The Equality Of Women And Men

The first is division, as Grant Knight and Vicky Lewis state in their article; Is division and sale a useful remedy: “First, there is the issue of whether the property can be divided and if it cannot then it requires to be sold.” With the present case of Amanda and John the house could not be divided equally between the two parties and would therefore require the house to be sold. Division and sale is therefore, the only logically remedy that the courts could impose. Division and sale is the selling of the house with which the: “proceeds thereafter should be in proportions which are just and equitable.” Dividing the proceeds equally, prevents the general principle of nemo dat quod non habet being an issue. Division and sale is an absolute right and under common law for an unmarried couple there is no defence to this. A case which highlights the courts effectively implementing the remedy of divison and sale is the case of Berry v Berry. In this case the husband wanted to buy out the wife’s shares. However, the outer house refused to allow him to buy out her shares as It was seen in both the party’s best interests to have a sale on the open market which would raise a higher price. Although, in this case Berry and Berry are a married couple and have the be benefit to implement the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 it still shows the

We have progressed a lot as a society. No longer are women stuck at home cooking and taking care of children. Now, more than ever, women have the same opportunities to achieve just as much men. There are no jobs that men do that women can’t. Women can vote, play

(L. Young, G. Monahan, A. Sifris, R. Carrol, Family law in Australia and Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) c

But this has not always been so. The system existing before the adoption of the Family Law (Scotland) Act which was to be found in the now repealed section 5 of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976 was characterised and criticized for its lack of clear guidance and objectives regarding the making of settlements and the great judiciary discretion it led to . Courts could take into account all the circumstances they wished and the English legal framework established by the aforementioned Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 was more developed that the position prevailing in Scotland at that time . “A key aim of the 1985 Act was therefore to create a much clearer framework to inform decisions about the financial consequences of divorce” . This as undeniably

The other traditional justifications for the marital exemption were the common law doctrines that a woman was the property of her husband and that the legal existence of the woman was ‘incorporated and consolidated into that of a husband.’

No fault divorce has allowed women and men (and more recently, same sex couples) the option to end their marriage simply because they no longer want to be married. However, this presents new legal questions which need to be answered. The courts must determine alimony, or spousal support. After a marriage, one spouse might need to support the other based on length of the marriage, difference in incomes or lost earning potential. However, determining a fair way to allocate alimony is an important issues to ensure both partners come out of the marriage on equal footing. Establishing new guidelines for alimony is critical to ensuring that there is equality at the end of a marriage.

If at least one spouse can demonstrate that the marriage has irretrievably broken or that there exists irreconcilable differences or incompatibility a divorce is granted. Consent of both spouses is not necessary. Consequently, each spouse possesses a right to divorce under no-fault principles. David Emmerson, chairman of Resolution's legal aid committee and a partner at east London firm Edwards Duthie, said, ‘Divorce ought to be as simple a process as getting married. It should be no fault and no details.’ However, if this were to be the case then the institution of marriage would be near non-existent and the sanctity would be

Family Law constitutes management of domestic relationships in contemporary society were changing social values evoke issues that legislative reform must try to rectify. These reforms enable recognition of rights of family members in dealing with contemporary issues, such as changing nature of parental responsibility, care and protection of children and same-sex marriage. In the past, a traditional family was the nuclear family unit, but in contemporary society it has become increasingly accepting of alternate family relationships. This changing social perception has incited law reform to effectively highlight contemporary issues in the media and lobby groups. Family law reform has been effective in protecting the disadvantaged, or those who cannot act to preserve their own rights - particularly children. However, a major criticism of legislative reform is the recurring problem of time delays, and ineffective adjustment to contemporary issues quickly. But, also if the law changes too quickly, it may become poor law - too broad or too narrow, contradictory and hard to enforce, thus non-effective.

It has been stated that “Britain’s fault based system is anachronistic and in need of reform”. Divorce enquiries are at a 10 year high and

The Law Commission’s Report has proposed that there should be legislative reform to create nuptial agreements that are in a prescribed form and adhere to certain safeguards, legally binding. A nuptial agreement that meets the criteria is called a ‘qualifying ' nuptial agreement and would allow married couples and civil partners to make an agreement as to how their assets should be divided when they to separate. The court will be prevented from making orders inconsistent with the terms of the qualifying nuptial agreement as long as they meet the parties needs and is in the interest of a child of the family.

In the world today, many men and women believe divorce is always a dreadful thing that occurs, but there is actually a beneficial side to it. Divorce has been around for many years and mainly just men were the only ones capable to make the decisions. Until, The Guardian states,” The 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act allowed ordinary people to divorce.” Under this new law, it was capable for women to make the decision, they just had to prove the facts to withhold a divorce. Following 1857, in 1923 there was a private member’s bill that allowed women to petition for a divorce for adultery. However, it only made it a little bit easier, they still needed to prove the reason. A few years later, they were able to pass another law, this law allowed divorce

The 18th century in both the Americas and Europe ushered in a new age of advancements in various fields. But, the new century also introduced new concepts for families and marriage being able to be seen in the US and Europe. Stephanie Coontz argues this new era marked the beginning of when people, “were encouraged to marry for love” (146). However, this introduction of had both advantageous and detrimental effects on both women and marriage as an institution itself. As Coontz states, to protect women during a divorce proceeding, “In England, an 1839 law gave the wife automatic custody of any children under the age of seven if she was the innocent partner in a separation or divorce. A later act got rid of that age limit” (172). As this era moved on, it seems as if the legislatures and the courts were starting to gradually give women more and more rights when it came to family matters.

Divorce has become such an increasingly prevalent part of American Society. According to the National Vital Statistics System, there is one divorce approximately every 36 seconds. It can be said that “problems that lead to divorce could be apparent from the beginning of the relationship, or they could arise and then worsen over the course of the relationship” (Williamson 1121). A lack of communication, financial difficulties, and infidelity are all underlying factors that are contributors to divorce.

     The most problematic law is that while it is not always necessary for a woman to consent to a divorce, “a man can give a divorce with only his full consent” (Yevamot 112b) (B. 97). It is then up to the courts and the community to try to convince him to give his wife a divorce. Many women have faced this problem of being an Agunah (anchored wife), chained to her husband until he agrees to a divorce. This problem is even more apparent today while religious morals do not always prevail over greedy husbands who wish to bribe their wives for monetary gains. There are too many cases that show husbands refusing

In the world today, countless men and women believe divorce is always a dreadful thing that occurs, but there is actually a beneficial side to it. Divorce has been around for several years and mainly just men were the only ones capable to make the decisions. According to The Guardian, the 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act allowed ordinary people to divorce. Under this new law, it was capable for women to make the decision, they just had to prove the facts to withhold a divorce such as, alcoholic addiction and abuse. Following 1857, in 1923 there was a private member’s bill that allowed women to petition for a divorce for adultery. However, they were still required to prove why they were petitioning. Some