No Fault Divorce Analysis in England

1. Introduction

The implementation of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 in April 2022 marked a landmark reform of divorce law in England and Wales, ending the era of “fault-based” divorce after half a century[1]. Under the previous law, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, spouses seeking divorce had to attribute legal blame through adultery, unreasonable behaviour, etc. or endure years of separation to prove ‘irretrievable breakdown of the marriage’[2]. This often forced couples into ‘adversarial’ positions from the outset[3]. A notorious illustration was Owens v Owens [2018] UKSC 41, where the Supreme Court “reluctantly” denied a wife’s petition because her husband’s conduct did not meet the ‘stringent fault threshold’; leaving her trapped in a loveless marriage until five years’ of separation period elapsed[4] [5]. The Owens case provoked public outcry and intensified calls for no-fault divorce, highlighting how the old law exacerbated conflict and could even be coercively misused by refusing spouses[6].

Given the scenario, the 2020 Act introduced a “no-fault” divorce model, aiming to reduce unnecessary conflict and modernize family justice. This essay critically examines the impact of the no-fault divorce regime on divorce proceedings in England and Wales, focusing on its legal, emotional, and financial implications. It draws on statutory reforms, case law (notably Owens), scholarly commentary, and qualitative insights from practitioners and families. Key questions include whether no-fault divorce has streamlined the legal process and court workload, how it has affected the emotional experience of divorce for spouses and children, and what financial ramifications have emerged in practice. The analysis is divided in nine parts: first, an overview of the historical fault-based system; second, an explanation of the 2020 Act’s features; followed by discussions of legal consequences, psychological impacts, and economic effects. The essay then engages with academic and practitioner critiques of the reform, incorporates qualitative perspectives including interviews and personal accounts, and concludes with a critical assessment of whether the no-fault model achieves its aims and what challenges remain.

2. Historical Context and Legal Background

2.1 Fault-Based Divorce under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

Until 2022, English divorce law was grounded in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which permitted divorce only upon proof that the marriage had “irretrievably broken down” and required the petitioner to establish one of five facts. Three of these were fault-based – (1) adultery, (2) “unreasonable behaviour”, i.e. that the respondent behaved in such a way that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with them, or (3) desertion for at least two years; and two were based on separation – (4) two years’ separation with consent or (5) five years’ separation without consent[7]. In practice, the great majority of divorces relied on fault allegations rather than long separation. By 2018, unreasonable behaviour had become the most common fact relied on, as cited in 52% of wives’ petitions and 37% of husbands’[8]; with adultery and separation grounds invoked less often[9] [10]. The law effectively pushed couples to assign blame to avoid the hardship of prolonged separation. Indeed, data from 2016-2018 showed close to 3 in 5 divorce petitions cited conduct (fault) facts, while only 2 in 5 were based on separation; “desertion” was vanishingly rare[11]. Crucially, lower-income spouses often could not afford to live in separate households for years just to access a no-fault divorce, forcing them to allege fault to dissolve the marriage[12] [13].

This fault-based framework made divorce an inherently adversarial process. To obtain a quick divorce, one spouse had to officially blame the other for misconduct, immediately casting the parties as “innocent” versus “guilty”[14]. Empirical research by Professor Liz Trinder and colleagues (the Finding Fault? study) found that in many cases the allegations in divorce petitions were exaggerated or outright false, essentially a “charade” needed to satisfy legal requirements[15]. The courts did not actually investigate who was at fault; as high as 98% of divorces went through undefended; yet the very act of framing one spouse as ‘culpable’ fuelled conflict[16]. In a survey, 62% of petitioners and 78% of respondents said using fault made the process more bitter, and a significant minority felt it made resolving child arrangements (21%) and financial issues (31%) harder[17]. As one law firm observed, “requiring one party to take the blame… has often led to significant hostility,” undermining prospects for amicable settlements on finances or children and directly harming children by inflaming inter-parental conflict[18]. Rather than deterring divorce or saving marriages, the evidence indicated that fault-based law simply added stress and animosity, with no apparent benefit in terms of reconciliation[19].

2.2 Owens v Owens [2018] – Catalyst for Reform

The inadequacies of the old law were dramatically illustrated by Owens v Owens[20]. In that case, a 68-year-old wife ‘Tini Owens’ petitioned to divorce her husband of 40 years, alleging his continued critical and disparaging treatment left her unhappy; a typical “unreasonable behaviour” claim[21]. Mr. Owens contested the divorce; an option used in under 2% of cases, but available nonetheless[22]. The trial judge applied the statutory test strictly and found Mrs. Owens’s examples of her husband’s conduct, such as him being ‘moody’ and ‘disparaging’ towards her, were too trivial and “the kind of stuff to be expected in a marriage”[23]. Thus, she failed to prove that she “could not reasonably be expected to live with” him; the petition was dismissed[24]. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, while expressing misgivings, felt bound to uphold that outcome under the law’s letter. In mid-2018 the Supreme Court “with reluctance” told Mrs. Owens she must remain married until five years of separation, effectively against her will[25]. Lady Hale noted it was an “uneasy” case, and the President of the Family Division observed it might be unique; only about 17 defended divorces had a final hearing in 2016 out of 114,000 filings; yet Owens exposed how the fault regime could yield manifest injustice[26]. The judgment pointedly added: “Parliament may wish to consider replacing a law which denies Mrs. Owens a divorce in these circumstances”[27].

Top UK Assignment Samples

The Owens scenario proved a tipping point. It attracted wide media coverage and public sympathy for Mrs. Owens, seen as a victim of an ‘archaic’ law[28]. Family law practitioners had long worked around the harshness of the law by drafting mild petitions and “anodyne particulars” to minimize conflict[29], but Owens showed that if a respondent insisted on contesting, the court could do nothing to grant relief. Resolution (the family solicitors’ association) and the Law Society quickly renewed their campaigns for no-fault divorce, emphasizing that forcing couples to play the “blame game” was outdated and cruel[30]. They argued that making divorce ‘less acrimonious’ would not increase the divorce rate, citing research that no-fault laws elsewhere did not cause long-term spikes; but would help families manage the transition with more dignity[31]. In fact, the Law Commission had identified the problems with fault as far back as 1990, leading to a short-lived no-fault reform in the Family Law Act 1996 that was never implemented[32]. Now, with Owens as a catalyst, political will for reform came together. In 2019-20, Parliament debated and ultimately passed the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill with broad cross-party support. As one MP noted, the “blame game” was finally set to end, bringing in the first major restructuring of divorce law in England and Wales in fifty years[33].

3. Overview of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020

The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, in force from 6 April 2022, revolutionized divorce procedure by introducing a “no-fault” divorce model. The Act amended the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, sweeping away the old requirement to prove one of the five facts. Under the new law, a marriage can be dissolved upon a simple assertion that it has irretrievably broken down, without needing to assign blame or demonstrate years of separation[34] [35]. Key features of the 2020 no-fault regime include:

3.1 Single Ground – Irretrievable Breakdown

The sole ground for divorce remains irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, but crucially, no evidence of specific “facts” is required beyond a formal statement from one or both spouses. The Act replaced the previous five facts with a statement of irretrievable breakdown as conclusive evidence[36]. In other words, a petitioner (now called an “applicant”) simply notifies the court that the marriage has broken down; the court does not examine the reasons or adjudicate fault[37]. This aligns England and Wales with the purest form of no-fault divorce internationally; no requirement of misconduct or lengthy separation[38].

3.2 Elimination of Defended Divorces

The Act abolishes the ability of a respondent to contest the divorce in most cases[39]. Under previous law, a determined respondent like Mr. Owens could file a defence and force a trial on the truth of the allegations. Now, the statement of breakdown is taken as definitive, and the other spouse cannot object simply to prevent the divorce[40]. The only remaining avenues to challenge a divorce application are on jurisdictional or procedural grounds or if the marriage itself was invalid; one can no longer argue “I’m not at fault, so the marriage shouldn’t end”[41]. This change forecloses the kind of ‘protracted litigation’ seen in Owens, and as the Government noted, also prevents abusive partners from using contestation to exert coercive control by trapping the other in marriage[42].

Top UK Assignment Cities

3.3 Joint Applications

For the first time in English law, the process allows a joint divorce application by both spouses acting together[43]. Previously, one had to be the petitioner and the other the respondent, a positional dichotomy that implied an adversary. Now a couple who mutually agree to separate can file a joint petition, signalling a cooperative approach. Early statistics show uptake of joint filings: in the initial months of the law, between April-June 2022, about 22% of applications were joint, and 78% were sole petitions[44]. Joint filings have been even more popular in civil partnership dissolutions (over 60%)[45], indicating that many couples appreciate this option to present a united front in the legal process.

3.4 Modernized Terminology and Process

The Act updated archaic terminology to plain English, reflecting a more accessible, non-judgmental process [46]. A divorce suit is now started by an “application” rather than a “petition”[47]. The interim decree nisi is renamed the “conditional order”, and the final decree absolute is now the “final order”[48]. The spouse who files is no longer a “petitioner” but simply the “applicant”, and if it  is a joint filing, both are applicants[49]. These changes, while cosmetic, aim to make the law less forbidding and easier for the public to navigate. The procedure has also been largely digitized: by mid-2022, 98% of divorces were filed online through a streamlined digital portal[50]. This has significantly simplified and sped up administrative handling of cases. Applicants upload the marriage certificate and fill an online form; the days of sifting through detailed allegations on paper are gone[51].

3.5 Minimum Timeline (“Reflection Period”)

To balance ease of divorce with a period of reflection, the Act introduced a minimum waiting period of 20 weeks from the start of proceedings to the conditional order (previously decree nisi)[52]. After the conditional order, the longstanding 6-week waiting period to final order remains in place[53]. In total, a no-fault divorce will take at least about 26 weeks (6 months) from the initial application to completion[54]. This is deliberately built in to ensure couples take time to reflect, possibly reconcile, or, if the split is inevitable, make practical arrangements for children and finances before the divorce is final[55]. Notably, the 20-week clock starts when the application is filed by the court, not when the respondent is served[56]. In practice, this means a respondent might only be formally served weeks into the period, potentially leaving less time on the clock. The Law Society and others have criticized this approach as unfair to respondents in some cases, giving the example of a spouse being ambushed by a divorce already underway[57]. However, the upside is that victims of domestic abuse or those desperate to exit a harmful marriage are no longer at the mercy of a recalcitrant spouse; after the 20-week period, the applicant can proceed to a conditional order unilaterally[58]. The waiting period strikes a compromise between speed and deliberation, replacing the old two to five-year separation requirements with a universal, much shorter pause.

Beyond these core features, the 2020 Act extended equivalent reforms to civil partnership dissolution and judicial separation, maintaining parity across relationship types[59] [60]. What the Act did not change is also notable: it left the law on financial remedies and child arrangements untouched[61]. The new divorce process is legally separate from ancillary proceedings over money or children, which continue to be governed by existing principles like the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 for financial relief[62]. The philosophy was to make divorce procedurally neutral and non-confrontational, without attempting to overhaul substantive outcomes at the same time.

3.6 Section Summary

In sum, the 2020 Act creates a divorce process centred on party autonomy and dignity. Couples can end their marriage by mutual confirmation of breakdown, or one party can do so without proving the other’s wrongdoing. There is no judicial inquiry into marital conduct, aligning with a view that the state need not police the reasons for divorce. As legal scholars note, England went from having one of the most restrictive divorce laws to “the most liberal model,” virtually a divorce on demand after a short waiting period. The reforms were influenced by decades of experience in other jurisdictions: for example, the new system resembles “irreconcilable differences” regimes in the U.S.[63] and the straightforward notification divorce in Scotland, where 1-year separation suffices by consent[64]. The policy goal, as stated by the Justice Secretary, was to reduce family conflict and enable couples to focus on resolving important issues such as children or property without the legal process exacerbating tensions.

4. Legal Implications of the No-Fault Model

The shift to no-fault divorce has significant legal and procedural implications for how divorce cases unfold and how the family courts operate:

4.1 Streamlined Proceedings & Court Workload

Removing the need to prove fault or other facts has made the divorce process administratively simpler and typically faster. Under the old system, even uncontested divorces required the court to be satisfied with the particulars of behaviour or other grounds; in practice, a rubber-stamp exercise, but one that consumed time and paperwork. Now, most divorces are essentially administrative. The court’s role is largely to ensure forms are in order and the waiting period is observed, rather than scrutinizing allegations. This simplification, combined with near-universal online filing, has likely improved efficiency. Indeed, in the first quarter after the reform (Q2 2022), divorce applications surged to the highest level in a decade – 33,566 applications, a 22% increase on the same period in 2021[65]. Many observers attribute this spike to pent-up demand; couples who delayed filing until no-fault was available[66]. While an initial surge can strain court capacity, it is expected to be a temporary blip; research from other jurisdictions suggests divorce rates tend to normalize after an initial post-reform spike[67]. Importantly, the end of fault-based pleadings eliminates the occasional defended divorce trials (Owens‐type cases), sparing court time that would have been spent on those rare but lengthy hearings. Family judges can now focus on financial remedies and children’s cases, rather than policing marital blame. As Resolution argued, “divorce without blame” may also increase the success of out-of-court dispute resolution, easing the burden on courts, since parties start on a more even keel[68]. Early Ministry of Justice data noted that by late 2022, 98% of divorce applications were handled through the digital system, reflecting a major procedural modernization that reduces delays (for example, no waiting on paper forms to be processed)[69].

4.2 Drastic Reduction in Contentious Litigation

The ability to defend a divorce is virtually gone, which eliminates an entire category of legal disputes. Previously, if one spouse desperately wanted to remain married, or to obstruct the other out of spite; they could contest the divorce and force a fact-finding hearing. Such cases were extremely rare; under 0.5% of divorces reached a final defended hearing[70] but tended to consume disproportionate time and resources when they did occur. Now, if one spouse wants out, the divorce will happen. The most a resistant spouse can do is potentially refuse to respond or delay procedural steps, but after service the timetable will march on. In practice, we expect near-zero contested divorces on substantive grounds. The only grounds to dispute are technical; for instance, arguing the English court lacks jurisdiction, or that there was no valid marriage to begin with[71]. This means no more litigation over who caused the breakdown. One consequence is that divorce hearings as such (for status) are largely eliminated; the “day in court” now only arises if there are disputes about finances or children[72] [73]. Lawyers have noted that this may shift contentious energy into other arenas: spouses who feel wronged can no longer fight over the divorce itself, but they might channel their acrimony into battles over money or kids. For example, a spouse upset at being divorced against their wishes could be less cooperative in financial settlement negotiations, since they’ve lost the ability to contest the divorce. However, the hope is that by removing the formal ‘adversarial framework’, couples will actually find fewer issues to fight about[74]. Empirical evidence suggests that blaming one another in pleadings made it harder to settle subsequent matters[75]. With no-fault, some of the emotional heat is taken out at the start. Indeed, early indications (as discussed in section 5) are that many couples experience less tension under the new process, which can make reaching agreement on finances or child arrangements more likely.

4.3 Neutrality of Divorce Outcomes

Legally, the new Act emphasizes that divorce is a neutral act; it explicitly does not affect how financial or child-related issues are decided[76]. English law has long held that the grounds for divorce generally do not influence financial settlements, except in extreme conduct cases[77]. Now that every divorce proceeds on a no-fault basis, there is effectively never a judicial finding of marital misconduct. This could further diminish any tendency for judges to let conduct sway their discretion in financial remedy cases. Technically, “conduct” can still be argued under section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in dividing assets, but only if it would be “inequitable to disregard”; a very high bar that is rarely met[78]. Ordinary infidelities or arguments carry no weight[79]. Thus, the removal of fault grounds does not change the legal principles of financial provision; it reinforces the fact that divorce proceedings and financial proceedings are separate. One might argue that without a formal assertion of wrongdoing, spouses may be less inclined even to attempt bringing up bad behaviour in finance cases. There is anecdotal evidence that post-reform, fewer “conduct” allegations are raised since no one has pleaded adultery or unreasonable behaviour on record anymore[80]. On the other hand, some commentators worry that serious misconduct could be swept under the rug; for instance, a victim of domestic abuse might fear that the no-fault ethos means their abuse won’t be “heard” anywhere in the process. However, such concerns are largely mitigated by the fact that relevant abuse can still be raised in children or financial proceedings if needed, through fact-finding hearings or as a reason for unequal asset division in extreme cases[81]. The key point is that the divorce itself no longer adjudicates any conduct, for better or worse. Family law academics note that England’s new model is an almost “no-reason divorce” system; similar to some U.S. states where one can simply cite “irreconcilable differences” without proof[82]. This represents a policy choice to prioritize the freedom to exit a marriage over any inquiry into marital fault or preservation of the union.

4. 4 Case Management and Timelines

The introduction of the 20-week waiting period has had mixed effects on court timelines. On one hand, it creates a built-in delay that was not uniformly present before; under old law, if uncontested and paperwork in order, a decree nisi could be obtained in as little as 8-12 weeks in some cases[83]. Now parties must wait at least 5 months for the conditional order, even if they agree on everything quickly. This could slow down the administrative throughput of divorces. Indeed, the Office for National Statistics reported that the total number of divorces finalized in 2022 dropped to a historic low; partly due to the new waiting period meaning many applications made in mid-2022 did not reach final order by year’s end[84]. However, this delay is intentional, meant as a “period of reflection” to encourage careful decision-making[85]. The court is not burdened during this time; it is simply a pause. There is evidence some couples use this period productively; for instance, to negotiate financial settlements or attend mediation. Tthe government has even offered mediation vouchers to encourage out-of-court resolutions during the wait[86]. From a court workload perspective, a potential issue is if many people file joint applications and then decide to reconcile within 20 weeks; they might simply let the application lapse or withdraw it, which is administratively minor. In the past, about 1 in 10 divorce petitions would be abandoned before final decree (some couples do reconcile)[87]. The new system still allows that flexibility; either party can choose not to confirm the conditional order after 20 weeks, and the divorce would not proceed. There is no evidence yet that the waiting period has reduced or increased reconciliation rates, though critics of no-fault argued it might reduce the “breathing space” that led some to reconsider, pointing to the 10% abandonment statistic[88]. The counterargument is the 20-week unified period replaces far longer delays that existed for those stuck with separation grounds or defended cases.

4.5 Emergence of New Disputes?

Without fault, the focus of disputes may shift. One possible trend is an increased emphasis on financial arrangements earlier in the process. Since the divorce itself is almost guaranteed, spouses may concentrate their tactical efforts on securing favourable financial orders. Some lawyers have reported that divorcing couples now often initiate financial remedy proceedings (Form A) concurrently with the divorce application, rather than waiting, because there is no strategic reason to delay; under the old system, sometimes a petitioner might hold off on applying for decree absolute until finances were settled, to maintain leverage or marital benefits[89]. There is a concern that a spouse might be disadvantaged if the divorce is finalized (ending spousal status for pensions, inheritance, etc.) before a financial order is made. To address this, the Law Society has suggested that final orders should not be granted if financial proceedings are underway and one party would suffer prejudice by ending the marriage; for example, losing widow’s pension rights[90]. Currently, that protection is not in the statute; it relies on cooperative timing or court discretion to delay. This is an area flagged for possible future improvement. Another “new” type of dispute is actually a lack thereof: because fault is removed, there are no more arguments about denying allegations. However, parties still file written statements for the court in the application; albeit bland ones; and any false statement could theoretically be objected to as fraudulent or coerced, given that the Act allows challenges in cases of fraud or coercion[91]. Such instances are expected to be extremely rare, but it’s conceivable someone might claim they never actually agreed to a joint application, or their signature was forged. These would be handled as fraud, not as a substantive divorce defence.

4.6 Section Summary

Overall, the legal implications of no-fault divorce are largely positive in terms of procedural justice; the law is now simpler, clearer, and arguably fairer in that it treats everyone the same regardless of who did what. As the Court of Appeal President Sir James Munby noted years ago, the previous system often involved “consensual, collusive manipulation”,involving spouses agreeing to mild allegations to get a decree[92]. The new law brings honesty to the process: it acknowledges that marriages can end without either party being the “bad guy.” It aligns the law with the reality that courts were not truly enforcing fault anyway, since almost all petitions succeeded whether allegations were mild or severe, which, post the new law, has now reduced to a significant 35% as of June 2022[93]. The Act, thus, removes an element of legal hypocrisy and replaces it with a transparent, straightforward procedure.

However, these benefits come with trade-offs. Some legal scholars caution that England now has one of the most lenient divorce laws in the world; unique in allowing divorce with no waiting period of separation and no judicial oversight on reasons[94]. This raises broader questions: will marriage be seen as less stable or less significant if it is so easily dissolved? Those concerns stray into moral and sociological realms beyond pure procedure, but they underscore why careful monitoring of the reform’s effects is needed. In the next sections, we examine how this new legal regime is affecting the emotional dynamics of divorce and the financial outcomes for families, as well as how it has been received by practitioners, academics, and the public.

5. Emotional and Psychological Impacts

One of the primary motivations behind the push for no-fault divorce was to alleviate the emotional trauma and conflict associated with divorce proceedings. Early evidence suggests the reform has indeed had a meaningful impact on the psychological experience of divorce for many couples and their children:

5.1 Reduced Blame and Conflict

By removing the requirement to assign blame, the no-fault model has generally lowered the ‘adversarial temperature’ of divorce[95]. Spouses no longer have to draft legal complaints cataloguing each other’s failings. This can prevent a lot of resentment and pain. As a family therapist might put it, the law no longer “frames” the end of the marriage as somebody’s fault, which helps couples emotionally process the separation in a healthier way. Research from the Finding Fault? study found that under the old system, the use of fault often “triggered or exacerbated parental conflict,” with some parents even threatening to show the divorce petition (full of blame) to the children[96]. Now, such toxic dynamics are avoidable. The tone of communications in divorce tends to be more neutral; for instance, the standard application simply states that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, without unpleasant and unnecessary details. Family lawyers have reported that clients feel relieved not to have to “mud-sling” or have their private misdeeds aired in court filings[97]. In surveys conducted by Resolution after the law change, the majority of family solicitors observed a more conciliatory attitude among clients when the process starts without accusations, even if the underlying reasons for the breakup still exist[98]. Divorce lawyers note that before April 2022, initiating divorce required their client to essentially “throw the first stone,” often creating a cycle of defensiveness and hurt; now, initiating divorce can be seen as an administrative step rather than an attack on the other spouse[99]. This aligns with the Ministry of Justice’s aim to “reduce the impact that allegations of blame can have on a couple and in particular children”[100].

A powerful first-person account in The Guardian illustrates the emotional shift. An anonymous wife described how she and her husband mutually agreed to end their marriage of 15 years and wanted to remain on good terms[101]. Under the old law, they would have either had to wait two years or fabricate fault. She recalled that in divorcing her first husband years ago, her solicitor advised her to list trivial grievances (“he doesn’t let me watch my TV shows” and “leaves the toilet seat up”) as “unreasonable behaviour” to get the divorce through; something that “felt like a very sad way to end a marriage,” forcing blame on someone she still cared about[102]. With no-fault available in 2022, she and her second husband were immensely relieved: “We can proceed with our divorce, knowing we have tried everything… and tell our children honestly that our marriage has reached its natural conclusion, without them feeling that one of us is to blame”[103]. She noted that the “new, kinder form of divorce” made their mediation sessions calmer and gave them a sense of control over their outcome[104]. Crucially, she felt their 15-year marriage could be respected as an important chapter of their lives, rather than being sullied by an adversarial blame-game at the end. “The new legal framework means we can divorce mutually and respectfully with our heads held high and not see our marriage as a disaster,” she wrote[105]. This personal narrative encapsulates the emotional dignity that no-fault divorce affords: spouses can end their marriage “amicably, without acrimony”, focusing on preserving a working relationship especially if children are involved.

5.2 Impact on Children

The psychological well-being of children whose parents divorce is heavily influenced by the level of inter-parental conflict. Numerous studies in family psychology have shown that it is not the divorce per se, but the conflict surrounding it, that most harms children’s adjustment. By eliminating the formal attribution of blame, no-fault divorce is expected to reduce the exposure of children to conflict and hostility. This was emphasized by policymakers; for example, the CEO of the relationship charity Relate supported the reform, noting evidence that “parental conflict is damaging to children’s outcomes in life, yet the current fault-based system leads divorcing partners to apportion blame.” He highly praised no-fault divorce for “encourag[ing] a positive start to the new relationship divorcing couples must form as co-parents.”[106]. Early feedback from CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) officers and mediators suggests that when parents are not trading accusations in court documents, co-parenting negotiations go more smoothly[107]. Children benefit when their parents can cooperate, and the law now implicitly encourages cooperation by not setting them up as adversaries. In the Owens case, tellingly, the couple’s adult children reportedly found the ordeal horribly painful seeing their parents’ dirty laundry in public and their mother humiliated by the legal outcome[108]. Under the new regime, such scenarios should not recur. Parents can reassure children that no one is ‘bad’; that the marriage simply did not work out. This can mitigate children’s self-blame as well; some kids irrationally feel they might be the cause when they see parents accusing each other[109]. Now, with no-fault, the message to children can be that neither parent is at fault and both still love them, making the divorce less psychologically scarring.

Empirical data on children’s outcomes post-no-fault reform will take time to gather, but analogous research from other countries is instructive. Studies in Australia and certain U.S. states that adopted pure no-fault divorce decades ago generally found no increase in the negative outcomes for children; in fact, by reducing drawn-out litigation, some no-fault regimes helped children adjust faster to post-divorce life, because parents could settle into stable arrangements sooner[110] [111] [112]. One concern sometimes raised is that making divorce easier might lead to more divorces and thus more children experiencing family breakdown. However, as discussed earlier, there is broad consensus that no-fault laws do not create more divorces in the long run[113]. Societal divorce rates are influenced by many factors, and the legal hurdle of fault was rarely what kept people together; indeed, unhappy couples were often living apart or engaging in extramarital relationships while waiting to formalize a divorce[114]. Thus, the net effect on children of the 2020 Act is expected to be positive: the same number of children (or fewer, if conflict in marriage is reduced) will see their parents divorce, but those divorces should be less angry & bitter, and less traumatic.

5.3 Emotional Relief and Mental Health

Many individuals have reported that no-fault divorce provides a sense of closure and relief without bitterness[115]. The mental health toll of divorce under the old system was often aggravated by the process; being accused of wrongdoing, or having to accuse your partner, could induce guilt, anger, and shame. Under the new system, mental health professionals note a decrease in those stressors[116] [117]. Therapists have observed that clients going through a no-fault divorce exhibit lower levels of anxiety related to the legal process than those who went through fault-based divorces in the past. Knowing that the law is not judging them or requiring them to denigrate their spouse allows people to focus on healing and transition rather than ruminating over allegations. The 20-week reflection period, although a legal formality, can also serve as a useful emotional buffer; it gives spouses time to absorb the reality of the separation and perhaps seek counselling or support, without the pressure of immediate finality. Some critics feared this period might be misused, for instance, by a controlling spouse might use it to pressure reconciliation; but there are safeguards and support services available during this time[118] [119] [120] [121]. Overall, initial qualitative research (small-scale interviews) by family law academics in late 2022 found that couples appreciated having “time to plan” in the new system, but were grateful that they did not have to dwell on past grievances in legal filings, which often had re-opened old wounds in the fault system.

5.4 Critiques – Is Divorce Now Too Easy?

While the emotional upsides are evident, some commentators worry that no-fault divorce might trivialize the gravity of marital breakdown and short-change the emotional process of coming to terms with divorce. For instance, the socially conservative group Coalition for Marriage argues that by making divorce almost a bureaucratic formality, the law might encourage couples to give up on marriage without fully trying to work through issues[122]. They point out that previously, even if fault was largely a formality, the need to allege it or to wait gave couples a chance to reconsider; indeed about 10% of petitioners never proceeded to final divorce[123]. The new law’s 20-week reflection period is intended to provide a similar pause, but critics call it too short and note it starts before some spouses even know of the application[124]. There is also an emotional consideration for the spouse who did nothing “wrong”; some people feel a deep sense of injustice that their partner can end the marriage unilaterally without citing a reason[125] [126]. Under fault rules, at least the petitioner had to somewhat justify themselves. Now, the lack of an official reason could leave the dumped spouse with feelings of voicelessness or unresolved hurt. Family counsellors underscore that even in a no-fault context, couples should be encouraged to seek closure through communication or therapy, since the legal process no longer provides a forum for talking about what went wrong[127]. Interestingly, when no-fault divorce was first proposed decades ago, some feminist voices expressed concern that easy divorce might disadvantage women; for example, homemakers could be left by their husbands for trivial reasons, and the law would not acknowledge any moral wrongdoing by the leaver[128]. These concerns tie emotional and financial issues together: if society treats marriage as easily dissolvable, will it erode the emotional commitment and leave vulnerable spouses (often women) unsupported?

It is too early to measure such long-term social effects. However, the prevailing evidence from jurisdictions with long-standing no-fault laws is that while divorce did become more common in the late 20^th century, no-fault rules by themselves did not cause a sustained spike; instead divorce rates often rose due to other societal changes and then stabilized or fell[129]. In England and Wales, the divorce rate has actually been trending downward in the last two decades[130] [131] [132], suggesting that fewer people are marrying and those who do marry are a bit less likely to divorce than in the 1990s. The year 2022 saw an anomalously low number of completed divorces (because of the waiting-period delay), but a high number of initiations as couples who were waiting seized the opportunity[133]. It will take a few years of data to see if there is any change in the trend of marital stability. From an emotional perspective, what is clear is that couples who would have divorced anyway can now do so with less bitterness or ill feeling. As one top family lawyer, Sandra Davis, put it: the 2022 no-fault law allows the legal process to “catch up with modern relationships”; ending a marriage is sad, but it doesn’t have to be a blame-filled drama (paraphrasing her remarks in an interview)[134]. She noted that prior law often “forced people to play a game that made a difficult situation worse,” whereas now the process can be more constructive and future-focused.

5.5 Section Summary

The emotional and psychological impact of the no-fault divorce reform, therefore, has been largely positive: reducing antagonism, enabling more respectful partings, and shielding children from some of the worst conflict. Parties can concentrate on healing and rebuilding lives, rather than vindicating themselves or vilifying their ex in court. As with any major life change, divorce will always carry emotional challenges, but the law now aims to minimize the unnecessary pain inflicted by the legal procedure itself. A divorce law cannot make divorce pleasant, but it can avoid making it more traumatic; and that appears to be what the 2020 Act is achieving.

6. Financial Implications

The transition to no-fault divorce has also had important financial implications, both in terms of the cost of divorce proceedings and how financial arrangements post-divorce are handled or perceived. It must be noted that the 2020 Act did not alter the substantive law of financial relief such as maintenance and property division; but changes in other process can still have an impact on the financial factors in various ways:

6.1 Cost of Proceeding

For many couples, divorcing under the new system is proving less costly in legal fees and court costs than under the fault regime[135]. One obvious saving is that there is no need to gather evidence of misconduct or draft lengthy particulars of behaviour; tasks which often involved solicitor time (and thus fees). Divorce applications are now typically simpler and can be completed quickly online, sometimes without a lawyer’s help at all[136]. Law firms have reported a rise in “DIY divorces” where the couple handles the divorce paperwork themselves and only seek legal advice for the financial settlement[137]. Even when lawyers are engaged, the hours spent on the divorce portion (as opposed to finances) have dropped, since it might be just a matter of filling forms rather than strategizing how to prove unreasonable behaviour. Additionally, because contested divorce hearings have been eliminated, the few cases that would have generated large litigation bills on fighting the ground no longer do so; for example, Mr. and Mrs. Owens incurred significant legal expenses across three levels of court over several years just on whether a divorce would be allowed[138]. Such drawn-out costs are now unnecessary; no spouse can force the other to spend money defending a doomed marriage.

Moreover, with the new online process, administrative efficiency should eventually reduce costs for the court system, and potentially for users. The court filing fee for a divorce (now £612 in England & Wales[139]) is still substantial, but the Law Society has argued that since the process is largely automated and requires less work by court staff, the fee ought to be reduced in future[140]. As of 2025, the fee remains the same, but the point stands that the state’s cost per case might be lower, creating scope to lower fees or redirect resources. The government did invest in the digital portal and in public education about the new law, but these are upfront costs that could be offset by long-term savings if fewer couples require judicial intervention.

It is also worth noting that time is money; the time saved by not needing to argue about fault can translate to lower legal bills and less time off work for court appearances[141]. Even the 20-week waiting period, while a delay, does not necessarily increase cost; in fact, it can allow couples to spread out professional fees or use the time to reach agreement without hurried litigation. Some couples may use the period to try mediation for their financial issues; mediation (even if paid) is often cheaper than adversarial court fights[142] [143]. The government’s family mediation voucher scheme (offering £500 towards mediation costs) was expanded alongside the no-fault law rollout[144], precisely to encourage couples to resolve finances amicably out of court. A mediated agreement on finances, made into a consent order, is much less costly than a fully contested financial remedy hearing.

6.2 Financial Remedy Proceedings and Settlements

While the law on dividing assets and providing spousal support remains governed by section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (which instructs courts to consider a list of factors to achieve fairness, with the first consideration being the welfare of any children[145]), the context in which negotiations occur has shifted with no-fault divorce. In the past, even though judges seldom penalized a spouse for adultery or bad behaviour in dividing assets, the fact that one spouse had been officially blamed could influence the psychological dynamics of negotiations. A “guilty” spouse might feel morally compelled to be more generous in a settlement, or conversely, a spouse who had to accuse the other of unreasonable behaviour might feel entitled to a larger share as moral recompense. These subjective influences are hard to quantify, but they certainly played a role in some divorce settlements. With no-fault, there is no formal attribution of guilt, which might actually empower the financially weaker spouse in some cases; for example, a traditional wife who was reluctant to list her husband’s adultery to avoid conflict may have settled for less out of guilt or pressure. Now she can pursue a fair share without that baggage, since the law cast no attack on reputation or integrity on either side. On the other hand, a spouse who committed ‘egregious wrongdoing’ (say, dissipated assets or domestic abuse) no longer faces public blame in the divorce petition, but such behaviour can still be raised directly in the financial case if relevant; for example, “financial misconduct” like squandering money can reduce that party’s share[146]. What has changed is that the initial divorce filing doesn’t air those allegations, which might actually make the financial proceedings more focused and factual rather than moral. If misconduct is truly pertinent, like hiding assets, economic abuse, etc., it will come out through disclosure and evidence in the financial case, rather than being hinted at in a behaviour petition.

It is too early to tell if courts will become more willing to consider conduct arguments now that fault divorce is gone; early indications, such as the case DP v EP [2023] where a wife’s economic abuse was penalized in the financial settlement, show that extreme conduct will still be addressed[147]. But judges remain clear that these are exceptional cases: in a 2024 judgment, the High Court reiterated that conduct justifying financial penalty is “vanishingly rare” and the threshold remains very high despite the new no-fault regime[148]. So, in most divorces, the absence of fault allegations in the petition will have no effect on the actual division of assets, which continues to be driven by needs and sharing principles, not marital offences.

One area of financial proceedings potentially impacted is timing and strategy. Some solicitors observe that because a respondent cannot delay the divorce by defending it, a spouse worried about asset-hiding or transfers has to be proactive in seeking financial injunctions or freezing orders if needed, rather than trying to hold up the divorce[149]. In the past, one might threaten to defend the divorce to keep pressure on a spouse who was dissipating assets; now that threat is gone, so lawyers must directly address the asset issue through financial legal tools. This could actually be more efficient and transparent; fighting about the real issue (money) instead of using the divorce petition as leverage.

6.3 Cost and Maintenance for Families

Another financial aspect is the cost to families of running two households post-divorce. No-fault divorce per se does not change that reality, but by enabling couples to move on more quickly, it might reduce the period of ‘limbo’ where finances are uncertain. Under the old law, if a couple had to wait years to formalize a divorce, they might informally split and maintain two homes in the interim, potentially exhausting resources[150]. Now a divorce can be obtained in months, allowing financial orders to be made sooner and each party to reorganize their finances with certainty (like sell the former matrimonial home, divide pensions etc.) sooner. There was initial concern that a “quick” divorce might leave vulnerable spouses (often wives with lower earning capacity) worse off if they are rushed into a settlement. However, the 20-week period provides some guard against rushing. And crucially, no final order of divorce can be made until at least 6 months, so there is time to sort finances[151]; and indeed, best practice is still to resolve or substantially progress financial arrangements before applying for the final divorce order (formerly decree absolute[152]). The Law Society even recommends that if financial proceedings are initiated, the final divorce should be held back until a financial order is in place to avoid any prejudice[153]. In practice, many couples abide by this to protect things like pension sharing which only takes effect on decree absolute, and inheritance prospects if one dies during negotiations.

For lower-income spouses and primary caregivers, the challenges of post-divorce financial security remain as they were before; those are issues of social policy like availability of legal aid, fairness of maintenance awards, etc. that the no-fault law did not tackle. Some critics feel the reform was incomplete: it made divorce easier, but did nothing to improve financial outcomes for economically weaker parties. For example, England’s discretionary system can yield uneven results on spousal maintenance, and since 2013 legal aid is unavailable for most divorce finance cases, many litigants struggle to afford advice on their entitlements. The worry is that individuals may breeze through an easy online divorce, only to find themselves unrepresented and outmatched in a complex financial negotiation that determines their future living standard. As one commentary put it, the reform focused on “how to get divorced” but not on “what happens after”; true fairness in family law requires ensuring vulnerable spouses and children are financially protected, not just removing blame from the process[154]. The Law Society has urged the government to restore legal aid for early advice in divorces, so that people understand their financial rights and responsibilities at the outset[155]. This would cost money but likely save long-term costs by enabling fair settlements without protracted disputes.

6.4 Mediation and Out-of-Court Resolution

A significant financial implication of the no-fault model is the promotion of alternative dispute resolution methods, which can be cost-saving[156]. Since the process is less adversarial, couples might be more inclined to try mediation or collaborative law to sort out finances, rather than each lawyer immediately adopting a combative stance. The government has actively linked no-fault reform with encouragement of mediation, continuing a voucher program and consulting on making mediation information sessions mandatory[157]. If more couples settle their finances through mediation, that can greatly reduce legal expenses and also reduce the emotional cost discussed earlier. Early statistics have been somewhat counterintuitive: MoJ data for April-June 2022 showed a drop in the number of financial remedy court applications (down 31% from the previous year)[158]. This could be due to a temporary lag since many divorces initiated in that quarter had not reached the stage of filing financial applications yet, but it may also hint that couples who filed under the new law were taking more time to negotiate or using mediation rather than rushing to court. If this trend of fewer court fights over money continues, it would indicate a positive financial impact; meaning couples resolve assets division more cheaply and amicably.

6.5 Economic Effects on Marriage Stability

Finally, looking at broader financial implications, some have argued that making divorce easier could have socio-economic effects, such as potentially more single-parent households or more divorced retirees, which in aggregate might put pressure on public finances through greater need for housing, benefits, etc. However, as noted, no-fault divorce has not been shown to raise the overall divorce rate long-term[159]. It may change the timing (some divorces happen a bit sooner) but not the incidence drastically. Therefore, it is unlikely to produce a major shock to economic patterns of family structure[160]. If anything, one could argue it provides economic benefit by cutting the wasteful spending on legal fees and court costs associated with fault litigation, freeing up family resources that can be better used to support children or rehouse both parties after divorce. A less contentious divorce can also preserve better post-divorce cooperation, which might make it easier, for example, for both ex-spouses to remain in the workforce or coordinate childcare, thus reducing the need for external financial support.

6.6 Section Summary

The financial implications of no-fault divorce, therefore, are a mix of procedural cost savings and continued substantive challenges. The reform has lowered the direct costs of obtaining a divorce for many owing to fewer billable hours on fault issues and likely shorter overall proceedings; and holds promise for reducing indirect costs by encouraging amicable settlements. It has not, however, solved deeper issues of financial fairness; those require further policy action, such as perhaps revisiting the law of financial provision or expanding support for those navigating it. One might conclude that the no-fault law is a necessary reform to remove pointless financial and emotional expenditures, but not a sufficient reform to ensure economic justice in divorce. Achieving the latter would require addressing the “second half” of divorce, the ‘money matters’; potentially the focus of future family law reforms.

7. Academic and Practitioner Critique

The move to no-fault divorce, while largely celebrated, has prompted a range of critiques and commentaries from academics, legal professionals, and social commentators. A balanced evaluation must consider both the strong support for the reform and the reservations or criticisms voiced.

7.1 Praise and Theoretical Support

Family law scholars and practitioners who long advocated for no-fault see the 2020 Act as a victory for common sense and compassion in the legal system. Professor Liz Trinder (whose Nuffield Foundation research “Finding Fault?” was instrumental in building the evidence base for reform) applauded the law for finally aligning legal practice with reality: “the current law [fault divorce] is resulting in increased conflict and pain for couples and families,” her research showed, so a no-fault system was necessary[161]. Many academics noted that England was lagging behind: most Western jurisdictions had introduced no-fault divorce in some form in the 1970s-90s. As Dr. Carmen Draghici observes, by 2019 England’s clinging to fault and long separations had made it “the most conservative” divorce law compared to the US, Canada, Australia; and then the 2020 Act swung it to “the most liberal model” of all[162]. This drastic liberalization is seen by liberal theorists as an affirmation of individual autonomy and human dignity: adults should have the freedom to exit a marriage that is irretrievably broken without state-imposed blame or delay. Baroness Hale, the former President of the Supreme Court and a family law scholar, had long supported no-fault and was “delighted” by the reform, reportedly saying it would bring “some intellectual honesty” to divorce law and reduce the harm caused by the old system[163]. The Law Commission, back in 1990, had identified fault-based divorce as discriminatory and unjust[164], and its warnings proved true over the ensuing decades; the new Act finally implements changes the Commission advocated (and partially achieved in the abandoned 1996 Act). The family lawyers’ group Resolution greeted the Act’s passage by saying “A civilised society deserves a civilised divorce process”, echoing their long-standing manifesto that blame has no place in a modern divorce[165]. They point out that making the process less acrimonious will also “increase the chances of success for non-court dispute resolution… and reduce the burden on the family court”[166], goals in line with wider justice policy.

Many practitioners emphasize the ethical dimension: previously, solicitors often had to draft petitions that stretched the truth to fit the legal requirements (a charade winked at by courts). This put lawyers in a morally grey area and could inflame conflict. Now, they can help clients divorce without compromising on truth or civility. It enables them to be problem-solvers (focusing on children and finances) rather than adversarial combatants on artificial fault issues. As one solicitor wrote, “perhaps it is the law that was unreasonable, not the behaviour”, riffing on the Owens case, and now that unreasonable law has been corrected[167].

7.2 Critical Voices – “Divorce on Demand” and Moral Concerns

Not everyone welcomed the change. A vocal minority argue that no-fault divorce undermines the institution of marriage. The Coalition for Marriage (C4M), a socially conservative advocacy group, has been a leading critic. They contend that easy divorce “trivialises marriage” by making it more like a simple contract one can exit unilaterally at minimal notice[168]. In their view, the fault-based system at least reinforced that marriage vows mean something; a spouse could not break them without some consequence or at least a waiting period. C4M predicted that no-fault law would cause “the loss of 10,000 marriages a year” by removing the current opportunity for about 10% of petitioners to reconsider and abandon divorce petitions[169]. They also argue it “punishes the faithful spouse”; someone who kept their vows can now be divorced and have their home, assets, family split without any ability to contest or delay[170]. These arguments often come from a perspective that the law should uphold marital permanence and not make divorce too convenient. Similar arguments were raised in Parliament by a few MPs during debates: for example, some expressed fear that no-fault divorce might “send a signal that marriage can be ended on a whim”, or that it failed to hold adulterers accountable at all. However, it must be noted these views did not carry the day legislatively; the Act passed with broad majorities, indicating a consensus that the benefits outweighed such concerns.

There is also a religious perspective for some communities: certain faith groups worry that no-fault divorce further normalises divorce, conflicting with religious teachings that marriage is for life except in grave circumstances[171]. The law, of course, applies to civil marriage; those who marry in religious contexts can still adhere to their beliefs; and many presumably do – just because divorce is easy legally does not compel anyone to use it. Nonetheless, for those who believe marriage is a sacred covenant, the ease of no-fault divorce can seem like a devaluation of that covenant[172]. This is more a philosophical or theological critique than a legal one, but it is part of the discourse.

7.3 Feminist and Socio-Legal Perspectives

The feminist critique of no-fault divorce is nuanced. On one hand, many feminists supported it as it liberates women from potentially abusive or unhappy marriages without ordeal; for instance, Baroness Hale and many women lawyers celebrated the reform for exactly this reason[173]. On the other hand, historically, some feminists (especially in the 1970s U.S. context when no-fault was introduced) were concerned that no-fault could disadvantage homemakers[174]. The worry was, if divorce carries no stigma and can be obtained unilaterally, a husband could leave his wife of many years, and unless financial laws are very favourable to her, she might be left with little support, whereas under a fault regime she could refuse divorce or use fault as leverage for a better settlement[175] [176]. In England, even before no-fault, the financial law is rooted in needs and sharing, not ‘punitive’ to a guilt” party, so a wife could already get 50% (or more) of assets regardless of husband’s adultery or behaviour. Thus, English no-fault might not alter financial outcomes in a way that hurts women on average; indeed, English courts have a strong record of awarding generous spousal maintenance and equitable distribution, to the point that some husbands’ rights groups complain the divorce laws favour wives financially[177]! Nevertheless, some commentators argue that the symbolism of no-fault – treating both parties as equal contributors and equal in ending the marriage – might obscure power imbalances that existed during the marriage. A socio-legal analysis might say: “No-fault rests on an ethic of individual choice and equality, but what if one spouse is financially or emotionally dependent and does not really have equal power in the decision to divorce? For example, a wife who sacrificed her career may not want a divorce, but the husband does; now he does not need her consent after 5 years (which was true before) and she cannot allege his affair to slow things down; the divorce will go through in 6 months. Is she disadvantaged?” The answer would be, potentially, if she needed more time to become financially independent or to negotiate a fair deal. The new law does give her 20 weeks notice, which is better than immediate divorce, but some feel that is too short to adjust or to even gather legal advice especially if she is caught by surprise. The Law Society’s recommendation to start the clock at service rather than issue was partly to address this fairness issue[178]. In practice, most spouses will likely inform their partner or discuss divorce before filing, especially now that joint applications are an option; but the law does permit a unilateral, surprise filing.

7.4 No-Fault in Practice – Practitioner Observations

Many family lawyers have published commentary after a year of living with the new law. A common theme is that the feared surge in divorces was manageable and possibly temporary. While filings jumped in April-June 2022 by 22%[179], some lawyers, like Joanna Farrands quoted earlier, noted this was due to people waiting for the new law and that it reflected “people seeking an amicable way forward”[180]. By later in 2023, some lawyers observed divorce filings stabilizing. Practitioners also note that joint applications, while great in theory, sometimes hit practical snags. For example, if a couple starts jointly and then communication breaks down, it can complicate who applies for the conditional order. But overall, it is seen as a positive option to have. Another practical critique: the online system, while 98% uptake, had some early teething problems like notifications not always reaching respondents, or users confused by the new terminology, and about 67-80 unintended divorces owing to computer glitches[181] [182]. With time, these are being ironed out and guidance updated. Lawyers generally find the digital portal efficient, though some mourn the loss of the old personalized court approach since everything is centralized now[183].

7.5 Areas Needing Further Reform

A critical analysis from academics often points out what the 2020 Act did not do. As mentioned, it did not reform financial provision, which some see as the “next frontier”[184]. England & Wales have a reputation for generous, discretionary financial awards; sometimes even called “meal ticket for life” in tabloid terms when lifelong maintenance is ordered[185]. There have been calls for clearer guidelines or limits on maintenance, akin to other jurisdictions, to reduce costly litigation. The no-fault reform was a relatively easy consensus issue compared to the difficult topic of how to reform money claims. Now that no-fault is done, practitioners like former High Court judge Sir Paul Coleridge have suggested focus should shift to modernizing financial remedy law, perhaps introducing a more ‘formulaic’ system or stronger enforcement measures for settlements[186]. Another area is support services, since divorce is easier, but perhaps too easy to do without advice; so should there be a requirement (or at least a strong encouragement) to get legal advice before finalizing? One suggestion has been to make attendance at a financial information session or mediation intake session a standard part of the process, which has been piloted via family hubs[187] [188] [189]. The Law Society’s plea for legal aid for early advice is a pointed critique: they support no-fault, but caution that access to justice must be improved so that the procedural ease does not leave people navigating the important consequences such as money and kids alone[190].

7.6 International Perspective and Backlash

Academically, it is noted that while the trend has been toward liberalizing divorce globally, there are also counter-currents. For instance, some U.S. states (Arizona, Lousiana, Utah, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota) have movements to make divorce harder again citing family values or to reduce divorce rates[191] [192] [193]. One article wondered whether the US Supreme Court’s 2022 conservative decisions might encourage challenges to easy divorce as a social issue[194]. In the UK context, any reversal is highly unlikely; the reform received wide support and early indications are it is functioning well. Scholars, therefore, caution that continued monitoring is key, and it may involve measuring outcomes to check if the reform meet its goals of reduced conflict, and being open to adjustments like tweaking the notice period if needed.

7.7 Section Summary

The critical consensus, therefore, appears to be that the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 was a much-needed reform that resolved a glaring problem, specifically the hypocrisy and cruelty of fault-based divorce, and it has been largely successful so far in practice. Supporters highlight the increase in fairness, kindness, and efficiency. Critics raise valid points about ensuring that in making divorce simpler, we do not neglect the supports needed for those who are vulnerable in divorce. Even opponents on moral grounds acknowledge that the old law was widely flouted with collusive allegations; that their focus is more on how society should encourage marital stability. The reform strikes a new balance; it prioritizes the well-being of separating families over any symbolic affirmation of marriage indissolubility. As one legal commentator wrote, “The family law world now has to continue with the interpretation of the law as it stands… Perhaps it is the law that is unreasonable rather than the behaviour.”[195] The law has finally been made “reasonable”; the ‘onus’ is on practitioners and judges to apply it in a way that realizes its promise of less conflictual, more humane divorces while safeguarding equitable outcomes.

8. Qualitative Insights: Voices from Practice and Experience

To complement doctrinal analysis and statistics, it is illuminating to hear first-hand perspectives from those directly involved in or affected by the switch to no-fault divorce; including family lawyers on the front lines, and individuals who have gone through the process since April 2022.

8.1 Family Lawyers’ Perspectives

Many solicitors and barristers handling divorces have shared their experiences in professional blogs and media interviews. A common sentiment is one of pleasant surprise at how smoothly the new system has been operating. For example, a partner at a family law firm, Joanna Farrands, observed that the initial rise in cases after April 2022 reflected couples “delaying taking action to divorce in favour of the new, less acrimonious process; allowing them to focus on who and what matters the most.”[196] She noted that clients were choosing the amicable route when given the chance, confirming that the demand for no-fault divorce was real and significant. Another experienced solicitor said in an interview: “My advice? Don’t get divorced – but if you must, do it the no-fault way.”[197] This half-joking advice underlines that while divorce is never ideal, it can be handled much better under the new law.

8.2 Court Staff and Judiciary

Though formal judicial commentary is limited since judges simply apply the law, some retired judges and court staff have commented that the paperwork coming through is far more straightforward now. A court clerk from the Central Family Court in London posted anonymously that “the process is certainly quicker to handle – we’re not reading allegations of XYZ and checking if they meet the test; we just log the application and the system generates the timeline… It’s a relief not to deal with irate respondents sending in letters rebutting allegations, which we used to get even if they weren’t officially defending.”[198] This suggests that even many of those less than 2% who did not formally defend would still send angry responses; now that is avoided[199].

8.3 Clients and Divorcing Individuals

The Guardian personal story quoted earlier is one vivid example of an individual’s positive experience with no-fault divorce[200]. Many family law practitioners have anecdotal collections of such stories. For instance, a mediator shared the story of a couple in their 70s who had drifted apart but never divorced because they did not want to throw accusations at each other; once no-fault came in, they felt free to amicably separate “officially,” have a small ceremony to acknowledge their years together, then part as friends[201]. Another individual, anonymously, on the topic of how under the old system she felt compelled to cite adultery even though the marriage had broken down due to mutual unhappiness, not a single affair; she said it left her feeling guilty to make her husband the villain, and advices other women to not get divorced based on someone else’s opinion[202].

8.4 Practitioner Interviews and Surveys

The family law organization Resolution conducted a member survey late in 2022 to gauge how no-fault divorce was affecting practice. Key findings were that the vast majority (more than 90%) of responding lawyers who practiced family law felt the change was beneficial for clients’ well-being[203]. They cited examples such as less correspondence between solicitors arguing over wording of petitions, which was a common time-consuming exercise before; for instance, negotiating how “mild” or “severe” the unreasonable behaviour particulars should be to both satisfy the court and not enrage the other side[204].

8.5 Voices of Caution

Not all feedback is supportive though. Sometimes, the lack of a contestability option leaves clients feeling disempowered. In instances where decision for divorce is taken unilaterally, under the new law, the court does not assign blame or care whose decision it was[205]. In such cases, lawyers increasingly play the role of counsellor, validating the client’s feelings outside the court process[206]. Some practitioners also warn that even with no-fault, high-conflict personalities will find ways to fight. A quote from a family barrister in Solicitors Journal noted: “Make no mistake, for some clients it was never about the reason in the petition; it’s about control or anger. If they can’t contest the divorce, they’ll contest the finances or the children.”[207] They gave an example of a husband who, after no-fault was introduced, fixated on making the process difficult by refusing to engage in financial disclosure, saying since he had no say in the divorce, he would not cooperate on money[208]. Such behaviour requires robust case management by courts.

8.6 Media Reports and Public Opinion

The public discourse in media after April 2022 included profiles of the first couples divorced under the new law. Generally, media tone was approving; headlines like “End of blame game in divorce laws in England and Wales” were common[209]. Some outlets interviewed divorce coaches or therapists, who uniformly said it is a positive step for the mindset of divorcing individuals[210] [211]. Public comments on social media and newspaper sites were mixed; many ordinary people, however, believe that such legislation constitutes mass psychological warfare[212].

8.7 Affected Children’s Voices

Direct interviews with children are rare, but CAFCASS officers have relayed some children’s reactions. CFCASS has published on multiple occasions that while children generally are not directly involved in divorce proceedings, they often overhear or sense what is happening, leading them to blame themselves[213] [214]. It appears that now parents have a less accusatory script to explain the divorce; now they have a chance to state something like “We’re getting a divorce because we decided we’re happier apart,” instead of “Mum is divorcing Dad for his behaviour,” etc. This subtle change in narrative can influence a child’s coping.

8.8 Overall Sentiment

The qualitative insights suggest that the human experience of divorce in England and Wales has improved in many cases due to the 2020 Act. Those who have used the new law often describe it with words like “stress-free(r), fair, straightforward, civilised”. Practitioners feel it aligns with their duty to reduce conflict. Yet, it is also clear that divorce will never be entirely stress-free; financial disputes and emotional grief still exist. No-fault divorce, therefore, is not a miracle-cure for all family problems, but it removes one problem; the legal blame game; and that is a huge relief for both the clients and practitioners alike.

9. Conclusion

The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 represents a historic reform that has fundamentally changed divorce proceedings in England and Wales. This critical analysis has examined how the introduction of no-fault divorce, in force since April 2022, has impacted the legal process, the emotional climate of divorce, and the financial landscape for separating couples. In synthesis, the findings indicate that the reform has been largely successful in meeting its core objectives, though it also highlights areas for ongoing attention and further improvement.

Legally, the 2020 Act has achieved a long-sought procedural simplicity and fairness. Divorce is no longer a battleground for proving spousal misconduct, but a straightforward process initiated by a statement of irretrievable breakdown. The elimination of blame and defence has streamlined court proceedings, reducing the workload associated with scrutinizing allegations and conducting defended hearings. Early data and practitioner reports show a drop in needless contention; almost all divorces progress undefended, as intended, and couples can obtain a divorce in a predictable timeframe (roughly 6-7 months) without interim skirmishes. The court system, aided by a new digital platform, can process divorces more efficiently, which in the long term should free up judicial resources for substantive issues like finances and children. Importantly, the law reform corrected the injustice highlighted by Owens v Owens: no spouse can now be forced to remain in a failed marriage due to legal technicalities or an intransigent partner. In that sense, the right to divorce (exit) has been affirmed as a practical reality for all. England and Wales have gone from being outliers clinging to fault to joining the consensus of jurisdictions that prioritize personal autonomy and harm reduction in divorce law.

Emotionally, the shift to no-fault divorce has reduced the ‘antagonism’ and trauma that often accompanied the old fault-based process. By removing the requirement to assign blame, the law has helped many couples separate with less bitterness and more mutual respect. This benefits not only the spouses, but any children involved, who are less likely to witness parental mud-slinging or feel torn between duelling narratives of blame. As illustrated by qualitative accounts, divorcing parties often experience relief that they can end their marriage without denigrating each other. The process now allows for acknowledgment that a marriage can simply “come to an end” rather than “fail due to someone’s awful behaviour.” This more nuanced and compassionate framing can aid emotional healing. The mandated reflection period ensures that divorce is not instantaneous or impulsive, it builds in a pause for consideration; but it is short enough not to prolong conflict or limbo unnecessarily. Children’s well-being is better safeguarded when their parents are not pitched into a blame contest; indeed, the reform is fundamentally child-centric in aiming to minimize conflict. The reforms, therefore, spared individuals the need to play the blame game, stripping out needless ‘antagonism’ so families can better move on with their lives. The emotional tone of divorce has shifted from one of fault-finding to one of problem-solving and future planning. That said, divorce remains a life-altering and often painful event; the law cannot erase the inherent emotional difficulty of ending a marriage, but it has removed gratuitous additional pain caused by the legal process itself.

Financially, the introduction of no-fault divorce has shown some practical benefits while leaving broader financial issues intact. The cost of obtaining a divorce, in terms of legal fees and stress, is generally lower now; there are fewer contentious hearings, and many couples can handle the paperwork themselves. The focus of disputes has turned squarely to the real issues of finances and child arrangements, which is where it belongs. However, the reform did not address the content of financial provision law, which means that inequities and challenges in that domain persist. A spouse who was economically dependent on the other still must negotiate or litigate for a fair share using the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 factors, just as before. The absence of fault grounds neither helps nor significantly harms their claims in most cases, since fault was rarely relevant to division of assets. Nonetheless, criticisms have been raised that more needs to be done to support vulnerable spouses; for example, ensuring the financially weaker party is not railroaded into a quick divorce without securing safeguards; hence proposals like barring final orders until financial matters are settled in certain cases. In practice, lawyers and courts use available tools such as undertakings, delaying decree absolute, etc. to protect such spouses. The government’s reform did enhance the procedural side by digitalizing and simplifying the process, which could lower public expenditure on processing divorces. Indirectly, by promoting amicability, it may encourage settlements and reduce protracted litigation, potentially saving families and the state money. Yet, true financial fairness after divorce likely requires further reform; for instance, clearer spousal support guidelines or better access to legal advice; issues beyond the scope of the no-fault initiative.

Considering the bigger picture, the 2020 Act’s implementation has been seen as a socially progressive step, aligning the law with contemporary social attitudes that view marriage as ideally lifelong but recognize that when breakdown happens, it should be handled with minimal harm. There is a broad consensus among family law experts that the no-fault model in England and Wales has been a positive development, modernizing a 50-year-old statute that was out of step with society. The law has enhanced the integrity of the legal system by eliminating the hypocrisy of manufactured allegations and the inconsistency of outcomes (like Owens) that fault sometimes created.

However, this analysis also underscores that the no-fault reform, while necessary, is not a miracle-cure. Divorce law is only one aspect of supporting families in transition. Continued efforts are needed to ensure that separating couples have the resources to resolve practical issues. For instance, the reintroduction of legal aid for early legal advice (as advocated by the Law Society) could greatly help individuals, especially those of limited means, to navigate the financial and child-related aspects of divorce. Additionally, public education about the new law is important; some people still misunderstand it, thinking “no-fault” means something like automatic divorce or no need for any process at all. Ongoing training for lawyers and public awareness campaigns can help society fully adjust to the new paradigm.

The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, therefore, has had a profound impact: legally, it has made divorce proceedings more efficient and just; emotionally, it has reduced conflict and allowed for more dignified separations; financially, it has cut some costs and refocused attention on substantive issues while leaving deeper financial reforms for another day. The move to no-fault divorce in England and Wales is widely regarded as a success in law reform, aligning family law with the values of autonomy, empathy, and child welfare. As with any reform, it should be monitored and fine-tuned; for example, addressing minor issues like the start of the waiting period, or integrating more support services into the process. But the overarching verdict one year on is that no-fault divorce has been a step forward for family justice, counter-balancing the procedural hardships of divorce and enabling ex-spouses and their children to face the future with less bitterness and more hope.

References

Book

Heinemann I, Family Values: Divorce, Working Women, and Reproductive Rights in Twentieth-Century America (Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG 2023).

Kesselring KJ and Stretton T, Marriage, Separation, and Divorce in England, 1500–1700 (Oxford University Press 2022).

Oldham JT, Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property (Law Journal Press 2021).

Book Chapter

Auchmuty R, ‘Feminism and Family Property’ in Sharon Thompson and Jens M Scherpe (eds), Research Handbook on Family Property and the Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2024) 406–423 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802204681.00036.

Griffiths K, ‘Cohabitation Law Reform in England and Wales: The Case for Reform and Challenges of Definition’ in Law 2024 (Edward Elgar Publishing 2024) 322 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802202656.00030 accessed 2 July 2025.

Haskey J, ‘Divorces by Fact Proven Over the Past Half Century in England and Wales: The Historical Context, Statistical Trends and Future Prospects’ in Miles J, Probert R and Monk D (eds), Fifty Years of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 (Bloomsbury Publishing 2022) 33.

Mortelmans D, ‘Economic Consequences of Divorce: A Review’ in Michaela Kreyenfeld and Heike Trappe (eds), Parental Life Courses after Separation and Divorce in Europe (Springer 2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44575-1_2 or https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/39542/1/2020_Book_ParentalLifeCoursesAfterSepara.pdf#page=31 accessed 2 July 2025.

Ní Shúilleabháin M, ‘Dissolution of Adult Relationships and the Cross-Border Dimension’ in Law 2024 (Edward Elgar Publishing 2024) 238 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802207422.00019 accessed 2 July 2025.

Book Review

Douglas G, ‘Fifty Years of the Divorce Reform Act 1969: edited by J Miles, D Monk and R Probert, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2022, 295 & xiii pp., £85 (currently £76.50), ISBN 978-1-50994-788-1’ (2022) 44(3) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 424 https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2102768

Briefing Paper

Fairbairn C (with Barton C), “No‑fault divorce” (House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 01409, 9 April 2019) https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01409/SN01409.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

Conference Paper

Mineeva IN, Panfilov MA, Kolokolova EO and Moiseeva EN, ‘Features of Dissolution of Marriage Abroad (By the Example of Great Britain)’ in Bogoviz AV, Suglobov AE, Maloletko AN and Kaurova OV (eds), Cooperation and Sustainable Development, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 245 (Springer, Cham 2022) 565–71 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77000-6_66 accessed 2 July 2025.

Gazette

Cross M, ‘Digitisation adding to delays plaguing civil court system and undermining access to justice, solicitors tell Law Society’ Law Society Gazette (London, 17 October 2023) https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/online-courts-adding-to-delays-solicitors-claim/5117571.article accessed 2 July 2025.

Journal Article

Amara FD, Fault-Based Divorce Laws versus No-Fault Divorce Proceedings: A Dynamic Shift in Family Law (4 June 2024) SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=4920239 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4920239 accessed 2 July 2025.

Aston J, review of Henry Kha (ed), A History of Divorce Law: Reform in England from the Victorian to Interwar Years, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (2021) 35(1) ebab037 https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebab037 accessed 2 July 2025.

Baroness Ruth Deech, ‘Reform of Financial Provision on Divorce’ (Financial Remedies Journal, 1 July 2024) https://financialremediesjournal.com/content/reform-of-financial-provision-on-divorce.6f2834c64f574ec4b237f04117e05f4c.htm accessed 2 July 2025.

Braff D, ‘DIY Divorce’ (2019) 105(6) ABA Journal 31 https://www.jstor.org/stable/26913464 accessed 2 July 2025.

Bendall C, ‘Should We Welcome an End to the “Blame Game”? Reflecting on Experiences of Civil Partnership Dissolution’ (2019) Journal of Divorce and Remarriage https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2019.1699371 accessed 2 July 2025.

Bone A, ‘Islamic Marriage and Divorce in the United Kingdom: The Case for a New Paradigm’ (2020) 40(1) Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 163 https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2020.1737412.

Burgess P and Desai S, ‘Joint Divorces: A False Dawn or a New Frontier?’ (2022) 165 Solicitors’ Journal 40 https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/solicjo198&div=325&id=&page= accessed 2 July 2025.

Ciacci R, Martín Rodrigo MJ and Núñez Partido A, ‘Unilateral Divorce Laws Affect Women’s Welfare’ (2023) PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289154.

Draghici C, ‘From Indissolubility of Marriage to Unilateral Divorce on Demand: A Tardy Revolution in English Family Law’ (2023) 35(4) Child and Family Law Quarterly 413–440 https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/31711/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Draghici C, ‘Rethinking the Grounds for Divorce: Comparative Perspectives from the UK, the US, Canada and Australia’ (2023) Child and Family Law Quarterly 333 https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/31991/1/Introduction%20CFLQ%20Special%20Issue%20Divorce%20final%20author%20copy%20(1).pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

Duger CJ, ‘AI: Increasing Alternatives in Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (2024) Resolved: Journal of Alternative Dispute Resolution 12, 21 https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/resolvjo12&div=5&id=&page= accessed 2 July 2025.

Goodfriend H, review of Ellner S, Munck R and Sankey K (eds), Latin American Social Movements and Progressive Governments: Creative Tensions Between Resistance and Convergence (Rowman & Littlefield 2022), Latin American Perspectives in the Classroom, review, 155–159 (May 2023) https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2022.2213409 accessed 2 July 2025.

Gravningen K, Mitchell KR, Wellings K, Johnson AM, Geary R, Jones KG, Clifton S, Erens B, Lu M, Chayachinda C, Field N, Sonnenberg P and Mercer CH, ‘Reported Reasons for Breakdown of Marriage and Cohabitation in Britain: Findings from the Third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal‑3)’ (2017) 12 PLoS ONE e0174129 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174129 accessed 2 July 2025.

Foohey P and Odinet CK, ‘Silencing Litigation Through Bankruptcy’ (2023) 109(6) Virginia Law Review 1261 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27275033 accessed 2 July 2025.

Foster LD, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Comprehensive Review and Call for Reform’ (2025) 28 Atlantic Law Journal 164 https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/atlanic28&div=11&id=&page= accessed 2 July 2025.

Garriga A and Pennoni F, ‘The Causal Effects of Parental Divorce and Parental Temporary Separation on Children’s Cognitive Abilities and Psychological Well‑being According to Parental Relationship Quality’ (2022) 161 Social Indicators Research 963 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02428-2 accessed 2 July 2025.

Gruber J, Is Making Divorce Easier Bad for Children? The Long Run Implications of Unilateral Divorce (NBER Working Paper No 7968, October 2000) https://doi.org/10.3386/w7968 accessed 2 July 2025.

Hardesty J L, Ogolsky B G, Park S Y, Akinbode T D, Maniotes C R, Charvat E J and Carter M L, ‘No‑Fault Divorce: Understanding Consequences for Cases with Intimate Partner Violence’ (2024) 66 Family Transitions 6–26 https://doi.org/10.1080/28375300.2024.2406112 accessed 2 July 2025.

Hitchings E, ‘Editorial’ (2022) 44(2) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 141 https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2082822 accessed 2 July 2025.

Kumar R, An Economic Critique of No‑Fault Divorce Laws (19 March 2022) SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081378 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4081378 accessed 2 July 2025.

Linus Andersson, Jan Saarela and Caroline Uggla, ‘Divorce among More and Less Divorce-Prone Populations Following Unilateral Divorce Laws’ (2024) Journal of Marriage and Family https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.13056.

Morgan P, ‘The Public Tragedy of the Owens’ Divorce’ (2019) 41(1) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 100–102 https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2019.1554797 accessed 2 July 2025.

Pacwa J, ‘Marriage and Divorce’ (2023) 24 Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 671 https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/grggenl24&i=671.

Sixsmith A, ‘Mediators’ perspectives on the Family Mediation Voucher Scheme’ (2023) 35 Child and Family Law Quarterly 9 https://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/id/eprint/16151/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Sharada K and Sathyaroopa KM, ‘Family Mediation and Conflict Resolution: Legal Frameworks and Effectiveness’ (2023) 6(6) International Journal of Law Management and Humanities 1604 https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ijlmhs26&div=140&id=&page= accessed 2 July 2025.

Shepherd N, review of Joanna Miles, Daniel Monk and Rebecca Probert (eds), Fifty Years of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 (2022) 37(1) International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family ebad032 https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad032 accessed 2 July 2025.

Yuk KCH, Comparison of Legal Framework for Divorce in 2024: England and Wales, and Mainland China (5 June 2024) SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=5245257 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5245257 accessed 2 July 2025.

Legislation/Case Law

Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38, [2009] 1 AC 1101.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (c 11).

Hansard, Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill (Lords, 8 June 2020) cols 1503–04.

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

News Article

Abdul G, ‘Divorce applications wrongly approved after computer error, high court hears’ The Guardian (London, 31 October 2024) https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/31/divorce-applications-wrongly-approved-computer-error-high-court accessed 2 July 2025.

Anonymous, “My husband and I want to split on good terms – thanks to no‑fault divorces, we finally can” (The Guardian, 6 April 2022) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/06/husband-split-no-fault-divorces-england-wales-marriages-end accessed 2 July 2025.

Casciani D and Ellison C, ‘End of blame game in divorce laws in England and Wales’ BBC News (London, 6 April 2022) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61004089 accessed 2 July 2025.

Coalition for Marriage, ‘Five Reasons Why “No‑Fault Divorce” Would Be a Disaster for Marriage’ (22 November 2017) https://www.c4m.org.uk/five-reasons-no-fault-divorce-disaster-marriage/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Couples unlawfully divorced after glitch in digital system: judges are considering dissolving 67 divorces after they were approved in error The Times (London, 29 May 2024) https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/couples-unlawfully-divorced-after-glitch-in-digital-system-zb6dhmn53 accessed 2 July 2025.

GOP Waging War on No‑Fault Divorce With Long Waiting Periods (Molly BKenny, 22 April 2014) https://www.mollybkenny.com/news/gop-waging-war-on-no-fault-divorce-with-long-waiting-periods.cfm accessed 2 July 2025.

Hoberock B, ‘Oklahoma Bill Would End Incompatibility as Grounds for Divorce: Critics Say It Would Cause Significant Harm’ (Oklahoma Voice, 25 January 2024) https://oklahomavoice.com/2024/01/25/oklahoma-bill-would-end-incompatibility-as-divorce-grounds/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Kruesi K, ‘Repealing No‑Fault Divorce Has So Far Stalled Across the US. Some Worry That’ll Change Under Trump’ AP News (26 November 2024) https://apnews.com/article/divorce-nofault-repeal-republican-states-40d6c51bd26b7d8c6a2d4969b21d4b53 accessed 2 July 2025.

Davis S, Top divorce lawyer Sandra Davis: ‘My advice? Don’t get divorced’ (interview by Eleanor Mills, The Telegraph, 5 January 2025) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/relationships/top-divorce-lawyer-sandra-davis-interview/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Townley S, ‘“No fault” divorce is here: but is it good news for the family lawyers?’ Solicitors Journal https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/no-fault-divorce-is-here-but-is-good-news-for-the-family-lawyers accessed 2 July 2025.

Vander Luit J, ‘Owens v Owens Outcome Will “Potentially Affect Thousands”’ (Solicitors Journal, 10 August 2017) https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/owens-v-owens-outcome-will-potentially-affect-thousands accessed 2 July 2025.

Online Article

Arnold J, ‘Do the Family Courts Favour Women?’ (JMW Family Law & Divorce Solicitors, 29 March 2023) https://www.jmw.co.uk/blog/family-law/do-the-family-courts-favour-women accessed 2 July 2025.

Bar Council, The Case for No‑Fault Divorce in England and Wales (2023) https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/asset/68606BF7-CD44-4E62-B53367ECD3682DDA/ accessed 2 July 2025.

CAFCASS, Coping with Your Child’s Reactions https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/parent-carer-or-family-member/applications-child-arrangements-order/resources-help-you-make-arrangements-are-your-childs-best-interests/coping-your-childs-reactions accessed 2 July 2025.

Carroll J and Pollock J, ‘Owens and Owens: Unreasonable Law Not Unreasonable Behaviour?’ (Law Society, 25 July 2018) https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/family-and-children/owens-and-owens accessed 2 July 2025.

ClerkCFC, ‘Comment on “AskUK: Divorce process experiences?”’ (Reddit, 2025) https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/1cyft5q/comment/n11jsc8/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Davis M and Shafei R, ‘No‑Fault Divorce: Who is to blame?’ (33 Bedford Row, 6 April 2022) https://www.33bedfordrow.co.uk/insights/articles/no-fault-divorce-who-is-to-blame accessed 2 July 2025.

Davis S, ‘“Divorce Day” Reflections: Sandra Davis for The Sunday Telegraph’ (Mishcon de Reya) https://www.mishcon.com/news/divorce-day-reflections-sandra-davis-for-the-sunday-telegraph accessed 2 July 2025.

Gadoua SP, ‘At‑Fault Divorce Laws Would Be Dangerous and Expensive’ Contemplating Divorce (Psychology Today, updated 31 December 2024) https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/contemplating-divorce/202412/at-fault-divorce-laws-would-be-dangerous-and-expensive accessed 2 July 2025.

Gillies J, ‘“No-fault” divorce undermines marriage: Why is the government making it easier to break up families?’ The Critic (6 April 2022) https://thecritic.co.uk/no-fault-divorce-undermines-marriage/ accessed 2 July 2025.

GOV.UK, Court and tribunal fees (Gov.uk) https://www.gov.uk/court-fees-what-they-are accessed 2 July 2025.

GOV.UK, Get a divorce: step by step (Gov.uk) https://www.gov.uk/divorce/file-for-divorce accessed 2 July 2025.

Halford K, ‘How Will My Divorce Affect My Kids?’ (The Conversation, 10 September 2018) https://theconversation.com/how-will-my-divorce-affect-my-kids-101594 accessed 2 July 2025.

Jeff D, ‘Getting divorced? Consider psychotherapy’ The Times (London, 9 May 2024) https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/getting-divorced-consider-psychotherapy-dd8z3pfxz accessed 2 July 2025.

Jones L, Can the Grounds for Divorce Affect My Divorce Settlement? (Lindsay Jones Divorce Lawyer, 22 May 2019) https://lindsayjonesdivorcelawyer.co.uk/2019/05/22/can-the-grounds-for-divorce-affect-my-divorce-settlement/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Kibble Y, ‘What Constitutes Conduct in Financial Remedy Proceedings? Different Examples of “Bad Behaviour” and Whether the Court Would Take Them into Account within Financial Remedy Proceedings’ (Weightmans, 4 September 2024) https://www.weightmans.com/insights/what-constitutes-conduct-in-financial-remedy-proceedings/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Law Society, ‘Empathy and sensitivity: a new approach for no-fault divorce’ (24 March 2022) https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/blogs/empathy-and-sensitivity-a-new-approach-for-no-fault-divorce accessed 2 July 2025.

Law Society, ‘No‑fault Divorce’ (5 April 2022) https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/family-and-children/no-fault-divorce accessed 2 July 2025.

Lennox J, ‘No‑fault divorce: Petitions soar following April’s legislation: Ministry of Justice (MoJ) publishes Family Court statistics for April–June 2022’ (Today’s Family Lawyer, 6 October 2022) https://todaysfamilylawyer.co.uk/no-fault-divorce-petitions-soar-following-aprils-legislation/ accessed 2 July 2025.

McDonald T, ‘Make up or break up – how getting back together can impact your divorce’ (Switalskis Solicitors, 6 February 2025) https://www.switalskis.com/blog/reconciliation-and-divorce accessed 2 July 2025.

nancypants9999999999, ‘6 month later…divorcing my husband was a HUGE mistake :(’ (r/Divorce) https://www.reddit.com/r/Divorce/comments/8s7qy3/6_month_laterdivorcing_my_husband_was_a_huge/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Rosewood Solicitors, The Ultimate Guide to Freezing Orders (Rosewood, 2 months ago) https://www.rosewood-solicitors.com/articles/the-ultimate-guide-to-freezing-orders accessed 2 July 2025.

Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service, ‘Simplified/Do It Yourself Procedure’ (Taking action: Divorce and Dissolution of Civil Partnership, Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service) https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/taking-action/divorce-and-dissolution-of-civil-partnership/simplifieddo-it-yourself-procedure/ accessed 2 July 2025.

St Helens Law, ‘No fault divorce – do you really need to wait 20 weeks?’ (2023) https://www.sthelenslaw.co.uk/news/no-fault-divorce-wait-20-weeks/ accessed 2 July 2025.

TLT LLP, ‘Spousal Maintenance and the So-Called “Meal Ticket for Life”’ (Lexology, 1 May 2018) https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7cf93f30-ba86-4be9-851b-0cce77b62621 accessed 2 July 2025.

Trinder LJ, Braybrook D, Bryson C, Coleman L, Houlston C and Sefton M, Finding Fault? Divorce Law in Practice in England and Wales (Nuffield Foundation, October 2015–February 2019) https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/project/finding-fault-divorce-law-in-practice-in-england-and-wales accessed 2 July 2025.

u/[Anonymous], ‘Divorce Concerns’ (r/QAnonCasualties) https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/comments/1fmwv41/divorce_concerns/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Vandenberg K, ‘5 Key Professionals in the Divorce Process’ Divorce Support Blog (Focused Forward, 25 April 2024) https://www.katievandenberg.com/blog/archives/04-2024 accessed 2 July 2025.

Press Release

CAFCASS, Response to the MOJ’s “Reducing Family Conflict” Consultation (June 2019) https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/Cafcass-response-to-Reducing-family-conflict-consultation-1.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

Ministry of Justice, ‘Mediation to Help Thousands More Families Avoid Costly Legal Battles’ (Press Release, 3 June 2022) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mediation-to-help-thousands-more-families-avoid-costly-legal-battles accessed 2 July 2025.

Ministry of Justice, HM Courts & Tribunals Service and the Rt Hon Dominic Raab, ‘“Blame game” ends as no‑fault divorce comes into force’ (Press Release, 6 April 2022) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/blame-game-ends-as-no-fault-divorce-comes-into-force accessed 2 July 2025.

Ministry of Justice, ‘Divorce “blame game” to end’ (Press Release, 7 January 2020) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/divorce-blame-game-to-end accessed 2 July 2025.

Report

CAFCASS, Harmful Conflict: A Structured Guide (March 2025) https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/Harmful%20conflict%20guide%202.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

Ghosh K, Divorces in England and Wales: 2018 (Statistical Bulletin, Office for National Statistics, 29 November 2019) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2018/pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

Hansard, HC Deb 17 June 2020, vol 677, cols 126–147 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-06-17/debates/45EE5F3F-8AE6-413D-AF68-EDA8484726CD/DivorceDissolutionAndSeparationBill accessed 2 July 2025.

Hitchings E, Bryson C, Douglas G, Purdon S and Birchall J, Fair Shares? Sorting out money and property on divorce: Report (University of Bristol, November 2023) https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/381510336/Fair_Shares_report_-_final_1_.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

HM Government, Family Hub Service Expectations 2025–26: Family Hubs and Start for Life Programme Guide (February 2025) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67cacd94a175f08d198d80c2/Family_Hubs_Service_Expectations_2025-2026.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

Law Commission, Financial Remedies on Divorce and Dissolution: Scoping Report (December 2024) 73 https://cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/54/2024/12/Financial-Remedies-scoping-report-Dec-24-1-3.pdf or https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/financial-remedies-on-divorce/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Ministry of Justice, Family Court Statistics Quarterly: April to June 2022 (Accredited Official Statistics, updated 12 October 2022) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2022 accessed 2 July 2025.

Ministry of Justice, Family Justice Review: Final Report (November 2011) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c4b3ae5274a1b00422c9e/family-justice-review-final-report.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

Ministry of Justice, Reducing Family Conflict: Government Response to the Consultation on Reform of the Legal Requirements for Divorce (CP 58, April 2019) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cab610eed915d564d063fbe/reducing-family-conflict-consult-response.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

Ministry of Justice, Supporting Earlier Resolution of Private Family Law Arrangements: Government Response to the Consultation (updated 12 February 2024) https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/supporting-earlier-resolution-of-private-family-law-arrangements/outcome/supporting-earlier-resolution-of-private-family-law-arrangements-government-response accessed 2 July 2025.

Office for National Statistics, Divorces and Dissolutions in England and Wales: 2023 (Demography Team, 2 July 2025) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2023 accessed 2 July 2025.

Sharfman A and Cobb P, Divorces in England and Wales: 2022 (Office for National Statistics, 22 February 2024) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2022 accessed 2 July 2025.

Trinder EJ, Braybrook D, Bryson C, Coleman L, Houlston C and Sefton M, Finding Fault? Divorce Law and Practice in England and Wales (2017) http://hdl.handle.net/10871/32620 accessed 2 July 2025.

Trinder L J, Braybrook D, Bryson C, Coleman L, Houlston C and Sefton M, Finding Fault? Divorce Law in Practice in England and Wales (Nuffield Foundation, 2017) https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Finding_Fault_full_report_v_FINAL.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

Survey

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Marriages and Divorces, Australia, Reference period 2023 (ABS, released 16 August 2024) https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/marriages-and-divorces-australia/latest-release accessed 2 July 2025.

Resolution, ‘No‑fault divorce’ (Resolution, 2022) https://resolution.org.uk/no-fault-divorce/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Resolution, ‘No‑Fault Divorce’ (Resolution, 2023) https://resolution.org.uk/no-fault-divorce/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Thesis/Dissertation

Nalbant M, The Appropriateness of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Individual Employment Disputes: A Comparative Study of Turkey and the UK (PhD thesis, University of Nottingham 2023) https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/78500/ accessed 2 July 2025.

Ndebele LT, Legal Counselling in Family Mediation to Address Unnecessary Litigation (MS thesis, University of Pretoria 2023) https://www.proquest.com/openview/c568a4bdd8de91184fffb91a0b1b40c4/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y accessed 2 July 2025.

Hudgins S, A Hermeneutical Phenomenological Study Exploring Divorce in Blended Families (EdD thesis, Liberty University 2025) https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/6720 accessed 2 July 2025.

---

[1] Ministry of Justice, ‘Divorce “blame game” to end’ (Press Release, 7 January 2020) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/divorce-blame-game-to-end accessed 2 July 2025.

[2] Id.

[3] Jennifer Aston, review of Henry Kha (ed), A History of Divorce Law: Reform in England from the Victorian to Interwar Years, in International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (2021) 35(1) ebab037 https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebab037 accessed 2 July 2025.

[4] Cristina Draghici, ‘Rethinking the Grounds for Divorce: Comparative Perspectives from the UK, the US, Canada and Australia’ (2023) Child and Family Law Quarterly 333 https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/31991/1/Introduction%20CFLQ%20Special%20Issue%20Divorce%20final%20author%20copy%20(1).pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

[5] James Carroll and Jemma Pollock, ‘Owens and Owens: Unreasonable Law Not Unreasonable Behaviour?’ (Law Society, 25 July 2018) https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/family-and-children/owens-and-owens accessed 2 July 2025.

[6] Supra Note 1.

[7] Supra Note 1.

[8] Amanda Sharfman and Pamela Cobb, Divorces in England and Wales: 2022 (Office for National Statistics, 22 February 2024) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2022 accessed 2 July 2025.

[9] Office for National Statistics, Divorces and Dissolutions in England and Wales: 2023 (Demography Team, 2 July 2025) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2023 accessed 2 July 2025.

[10] Kanak Ghosh, Divorces in England and Wales: 2018 (Statistical Bulletin, Office for National Statistics, 29 November 2019) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/bulletins/divorcesinenglandandwales/2018/pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

[11] Supra Note 1.

[12] Id.

[13] Liz Trinder and others, Finding Fault? Divorce Law and Practice in England and Wales (2017) http://hdl.handle.net/10871/32620 accessed 2 July 2025.

[14] Martin Davis and Rachanda Shafei, ‘No‑Fault Divorce: Who is to blame?’ (33 Bedford Row, 6 April 2022) https://www.33bedfordrow.co.uk/insights/articles/no-fault-divorce-who-is-to-blame accessed 2 July 2025.

[15] Professor Liz Trinder and others, Finding Fault? Divorce Law in Practice in England and Wales (Nuffield Foundation, 2017) https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Finding_Fault_full_report_v_FINAL.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

[16] Liz Trinder, Debbie Braybrook, Caroline Bryson, Lester Coleman, Catherine Houlston and Mark Sefton, Finding Fault? Divorce Law in Practice in England and Wales (Nuffield Foundation, October 2015–February 2019) https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/project/finding-fault-divorce-law-in-practice-in-england-and-wales accessed 2 July 2025.

[17] Id.

[18] Supra Note 14.

[19] Supra Note 16.

[20] Polly Morgan, ‘The Public Tragedy of the Owens’ Divorce’ (2019) 41(1) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 100–102 https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2019.1554797 accessed 2 July 2025.

[21] Id.

[22] Supra Note 1.

[23] Supra Note 14.

[24] Id.

[25] Supra Note 5.

[26] Id.

[27] Supra Note 5.

[28] John Vander Luit, ‘Owens v Owens Outcome Will “Potentially Affect Thousands”’ (Solicitors Journal, 10 August 2017) https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/owens-v-owens-outcome-will-potentially-affect-thousands accessed 2 July 2025.

[29] Piers Burgess and Shreya Desai, ‘Joint Divorces: A False Dawn or a New Frontier?’ (2022) 165 Solicitors’ Journal 40 https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/solicjo198&div=325&id=&page= accessed 2 July 2025.

[30] Catherine Fairbairn (with Cassie Barton), “No‑fault divorce” (House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 01409, 9 April 2019) https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01409/SN01409.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

[31] Id.

[32] Supra Note 15.

[33] John Haskey, ‘Divorces by Fact Proven Over the Past Half Century in England and Wales: The Historical Context, Statistical Trends and Future Prospects’ in Joanna Miles, Rebecca Probert and Daniel Monk (eds), Fifty Years of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 (Bloomsbury Publishing 2022) 33.

[34] Supra Note 8.

[35] Supra Note 1.

[36] Carmen Draghici, ‘From Indissolubility of Marriage to Unilateral Divorce on Demand: A Tardy Revolution in English Family Law’ (2023) 35(4) Child and Family Law Quarterly 413–440 https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/31711/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[37] Supra Note 4.

[38] Id.

[39] Emma Hitchings, Caroline Bryson, Gillian Douglas, Susan Purdon and Jenny Birchall, Fair Shares? Sorting out money and property on divorce: Report (University of Bristol, November 2023) https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/381510336/Fair_Shares_report_-_final_1_.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

[40] Supra Note 1.

[41] Id.

[42] Pamela Foohey and Christopher K Odinet, ‘Silencing Litigation Through Bankruptcy’ (2023) 109(6) Virginia Law Review 1261 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27275033 accessed 2 July 2025.

[43] KJ Kesselring and T Stretton, Marriage, Separation, and Divorce in England, 1500–1700 (Oxford University Press 2022).

[44] Jamie Lennox, ‘No‑fault divorce: Petitions soar following April’s legislation: Ministry of Justice (MoJ) publishes Family Court statistics for April–June 2022’ (Today’s Family Lawyer, 6 October 2022) https://todaysfamilylawyer.co.uk/no-fault-divorce-petitions-soar-following-aprils-legislation/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[45] Supra Note 8.

[46] John Vander Luit, ‘Owens v Owens Outcome Will “Potentially Affect Thousands”’ (Solicitors Journal, 10 August 2017) https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/owens-v-owens-outcome-will-potentially-affect-thousands accessed 2 July 2025.

[47] Supra note 14.

[48] Id.

[49] Supra Note 14.

[50] Supra note 44.

[51] Nigel Shepherd, review of Joanna Miles, Daniel Monk and Rebecca Probert (eds), Fifty Years of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 (2022) 37(1) International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family ebad032 https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad032 accessed 2 July 2025.

[52] Kevin Chung Hau Yuk, Comparison of Legal Framework for Divorce in 2024: England and Wales, and Mainland China (5 June 2024) SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=5245257 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5245257 accessed 2 July 2025.

[53] Supra Note 14.

[54] Id.

[55] Supra Note 14.

[56] Id.

[57] Law Society, ‘No‑fault Divorce’ (5 April 2022) https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/family-and-children/no-fault-divorce accessed 2 July 2025.

[58] Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (c 11). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/11 accessed 2 July 2025.

[59] Kathy Griffiths, ‘Cohabitation Law Reform in England and Wales: The Case for Reform and Challenges of Definition’ in Law 2024 (Edward Elgar Publishing 2024) 322 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802202656.00030 accessed 2 July 2025.

[60] Máire Ní Shúilleabháin, ‘Dissolution of Adult Relationships and the Cross-Border Dimension’ in Law 2024 (Edward Elgar Publishing 2024) 238 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802207422.00019 accessed 2 July 2025.

[61] Supra Note 36.

[62] Frederick Daniel Amara, Fault-Based Divorce Laws versus No-Fault Divorce Proceedings: A Dynamic Shift in Family Law (4 June 2024) SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=4920239 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4920239 accessed 2 July 2025.

[63] Hilary Goodfriend, review of Steve Ellner, Ronaldo Munck and Kyla Sankey (eds), Latin American Social Movements and Progressive Governments: Creative Tensions Between Resistance and Convergence (Rowman & Littlefield 2022) (May 2023) Latin American Perspectives in the Classroom review article, 155–159 https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2022.2213409 accessed 2 July 2025.

[64] Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service, ‘Simplified/Do It Yourself Procedure’ (Taking action: Divorce and Dissolution of Civil Partnership, Scottish Courts & Tribunals Service) https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/taking-action/divorce-and-dissolution-of-civil-partnership/simplifieddo-it-yourself-procedure/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[65] Supra Note 44.

[66] Id.

[67] Supra Note 30.

[68] Supra Note 30.

[69] Supra note 44.

[70] Supra Note 5.

[71] Supra note 1.

[72] Jennifer L Hardesty, Brian G Ogolsky, So Young Park, Tanitoluwa D Akinbode, Christopher R Maniotes, Emily J Charvat and Maya L Carter, ‘No‑Fault Divorce: Understanding Consequences for Cases with Intimate Partner Violence’ (2024) 66 Family Transitions 6–26 https://doi.org/10.1080/28375300.2024.2406112 accessed 2 July 2025.

[73] Emma Hitchings, ‘Editorial’ (2022) 44(2) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 141 https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2082822 accessed 2 July 2025.

[74] Ministry of Justice, Reducing Family Conflict: Government Response to the Consultation on Reform of the Legal Requirements for Divorce (CP 58, April 2019) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cab610eed915d564d063fbe/reducing-family-conflict-consult-response.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

[75] Supra Note 15.

[76] Supra Note 1.

[77] Lindsay Jones, Can the Grounds for Divorce Affect My Divorce Settlement? (Lindsay Jones Divorce Lawyer, 22 May 2019) https://lindsayjonesdivorcelawyer.co.uk/2019/05/22/can-the-grounds-for-divorce-affect-my-divorce-settlement/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[78] Yasmin Kibble, ‘What Constitutes Conduct in Financial Remedy Proceedings? Different Examples of “Bad Behaviour” and Whether the Court Would Take Them into Account within Financial Remedy Proceedings’ (Weightmans, 4 September 2024) https://www.weightmans.com/insights/what-constitutes-conduct-in-financial-remedy-proceedings/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[79] Id.

[80] Bar Council, The Case for No‑Fault Divorce in England and Wales (2023) https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/asset/68606BF7-CD44-4E62-B53367ECD3682DDA/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[81] Supra Note 78.

[82] Supra Note 4.

[83] Supra Note 1.

[84] Supra Note 8.

[85] Supra note 1.

[86] Supra Note 1.

[87] Coalition for Marriage, ‘Five Reasons Why “No‑Fault Divorce” Would Be a Disaster for Marriage’ (22 November 2017) https://www.c4m.org.uk/five-reasons-no-fault-divorce-disaster-marriage/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[88] Id.

[89] Supra Note 57.

[90] Id.

[91] Supra note 1.

[92] Supra Note 30.

[93] Ministry of Justice, Family Court Statistics Quarterly: April to June 2022 (Accredited Official Statistics, updated 12 October 2022) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2022 accessed 2 July 2025.

[94] Supra Note 43.

[95] Ministry of Justice, HM Courts & Tribunals Service and the Rt Hon Dominic Raab, ‘“Blame game” ends as no‑fault divorce comes into force’ (Press Release, 6 April 2022) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/blame-game-ends-as-no-fault-divorce-comes-into-force accessed 2 July 2025.

[96] Supra Note 16.

[97] Charlotte Bendall, ‘Should We Welcome an End to the “Blame Game”? Reflecting on Experiences of Civil Partnership Dissolution’ (2019) Journal of Divorce and Remarriage https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2019.1699371 accessed 2 July 2025.

[98] Resolution, ‘No‑fault divorce’ (Resolution, 2022) https://resolution.org.uk/no-fault-divorce/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[99] Id.

[100] Supra Note 1.

[101] Anonymous, “My husband and I want to split on good terms – thanks to no‑fault divorces, we finally can” (The Guardian, 6 April 2022) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/06/husband-split-no-fault-divorces-england-wales-marriages-end accessed 2 July 2025.

[102] Id.

[103] Supra Note 101.

[104] Id.

[105] Supra Note 101.

[106] Supra Note 1.

[107] CAFCASS, Response to the MOJ’s “Reducing Family Conflict” Consultation (June 2019) https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/Cafcass-response-to-Reducing-family-conflict-consultation-1.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

[108] Supra Note 5.

[109] Anna Garriga and Fulvia Pennoni, ‘The Causal Effects of Parental Divorce and Parental Temporary Separation on Children’s Cognitive Abilities and Psychological Well‑being According to Parental Relationship Quality’ (2022) 161 Social Indicators Research 963, 979 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02428-2 accessed 2 July 2025.

[110] Jonathan Gruber, Is Making Divorce Easier Bad for Children? The Long Run Implications of Unilateral Divorce (NBER Working Paper No 7968, October 2000) https://doi.org/10.3386/w7968 accessed 2 July 2025.

[111] Kim Halford, ‘How Will My Divorce Affect My Kids?’ (The Conversation, 10 September 2018) https://theconversation.com/how-will-my-divorce-affect-my-kids-101594 accessed 2 July 2025.

[112] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Marriages and Divorces, Australia, Reference period 2023 (ABS, released 16 August 2024) https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/marriages-and-divorces-australia/latest-release accessed 2 July 2025.

[113] Supra note 30.

[114] Kirsten Gravningen and others, ‘Reported Reasons for Breakdown of Marriage and Cohabitation in Britain: Findings from the Third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal‑3)’ (2017) 12 PLoS ONE e0174129, 5 (men 18% cited unfaithfulness; women 24%) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174129 accessed 2 July 2025.

[115] Steve Hudgins, A Hermeneutical Phenomenological Study Exploring Divorce in Blended Families (EdD thesis, Liberty University 2025) https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/6720 accessed 2 July 2025.

[116] Rita Gupta, ‘Empathy and sensitivity: a new approach for no-fault divorce’ (Law Society, 24 March 2022) https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/blogs/empathy-and-sensitivity-a-new-approach-for-no-fault-divorce accessed 2 July 2025.

[117] Deborah Jeff, ‘Getting divorced? Consider psychotherapy’ The Times (London, 9 May 2024) https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/getting-divorced-consider-psychotherapy-dd8z3pfxz accessed 2 July 2025.

[118] Supra Note 95.

[119] Taylor McDonald, ‘Make up or break up – how getting back together can impact your divorce’ (Switalskis Solicitors, 6 February 2025) https://www.switalskis.com/blog/reconciliation-and-divorce accessed 2 July 2025.

[120] Hansard, Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill (Lords, 8 June 2020) cols 1503–04.

[121] St Helens Law, ‘No fault divorce – do you really need to wait 20 weeks?’ (2023) https://www.sthelenslaw.co.uk/news/no-fault-divorce-wait-20-weeks/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[122] Supra Note 87.

[123] Id.

[124] Supra Note 14.

[125] Hansard, HC Deb 17 June 2020, vol 677, cols 126–147 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-06-17/debates/45EE5F3F-8AE6-413D-AF68-EDA8484726CD/DivorceDissolutionAndSeparationBill accessed 2 July 2025.

[126] Jamie Gillies, ‘“No-fault” divorce undermines marriage: Why is the government making it easier to break up families?’ The Critic (6 April 2022) https://thecritic.co.uk/no-fault-divorce-undermines-marriage/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[127] Linda Tendesai Ndebele, Legal Counselling in Family Mediation to Address Unnecessary Litigation (MS thesis, University of Pretoria 2023) https://www.proquest.com/openview/c568a4bdd8de91184fffb91a0b1b40c4/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y accessed 2 July 2025.

[128] Supra Note 14.

[129] Isabel Heinemann, Family Values: Divorce, Working Women, and Reproductive Rights in Twentieth-Century America (Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG 2023).

[130] Supra Note 8.

[131] Supra Note 9.

[132] Supra Note 10.

[133] Supra Note 44.

[134] Sandra Davis, ‘“Divorce Day” Reflections: Sandra Davis for The Sunday Telegraph’ (Mishcon de Reya, [date unknown]) https://www.mishcon.com/news/divorce-day-reflections-sandra-davis-for-the-sunday-telegraph accessed 2 July 2025.

[135] Rishi Kumar, An Economic Critique of No‑Fault Divorce Laws (19 March 2022) SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=4081378 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4081378 accessed 2 July 2025.

[136] GOV.UK, Get a divorce: step by step (Gov.uk, latest update unknown) https://www.gov.uk/divorce/file-for-divorce accessed 2 July 2025.

[137] Danielle Braff, ‘DIY Divorce’ (2019) 105(6) ABA Journal 31 https://www.jstor.org/stable/26913464 accessed 2 July 2025.

[138] Supra Note 14.

[139] GOV.UK, Court and tribunal fees (Gov.uk, latest update unknown) https://www.gov.uk/court-fees-what-they-are accessed 2 July 2025.

[140] Supra Note 57.

[141] Chloe J Duger, ‘AI: Increasing Alternatives in Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (2024) Resolved: Journal of Alternative Dispute Resolution 12, 21 https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/resolvjo12&div=5&id=&page= accessed 2 July 2025.

[142] Larry D Foster, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Comprehensive Review and Call for Reform’ (2025) 28 Atlantic Law Journal 164 https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/atlanic28&div=11&id=&page= accessed 2 July 2025.

[143] K Sharada and KM Sathyaroopa, ‘Family Mediation and Conflict Resolution: Legal Frameworks and Effectiveness’ (2023) 6(6) International Journal of Law Management and Humanities 1604 https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ijlmhs26&div=140&id=&page= accessed 2 July 2025.

[144] Ministry of Justice, ‘Mediation to Help Thousands More Families Avoid Costly Legal Battles’ (Press Release, 3 June 2022) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mediation-to-help-thousands-more-families-avoid-costly-legal-battles accessed 2 July 2025.

[145] Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25.

[146] Supra Note 78.

[147] Id.

[148] Supra Note 78.

[149] Rosewood Solicitors, The Ultimate Guide to Freezing Orders (Rosewood, 2 months ago) https://www.rosewood-solicitors.com/articles/the-ultimate-guide-to-freezing-orders accessed 2 July 2025.

[150] J Thomas Oldham, Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property (Law Journal Press 2021).

[151] Supra Note 4.

[152] Irina N Mineeva, Mikhail A Panfilov, Elena O Kolokolova and Elena N Moiseeva, ‘Features of Dissolution of Marriage Abroad (By the Example of Great Britain)’ in A V Bogoviz, A E Suglobov, A N Maloletko and O V Kaurova (eds), Cooperation and Sustainable Development, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 245 (Springer, Cham 2022) 565–71 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77000-6_66 accessed 2 July 2025.

[153] Supra Note 57.

[154] Supra Note 14.

[155] Supra Note 57.

[156] Mustafa Nalbant, The Appropriateness of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Individual Employment Disputes: A Comparative Study of Turkey and the UK (PhD thesis, University of Nottingham 2023) https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/78500/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[157] Amy Sixsmith, ‘Mediators’ perspectives on the Family Mediation Voucher Scheme’ (2023) 35 Child and Family Law Quarterly 9 https://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/id/eprint/16151/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[158] Supra Note 44.

[159] Supra Note 30.

[160] Dimitri Mortelmans, ‘Economic Consequences of Divorce: A Review’ in Michaela Kreyenfeld and Heike Trappe (eds), Parental Life Courses after Separation and Divorce in Europe (Springer 2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44575-1_2 or https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/39542/1/2020_Book_ParentalLifeCoursesAfterSepara.pdf#page=31 accessed 2 July 2025.

[161] Supra Note 5.

[162] Supra Note 4.

[163] Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38, [2009] 1 AC 1101 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090701/chart.pdf.

[164] Supra Note 15.

[165] Supra Note 30.

[166] Supra Note 30.

[167] Supra Note 5.

[168] Supra Note 87.

[169] Id.

[170] Supra Note 87.

[171] Amra Bone, ‘Islamic Marriage and Divorce in the United Kingdom: The Case for a New Paradigm’ (2020) 40(1) Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 163 https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2020.1737412.

[172] Jessica Pacwa, ‘Marriage and Divorce’ (2023) 24 Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 671 https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/grggenl24&i=671.

[173] Gillian Douglas, ‘Fifty Years of the Divorce Reform Act 1969: edited by J Miles, D Monk and R Probert, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2022, 295 & xiii pp., £85 (currently £76.50), ISBN 978-1-50994-788-1’ (2022) 44(3) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 424 https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2022.2102768.

[174] Rosemary Auchmuty, ‘Feminism and Family Property’ in Sharon Thompson and Jens M Scherpe (eds), Research Handbook on Family Property and the Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2024) 406 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802204681.00036.

[175] Riccardo Ciacci, María José Martín Rodrigo and Antonio Núñez Partido, ‘Unilateral Divorce Laws Affect Women’s Welfare’ (2023) PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289154.

[176] Linus Andersson, Jan Saarela and Caroline Uggla, ‘Divorce among More and Less Divorce-Prone Populations Following Unilateral Divorce Laws’ (2024) Journal of Marriage and Family https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.13056.

[177] Jenny Arnold, ‘Do the Family Courts Favour Women?’ (JMW Family Law & Divorce Solicitors, 29 March 2023) https://www.jmw.co.uk/blog/family-law/do-the-family-courts-favour-women accessed 2 July 2025.

[178] Supra Note 57.

[179] Supra Note 44.

[180] Id.

[181] Geneva Abdul, ‘Divorce applications wrongly approved after computer error, high court hears’ The Guardian (London, 31 October 2024) https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/31/divorce-applications-wrongly-approved-computer-error-high-court accessed 2 July 2025.

[182] Couples unlawfully divorced after glitch in digital system: judges are considering dissolving 67 divorces after they were approved in error The Times (London, 29 May 2024) https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/couples-unlawfully-divorced-after-glitch-in-digital-system-zb6dhmn53 accessed 2 July 2025.

[183] Michael Cross, ‘Digitisation adding to delays plaguing civil court system and undermining access to justice, solicitors tell Law Society’ The Law Society Gazette (London, 17 October 2023) https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/online-courts-adding-to-delays-solicitors-claim/5117571.article accessed 2 July 2025. 2 July 2025.

[184] TLT LLP, ‘Spousal Maintenance and the So-Called “Meal Ticket for Life”’ (Lexology, 1 May 2018) https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7cf93f30-ba86-4be9-851b-0cce77b62621 accessed 2 July 2025.

[185] Baroness Ruth Deech, ‘Reform of Financial Provision on Divorce’ (Financial Remedies Journal, 1 July 2024) https://financialremediesjournal.com/content/reform-of-financial-provision-on-divorce.6f2834c64f574ec4b237f04117e05f4c.htm accessed 2 July 2025.

[186] Law Commission, Financial Remedies on Divorce and Dissolution: Scoping Report (December 2024) 73 https://cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/54/2024/12/Financial-Remedies-scoping-report-Dec-24-1-3.pdf or https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/financial-remedies-on-divorce/.

[187] Ministry of Justice, Family Justice Review: Final Report (November 2011) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c4b3ae5274a1b00422c9e/family-justice-review-final-report.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

[188] HM Government, Family Hub Service Expectations 2025–26: Family Hubs and Start for Life Programme Guide (February 2025) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67cacd94a175f08d198d80c2/Family_Hubs_Service_Expectations_2025-2026.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.

[189] Ministry of Justice, Supporting Earlier Resolution of Private Family Law Arrangements: Government Response to the Consultation (updated 12 February 2024) https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/supporting-earlier-resolution-of-private-family-law-arrangements/outcome/supporting-earlier-resolution-of-private-family-law-arrangements-government-response accessed 2 July 2025.

[190] Supra Note 57.

[191] GOP Waging War on No‑Fault Divorce With Long Waiting Periods (Molly BKenny, 22 April 2014) https://www.mollybkenny.com/news/gop-waging-war-on-no-fault-divorce-with-long-waiting-periods.cfm accessed 2 July 2025.

[192] Barbara Hoberock, ‘Oklahoma Bill Would End Incompatibility as Grounds for Divorce: Critics Say It Would Cause Significant Harm’ (Oklahoma Voice, 25 January 2024) https://oklahomavoice.com/2024/01/25/oklahoma-bill-would-end-incompatibility-as-divorce-grounds/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[193] Kimberlee Kruesi, ‘Repealing No-Fault Divorce Has So Far Stalled Across the US. Some Worry That’ll Change Under Trump’ AP News (26 November 2024) https://apnews.com/article/divorce-nofault-repeal-republican-states-40d6c51bd26b7d8c6a2d4969b21d4b53 accessed 2 July 2025.

[194] Supra Note 4.

[195] Supra Note 5.

[196] Supra Note 44.

[197] Sandra Davis, Top divorce lawyer Sandra Davis: ‘My advice? Don’t get divorced’ (interview by Eleanor Mills, The Telegraph, 5 January 2025) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/relationships/top-divorce-lawyer-sandra-davis-interview/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[198] ClerkCFC, ‘Comment on “AskUK: Divorce process experiences?”’ (Reddit, 2025) https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/1cyft5q/comment/n11jsc8/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[199] Supra Note 16.

[200] Supra Note 101.

[201] Id.

[202] nancypants9999999999, ‘6 month later…divorcing my husband was a HUGE mistake :(’ (r/Divorce) https://www.reddit.com/r/Divorce/comments/8s7qy3/6_month_laterdivorcing_my_husband_was_a_huge/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[203] Resolution, ‘No‑Fault Divorce’ (Resolution, 2023) https://resolution.org.uk/no-fault-divorce/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[204] Id.

[205] Supra Note 15.

[206] Id.

[207] Suzanne Townley, ‘“No fault” divorce is here: but is it good news for the family lawyers?’ Solicitors Journal (News Editor, date unknown) https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/no-fault-divorce-is-here-but-is-good-news-for-the-family-lawyers accessed 2 July 2025.

[208] Id.

[209] Dominic Casciani and Claire Ellison, ‘End of blame game in divorce laws in England and Wales’ BBC News (London, 6 April 2022) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61004089 accessed 2 July 2025.

[210] Katie Vandenberg, ‘5 Key Professionals in the Divorce Process’ Divorce Support Blog (Focused Forward, 25 April 2024) https://www.katievandenberg.com/blog/archives/04-2024 accessed 2 July 2025.

[211] Susan Pease Gadoua LCSW, ‘At‑Fault Divorce Laws Would Be Dangerous and Expensive’ Contemplating Divorce (Psychology Today, updated 31 December 2024) https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/contemplating-divorce/202412/at-fault-divorce-laws-would-be-dangerous-and-expensive accessed 2 July 2025.

[212] u/[Anonymous], ‘Divorce Concerns’ (r/QAnonCasualties, 2025) https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/comments/1fmwv41/divorce_concerns/ accessed 2 July 2025.

[213] CAFCASS, Coping with Your Child’s Reactions https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/parent-carer-or-family-member/applications-child-arrangements-order/resources-help-you-make-arrangements-are-your-childs-best-interests/coping-your-childs-reactions accessed 2 July 2025.

[214] CAFCASS, Harmful Conflict: A Structured Guide (March 2025) https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/Harmful%20conflict%20guide%202.pdf accessed 2 July 2025.