Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1938. DOMESTIC RELATIONS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 59, Issue 23, 7 November 1938, Page 4

Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1938. DOMESTIC RELATIONS.

In his address explaining the proposal for the establishment of Courts of Domestic Relations to effect reconciliation wherever possible the Under-Sec-retary for justice quoted figures which cannot be accepted with complacency. That petitions for divorce in New Zealand has grown from 785 in 1932 to 1155 last year is disturbing, the fact that the number of decrees has increased proportionately not vitally affecting the issue. The mere fact that there existed even slender grounds for such a large number of applications is proof of the urgency of the need for some remedial action. “These figures, considered in relation to the marriage statistics, suggest that for every 100 persons who are married each year it can be assumed that nine will crash and seek relief in the Divorce Court —-but, worse than this, without taking into consideration the large section who for economic reasons and religious scruples decide ‘just to grin and bear it,’ there must be reckoned those who proceed by way of the separation order,” continued Mr Dallard. Mr Dallard voiced the conclusion that another five per cent irrevocably widen the rift in the matrimonial lute by the latter process, ::ii« meaning that one in every seven marriages is severed by judicial sanction. The home and the family are the. basis of the present social order. The threat to their stability which Mr Dallard reveals is a threat to the whole national life, without taking into account any of the religious aspects of marriage. The remedy proposed is a Court which would endeavour to reconcile the parties, to conciliate rather than to pass judgment on their differences. As is pointed out, the atmosphere of a Court of law and the nature of the proceedings, often end in widening the original breach and making, any prospect of its healing quite hopeless. It is not that those who preside over the Courts are unsympathetic or that proposals for reconciliation are not allowed. Magistrates, in particular, often suggest that separation proceedings should be deferred to allow the parties to think the situation over again. They have opportunities for taking this course which are hardly possible to a Judge hearing divorce petitions. Even at its best a Court of law is not a particularly favourable place fpr smoothing over matrimonial differences and the introduction of some scheme such as is suggested might help considerably. There are in existence in Britain courts on the lines mooted here. Admittedly they have not been entirely satisfactory, but according to Mr Dallard this is to be attributed to the appointment of religious and social conciliators with a prejudice against divorce. Conciliation has been forced where it was not * justifiable, amoynting in some cases to a denial of justice. The Home Office has recognised the position and is now appointing experienced conciliators. With the experience in Britain as a guide and a warning, New Zealand should b,e able to evoke a workable plan. At any rate there is need for investigation as to the possibility of remedying a state of affairs that from many points of view is against the interests of individuals and the community alike.