Debate contribution: No-fault Divorce
Debate contribution by Miss Nicola Brogan on .
- MLA
- Miss Nicola Brogan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 20 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- No-fault Divorce
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4491260
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Divorce can be a difficult process for any family to go through, especially when children are involved. The statistics for divorce show that, on average, 2,100 couples in the North will seek a divorce every year. The figure has increased over time as society has become more secular. Under current laws, divorce can be granted only if the marriage has irretrievably broken down, with one party taking the blame. An applicant seeking a divorce must state the grounds on which they are applying, and they must provide evidence to the court to support their application. Divorce can be granted only if one or more of five separate grounds are met: they are adultery; unreasonable behaviour; a two-year desertion; a two-year separation if both parties consent; and a five-year separation if only one party consents. The process often puts the parties at loggerheads, creating feelings of resentment in what is already an emotional situation, and it could have a hugely negative impact on the children as well as on those seeking a divorce. Sinn Féin wants laws that encourage amicable and healthy relationships between former spouses that reduce conflict, particularly when children are involved. Another aspect of our current divorce laws that causes great frustration is the time required to complete the process. Even in the most amicable separations, the current law requires former partners to live separately for two years before an application for a divorce can be considered. That increases to five years when one party contests the divorce. In fact, that traps former partners in a broken-down marriage and can have a hugely negative impact on the physical and mental well-being of those affected. The process of divorce should be as efficient and pain-free as possible and should prioritise the welfare of those involved, particularly children and victims of domestic abuse. Our current divorce laws came into force in 1978 and are outdated. We need modern divorce laws that reflect the society in which we live today. The motion calls on the Minister of Finance to legislate for no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce is a much more straightforward and amicable approach to separation. Under no-fault divorce, former spouses can file for divorce independently or jointly without the need for one party to blame the other. It ensures that divorces can proceed on a less contentious basis and within a much quicker time frame.
No, thank you. No-fault divorce also prevents abusers from contesting a divorce, thereby preventing them from using the court system to further harm their victim. No-fault divorce was recently introduced in England and Wales via the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020. It followed a Supreme Court case, Owens v Owens, in which a petition for divorce was contested and the court ruled in favour of the contesting party on the ground that they could not reasonably be considered at fault for the breakdown of the marriage. The Supreme Court judgement strongly recommended reform of the divorce laws. The modernisation of divorce laws, particularly through no-fault divorce, is gaining traction across many jurisdictions. In addition to England and Wales, no-fault divorce has been introduced in countries such as America, Canada and Australia and in many European countries. Now is the time for the North to follow suit. I urge Members to support the motion.
552 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.45 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.35 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.15 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:22 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.