Even though this is the 21st century, if you want a divorce without a long wait, you can only get one on the grounds of adultery or unreasonable behaviour. I have blogged often on how the existence of an outdated fault-based system simply promotes further hostility and bitterness, all of which contributes to a dysfunctional society.
Every once in while I will be instructed by a client who has received divorce papers alleging not just that he or she has committed adultery, but also that the adultery was committed with a named third party – a Co-Respondent.
This is completely unnecessary in this day and age. All that is necessary is that the divorce petition states that the Respondent has committed adultery with a person whom the Petitioner does not wish to name and that he/she finds it intolerable. There is no need to drag a third party into it.
Some clients however insist that they want to name the Co-Respondent in the divorce. Perhaps understandably, the client may feel that justice can only be achieved if the other “guilty” party is named and shamed. A good solicitor will try to dissuade the client from doing that. There is no sensible reason to cite a Co-Respondent. All that it does is slow things down and add to the bill. The Co-Respondent has to be served with the divorce papers and may just ignore them, in which case the court may require them to be personally served. All of this detracts from the really important stuff about sorting out how the assets are divided, whether maintenance should be paid and what the arrangements if the children will be.
The Family Procedure Rules 2010 now also make it clear that this should not happen. The rules state that unless a divorce petition is going to be defended by the Respondent, a Co-Respondent should not be cited. This is a step forward – but it would be better if the government introduced a no-fault divorce system and gave couples a chance to avoid the bitter aftertaste of divorce.