Proposition 53K0756

Projet de loi modifiant le Code judiciaire en ce qui concerne la comparution personnelle et la tentative de conciliation en cas de divorce, et instaurant une information sur l'existence et l'utilité de la médiation en matière de divorce.

General information ¶

Authors

Open Vld Patrick Dewael, Sabien Lahaye-Battheu, Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

Dec. 2, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure divorce

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Vooruit VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to adopt.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 3, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Sophie De Wit, the rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, when we are on a campaign tour, we are often addressed. We are then asked to stop making new laws and to abolish obsolete or useless laws. The present bill is written in that spirit. It is actually somewhat in line with the obligation to reconcile in rental matters, which we abolished in the Chamber in 2008.

Colleagues, what is it about and what is the history of the bill? Until 2007, parties who wished to divorce – divorce due to mistake called that then – were not required to appear in person at the court. With the Divorce Act of 2007, we removed the error as the basis for divorce and replaced it with “irreparable disruption”. At the same time, the legislative reform text proposed divorce to introduce the mandatory personal appearance in the case of divorce due to irreparable disorder.

I refer again to the memory of explanation of that time, which repeatedly responded as follows: that the divorce procedure must be eased, not to mention that the procedural bodies must be strengthened in order to avoid that the easing would lead to an increase in unconscious divorces.

Well, colleagues, those who already participated in 2007, will remember that we already had a fierce discussion about the introduction of such a new obligation. There has even been an amendment approved in the House to not introduce that obligation if the parties together request the divorce. Unfortunately, this amendment was repealed in the Senate.

The Divorce Reform Act came into force in 2007 with the famous obligation in Article 1255 of the Judicial Code. That article obliges the parties to appear in person if they together request the divorce. In case of a unilateral request, one is obliged to appear only before the divorce judge.

What is the reason for the obligation of personal appearance? The law has a double purpose. The judge must try to reconcile the parties. He must ask them whether they are convinced, whether they would not reconcile, and whether the divorce should come. Secondly, the court must provide the parties with information on mediation. Meanwhile, we are more than three years away and we can balance the new law, not only in the interest of the more than 60 000 Belgians who divorce from the real family every year, but also in the interest of the functioning of our courts. Has the personal appearance, which was intended to reconcile and provide information on mediation, achieved its purpose? Colleagues, everyone who has followed the debates must acknowledge that the response was unanimous and negative across party boundaries. The personal appearance has not caused more reconciliation, nor has it caused more mediation. In other words, it is a missed opportunity. This is the bill I have submitted with my party.

We have been debating the text for a long time. We started in the Family Law Subcommittee in October 2009. In the Justice Committee, we took the text back in hand last year and in this legislature. The debate also addressed other aspects that have been incorporated into the text through amendments. You will wonder what other aspects are. Well, there are two. I will briefly explain them. First, it concerns the information on mediation and secondly the personal presence of the parties when it comes to the children. This information on mediation had to be provided by the judge. This is now abolished. Should this information about mediation no longer be available? Yes, one still provides information, but then differently and earlier in the procedure.

The solution that we have developed and which is proposed in the text is that the parties will now receive a brochure with information on mediation and a list of family mediators of the district in addition to the call for their divorce proceedings.

A number of colleagues have argued in the discussion that it is a bad measure, that it is inapplicable and that it will involve a lot of work for the graffiti. These arguments are outdated by practice.

I refer to the hearing in the Committee on Justice in connection with the Family Court, where the President of the Court of Neufchâteau showed us an avant la lettre brochure on mediation, containing the list of family mediators.

In some courts, therefore, we do all that we register here in the law and add to the call – in the case of Neufchâteau it was the call to the youth court – already a form with an explanation on mediation and with the list of mediators.

The measure is good and should be supported.

A second element that we have introduced through an amendment to the text is the presence of the parties at the session in short litigation, when it comes to children. Here too, we can do nothing but insert the good practices that already exist in the field into the law.

I also refer here again to the hearing on the Family Court, where both the chairman of the Court of First Instance in Antwerp and the councillors of the Court of Appeal in Brussels have told us that all the parties are personally present with them today when it comes to children.

Furthermore, that obligation rests on the text drawn up by Secretary of State Wathelet, as well as on the texts on the establishment of the Family Court submitted as legislative proposals by CD&V and cdH. It has also been pointed out that it is necessary, in order to ensure the participation of the parties in the proceedings when it comes to their children, that the parties are personally present.

The obligation has also received a favorable opinion from the High Council for Justice and is parallel to what already exists in practice at the sessions of our youth courts.

Ladies and gentlemen, I conclude. This amended bill means a significant improvement in the treatment of our family affairs. However, with the bill, the work in family law has not yet ended. For example, issues such as the establishment of the family court, the settlement-division after divorce, which we have to work on, the right of co-decision and the legal cohabitation should be able to be addressed in the Subcommittee on Family Law which, I hope, Mrs. the Chair of the Committee on Justice, will be able to be established as soon as the special committee has completed its work.

I would like to thank the colleagues who have constructively contributed to the discussion of the bill. You have already guessed: my party, Open Vld, will vote for.

The adopted text provides for several new provisions concerning the personal appearance of the parties in divorce matters. It also provides for an information obligation, as our colleague Sabien Lahaye-Battheu recalled, on mediation when the case is introduced, plus a brochure of information on mediation as well as the list of approved mediators.

All this can be very interesting, of course, but it represents a cost, while ignoring the powers of every judge to reconcile the parties – powers consigned, by the way, in the provisions relating to divorce.

Then, in this text, we see appear the removal of the obligation of personal appearance of the parties for joint requests and of the applicant party in the other cases. This was the main goal that we pursued from the beginning, during the previous legislature and during this. This obligation shall be replaced by a possibility for the magistrates, on their own behalf or at the request of the parties or the public prosecutor, to order the personal appearance. At that time, the magistrate will inform the parties of the possibilities of mediation. He will have to decide, for a period of one month, if he considers that the parties can be brought closer in their points of view, i.e. whether they are, in his opinion, able to reconcile.

In addition, we did not initially consider the obligation of parties to appear at the hearing of referred. It seems to us to make the divorce procedure more difficult, since during this personal appearance requests concerning measures relating to the person, maintenance and the well-being of the children are examined. If children are involved, the parties must appear behind closed doors. As a result, outside the hearing room, a plethora of people are waiting. The problem is aggravated by the absence of audiences who would be able to properly regulate the flow of these people. In addition, the public prosecutor will take positions that can sometimes vary from one file to another, which one will not be able to know and therefore that one will not be able to criticize, even if the facts are similar.

This is the situation, which I would call “melting pot” or more pessimistically “salmigondis”, to which we came through the mediation between the different political groups who wanted to bring their ideas to this text. Initially, it was a simple text that dedicated the fact that, when people decided to choose the litigious path to divorce, they have already examined all possibilities between them to reconcile and came to the idea that there was a failure and that this failure could no longer translate or dissolve only through a conflict litigious procedure. Therefore, in all maturity, they were not going to be forced to appear more than necessary, since they already knew where they themselves were in the context of this conflicting process. This was the basic idea of our proposal submitted during the previous legislature.

Then, as I told you, the obligation to provide information about mediation and personal appearance in the context of the referred hearing when children are concerned came to be added. The starting idea, aimed at removing a constraint that has become too heavy, has now resulted in the insertion of two additional aspects to our proposal that weigh what we wanted to simplify initially.

The suggestion to leave the personal appearance to the judge’s appreciation seemed to us to be an excellent idea that allowed the judge to regulate the flow of people present at his audience. Let me take the example of the Brussels Court of First Instance. While the law is still applied in the state in which it is – it will soon change through this proposal – you should know that the Divorce Introduction Chamber in Brussels is facing numerous and plethoric requests. The waiting room chairs were removed precisely to ensure that people don’t stay too long and that the file flow is processed as quickly as possible. You will agree, this justice is not human and goes against the goals we seek through all the improvements we try to bring to our current law.

By compromise, we therefore considerably weighed the procedures, more specifically by the personal appearance in reference. Children-related measures are obviously important and it is also important that parents are aware and accountable about the measures to be taken with children. But, here, nothing guarantees that the additional formalities imposed by our proposal will be followed by effects. It would have been much more effective and realistic to adopt the proposal made by the MR and fully taken over by the CDH. In this, we wanted to ensure that divorced parties are obliged to have the measures relating to children settled before the divorce was ruled, if minor children were concerned.

So it was a little compounding in the commission: for a reason I don’t know, the cdH amendment, which fully took over the MR proposal, would have been supposedly voted, but we eventually withdrew it because it wasn’t part of our ukases. This aspect – I say it kindly to our colleague Brotcorne – will be settled later, as part of the reflection on a family court; this is what we ask and hope.

Thus, we supported the text despite everything: we considered that the measure aimed at removing the obligation of personal appearance constituted an essential step forward for the smooth running of the procedure, in the first interest of the justiciable, in terms of length, cost, possibilities to attend the hearing in view of professional constraints, to avoid painful confrontations between spouses in conflict, etc.

We wanted to adapt the law and, through this proposal, to make it a law on a scale. Indeed, the magistrate will be able to know, in a more appropriate manner, whether or not the parties must appear; if one of the parties so requests, the magistrate will assess and act in such a way that, in the cases of interest, in the case where there is a real hope of reconciliation, the persons go to the hearing.

However, we wanted to deplore the artifices that were added: mediation and, more broadly, alternative modes of conflict resolution. Obviously, they must be encouraged, but they are hardly implementable and importable in an already conflicting procedure, by essence, between adults who assume and who have probably already tried to reconcile.

Procedures must therefore remain effective and mediation a voluntary process in which the parties engage without constraint. We do not believe that an obligation of mediation or of information on mediation is capable of converting those who prefer to resort to the contentious path. Practice will tell us if these accessory measures, which we consider superfetational and burdensome, prove feasible and realistic in practice.

The MR will vote this text for the starting goal that is ⁇ ined, however with the regret of having done too much or not enough.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I also regret starting my speech: we could not be patient or wait to discuss this important problem of personal appearance in the case of a particular divorce procedure (which is made on joint request after a separation of the spouses for at least six months) during the discussion initiated on the creation of the Family and Youth Court. But here, things are what they are! I am convinced that the discussion will resume when we examine the articles of the establishment of this family court relating, in a general way, to personal appearances and hearings of the parties.

The initial objective of the proposal was to eliminate the parties’ personal appearance, which was mandatory at the time when their divorce proceedings were initiated on the basis of a separation of more than six months. It was clear. It had the merit of being short, comprehensive and consistent. Subsequently, according to the discussions, the requests of one and the other, always to get to be able to vote this text with a certain consensus, we have – and I share the terms of Mrs. Marghem – weighed the text by reintroducing the appearance of the parties at the moment when these, at their divorce, will be brought to settle what is called the provisional measures, that is, all those that revolve around the situation: children, or even the liquidation of their property. The elements of mediation have also been introduced in a very particular place, while it may be of interest to regulate mediation in a more general way.

That is why, in the course of the discussion, I reintroduced another amendment – which is not an amendment of the MR that the CDH would have taken back, but an amendment filed by the one who preceded me in the Justice Committee and in the Family Rights Committee, Clotilde Nyssens – aimed at allowing the parties to appear personally at the time of the initiation of the divorce procedure, at the time when the judge of the main proceedings is called to decide on the parties’ request for their divorce. The purpose is to leave the judge the faculty – it is in no way an obligation – to request parties, on their own initiative or at the request of one of the parties, the appearance of these in such a way as to invite them to settle in advance the situation of the children (right of accommodation, right to personal relations, right to alimony), the possible liquidation of the community, of their property.

It was therefore in no way a veto right granted to one of the parties; it was a faculty left to the magistrate to say at a given time that in this particular case, it is appropriate, it is interesting that the situation of children, for example, be settled prior to the dissolution of the marital bond.

Why can this be of interest? Essentially to allow the economically weak spouse, who unfortunately is still too often the wife, to keep a "medium of pressure" to arrive at acceptable solutions for her in the context of the dissolution of the conjugal bond. This allows to resolve problems, especially financial, before this dissolution occurs, which it also wants.

This amendment, which would have allowed to abstain from the obligation of appearance in the context of the referred, seemed to me to meet the expectations of one and the other and bring a little more consistency in the text. It was so true that the committee accepted this amendment. I know that many members abstained instead of voting against and that is why this amendment was admitted and not withdrawn, Mrs Marghem. But it was necessary to return to the committee, after registration in the plenary session, to discuss this amendment and that it be withdrawn, following an amendment deposited by Mr. Landuyt, among other things.

I regret it. It was at this time that the appearance had to be placed, when the divorce procedure was initiated. This will not prevent my group from supporting the proposal and voting for it, despite its imperfections, knowing that we will resume this debate, in one way or another, as part of the discussion for the creation of the Family and Youth Court.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to intervene for a moment and ⁇ not fall into repetition after all the speakers who have already discussed the bill here in substance.

I was delighted to read in the newspaper about a study on the evolution of divorces in recent years. As you know, under Paars – this law was established by a purple coalition in the committee – the aim was to liberalize the divorce law.

I was pleased that this week we were able to read in the newspaper an article on a large study of divorce in Flanders which shows that the measures taken to speed up and humanize the divorce procedures have led to nothing.

On the contrary, it comes down to the fact that measures have been taken which may allow one to divorce faster, but allowing one to shift the problems between people, spouses and children, until after the divorce. The fight begins after the divorce procedure rather than before.

I think this was not the intention, not even of the purple majority who amended this divorce law. This is not the intention of us now.

The week before we go again to vote on a law relating to liberalization, a facilitation of the divorce procedure, this is ⁇ in the newspapers. I think this only proves that the criticism we have expressed in the previous legislatures is correct and that the changes in the Divorce Act actually override their purpose.

A few figures: in 1994, before the divorce legislation was introduced, a procedure took 1.5 years. Now it still lasts an average of 1.5 years, with the understanding that the problem has not yet been resolved and that only then begins to discuss equalizations and divisions, about the problems with children. We think this is not a good thing.

At the same time, I note that this proposal seems all-in-one useful, seems easy, is popular. The lawyers are served on their tips, as they can go to the court without a client. Everything is faster and more practical.

The magistrates may also have been helped because the magistrates no longer sit with overcrowded sitting rooms. The personal appearance would, in certain cases, apparently give rise to overcrowded halls. So everyone seems satisfied.

So if we also ever want to divorce, we should not even take a day off to separate from the real. This seems to be the good news show.

For us, however, it is not. That way of dealing with divorce, that way of giving the impression that one comes to a faster divorce, to a better solution for people, to better solutions for children, seems to me at all not correct. The facts give us right. Not only in other countries where such rapid divorce procedures have been introduced, including in the Netherlands, where one has recovered from it because the conflicts arise later, but also in Flanders – I refer to the overview of divorces, as the newspaper also appeared last week – it is demonstrated that this is by no means the case.

Let’s be honest: the most appropriate way to divorce – I think all parties agree on this, including in the Committee on Justice – is the divorce by mutual consent, in which the parties make an agreement, in which no one should interfere with what is resolved and in which there is an agreement between the parties, including about the children, so that nothing is imposed, but the parties reach out of it among themselves. That is the EOT.

The relationship was good. Until a few years ago, 70 % of divorces occurred on the basis of mutual consent divorce and therefore not on the basis of divorce due to irreparable disruption, conflict divorce. These relationships are reversing. From now on, we will reach a 50/50 distribution. This has never been the purpose of the amendment of the divorce legislation. One may be able to divorce faster, but the conflicts will only come back on top afterwards, at the moment when further discussions need to be made, after the quick divorce, which one may have obtained. I think all this has led to nothing. This also applies to personal appearance. It seems to be a positive and popular measure, but for me it is not.

There are also some good aspects to the proposal, as it was amended. You know that CD&V has always been in favour of mediation, which in our view must first be done by the judge. I know there is a lot of criticism about this. It is said that most judges did not mediate and simply settled the role. It is a quick solution and there is a quick sequence of things.

This may be the case, but the purpose of the legislation has always been that mediation should be carried out and that the judge should play an active and proactive role in mediating. I have never been on a study trip to Canada, but by those who have been with me, I have been told that the proactive role of the judges was important and could also be an additional good aspect in divorce. The proactive is now turned off. People no longer have to go to the court even before a divorce. I think this is a bridge too far.

I am pleased that there is still something left of mediation, namely the fact that the invitation to divorce must from now on also be accompanied by a brochure giving people the opportunity and making clear that that mediation still exists. At the same time, a list of mediators is also included where people can go.

Some say that this is a overload of the office. I think there was still legislation, at the end of the 1990s, including in the law-Franchimont, in which in correctional cases additional obligations had to be included in the summons and in which it was made clear how one could make a civil party, with an explanation accompanied. I think this is practically perfectly possible. The criticism that this would be an aggravation of the administrative burden is, in my opinion, not relevant. That brochure can perfectly run from the computer, simultaneously with the calling documents, as they are sent.

I think it is a good thing that for people who are called by the other partner, who apparently engages in the divorce, to come to court, one still explains the system of mediation, so that people know that one can mediate, ⁇ no longer to reconcile within the divorce, but to mediate for the children and for example for the liquidation and the distribution of assets. In this way, many conflicts could be resolved. I am entirely in favor of this.

Again, in the committee everyone is in favor of the mediation aspect, but apparently one does not always do what one says.

The second good point is indeed an amendment that stipulates that the parties must still be personally present to the children. This was a common practice: when talking about children, the judge always asked the parties to be present. Now this is also legally anchored: that is a good point.

There was another third good point in the whole story: Mr. Brotcorne’s amendment. This envisaged that the decision on divorce could be suspended by the judge, if that judge considers that other measures should be taken first for the children. A kind of stick behind the door to get a good arrangement first for the children, but also for the weaker wife in a divorce procedure, who could then first get measures to secure her financial situation. That amendment was initially accepted: for this reason it went away from the plenary and came back to the committee to remove that amendment, because there is no agreement about it.

Strangely enough, Mr. I heard here the better curve work of Mrs. Marghem. One makes a whole explanation, but it was the MR himself who had even included in a bill the obligation for a divorce judge to suspend the case in divorce until there is a judgment for the children.

I think it is my own thing to the MR that they do not listen, Mr. Minister. I can repeat it ten more times, but I think it will not impress the MR. Apologize to? And the French? and no. I think the translation works.

But for all clarity, that was a good proposal that guaranteed the safety of the children and the safety of the weaker wife who was forced into a divorce, and who then could first ask a judge to take measures for her and the children so that she was further hit. This was not stopped. There are newspapers that compare the equation to a distortion: so fast it can go now. Anyone who wants a divorce, who simply wants to get away from his wife, who can even without going to the court himself, without the wife coming to the court, without taking measures for the children and without the wife in a weaker financial position being taken measures for that, can get a divorce in very short time. I wish all of us a lot of success in this course of affairs, but we must still ask questions about it.

Colleague Terwingen, you must remain correct with regard to what you preach. You say it can go so far that it becomes a distraction. Well, the only thing that is regulated in the bill is the abolition of the now mandatory personal appearance, because it is useless.

I think you are talking about too much liberalization. However, it is true that in the text of CD&V, concerning the establishment of a family court, the mandatory personal appearance is abolished. So I don’t understand the heisa you make.

Furthermore, the present text does not interfere in any way with the divorce procedure itself.

Mrs. Lahaye, at some point we have indeed formulated a proposal on divorce on the basis of actual divorce. Previously, in the old legislation, it was so that if a divorce was sought on the basis of two years of actual separation, the personal appearance was not necessary. We would have wanted to allow that aspect, so that in the case of divorce on the basis of actual separation, it could possibly still be encrypted to the personal appearance, but not beyond that.

Again, the core of the matter is, in my opinion, that we are in an evolution of x number of years of procedure or adjustments of the divorce legislation, in which the longer the faster it goes. Now even personal appearance is no longer needed.

I know that we have different opinions on this, Mrs Lahaye-Battheu. We have discussed this and we have joined us. That is why we amended. Some of our amendments were adopted.

Generally speaking, you know that we are against the whole system. We remain convinced that the best mediation is done by the judge who sees the parties. Now it can no longer. There is in this regard a safety net created by that conscious brochure. We will see how it works. Indeed, we fear – and that is the warning that our group wants to express – that these measures, like other measures whose recent research shows that they actually overcome their purpose, will lead to an acceleration of the aspect of divorce, with conflicts arising only after the divorce has been declared, in the event of further settlement and distribution concerning the children. In our view, this is not a step forward. It gives the impression that it is a step forward, but it is not.

All these reasons are why we abstain from voting on this bill.

I fully agree with the previous two speakers. However, our group has a certain point of view on the present bill.

We were not in favour of the initial proposal, as it was submitted during the previous legislature. It meant the abolition of personal appearance. In the amendments submitted by Ms Lahaye-Battheu during the current legislature, we were initially very pleased. There was a great deal of attention to mediation. Then came the amendment by Mr. Brotcorne, which he explained here. The personal appearance could be welded. A postponement of the divorce could also be ordered, as long as no agreements were concluded on the children and on certain important assets.

At that time, we found the bill very balanced. We were really inclined to approve it.

Subsequently, as Mr Terwingen just stated, the proposal was returned to the committee in order to ensure that Mr Brotcorne’s amendment was rejected. As a result, we find that an important and essential element has been removed from the bill, so that we can no longer approve it.

I would like to refer again to the substance of the case. Today it is not just about personal appearance and mediation. It is about an essential feature of our law, in particular the question of how parties can separate from each other. How and how do married couples divorce? Is diligence built? Is there still a certain form of decency built against each other?

We believe that this is no longer the case.

Last week or this week – I want to lose it for a moment – another study from the four major universities in Flanders appeared, in cooperation with the study service of the Flemish government, in which it is clear that the divorce legislation as it was conceived a few years ago, overrides its purpose. The number of divorces does not decrease. Conflicts between partners remain. Even the duration of the procedure does not decrease.

Per ⁇ the current intervention could actually reduce the duration of a divorce. I am not sure. However, I would not give food to all those who gamble at a reduced time if they fail. In fact, at the time when the divorce legislation was amended, we predicted, without the need for a glass ball, that the new arrangement would not help the number of disputed divorces out of the world. This is also shown by the aforementioned study of various academics in Flanders.

I have spoken harsh words in the committee in connection with displacement. It should not be taken too literally, of course. Our law still does not provide a free guide for applying Sharia. I just ask you, colleagues: imagine yourself in the place of someone who, on a given day, is completely unexpectedly abandoned by the partner with whom he or she has been married for years. They have children together. One partner remembers it. After one year, they can apply for divorce. It can be allowed. There is no herb against crops. The party that is left behind no longer needs to be looked in the eyes. With this arrangement, the party who is in fact the culprit of the divorce – but that cannot be said anymore – and who leaves the other person unhappy and desperate, does not even have to appear before a judge.

I do not think this is civilized. It can be a quick divorce, but it is not a good divorce. That is what it is about. Parliament fails to do this if this law is passed today.

Much more female persons than male persons will be abandoned on the basis of these provisions in the Divorce Act and what is now being added to it. They will feel it as a disorder. They will never again have the opportunity to look their partner in the eyes. It is a judge who can and even must say cold and cold, accompanied by a signature: “You are separated from now on. You actually have nothing more to break in the pot.” That’s what we are fundamentally opposed to.

Divorce on the basis of irreparable disruption, the EOO, as conceived, gives one party the right to terminate the marriage. It is simply a contract that is terminated, it is far from the institution that must be the cornerstone of our society and that must be the carrier of the family.

With this law, marriage is definitively referred to condemnation, for who will now marry? The study also proves this. There are many more divorces in Flanders, and in Belgium, although it is mostly Flanders that was investigated. This number will decline by itself, the study says, because after a few years nobody will want to get married.

It is a fact. Why would one still want to get married if your partner can just get rid of you one day? That is why we say: Divorce on the basis of irreparable disorder is a wrong choice. It is a wrong legal figure.

One would have spent his energy much better on divorce with mutual consent. Both sides are called to their responsibilities. They still have a responsibility to each other during the divorce procedure and also after the divorce procedure. Mediation and reconciliation – which may not be useful for a long time – are replaced by a conversation, a consultation between the two parties, which together decide to end it. It gives the party that feels completely misplaced and is completely abandoned at least the opportunity to go through a process, so that one can still call the other party to a minimum of responsibility. One can then look that party right in the eyes when it says, “It’s done, sorry, it’s no longer going for me.”

This consultation is missed in the case of divorce due to irreparable disorder. It comes back in so much more beautiful form in divorce with mutual consent.

I ask you, colleagues, that if you already approve this bill, you also write well in your head that it does not end here. Measures should be taken to ensure that people, even when their marriage is over, continue to assume responsibility towards each other. Especially when there are children. Especially when there is an important asset to be distributed.

This is the right of the strongest. Our civilization does not provide for this and does not want to be built on it. This is the right of the strongest. I will stay there.