Bias by the Judiciary

Hello everyone. I am new to this forum and to any forum - so need to find out how it works. I was divorced three years ago after thirty years of marriage.

Just about every aspect of the divorce has shocked me - hence my full name flabbergasted. The divorce procedure is riddled with bias. Most solicitors seem to go along with the bias. However the approach to divorce is set by the Judiciary. I claim that the Family Law part of the Judiciary has the ability to remove the bias without reference to Parliament and hasn't done so. Therefore I see it as a disgraceful fact that many divorces are dubious and many Judges are guilty of misconduct.

I am talking about fairness to both parties, treating them equally and with respect. I am talking about transparency such as the wording on the Decree Nisi.

Much of the problem goes back to when the Judiciary chose without reference to Parliament to prefer subjectivity over objectivity. This has led to much of the bias against the Respondent.

How does it all affect me? I see myself as half divorced. I believe in marriage and responsibility and would find it hard to remarry without first getting an independent assessment of my divorce that it was absolutely fair to both parties. I am keen for this to be done. Does anyone share my views and has anyone any ideas please?

Hi Flabber-

It would help to give some specific examples of what you mean, as your allegations are rather vague.

Hi Constanza

Thanks very much for your interest.

My reason for the commments I made was to see if my introduction struck a chord with anyone especially with Respondents. I'm sure my ex-wife would not agree with my bias claim as the procedure worked strongly in her favour!

I give one example of bias.

The Particulars all referred to a person whose behaviour was affected by ME (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis). Most of the details were wrong. Her accusation of bad behaviour was made on the assumption I was feigning ME and therefore her perception of the reality was wrong. For example she said I did not like people coming for dinner with us. Other particulars were of a similar type.

I replied to the Particulars saying they were all wrong.

In the above example I mention the following points
i) I'm a social being - I like people, I like discussions and I like people coming to dinner.
ii) I retired from work early because of my ME and some deafness. I became a house-husband.
iii) Dinner parties meant I cleaned the house, prepared the table, did the shopping and prepared the meal.
iv) My wife did the main cooking and served the meal.
v) For a person with ME I had a lot to do.
vi) I did say to my wife at times that a little assistance would be helpful - but it was often mocked.
vii) Without assistance there was a risk of my collapsing that evening or the next day or the day after.
viii) If I did collapse I would get mocked and she would say how embarrassing.
ix) In reality I was doing my very best to help and there were no negative thoughts about me.
x) My wife has her own business and works all hours - usually to 3 a.m. each morning.
xi) In my view my wife was overworking. But she did not want to consider that.
xii) I had ME and some deafness from before we were married - it was fully accepted then so why the issue now? She has health issues - most people do!
xiii) I had wanted my wife to come with me to see a ME specialist but she would not agree.

I believe the natural and responsible thing for the Judge to do would have been to speak us. This is about my life and my future. Or else he should have said that I must get my ME diagnosed and we should both see marriage counsellors and a ME specialist. Then if that did not bring us together then the Judge would consider a divorce. This would have been fine and fair to both of us. (My ME has now been diagnosed).

But by ignoring my response to the Particulars, ignoring my health issue, ignoring the core of marriage namely the vows and only listening to the Petitioner I do say that he was bias - there was further serious bias too.

I can go on. For instance Her Majesty's Court Service assured me that the Judge considers the whole of the circumstances and the characters and personalities of the parties. I.e. the Judge considers the case objectively. Really!

I took my case to Relate. Relate concluded quite quickly that the problem lay entirely with the Petitioner. There was no bad behaviour by the Respondent. Relate said all the allegations belong in the bin. I went to Relate twice more and Relate was adamant that their own conclusion was the right one.