Woman's Hour - Woman's Hour Phone-In: No-Fault Divorce

Episode Date: April 6, 2022

The biggest reform of divorce law for 50 years comes into force today. As ‘no-fault divorce' comes into practice Woman's Hour are opening our phone lines to listen to what YOU have to say on the changes. We want to hear your experiences of ending your marriage and what difference you think these new measures will make? Would this change have made your divorce more amicable? Have you postponed getting divorced waiting for this reform to come into force and have already booked an appointment at the solicitors? Or are you considering divorce and this conversation has made it feel a bit less daunting? Join our phone-in today.You can call us on 03700 100 444.The lines will open at 8am.Presenter: Emma Barnett Producer: Kirsty StarkeyInterviewed Guest: Helen Marriott

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Natalia Melman-Petrozzella, and from the BBC, this is Extreme Peak Danger. The most beautiful mountain in the world. If you die on the mountain, you stay on the mountain. This is the story of what happened when 11 climbers died on one of the world's deadliest mountains, K2, and of the risks we'll take to feel truly alive. If I tell all the details, you won't believe it anymore. Extreme, peak danger. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, I'm Emma Barnett and welcome to Woman's Hour from BBC Radio 4. Good morning, welcome to the programme. And a historic day in England and Wales in terms of divorce and how people end their marriages. The biggest reform of divorce law for 50 years comes into force today, changing a law that actually dates back to Henry VIII. But let's not dwell on that.

No-fault divorce will change how couples split. From today, no longer will they have to separate for at least two years, increasing to five if one party doesn't consent, or blame one another to legally end their marriage, alleging adultery, unreasonable behaviour, or that desertion has taken place. Often people refer to this as a kind of blame game and even the most amicable splits can end in an acrimonious divorce. Now from today, couples, both marriages, civil partnerships

will be able to apply jointly if they like and they only now have to state that their marriage has broken down irretrievably. The updated legislation aims to make separation less hostile for all parties involved, especially children. But will it work? And does it go far enough? Would this change if you cast your mind back to your divorce? Perhaps it wasn't that long ago. Maybe it was many years ago. Would it have helped you? Would it have helped your family?

Would not having to put the blame on your partner perhaps helped you co-parent together? Maybe you've been waiting for this moment call. If you haven't and you've just joined us, please do so. We're very friendly. 03700 100 444 is the number you need. 03700 100 444. That is the number you need to call, to talk to me, to talk to all of our listeners, to have this conversation on this historic day in England and Wales. We'll get to what's happening around the rest of the country, rest of the UK, I should say, shortly. But you can also text me here at

Woman's Hour, as you always can every day, 84844. Text will be charged to your standard message rate. Do check for costs. On social media, we're at BBC Woman's Hour. Or if you'd like email, many of you do like that. I've already got a very good email in front of me here that I'll go through and get to very shortly. You can email me your views on this via the Woman's Hour website. But if you would like to come on, or at least have that option open to you, if you could put your telephone number on the email, that would be brilliant. Thank you for that. That's a bit of housekeeping. And I'm looking forward to talking to you and to as many of you as possible. But I also just want to say at this point, before I speak to the woman I have on hand

throughout the programme, our expert, as it were, I recognise that it's not an easy discussion for a lot of people. We are talking about the end of a union that you had probably hoped would never come to an end. Of course, there are other scenarios. I can't catch all of them. But if you don't want to give your real name,

you don't have to. And I really do appreciate you taking't want to give your real name, you don't have to. And I really do appreciate you taking the time to get in touch today because divorce is not easy for anyone involved. And it's a very emotional and heartbreaking subject to say. So, you know, it's a lot of news today. You'll hear it in the news bulletins, no fault divorce is in, but it's not a happy thing. It's just what needs to happen in many scenarios. In fact, if I was looking at the figures just before I came on air, in 2020, there were 103,592 divorces granted in England and Wales. That's actually a decrease of four and a half percent compared with 2019. But of course, there's been a pandemic and there'll be all sorts of other elements of that. And maybe some of those

looking to divorce, if they were, changed their minds looking to divorce if they were changed their minds and also maybe they were waiting for this day so the lines are open 03700 100 444 that's the number you need but the legal expert and lawyer Helen Marriott is here she's head of family law for the leading firm Brabner's based in Liverpool has worked in family law for almost three decades I'm told Helen Helen, good morning. Good morning. What's it like for a divorce lawyer on the day of no-fault divorces coming in in England and Wales? I have to say this is a momentous day.

I'm thrilled in terms of the impact that this will have because the focus will be on moving forward more quickly to looking at a resolution of things that actually matter. So it's a fabulous day. And why do you think this matters to change, I suppose, how some people have put it, the culture of divorce? Well, effectively, we are moving away from the blame game, which actually was always a tangent and could sometimes be an explosive tangent, unfortunately, that didn't actually have any bearing on how we may resolve a financial situation or indeed how we may co-parent children. So it was a sort of a distraction, really,

or a hoop to jump through. Have you seen people have to invent a reason, if you like, invent blame? Yes, I would always be very careful as a lawyer. Of course you would. Clearly people sign statements of truth. But yes, I can see that, and there have been lots of comments about this, that effectively people have got together, husbands and wives, and actually drafted out fairly anodyne petitions. And, you know, maybe I've not asked the question, are you sure that is true? But I'm sure that there has been that element of sort of collusion,

if you like, in the past. One of the other elements of this is, of course, the speed with which things can happen now and and could you just explain that to us before we start hearing from some of our listeners yes the under the new law um then effectively people can lodge the statement that they wish to divorce it's now called an application and then effectively there is a period a wait of 20 weeks before the conditional order, which replaces the decree NICI, can be applied for. It has been a bit of a lottery, I think I would say, in terms of how quickly the process may actually take, even using the old law. But in theory, this is much more streamlined. And the major point is that people can issue without having to have been separated for two years or potentially five years. So that's really the timescale difference, which is of importance.

Can you contest a divorce anymore under this? Effectively, no, you can't. You can't defend the divorce. There may be certain disputes, but they're very technical if there's an issue as to whether the court here has the power to deal with a divorce. You know, say somebody doesn't live in this jurisdiction, for example, something like that. So yes, the actual fault or the ability to defend a petition on the basis of disputing those allegations, for example, has gone. We have an email here that has a question in it that I wanted to put to you, Helen. The email says, no fault divorce seems fraught with problems. Firstly, because no fault

divorce cannot be right or appropriate for everybody when in some cases there is a clear fault and the guilty party should surely be held accountable. No fault divorce could so easily end up being an escape route for those who've behaved very badly in a marriage but would like to whitewash their wrongdoings and responsibility for its failure. Where there has been unreasonable behaviour or emotional or physical abuse, repeated infidelity or abandonment, surely isn't it psychologically or morally healthy for the innocent party to agree to take part in a no fault divorce? It isn't all those things. It shouldn't be the case for the innocent party to take part in this. What would you say to that?

Yes, I can have sympathy with that view. But the position is that this is a court of law that we are dealing with. It's not a court of morals. And effectively, the reason for the breakdown, and it's not to decry at all the very horrible, very serious issues that can happen. And no one is saying, oh, this is a sort of a great victory. Divorce happens, it's painful and it can be horrible. But the thought process is that it's less damaging to have to look back and cite those examples within a divorce application. It doesn't actually have a bearing on how other aspects of the

separation are resolved. Although, and I'm sure we'll get to this a bit later in the programme, I don't want to start with this if I can, but the money side of things perhaps is also an area where that element could still come out. Is that right? Absolutely right. The changes to the law today are purely in connection with the divorce process and what you have to establish.

And to that person, I suppose, what you're saying there, in effect, is your justice, as it were, about who did what wrong in a divorce doesn't now come from the process itself. It will need to come from somewhere else, perhaps how you experience, your family, your friends are likely to know what the situation is. But the whole idea of family law and family justice is really to think about the future and moving on and resolution rather than, you know, looking backwards. Cheeky question for me. I'm sure you'd expect no less. are you going to earn less money after today Helen as a divorce lawyer? No that doesn't double most of my mind at all. No of course not billable hours are quite important to lawyers my legal friends tell me. Well exactly but this is how it should be in terms of the focus. I'm afraid if people still want to argue, they will. And we will argue about things, but in a different sort of application at court, I'm sure.

Indeed. Well, let's go to some of our listeners who've been kind enough to get in touch. Louise, good morning, calling from East Yorkshire, I believe. What would you like to say about this? Hello. I just wanted to say that I got a divorce 25 years ago and a friend who worked for solicitors told me that I didn't need a solicitor because it was very friendly. We agreed. It was terrible having to put blame.

It would have been lovely to have had no fault divorce. But I actually filled the forms in just for a little bit of help from her. I could have probably done it myself. I think it cost me £150. I mean, it was painful enough having to do it, but I didn't have to spend thousands of pounds on a solicitor because we just agreed to split everything 50-50.

There were no children involved. There were no money arguments. We just agreed and did it ourselves. Which I think, you know, especially when there are no children involved and you are able to agree, is the ideal way in many ways. And it's important to make that point about money. But from your perspective, the change today would have been welcome. Oh, yes, absolutely. I just think it's important that people know you don't necessarily need a solicitor.

If you agree, which obviously no fault divorce, presumably people are quite in agreement about splitting, that that might save them a lot of money because it's expensive anyway, when you move from living together to moving, you know, to living separately. Yes. That involves a lot of expense without the solicitor on top. Indeed. But coming away just from that point, if I can, did you find yourself then having to search for a reason for the fault? How did you come up with what you were going to say? Yeah, I did actually tell my husband what I was going to write. I mean, I felt it was valid, but I would have rather not had to write it. And I maybe had

to write it in language that I wasn't comfortable with. And I suppose that's at the heart of this change, which is what's been reflected. Louise, lovely to talk to you. Thank you for coming on the programme this morning. And I was just going to bring up at this point, let's not forget Teenie Owens, the woman whose case sparked today's change in divorce law in England and Wales. You may remember she wanted to divorce her husband, Hugh, but he wanted to stay married. She'd sought a divorce on the grounds that she was unhappy and her husband had behaved in such a way she couldn't reasonably be expected to live with him and he denied that, refused the split. The case was heard by the Supreme Court in 2018, the first defended divorce to be heard there, but the court denied her appeal and ruled that she had to stay married to Hugh until 20, 25 years after she moved out of their marital home.

Helen Marriott, the lawyer who's with us throughout today's programme, and I just thought I'd bring this up, Helen, because Teenie has released a statement. She doesn't do interviews, but she says, this is an important milestone in family law. For all those who wish to seek an amicable solution to the breakdown of their marriage,

no one should have to stay in a loveless marriage or endure a long, drawn-out and expensive court battle to end it. The change in the law guards against that happening and I welcome it. Helen, I'll come back to you in just a moment. I'm just going to go to Savannah, who's on the line. Good morning, Savannah. Hello, how are you? I'm all right. All the better for talking to you.

What did you want to say about this? Well, yeah, we got divorced in 2019 after trying to make our marriage work for seven years and we came to a very um amicable realization that we just would be better off not being married we have three children together and we didn't want to put them through a big acrimonious divorce and fighting over this and that and we literally sat down with one another, decided what we thought was fair and reasonable with the division of our assets and did it online.

And we made it all up. We literally wrote a completely falsified divorce claim, which I probably shouldn't admit to. It's fine. No one's listening. I'm joking. There's quite a few people listening. Blaming one another and having to really elaborate the language to be taken seriously, because that's the reality. As you've just explained, you know, unless you've really declared that your partner's been unreasonable in a very kind of serious way, you can't actually go down that road. So we falsified the whole thing

what was your reason do you want to say or do you not want to say um we'd been together since we were very young i was 23 when we 22 even when we met and we just grew up and grew apart from one another and we found that by staying married we were pushing each other to the outside edges of ourselves and becoming the worst versions of ourselves, which was not what we wanted our children to see. And we didn't want our children to believe that this was love because and this was what marriage was. And how do you put that into the fault element? What did you write for that part? We didn't. We made it up. We put a false claim. What was the false?

One of us had been unfaithful because there were three reasons you could get divorced in the past. One was to do with infidelity. One was unreasonable behaviour. And I can't remember what the third one was. Yes, we've just been through this. And I think that speaks to the issue, Savannah, that lots of people have been making it up or putting things down. And then that is on a piece of paper. And that is to do with the record of what happened to you and in your family. And as you say, not true. Savannah, lovely to talk to you. Thank you very much for getting in touch. We're also getting many messages as well and emails. There's a message here saying on the email, I'm afraid that my very recent experience, there is no such thing with regards to no fault. A lack of blame would have been possible and definitely my choice, despite my ex-husband's infidelity.

But the finances screwed it all up. I am and have always been by far the greater earner. The same man that had had a long term affair with his colleague refused to discuss a settlement, just went for the maximum via his aggressive family lawyer. Sorry, this has been my experience and I really hope for some it might be better news. I want to come to that money in just a moment, but Helen Marriott, the lawyer, is with us throughout the programme. Are we going to have a spike of divorces,

do you think, because of today? I think people have been waiting to take advantage of the no-fault system. So we might see an initial spike, but less people are getting married in the first place. I think that the numbers are actually declining. So I don't think that we will see more people flocking to get divorced as a result of this. Okay, well, it will be an interesting thing to see because, of course, we've also got concerns around the backlog because of COVID in

courts as well. And it's been reported that rewriting the software for online divorce applications, it took HM Courts and Tribunals Service 22 months. We'll see if that actually works because you could be doing this today and it doesn't. And then there's another element to that. And just a word, if you can, Helen, I'm aware for our listeners in Scotland

and also in Northern Ireland, no changes with Northern Ireland at the same time as this? That Northern Ireland. No changes with Northern Ireland at the same time as this? That's right. No changes with Northern Ireland and their system is very much as our old system was, the fault-based elements as well as separation. Scotland, I mean, we've talked about Scotland previously. In 2006, the law changed in scotland and effectively the separation um facts were shortened and so effectively the position in scotland is that a divorce could be issued um after one year um if both parties agreed and after two years where the one party didn't agree. So effectively, very much shortening the separation periods. And approximately now, I understand 90% of divorces in Scotland, and therefore follow

those no fault basis. So you know, it is facts have shown that people have taken that up. Yes, well, but there have also been concerns as well around there not being enough time with this scenario to perhaps think again and have counselling and all that side of things, which again may be reflected in some of our messages and some of our callers today. Let's go to someone else who's on the line who we're calling. Jane, good morning.

Good morning. What do you want to say about this with your experience? I'm so sorry, I just lost you for a second. I was just going to say, what would you like to say today about your own experience and how that feeds into this? Oh, sure. Well, I'm really pleased that this reform is happening, but I don't think it goes far enough at all. And I took the point, I was listening yesterday to David Gork interview and he said oh we went for this because we had consensus and we might have lost it if we'd gone down the financial settlement route but in my experience that was the real problem it wasn't a question of

issuing blame it was the fact that it took two years to reach a settlement which was very expensive and very stressful and we we could, in the end, we arrived more or less to what we started with, except that the difference went to the lawyers, which was silly and sort of leaves a little bit of a bitter taste in the mouth. And I think that there should be a reform where there is a fixed term to the negotiation before going to court so that everybody knows where they are and that if within six months you haven't reached an agreement, then the court will decide for you. And I think that will focus the minds. How was that emotionally, the toll of that going on and on?

Well, it was hard because, you know, in our case, it all started fairly amicable. We decided that we really didn't want to be married to each other. And we worked together for a very long time. We had a company that was 50-50. But all of a sudden, things changed. And, you know, a case was made for the fact that my contribution to the business was not what it really was. And that's another thing that should be reformed. There should be really strict penalties for both the people involved and their lawyers for making false claims in documents.

Because in my case, you know, I read some work of fiction sometimes during the negotiations. And even though we agreed to do an FDR, a sort of judicial mediation process, you hire a private judge to sort of adjudicate between the two. You have to, the two parties have to disclose to each other what you will present to the judge. And you have a chance to make a comment on it. But then that doesn't oblige the other party to make corrections. So a judge is only deciding on the evidence provided, but whether it's true or false, there is nothing to say.

Oh, that's extraordinary as well in itself. And do you have any idea how much you ended up spending on lawyers? Oh, hundreds of thousands. Really? Yes. It was ridiculous. And I find that immoral, really. Thank you for getting in touch with the programme today. Helen, a good point to come to a lawyer. A couple of points to address there. One, not least about lawyers' conducts and telling the truth. Do you want to just come to that first before we get to the bigger reform? solicitors aren't being honest or, you know, manufacturing situations. So clearly, I don't know the specifics of that case, but there are clearly sanctions, you know, in that scenario. And for this process that, you know, we've just heard about,

the law change today in England and Wales doesn't address any of that. Yes, the divorce process is entirely separate from the actual, you know, how you resolve finances, they're not linked at all. And so yes, today's changes only deal with divorce law, and they don't deal with providing more certainty with regard to financial settlements. And, you know, we have a discretionary based system in this country it's a checklist of factors and maybe it's trite to say but six different judges hearing the same set of facts make them up with six different answers none of which will be wrong so there is um you know that there is ripe um you know sort of opportunity there, I'm afraid, for dispute, litigation and cases progressing to court. So on that point, do you support reform of those laws?

Yes, I think that there could very well be, there needs to be more certainty. So for example, you know, in my practice, we do quite a few pre-nuptial agreements, post-nuptial agreements. That's a totally separate issue, but trying to provide some certainty and identifying principles in terms of different categories of assets. For example, one of the issues we have here in this country is income awards. They can be for life. Is that right? So there are calls to actually give more certainty to parameters to say, for example, well, there should be a maximum of five years

where one party may have to pay income support to the other party. Yes, so we need to have a flexible system because no one system is right for everybody. I fully understand that. But we could have more guidance. Do you think there should be a maximum it should cost in terms of legal fees? sometimes it is the people themselves. And it's very difficult. I have great sympathy there with Jane's predicament because it seems that she wanted to resolve matters, but maybe if the other party did not, then sometimes you can get embroiled in litigation,

even if that's the last thing that you actually want. And that can mean that some people make very significant concessions so as to reach an agreement and get out of the process. Have you seen it where individuals, where couples have been in litigation and there's no money left at the end because they've spent it all on the lawyers? I haven't actually seen that, but there have been many reported cases where the, unfortunately, the amount that's spent on legal fees is eye-watering and clearly judges are extremely concerned and very very critical of situations that get that you know get that far quite rightly. Well just to say if you're listening to this and you want to get

involved we are talking of course on a historic day in England and Wales with regards to divorce law. No fault divorces are alive from today. That is the reality. And if you want to have your say on it, if you want to bring anything to the table, whether historic or present, or perhaps you're going to do it right now or in the next few days, 03700 100 444. That's 03700 100 444 is the number that you need to call me here at Woman's Hour. And also you're listening to Helen Marriott, who is a lawyer and head of family law for her law firm, with a lot of experience of seeing these sorts of cases and how they play out. And we've just got, I believe we've got Claire on the line. Hello, Claire.

Hello. Good morning. Good morning. Lovely to have you with us. What do you want to say on this? Well, I was interested that you were saying that is it historical or present? And in fact, what happens in history carries through to the present. I was divorced in 1990 when my son was 18 months old. And I got married in secret those nine years earlier and didn't tell anyone for a year and it wasn't until I listened to the archers and heard that whole coercive control thing building with Rob that I realized that that's what I'd been at the center of was coercive control from a secret marriage and it's quite difficult to talk about 30 years later from a secret marriage to having

to go through a divorce that cost me a lot of money that I had to fight for I had no maintenance I had to fight for five pounds a week thankfully I was in a really senior position in work I could afford it just about um but it's so for me it a really sad, happy day because as well as being a business coach, I'm a part-time vicar. So I marry people and I marry them in church and they want to go on forever. And it's tragically sad when divorce happens. That's amazing though. It took you to realise retrospectively what had been going on in your marriage? Yeah, well, we didn't talk about coercive control openly. I'd never heard of it then. I don't think anyone knew about it until that Archer thing publicly. Well, it has only come into law very recently, which is also why it was in the ether.

And for those who aren't listening to The Archers, they will have heard about it perhaps in other discussions because it wasn't a phrase that we were using and it certainly wasn't in the law but i mean it's a sad happy day you say and and i mean just because you said about the i don't want to pry too much but you say about the marriage being secret you mean secret as in no one got no one knew you got married at the time yeah that's correct i kept it secret for a year okay and then and then you were openly and then i told people that i was married and it was a bit of a shock and it was yeah obviously um and it wasn't a good start to a marriage and it

was in a register office um and so i'd had nobody no no adult who would stand with me and say definitely you should claire are you sure about this yes and and for you now as someone who marries someone uh some people, sometimes, with your several roles, it seems to be that you have, how do you feel about, you know, the numbers of divorces, I suppose, as well, not just the context? Well, I think the numbers, I think, is really sad. I mean, less people are getting married, they're more living together. So the numbers, you can prove anything you want to with numbers. But the thing I focus on when I marry couples is how are you going to argue?

How do you do difficulty? Can we look through the pink fluff of a wedding that's going to cost you a ridiculous amount of money that doesn't need to cost that much? To how you're going to argue, how you're going to, your differences will be working together so that you can live each day well. And I focus on that when I do marriage preparation. That is important because I suppose the other part of this conversation today is also around that time that is still there. It's much shorter to perhaps rethink the move, which is not necessarily where a lot of people are at. We can see that from the evidence that they have that moment of reconsideration. To go for a divorce is a big decision a lot of the time.

And a lot of people found that very patronising and very infantilising and not right that there was this amount of time. But I suppose there will be some concerned that that time period has got shorter. Do you share any of those concerns? Yeah, I think that's why it's such a difficult, it's not a black and white issue because we're all individually created in God's image and we're all different and we all have different relationships. So there are principles that we can apply. And I think having time before you marry to think about it is really important. And I think wherever you get married, we should be challenged to think about it and is this the right thing?

So, for example, if somebody comes to me to be married tomorrow at my church and they've been divorced, I have a lot of questions to ask about what happened, how did it come to an end? You know, is this person a serial person who gets married and they're on their fifth wife or fifth husband? In which case, I would have to question whether they take marriage seriously and because it's not just a factual thing it's a spiritual thing and an emotional thing we have to tread really really carefully with those conversations indeed claire a very welcome voice within this thank you very much for getting in touch i'm told helen's on the line hello helen hello hi hi helen thank you very much for getting in touch i'm told helen's on the line hello helen hello hi hi helen thank you very much for for getting in touch i think you've been waiting a little while but what would you like to say on this um i i'm so i'm currently going through a

divorce um uh really fascinating points that have been made i do have had um a shame experience with the FDR, a lot of fiction and not being heard. And there seems to be, I think the court process is hostile. It is toxic. I've been made to feel like a criminal going through it rather than any kind of help. And I think the solicitors weaponized any discussion between partners, which i think is really sad um i i think i'm just going to say if i may at this point when you talk about an fdr it's a financial dispute resolution hearing for those who aren't uh familiar no no please don't apologize i i wanted to check myself sorry so do you carry on it's been a toxic toxic system for you to go through i think so i mean i i do agree that

a no-fault divorce in cases where there is no fault um where a couple have grown apart and that's in agreement i think it's a really really good thing and i think a lot of effort has obviously been put in to making that happen and i think to try and keep things amicable, I think is fantastic. But when you're going through, I had a case of adultery and a runaway husband who literally got up, left and never came back. I'm so sorry. Yeah, and it's tough. I can't begin to explain to you the pain and the fear and the worry and the anguish that the whole process puts on you.

And you're expected to just sit down and discuss your finances as if none of that has happened. And I suppose what I'd like to say is that if the courts can spend so much effort in creating this fast process for a no-fault divorce divorce can there not be some time put in to the person that is being betrayed and has been left to to heal because i went to such a dark place and my son saying where's dad we didn't know where he was he just went and I just I kind of just wanted to say

preferably without tears which I've failed don't worry this is why I try I don't know if you heard what I said right at the beginning I just wanted to be aware of how painful

this would be for so many to talk about and I'm really really grateful we all are for you talking to us and please do gather yourself or take a moment because this has been your life. It has since 2019.

On the 19th, he got up for an audition and left and never came back and by the September, he was on the phone saying the house had to go on the market and had to be sold and I wasn't ready. I was so raw. I was all over the place. And I just wish there was some law that was in place to say, if you have been at the butt of this, you're afforded some time to get over it.

Because it's like PTSD. I had sleepless nights. I had worry. I was going through menopause. The symptoms of that were exacerbated I was having oh it's just it was just awful and all the time I was putting one face to my son to make it all okay it's all right it's fine it's fine it's fine and you know trying to not put any badness towards him about his dad and what had happened, which of course is difficult. And he was making up his own mind on this.

But I understand the need to speed things and ease things for marriages that have not worked. I think that's admirable. And it's great that they've done that. But I think consideration needs to be afforded for those of us who, you know, speed is not the thing we need. It's healing thing we need.

It's healing that we need before we're expected to just, you know, for me throwing away the man I loved and gave my life to, to suddenly be landed with that and then told, you know, I'm a self-employed woman. I work from home. My studio space is at home. My storage space is at home. So I've been asking to try and get 5% more than this statutory 50-50 split that they champion

as being the resolution to all the problems. You can move on. It's fair, but it's not because my business is only, I can only achieve financial success if I don't have to pay for a studio space or storage space. So not only am I losing my home, my husband, my family, my financial security, I'm then being told I can't do my job. Or my job is going to be so impacted that I won't be able to work to the same degree. So if I may, Helen, essentially, I want to put some of those questions to Helen Murray here, with not necessarily even the specifics, but some of those bigger points that you're bringing up.

But it sounds like today is not actually a day with this law change that you welcome in many ways, because of the speed attached to it. Well, I think one of your callers said it doesn't go far enough. And I think that is the main reason, the main thing for me, is that, you know, to get it through, to get it past. And I think for those people whose marriage has naturally come to an end and they don't want to be together anymore, I think it's great. I think if you can separate without the animosity. The process I'm going through now is horrendous. It's so hostile. It's so toxic. And, you know, the ability for the solicitors to not lie, you and I would see it as a lie,

but they turn it as interpretation. So the loopholes that they've managed to conjure to get as much money for their client as possible seems to be the main thrust in all this rather than saying at the end of this, my barrister was lovely and he said at the end of this

you're going to have to try and piece things together so try and talk to each other you know this is you were a family. But Angus's other, his, sorry, my partner's team have been really aggressive, accusatory. I'm being made out to be the sort of criminal in this. And I think if that blame and hostility and toxic space can be avoided, I think that has to be, you know, that has to be championed.

It has to be a goal, I suppose, as part of the reformation of divorce law. Helen, I'm going to put some of this to Helen Marriott here with me on the programme as our lawyer and expert on this. And I am very grateful for you talking to us, though, this morning. Thank you very much for getting in. I wish you all the best there. Helen Marriott, a lot there to talk about. Essentially, though, the law doesn't go far enough, but there's also a concern there about the speed

with the law change that comes in. Two concerns. Yes, I think, I mean, a very difficult scenario, and I have every sympathy there for Helen in the circumstances that she finds herself in. And it's very, very difficult. I completely understand that when the other party and the other party's lawyers are maybe not acting, you know, sensibly, consensually. There is a better way of doing it um couple of legal points though i i think in terms of the divorce law is a totally separate process from the um type of

application and the methods of of of routes to actually resolve a financial situation even though we've talked about 20 weeks before a conditional order can be applied for, you don't have to apply straight away then at that particular point. And similarly, the six weeks after that, which is the time scale prior to applying now for a final order, there are many reasons why you would delay applying for that as well. So that's on the time front of things. Yes, exactly. But I think that it boils back, unfortunately, to several things there.

Obviously, what do you do when the other party that you've been married to for a long time, suddenly you can't recognise them? Of course, it's very painful, especially if there are children involved. But if they are, you know, they wish to be litigious, it's very difficult to do something, you know, to get yourself out of that situation because you want to resolve it. But there are lots of other ways of seeking to resolve matters, getting round the table, negotiating solicitors together, that kind of thing. And then that boils back to us and our responsibility as lawyers. Yeah, just on that point, I mean, when you litigate, does it always have to be toxic? Does it have to be personal? Does it have to be made to feel like that? No, not at all. And actually, the family justice system is it's all about compromise.

It's about negotiation. Now, you know, I won't talk about all of the various steps in terms of a financial application. We've talked about the financial dispute resolution hearing but that actually is without prejudice it is all done to try to facilitate an agreement and not by every law I mean that's the thing I'm not asking you to speak for every lawyer but you know when he talks about the regulation of lawyers but but we know we're hearing that it isn't always like that but that's not the tone that's not's not the type of conversations that are happening. And, you know, your lawyer becomes your voice and your lawyer is paid to win.

Well, I think your lawyer is there to actually reach a resolution. I don't think there are winners and losers. But I mean from the perspective of... I just meant you set your lawyer a task, you have a goal that you agree, and that's what you're trying to get to. And I suppose, do you think this moment of the law change in England and Wales, do you think it could remind some lawyers about the tone that is adopted? Do you think there could be some reform there?

Absolutely. I mean, we've not mentioned today Resolution so far, who have been campaigning for this change to the law. And Resolution is a membership organisation of family law professionals who are committed to trying to resolve family disputes in a non-confrontational manner. Now, the theme, sadly, of the ladies that we've been speaking to, maybe it's the case that their lawyers or the lawyers who are acting for the other party are not resolution accredited or trained or subscribed to that view. And that is horrifying as a family lawyer who has always taken it very personally and responsibly to try to get to a fair outcome.

Let's go to Corinne, who's in Wales. Good morning. Good morning. Hi. Where are you with this today? Do you welcome the no-fault divorce in England and Wales? Yeah, so a bit of background. I divorced in 2019, and I think having a no-fault, my solicitor said that it was coming, it could have led to a less acrimonious divorce. It was actually going relatively smoothly. Here in the previous list, I know the situation was very, very different from hers. We had had counselling for a few years.

We'd been trying to make it work. And then it came to a sort of mutual agreement that it was going to end. And things were relatively okay until I had to petition and I petitioned and said why I wanted the marriage to break down for unreasonable behavior and that led to a lot of hurt and hostility. The things I said weren't untrue and I could have said worse but I actively my solicitor helped me write things which weren't too difficult and it led to some back and forth with changing the wording and things like that, which just refreshed wounds that we had been trying to heal.

Because that's the thing, isn't it? Once you see something written down as well like that, it can, I imagine, come across as very accusatory. It did. And at that point, we had been able to have conversations and any personal conversations had to stop. And everything had to go to our solicitors at that point because he found it very, very difficult and very accusatory. He'd agreed that I would be the one who petitioned. We talked it through.

But the things I took to my solicitor, she said that they won't necessarily stand up in front of a judge. They'll probably question it. We need to add. Can you give me something a bit more? So that's what I do. If I may, Corinne, I was going to say, even just the language of this, I was to be the person who petitioned. I mean, I know that legalese, legal language is often, but it's just so archaic in many ways, the way, the structure of how this has been.

Yeah, it did feel like that. And it led, because we're co-parenting, and we're trying to come to a financial resolution, which is you know your expert has been saying it's totally separate um but it led to those things being more complicated and drawing in other members of the family who then had their opinions about things and it led to it all being yeah more bitter than it needed to be and it's only now uh two and a bit years later that we're back to being just you know we're good at parenting we're good at co-parenting there were things within our relationship which weren't um so now we can have decent conversations we've established a level of trust which was

eroded for a while gosh i'm so sorry about that but i'm happy to hear you're on a different footing with it now and is it right about, what happened with changing your name? Yes, this is quite a big thing. I took the family surname because that's what his father really, really wanted and I didn't have a strong opinion when we got married. Within a year, I didn't really like it and I wish I'd kept my maiden name. And it's only once we were talking about divorce

that I started looking into changing my name and found that when you're married, you have to seek your husband or wife i think husband or wife but definitely husband's permission to change your name um and at this point we weren't speaking so i didn't want to have to seek his permission to change my name he would probably have given it but things were so difficult you know we're trying to sort things out with our child which is way more important um yeah so if you want to change your name i don't know if it's still true but in 2019 it, you had to have your spouse's permission to change your name.

What I ended up doing was actually there's another way of doing it. Going through the depot route is quite expensive. I found some great advice online and filled out a form online. And actually you can do it without going through that long process and without needing to get any permission. However, it took me quite a lot of effort to find that. And I was really surprised that we still, you have to seek your spouse's permission to get any permission. However, it took me quite a lot of effort to find that, and I was really surprised that we still... You have to seek your spouse's permission to change your name, and that, I think, discriminates against women

because I only know one person in my network of people I know who changed their name to their wife's surname. So this disproportionately affects women. Well, we will come back to that name point in just a moment, but thank you for sharing your story this morning. It's very good to hear you're back, as I say, on that even footing a little bit more. But it's very interesting that having to ascribe Folt had put that back and put you in a difficult position, a very difficult position. Corinne, thank you. Helen, I feel like you were nodding and agreeing and shaking your head. You were shaking your head about the name.

Absolutely, yes. The name position, certainly you need permission or an agreement in terms of changing a child surname but in terms of um you know an adult's name then you know you you can call yourself whatever name you you you wish um i think what where i was i was nodding um was in connection with you know that's exactly the point sort of Corinne's experience there of the you know the the hurdle point in terms of we had to draft a petition you know the the nature of the language it was emotive all of that has gone thankfully because it's it's retrograde it was it you know that cause petitioning going backwards exactly petition it's no longer called a petition that's know, that caused... Petitioning. Going backwards. Exactly. Petition.

It's no longer called a petition. That's a very, as you say, an archaic name. Today, from today, we're calling them applications. I don't know if that's better or not, but, you know, there is a recognition that the language is unhelpful. And you can apply together now, which we should just say again, you know, rather than...

That is a new... That's really... I mean, could you even use the same lawyers? helpful and you can apply together now which we should just say again you know rather than you that's that's really i mean could you even use the same lawyers you could do there are some quirky rules there and as as lawyers we we have to be um aware of the potential for what we call a conflict of interest but but just i thought the idea of you being able to do it together it's not it's definitely not romantic but it's but there's something about it. You went into it together, coming out of it together. Exactly. And it's sensible, isn't it?

That's a better word. If you look over all of these points about it being a shock or one person issuing against the other, it creates a more level playing field, hopefully. We've only got about eight minutes left or so. So 03700 100 444 is the number you need to call me. And Dave has done that. Hello, Dave.

Hi, morning. Good morning. What do you want to say? Calling from North Yorkshire, I'm told. Yes, yes. So I got married in 82. My wife had, a week after we got got married it was her 21st birthday and we never had a family uh medical reasons but we have ended up with good jobs and then we retired uh from my 60th birthday. I'm 62.

And my wife fell over and broke both her hands. So COVID was already in lockdown. So I became a male nurse. We couldn't get away from each other. And it was just the trauma of being together, living together all that time. We're just too ready to fall apart. The trauma of being together, living together all that time,

we're just too ready to fall apart. And what's happened in terms of divorce or separation then? And I'm sorry to hear that. Yeah, I said I wanted a divorce, and then we got in an argument who was going to divorce who and we both ended up with solicitors and in the end we just fell out over who was going to blame who and then I turned around and said well I'm not going to divorce yet I'm going to wait until there's this no blame divorce comes through which has come through today. Right so are you are you one of those who has waited and now will proceed?

Yes, yes. She's using her solicitor to her no blame. The fact we've already done a financial settlement that's been signed off by a solicitor. Right. Just getting over it and getting the divorce through that. And do you think you'll be able to resume, if this is still possible, but do you think you'll be able to resume better relations, having this as a process?

Yes. I mean, when you've known each other 43 years in total, there's a lot of history. And, you know, you finish each other's sentences because you know each other that well. So no, we do speak regularly. But it sounds like the irony, the horrible irony, is you were arguing about who was going to blame who

when you were already wanting to split. Yes, yeah, yeah. Well, I wish you all the best with that. I wish her all the best and that the next stage of this is more positive because you have waited for today. And today is the day hence why we're having this discussion. Good to talk to you, with my husband 30 years. We had three children. I was a solicitor with considerable experience as a divorce practitioner. My husband did not like to work, preferring to be at home and creative, despite my attempts to encourage him to earn to help support us all. He was also disappointed with my sexual performance. As I was worn out with

the effort of it all, I was always just too tired and overwhelmed to do what was required in that department. He became dissatisfied with the marriage and wanted out and I was constantly barraged with the litany of my inadequacies. I'd had enough and I needed to get it over with. The fault divorce system presented us just two options to divorce on reasonable behaviour grounds or adultery. He did not want to be divorced by me for unreasonable behaviour and he did not want to divorce me. The only solution was for divorce on adultery. Neither of us had committed it. He suggested that I simply lodge a petition based on a fictitious adultery of his that hadn't happened. I absolutely refused to do

this. During a long career in the law and litigation, my integrity and professional duty of care to the court were very important to me. I was not going to lie to the court now just to suit his convenience. Well, the outcome, he had to go away and have sex with someone whilst I had to raise £220,000 of cash to pay him out of his share, half his share in everything we owned, leaving me with no spare cash, debts and children to educate. It was the ultimate humiliation, exploitation and misery. But it got it over with and was a decision I had to make. It was the ultimate humiliation, exploitation and misery. But it got it over with and was a decision I had to make. And that was 18 years ago and remains a scar in my memory. It was a right choice for me. Life really picked up for me after that initial down period. But as a divorce practitioner, having to put together a false petition so very, very often

really created a negative environment, which then tainted the atmosphere in which we then had to negotiate the arrangements for our children and the financial settlement. Helen, I thought you would have particularly want to perhaps say something to that, because right at the start, I said, did people make up the reason? And here's someone who didn't want to. Exactly. And, you know, it's just horrifying. These are just the all of the the issues here and the length of time that has gone by and and this still being a major issue i you know i can i can very well understand that and we must move away from it there is a better way of um dealing with a divorce a separation is bad enough without making it worse um by you know, having to prolong it or, you know, think about these kinds of issues.

So long overdue that we are where we are today. Rebecca, can I just give one of the final words to you, if I may, who's on the line? Good morning. Good morning. I believe you've got an element of this that we haven't yet really discussed with what you do. that are important, which is making arrangements for children and making the financial arrangements in, hopefully, in a more constructive way. So if people come to you, you think they would be in a better place now in England and Wales if they haven't had to blame each other? Yeah, I mean, I've seen that in mediation a lot,

that people have come saying they don't want to blame each other. And frequently people don't. But there wasn't really any other choice apart from having to wait for a period of time and now it means that people can come they can put that aside they know that they can go ahead with the divorce in a much more straightforward simple way and can focus on having discussions about the issues that really matter you know sorting out the finances and sorting out the arrangements for their children. What do you say to those who are concerned about there not being any time or enough thought today going into the saving of marriages? I think that when people come to,

when people decide that they're going to take that step to divorce, it is a very, very big step for most people. And a lot of people have gone through marriage counselling. It's not generally something that is taken lightly. I would say that's my experience to actually to go and consult with a family solicitor or to come to a family mediator is a very big thing. And I think this isn't going to change in the law. I don't think it's going to make any difference. It's going to make it easier for people to reach that decision. But I think that's still a very difficult decision to reach for most people. Rebecca, thank you very much for getting in touch.

And thank you to you, Helen, Helen Murray, who's been my aide throughout this time as a lawyer, as someone who's looked after or looked at a lot of this. And I suppose you would say try to look after people going through divorces at this time, head of family law for Bradner's, which is based in Liverpool. And I think, you know, what people are thinking about will differ, I suppose, Helen, based on their experience. Some people wondering why on earth it's taken this long, Helen. Absolutely. I think I would be one of those, to be honest. Absolutely. Seed change and very exciting exciting long overdue. Well we shall see how this plays out and also tomorrow they'll be on the

programme the first in a series of interviews where we explore the reality of life after divorce so do join me then and I'll leave you with this from one of our listeners on Twitter who says you don't need to get married in the first place in the 21st century I see there is zero reason to get married. Women can create and provide their own wealth. You don't need to get married in the first place. In the 21st century, I see there is zero reason to get married.

Women can create and provide their own wealth. You don't have to be married to raise a family. Marriage is just another patriarchal way that women are controlled by society. Well, I have to try and reflect all views coming in because that certainly hasn't come up on an issue or an issue based programme about divorce. But it is also there in the inbox. I try and listen. And you have been wonderful in getting in touch today. And as I said, right at the start, I know this is a very difficult topic, but thank you for helping me and the programme mark this historic day in England

and Wales. Back with you tomorrow at 10. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Thank you so much for your time. Join us again for the next one. There's a story about Vladimir Putin. When he was a teenager, he saw a film that he became obsessed by. He would watch it, all five hours of it, over and over again. And decades later, he'd say how important it was to the life he chose. It's called The Shield and the Sword, and it tells the story of a Soviet secret agent working at the highest level in the Nazi war machine.

The film prompted Putin to join the KGB. What amazed me, he'd say of the film, was how one man's efforts could achieve what whole armies could not. How one spy could decide the fate of thousands of people. This is the story of a spy who has the fate of tens of millions of people in his hands, told by the men and women who've observed his rise and rise, the Putin experts and the Russia watchers. It's the story of a man who's seen an empire fall and his nation humiliated

and who's torn up the global order, trying to restore past glory and avenge the slights of the past. I'm Johnny Diamond, and from BBC Radio 4, this is Putin the story of the man who's changing the world subscribe now on BBC Sounds I'm Sarah Treleaven and for over a year I've been working on one of the most complex stories I've ever covered

there was somebody out there who was faking pregnancies. I started, like, warning everybody. Every doula that I know. It was fake. No pregnancy. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth. How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this?

From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story. Settle in. Available now.