39 per cent of respondents and 23 per cent of petitioners claimed that they would have preferred to remain married to their former partner. In at least 50 per cent of these cases it appeared that the marriage breakdown reflected the will of only one party. Given that our interviews usually took place some months after the award of the decree nisi—and in some cases, several years after the initial separation - it is likely that the number wishing to continue with their marriage had, at the outset of proceedings, been even greater. A quote from the Newcastle Centre for Family Studies in 2004 confirmed the Davis and Murch findings:- “….17 per cent of those who actually initiated divorce proceedings did not want a divorce, and a further 21 per cent were uncertain. As we have noted in previous chapters, some people felt that they had no option but to get a divorce given the circumstances in which they found themselves. Almost four in ten (38%) of those people whose partner had made an application for divorce indicated that divorce was what they wanted, but a third indicated that they did not wish to divorce.” |
| 2initiating divorce proceedings is often a cry for help. | In the government white paper "Looking to the Future, Mediation and the ground for divorce" - presented to Parliament in 1995 by Lord Mackay of Clashfern the then Lord Chancellor stated ......... "2.15 The Government believes that at least some divorce petitions, possibly many, represent a ’cry for help’, which may not reflect a seriously thought out decision to end the marriage. It is important that the process that follows the divorce petition allows the parties to consider properly whether the marriage has genuinely broken down. Many believe that the current system provides no such opportunities, or indeed that it actively discourages such consideration." |
| 3Where is that help? | Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in the government white paper "Looking to the Future, Mediation and the ground for divorce" - presented to Parliament in 1995 stated ......... ….I consider we have a heavy responsibility to ensure that our law recognises the importance of the institution of marriage and also to ensure that it does not impose unnecessary damage on the personal relationships with which it deals… 1.9 The Government is committed to supporting the institution of marriage, and to protecting family life. Nevertheless, however desirable it might be for marriages generally not to be dissolved, some do break down, and, as was stated in the Consultation Paper, the Government is limited in its ability to ensure the survival of marriages, and to influence individual family relationships. The law and procedures for divorce, however, can and do have a major impact on the way people approach divorce, on the way divorces themselves are conducted, and consequently on the way divorce affects those involved. |