Only about 2% of divorces end up in trial before a judge. These thoughts are about my own high conflict divorce and the strategies I have used.
What worked, what didn't and the process.
Firstly: V is in the UK.
Secondly: there are no children involved so no custody etc.
Finally: V has been abused and not all high conflict D involves either an abuser or a disordered individual
--------------------------------------
High conflict involves disagreement, and some disagreement is valid in D as each has their own view. A thick skin is needed as feelings can run high. My intention is to be factual and 'reporter' like when filing in paperwork.
Divorce falls into portions
1. The Divorce itself, as in we are no longer M 2. The Final Financial settlement (can be optional) 3. It includes custody arrangements for children and in some cases D isn't granted unless some provisional arrangements are made including temporary fin support
Step 1 involves a judge agreeing that a marriage is over. This can be easy and need not involve mud slinging and vitriol. Usually including the minimum to show that the M is over.
In the UK there are various grounds for D (and ceasing a civil partnership) and these can include adultery and naming the adulterous partner. Doing so often increases costs so in most cases the minimum needed to show the M is over is needed. I took the stance that there was no requirement to be vicious as clearly the Giggalo had left the Marital Home. This of course may be different if there are children involved or abuse. In the US some States still have fault so the grounds can be important.
So how did this portion of The D become high conflict? Well first of all the Giggalo disappeared and refused to give his address, he refused to acknowledge service. At all, under no circumstances.
In the UK the length of the M for fins is largely dependent on the time the couple have cohabited plus the length of the M. In our case this was from April 2011 to October 2013 (for cohabiting) and from Octover 2013 to 26 June 2014 when I left to live in my holiday flat. The Giggalo disputes those dates and claims the end of the M was much later either when he left the FHM on 2 May 2015 or the final date of D 26 May 2016. This is important as the courts have determined that a short M is less than 5 years. And of course 30 April 2011 to 26 May 2016 exceeds 5 years. So how long was this M? The judges decide.
The length has a significant effect on fin settlement so the Giggalo played duck and dive to make the M appear longer than 5 years. Round 1 to the Giggalo.
So what can you do if no service is acknowledged? The first step is a process server, in my case the address given by the Giggalo was his sisters. So the process server turned up, he no longer lived there.
So I obtained a different address (more later) on a rented house. Another fee to a process server, he was no longer there either.
He had gone to Italy to live with the BIT (formerly called RIT), Bratislava Italian Tramp. I did not have the address. Without service I could no longer proceed to D. I therefore recorded posted his paperwork to several addresses, scatter gun approach, plus had an L email. Service achieved. Deemed service can be applied for and confirmed by the court.
In the meanwhile the Court administration in the UK had rationalised and my paperwork went from a local court to a centre based around where the Giggalo said he lived to a centre where the i live because he is abroad. The system has been widely condemned as inefficient and ineffective. It's a shambles in my view. As the administration centres have poor administration, lost paperwork and no courts in them for hearings. It means cross filings aren't tied up and in my experience orders issued on time or at all. A shambles.
My paperwork got lost, twice. I complained formally but didn't get anywhere, my requests for investigation were dismissed and minimised. Those complaints are on record though.
The judge is likely to take this into consideration when determining if this M is short, ie that the court system itself was a source of delay.
So in this first stage there was high conflict, manipulation, disappearance, and refusing to acknowledge service. All of this is designed to increase the length of the M so the Giggalo can have a larger slice of assets. All the while living with BIT in Italy. Untraceable.
I attempted to do the first part of D on my own to cut cost. I think it likely this wasn't too risky in my case. I always prepare the paperwork, no matter how hard this might be or triggering. I also prepare the court packs.
I was aware that what I might write can be triggering in a high conflict D. Although some times that is necessary to get the point across. It also triggered me as the filer.
Disputing that an M is over is unlikely to succeed as clearly the very existance of filing is evidence of M breakdown. The grounds for filing can be vital though in some instances. It is possible to accept the D whilst not accepting the grounds on which the D is filed. For instance if a D is filed on the grounds of adultery and the Respondent has not been adulterous, then it is possible to accept the D but dispute the grounds. The D is filed therefore and can be completed. In those circumstances the D could be defended leading to increased costs. Adultery is hard to prove without the other party admitting it. The Giggalo tried to say that V was living a single life with all that this infers. Clever wording, although it makes little difference where fault is not an issue.
-----------------------------------
So do you need an L for this stage?
You may need L advice, and almost certainly in high conflict D you will want a sage eye looking over any paperwork.
No one knows your M more than you, and I believe you can't abdicate this to an L. Draft the D forms and as an L to review will cut cost. This means learning what is needed in your jurisdiction.
------------------------------------
Is who files first important?
Well yes it can be in my view. In my case vital. If I had left this to the Giggalo then the M might have been very long and the settlement he is after much bigger. This is a very obvious case where filing first makes sense.
It can also be important in high conflict D, as the one who files first often speaks first in court and is known as the Applicant. The other is called the Respondent. It can give evidence an advantage to be the applicant.
In this phase of the D, V was the Applicant.
In Custody cases and fault positions, I understand this may also give an advantage.
When discussing abuse and other aspects involving custody, judges can take the position that by not filing for D when the abuse starts, then an admission of tolerance is admitted so the abuse can't be that bad or the target would have left and filed.
So early filing and filing when examining abuse can make a big difference. I think this can be especially important for fathers or mothers who have left the FHM and whose children are with a wayward or abusive or high conflict spouse.
So not filing first can in some circumstances back foot the Respondent as in my own case.
My D was confirmed on 28 May 2016, almost one year and one month after the Giggalo left the FHM and I moved back in to live.
The good news is that D is given in two phases in the UK, a nisi which is 6 weeks prior to the absolute. In my case nisi was mid April 2016 (just under 5 years, phew!) and absolute was six weeks later.
Absolute is on application, and it can be left years between nisi and absolute. However if application for absolute is made immediately then it's only 6 weeks minimum, I understand if the gap goes beyond 2 years then judges can set aside the nisi D and a redo is required. But it does give 2 years breathing space. Many M repair in this breathing space approximately 15%.
The UK stats are that 20% of those who D remarry, truly they bust their D. Which is the whole purpose of understanding the process. To remove the conflict and keep things calm is in the interests of reconciliation and piecing. I believe that understanding the process means it is less likely to be taken frivolously or used as a casual threat.
So how does this fit with trying to bust a divorce? Some abusive M can't and shouldn't be saved, like my own. Seeking a D can bring relief and respite. Also some of the processes involved such as mediation have been known to lance a wound and lead to a healthy reconciliation.
Some couples also use legal separation as a mechanism instead of divorce, which stabilises and often causes a rethink. I haven't used separation and can't discuss the pros and cons as this wasn't appropriate and the mechanism isn't known to me. I am not an L and this is just V and her views.
This is an open thread so discussion is invited in this. If these posts are inappropriate or unwelcome let me know. My intention is to document my own high conflict D and observe. Please contribute if you can.
V
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose. V 64, WAW
