Dr Michael Arnheim reflects on the need for principled but flexible divorce reform
It is always gratifying to know that one’s writings are actually being read, and constructive criticism is welcome. So I was pleased to read in the response by Graeme Fraser (GF) to my original NLJ article that I “make some important points”—not least in noting the problems of what I describe as “yo-yo cases”. And GF adds: “I agree that more certainty and predictability would be desirable, and gender equality is obviously a laudable goal.” (See ‘Divorce reform: time to recognise gender equality?’ Dr Michael Arnheim, NLJ 21 February 2020, p11; ‘The search for equality in divorce reform,’ Graeme Fraser, NLJ 13 March 2020, p9.)
The current law does not require fault: Lady Hale
However, GF then launches into a lengthy defence of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill currently going through Parliament, which I described as missing the mark because it does not deal with the real problem in divorce,
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
