Why January is dubbed as "Divorce Month"

For years, January has unofficially been dubbed ‘Divorce Month’ by the legal profession. Often the Christmas and New Year period can be a very stressful time for couples if their relationship is already experiencing difficulty. Experts say that the stress of trying to create the perfect Christmas coupled with money issues, family, and the ever nagging ‘need to stay together for the children’ lead to breaking point for many couples. Searches in google for 'I want a divorce' are said to have risen by 230% in the first week of January 2020 compared to December 2019. Relationship charity Relate also says it receives a peak in calls in January, as tensions come to a head over Christmas.

Often, a couple that is struggling to maintain a marriage may often be prompted to consider divorce as part of the self-evaluation that frequently comes with the New Year. Many people make New Year’s resolutions to put their personal lives in order, even if that includes ending an unhealthy marriage. Others may get so swept up in the alternate reality of pretty lights, joyous music, and surplus merriment that they believe they can really try to make their relationship work. But once the clock strikes midnight on 1 January, for many the real-life problems start piling up again.

Whatever the reason, divorce or separation can be a daunting and very stressful time for all involved. However, divorce does not necessarily have to equate to contentious, acrimonious and costly proceedings.  A divorce requires one to make difficult decisions that will impact the rest of their lives. Often there are children involved and where possible, a good lawyer will try and encourage a separating couple to consider alternate dispute resolution as a constructive and less confrontational way of resolving matters. This includes mediation and/or collaboration with other legal professionals to resolve matters by consent. Litigation is intended to be a very last resort. 

Family Law professionals are hopeful that this year will bring into force the highly anticipated “no fault” divorce bill. At present, the only ground for divorce is that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. This has to be proved by one of five facts: adultery, behaviour, desertion, two years' separation with consent or five years' separation without consent. The first three facts are fault-based. Therefore, if you currently want a consensual divorce without seeking to apportion any blame, you are required to wait for a minimum of two years (or five years if your spouse will not agree).

Most divorces currently proceed on a fault basis probably because the parties want to move on with their lives as soon as possible once the marriage is over. In addition, the divorce needs to start before the couple can ask the Court to resolve the financial aspects of their separation. The current Bill before Parliament aims to make divorce less acrimonious by completely removing fault from the process. Whilst irretrievable breakdown remains the sole ground for divorce, it replaces the five facts with a single statement by one or both parties that the marriage is over. Some critics have suggested that this would make divorce all too easy, although most Family Law practitioners are praising the Bill for removing levels of acrimony for marriages already in trouble and assisting couples to remain civil and reasonable with one another in hope of better future relations between them and any children of the marriage.

At Pearson Hards our family solicitors are members of Resolution, a group of practitioners committed to dealing with matters in a constructive and non-confrontational manner. Emma Rothstein, Partner and Head of Family Law, is also an Accredited Resolution Specialist in complex financial matters. Our Family Law team prides itself on being empathetic, understanding and taking a non-judgemental approach.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.