Obtaining a divorce is now easier than getting a driving licence, a
senior judge said. Sir Paul Coleridge said a cultural revolution has
made it possible to end a marriage quickly with a basic form-filling
exercise. He added that the stigma attached to divorce in the past had
also disappeared.
The judge – who presided over the bitterly
fought divorce of Sir Paul and Heather McCartney – blamed 50 years of
relationship free-for-all for the spread of divorce on demand. He said
the result was that 3.8million children were now left at the mercy of
the courts because of the break-up of their parents.
The judge,
who sits in the High Court Family Division as Mr Justice Coleridge, has
called repeatedly for legal reforms to clear up the mess left by the
decline of marriage. He has blamed youth crime, child abuse, drug
addiction, binge drinking, truanting and bad behaviour in schools on the
'meltdown' of the family. And he has called for the Government to set
up an independent commission to reform marriage, divorce and family
laws.
Yesterday he described the problem of family breakdown as
'huge' and condemned the ease of divorce in an interview on BBC Radio
Five Live. 'Divorce is easy in the sense that obtaining a divorce is
easier than getting a driving licence,' he said. 'It's a form-filling
exercise and you'll get your divorce in six weeks if everyone agrees.'
He added that the stigma attached to divorce in the past has also
disappeared. 'In about 1950 you weren't allowed in the royal enclosure
at Ascot if you were divorced,' Sir Paul said. That now would exclude
half the Royal Family.'
The judge said there was no sign that the
misery of large numbers of children hit by family break-up was
diminishing. 'In fact, every indication is it's going up,' Sir Paul
said. 'The whole of society is affected by this,' he told interviewer
Victoria Derbyshire. 'Everyone in the land, from the Royal Family
downwards, is now affected by family breakdown. 'It affects the lives
of children themselves, it affects the lives of their parents. The wider
family gets caught up in it. 'It then ripples out to the local
community, the schools and then into the wider community.'
On the
day official figures showed that nearly half of all babies are now born
to unmarried mothers, Sir Paul blamed family break-up on social changes
including the shift in attitudes towards cohabitation and increasing
numbers of children born outside marriage. He said that 50 years ago 'on
the whole cohabitation was regarded as something you didn't do, to have
a child outside marriage, so that created a framework that stopped very
much breakdown. 'We've had a cultural revolution in sexual morality and
sexual behaviour,' the judge said. 'We need to have a reasonable debate
about it and decide what needs to be done – and I don't mean
Government,' he said. 'They didn't cause the problem.'
He added
that the change in social attitudes over the past five decades had given
people 'complete freedom of choice'. This was 'great' when they behaved
responsibly, he added, but some seemed to think it was a
'free-for-all'. Sir Paul said the rate of family breakdown among
unmarried couples was far higher than among married ones. It was
statistically proven parents were far more likely to stay together until
their children's 16th birthday if they were married, he said. Official
figures suggest that an average marriage lasts around 11 years, but a
cohabitation is likely to break up in three if the partners do not
marry.
Divorce levels are currently falling, and in 2009 the
113,949 divorces were the lowest total for 35 years. However divorce
boomed following the liberal 1969 divorce reforms which ushered in the
current era of 'quickie' divorces that can be arranged cheaply in less
than six months. The number of divorces shot up in the early 1970s and
peaked at over 180,000 in 1993. Since then the decline in divorce is
widely thought to be connected to the decline in numbers of marriages –
and the likelihood that couples who choose to get married now are more
committed to each other than some counterparts in the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment