November 25 2015

Exactly 20 years ago today The Irish people tuned in to their TV’s and radios to find out how the divorce referendum had panned out. There was an overall turnout of 62% which amounted to 1.63 million electors. In the end the issue was totally an urban versus rural vote with a mere 9000 votes separating the sides. Apart from minute majorities in favour of the ‘Yes’ vote in Cork South Central and Limerick East the entire remainder of the rural constituencies voted against the Dissolution of Marriage in the Referendum while all of Dublin and its nearest pale neighbours in Louth, Wicklow and Kildare voted for Divorce. More West-Brit practises introduced by the Capital. Poor ould Dev was doing handstands in Glasnevin!

Comment of the campaign was credited to Úna Bean Mhic Mhathúna, a prominent figure of the ‘No’ divorce campaign, who gave the sound bite of the year: “G’way, ye wife-swappin’ sodomites”, she hissed, as the count in the RDS veered towards the Yes side.

What did the introduction of divorce into Ireland achieve? It was estimated that more than 80,000 separated Irish citizens were trapped in a legal limbo. It must be presumed that they, at least, were satisfied. Aside from this the power of the clergy got a serious rattlin’.

For many ‘Yes’ voters, the referendum represented a chance for the final push to detach Church from State. Ireland had become almost another country since the 1986 divorce referendum, which had been defeated by two to one. In 1980, no politician in the Dáil openly advocated divorce; by 1995, no party in the Dáil opposed it.

That intervening decade had seen Robinson elected president; the X case; the passing of two referendums relating to abortion information and the right to travel and the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Didn’t the Wilde one ground the following quote about marriage;
“Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.
 Second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.”
Why did he always have to be so right and accurate? Sickener.

Aside from all this the legal profession has developed a whole new and very prosperous side to its family law business. I had the mostly forgettable personal experience of freewheeling through the legal separation minefield and that, for a starter, was sufficient. I didn’t bother going back for the main course of divorce. Thousands of other less-than-perfect mortals have to run this gauntlet every day.

Day after day, couples wishing to divorce collect at 10am in the lobbies of courthouses throughout this rich and rare land. Some have legal representatives, others do not. They wait, some well into the afternoon, for their cases to be called in one of the courtrooms in the building. Many are bored and some are nervous. These are mainly the men. They are seen by Circuit Court judges; divorce and judicial separation are applied for at Circuit Court level, although occasionally high net worth individuals go directly to the High Court.

A couple may be legally divorced once they have lived apart for four years. This is of course in the physical sense. In Ireland, a husband or wife does not need to prove, for example, adultery or cruelty. It is a “no fault” system, but people still try to air their partners’ perceived faults in court.

Shortly after 10am, the judge runs through a list of the cases, prioritising short matters and putting longer cases to the end of the list. Then the roll-call of recrimination is announced.

Spectators cannot attend, unlike other blood-sports, although since January 2014, journalists may report on proceedings with strict limitations to protect anonymity. Each set of divorce proceedings fits somewhere on a spectrum between civility and acrimony and each couple’s experience of the courts depends on the choices they make about their approach. Divorce cases can take less than five minutes or more than five years. In one courtroom in Dublin earlier this year, a judge finalised three divorces and two judicial separations in 15 minutes. Another case was in its fifth year and still floundering. More assets associated with the latter coupled with the added spectre of a younger woman. Lethal!

Not all divorces are fraught, particularly among a certain age group, often called the “silver splitters”. They have often both realised that they can no longer stay together and come to court with agreements in writing. Younger couples, with all the complications of maintenance, custody and access to children, may also arrive in court with an agreement. This may have been produced through mediation or negotiated through legal representatives.

Negotiations often only occur just before entering court, but do take the stress out of the case for both parties. Unhappy separations, where one or other party feels aggrieved by what they did or didn’t get, can drag on until divorce time. Conversely, separations that leave husband and wife feeling things have worked out as well as possible pave the way for less acrimonious divorces.

Contentious divorces make for ugly scenes. Parties cannot keep from arguing in court, backbiting and interrupting each other. Even those represented by solicitors and barristers sometimes break out into open warfare and quibble over the smallest details.

Sometimes adversarial lawyers make the situation worse, by for example, withholding documentation until the last possible moment.

Every detail may be argued over: “Dad will collect Cindy at 6pm at the bus-stop on the main road. He will take him from mother’s car, not putting his hands into the car. He will ring his former darling no less than four hours before the meeting if he cannot make it.” In such cases, traction is not attractive. Each side of the argy bargy is desperate to say “I sorted that bitch/bastard out” but the only winner is the man with the shirt and tie and of course, the briefs.

It is said that in quite a lot of high-conflict cases, one party often has a totally tunnel vision perspective of affairs and that the totality of odium and blame is wholly the responsibility of the opposing team. 

It is virtually impossible to get through to people who don’t see the other side of the argument, who reference life to themselves completely and don’t see the damage that is being caused by their stance.

It is also very common to evidence the unreasonable stance of overprotective mothers. They insist they know ‘what’s best’ for the child and court orders are then undermined because they don’t feel satisfied that the orders of court are in the interests of ‘my children’. Alternative dispute resolution processes, such as mediation are of little use when faced by such bitter and bitterly entrenched views.

Since the time of the Wedding Feast of Cana marriage, wedding and matrimony has been a cause of great celebration in recognition of union and unity. This is rightly so and is as much a vote of confidence in the future as it is an immediate manifestation of the coming together of kindred spirits and souls. If a great and positive union can be a cause celebre of such magnitude on a global scale then why should the separation of unhappy persons not be as significant in real terms?

Surely the ridding of unhappy existence is just as positive in its end as the initial coming together. Yet we see very few divorce celebrations. Is this a refusal to recognise that we are finite in matters of judgement and are capable of taking risks that don’t always have happy conclusions? The gold ring is the symbol of marriage and the vice of marriage might be described as divorce. In Irish or Spanish, gold is either ór or d’or.

The Prodigal has assembled some thoughts on the advantages of separation.

VICE D’OR

Gone, the irritating whingeing whining,

The siren wail that might have been a voice,
No more, the manic screech of shifting misery,
At which turning, triumph will rejoice.
Never more the taunt of exultation,
Shrill and shallow victory-cry of hate,
Gone forever, deadly dart of darkness.
Touching amber embers in Hell’s grate.
Left behind, the mutant accusation,
Self-propelled to maximize the maim,
Abandoned, the philosophy of cruelty
Robbed of target, inward turning blame.
History, a child of legislation,
Blind, for men the future is a veil,
A memory, the fetid fruit of lying,
Dark cloud of oppression turning pale.
Tiny foetal whisper of a prospect
Striving to survive at fading verge,
A sliver slit of dark enveloped radiance
Struggling, must from shadows yet emerge.
A bonding in the hope of expectation,
The union of the body and the mind,
A turning on future’s hapless highway,
Spectacles are useless to the blind.
Hope, that well of never-ending succour
Propping life on legs of tremulous yew,
Forward inch by inch to newer dawning,
Budding green will overcome the blue.