Relationship breakdown is rarely a pain free experience. Many years of investment in a life lived together can take quite a lot of unravelling from a legal point of view, and that’s before even beginning to tackle the emotional investment that both parties have made. This emotional investment comes from bringing up children and building a joint life, as well as through the assets purchased, including a property which has become much more than bricks and mortar. 

The two individuals now have to create separate existences and buy new homes after deciding how their joint assets might be divided up.  Two separate lives often cost a lot more than one lived jointly, which is another source of tension.

The fact is that co-operation and a certain amount of goodwill go a very long way in providing solutions to the multiple issues which will arise. These issues can include making decisions such as, who is going to live in the former home and where will the children live? How much contact will each party have in their now separate existences and how will they co-operate to help the children through a very damaging and difficult experience in their young lives?

There are also smaller matters that can be cause for arguments, such as in one case which I remember well.

In this case, there were even arguments over ornaments in the lounge. Was that vase one we won at New Brighton fair or was it family heirloom inherited from Auntie so and so? A huge schedule of assets had been drawn up because the parties could not agree at all on how they were to be divided. That was the depth of the lack of co-operation and both parties got hammered by a judge who simply lost patience.

I remember another case where the father, who had very close and loving relationship with his three young girls, decided that the best solution was a ‘no deal’ break. As he was from the US, he took the three girls to the USA, totally against my advice. Sometime later, they were tracked down and had to return to the UK under international treaties, which applied both to the US and UK. 

I have often wondered how in adulthood, those girls related to their mother and father.

Occasionally, as in the case above, one party will simply leave. However, a deal must eventually be made about dividing up the assets and paying monies due. We would usually advise that facing the issues early on is the best way of solving these very difficult problems. In the end, issues will have to be faced and a no-deal is just putting off the evil day.

This example is reminiscent of the divorce between the EU and the UK at the end of a 46 year marriage. The public is sick and tired of the argument: why on earth are  politicians taking so long to sort something out that seems so simple? We decided to quit so let’s just do it. A no-deal exit seems the perfect solution.

The fact is that we have created a very complex web of relationships, including a huge free trade area and a customs union, which make it so easy to trade in the whole of Europe.

We have also spawned some offspring, not least the Good Friday agreement where common membership of the EU by Britain and Ireland was the given environment in which it could work.

We have multiple common agreements about the ways in which we live together, including exclusive protection for the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie to give a small but mundane example.

No-deal simply means putting off the evil day.

We will eventually have to do a deal on trade, on flights between the EU and the UK, on co-operation to deal with drugs, and online crime which respect no borders. I could go on but there is no point.

No-deal seems like a simple solution, but, as family lawyers well know, no-deal just puts off the difficulties which have to be faced. The best way to solve problems is by having a proper framework for reaching agreements one by one, even on very awkward issues.

Many who embark on a divorce find that, in hindsight, it just wasn’t worth the effort and pain, but to believe that this can be avoided by running away is deluded to say the least.