Should i defend a divorce

If you choose to defend the divorce it then becomes a Contested Divorce. You and your partner will be asked to provide evidence for your case about whether the divorce should proceed. In most cases, the Court will allow the divorce to go ahead anyway.

We understand how emotional divorce can be, but once you come to terms with it you can move on much quicker. For advice on looking after your mental wellbeing when your marriage comes to an end, see How to Stay Emotionally Healthy through Divorce.

And the reason given for divorce does not affect how your assets and finances are divided. So no matter which of the five grounds for divorce your partner used, the outcome will still be the same.

Some of our Divorce Solicitors are also members of Resolution, which means they are experts at reducing conflict between you and your ex. To access this resource, sign up for a free trial of Practical Law. Free trial. Already registered?

Sign in to your account. Our Customer Support team are on hand 24 hours a day to help with queries:. This in itself can be clear evidence that the marriage has not irretrievably broken down. If you wish to state that the marriage has broken down but the facts being relied on are not true, then you must set this out in your Answer and consider whether you wish to cross petition or file your own petition. If your defence to the petition is that there is no jurisdiction of the Court, a typical answer would state.

For example, you can say, prior to the parties separation, both parties were habitually resident in put in an alternative country , the Respondent continues to reside at the former matrimonial home put foreign jurisdiction or you can state that both parties are domiciled in a foreign country. By way of alternative you can state, both parties are resident in a foreign jurisdiction as a result of either of your employment abroad. Further, it could be stated that the petitioning party has only lived in the jurisdiction for less than 6 months.

In all two you can start that they have their domicile here either by choice or of origin. In relation to unreasonable behaviour petitions, there was previously a test set out in a case known as Livington Stallard -v- Livington Stallard. In this, a Judge Dunn J stated.

This is because for unreasonable behaviour it is a subjective one. This test, however, has now been overridden by the case of Owens -v- Owens in which Mrs Owens was desperately seeking divorce from what she described as her controlling husband. The Supreme Court refused to give her a divorce on a defence being filed by the husband that his behaviour appeared to be similar to most husbands across the country.

Because an answer can simply deny the allegations, if an answer states that the Respondent denies that the allegation is true or that they ever took place, or that they have ever behaved in the manner alleged in the petition or at all. Sometimes in an Answer, a Respondent can accept that they might have acted in a certain way, but denies the allegations as set out, or that they have had the impact that has been alleged.

In most cases these kind of answers are those that are based upon the fact that the marriage has not irretrievably broken down. However, it is possible to state that the marriage has broken down, that the facts relied on are not true and that you wish the Court to consider that the Petitioner was in fact to blame for the breakdown of the marriage as a result of their adultery, behaviour etc. This would then result in cross decrees i.

If, of course, you are genuinely of the view that the allegations contained in the petition relating say, to unreasonable behaviour will have an impact on either your career, the outcome of the financial proceedings, or your children, then of course it is open for you to consider a full defence.

If at a Directions hearing which is the next step after an Answer has been filed, you are not able to agree the basis of the petition moving forward, then the matter could be listed for a hearing at which evidence will be called on both sides.

If you wish to fully defend an unreasonable behaviour petition, it may be necessary for you to call witnesses to confirm that allegations made where they relate to specific events that did not occur, or certainly did not occur in the way alleged.

In the absence of calling independent testimony, it will be a choice between what you as the Petitioner are stating, or you as the Respondent are alleging. Judges are not able to form decisions relating to facts and it will be very difficult to appeal against a fact finding decision of a Judge on a contested petition. It is rare that allegations of behaviour will impact on the financial side of matters, but the kind of allegations that might do so are that for example,.

Allegations in those set out above will impact on the financial or children side of matters and therefore are more likely to be defended. The respondent is at liberty to draft his Answer either in general terms on the basis that each and every allegation is denied, or by providing a full blow by blow response to each and every allegation. In divorce proceedings based on adultery, the onus is upon the petitioner to prove the allegation.

Whilst it is rare in practice to file an Answer in divorce proceedings based on the grounds of adultery, it is possible to do so if the adultery is denied. As might be expected, the most commonly defended petition is one of unreasonable behaviour. This is one reason why behaviour petitions should be drafted very carefully. Most unfortunately, some divorce petitions are drafted in a deliberately inflammatory way.

This practice is not in accordance with the Law Society Protocol, and is far from helpful to the parties at a time when they are often struggling to come to terms with the marital breakdown itself. It cannot be said enough times that arguing about who is going to divorce who or on what ground is almost always a complete waste of money. The main reason for this is that there is usually no tactical or financial advantage in making inflammatory allegations against the other party.