Family law reforms: consultation analysis

Executive Summary

A public consultation on family law ran between 29 December 2025 and 21 April 2026. Across 22 questions, the consultation sought views on four topics relating to family law reform, namely cohabitants’ financial rights, raising the minimum age of marriage to 18, qualifying requirements for religious or belief bodies and extending simplified divorce to cases involving children under 16. In total, 124 consultation responses were received from 80 individuals and 44 organisations. This report provides an analysis of these responses.

Improving cohabitants’ financial rights

Half (49%) of those answering agreed with the Scottish Law Commission’s (SLC’s) draft Bill's consideration of financial arrangements when cohabitants cease to cohabit otherwise than by reason of death, though 39% disagreed with aspects of it, while 12% did not know. Comments on section 28 orders and remedies attracted the most open comments. Other views included comments on financial rights, such as comparisons with marital rights, comments on the time limit for a claim under section 28, views on the definition of ‘cohabitant’, or whether financial rights should align with marriage and civil partnerships.

The scheme for reform of cohabitants’ rights on separation should apply to couples who separate after the date of commencement of the legislation implementing the suggested reforms, according to two thirds (67%) of those answering. However, 14% felt it should not, and 18% were unsure. Those in favour felt this approach could reduce complexity.

When asked for other comments on this issue, respondents suggested how to strengthen cohabitants’ financial rights, for instance, to prevent coercive control or protect those experiencing domestic abuse. Calls were made for public awareness campaigns, to address legal or court practices, to consider the age of cohabitation or to provide greater clarity. Views on the draft Impact Assessments were provided, such as the need for a stronger gender analysis or to consider the impact on LGBTQ+ couples. Suggestions to strengthen the assessments included better addressing intersectionality.

Almost three quarters (73%) of those answering agreed that the recommended definition of ‘cohabitant’ under the SLC’s suggested reform should also apply to circumstances where a cohabitant is applying for financial provisions from their deceased partner’s intestate estate. However, 11% disagreed, and 16% were unsure. Reasons for agreement were that a coherent legal framework promotes fairness and clarity, avoids confusion and reduces litigation. Legislative considerations were raised by some.

A wide range of practical difficulties, other than the time limit, were highlighted by persons making an application for financial provision on intestacy under section 29 of the 2006 Act. These included difficulties due to grief, difficulties due to cost and complexity, executor or estate-related difficulties, evidential difficulties and difficulties caused by disputes or involvement of third parties. Other views included that ‘relevant factors’ the court must consider were too broad or comments on timescales.

Minimum age of marriage and civil partnership

Two thirds (68%) of those answering agreed that the Scottish Government should legislate to raise the minimum age of marriage and civil partnership to 18, while 23% disagreed,

and 9% were unsure. Those who agreed felt this would protect some children and young people from harm and would help Scotland meet its international obligations. Among those opposed, the main reason was to keep it consistent with other rights that 16-year-olds can exercise, as well as the view that there is not enough evidence to justify reform.

Over three quarters (78%) of those answering agreed with legislating to extend the forced marriage offence, while 18% disagreed, and 4% were unsure. Reasons for agreement were that it would remove prosecution barriers and protect children, while disagreement was mainly due to the view that existing legislation is sufficient. Areas for improvement or consideration were noted, such as highlighting unintended consequences or calls for community engagement with those likely to be impacted by the potential change.

When asked for any other comments, respondents raised concerns regarding potential harms, that awareness raising, training and adequate support were needed, that raising the minimum age of marriage or civil partnership would align with domestic policies and international requirements, or made other recommendations, such as what could happen if the minimum age was not raised. The most prevalent themes on the draft Impact Assessments in this area were comments on perceived risk or evidence of harm, comments on the data used to inform the Impact Assessments, such as that it was limited, and the need to ensure the views and rights of children are considered adequately.

Qualifying requirements for religious and belief bodies

Around three quarters (73%) of those answering agreed that the Scottish Government should lay down qualifying requirements for religion or belief-based organisations to meet when they solemnise marriage or register a civil partnership. Of the remainder, 11% disagreed, and 16% were unsure. Reasons for agreement included that qualifying requirements could support rights and standards, such as transparency and consistency, that they could support public confidence or could safeguard vulnerable individuals.

Three fifths (59%) of those answering agreed that the qualifying requirements outlined in this consultation should be laid down, though a quarter (26%) disagreed, and 15% were unsure. Those who disagreed were more likely to believe that the requirements should generally be laid down as outlined, but with modifications (67%), as opposed to believing that only some of the requirements outlined should be laid down (33%). Open comments

tended to offer alternative suggestions or considerations, such as to ensure the qualifications were proportionate and not administratively burdensome. Some respondents called for more clarity or made suggestions for implementation, should the requirements be introduced. A few respondents felt the requirements are not needed or expressed negative views, such as raising the potential for unintended consequences.

Just under half (45%) of those answering felt there should be no further qualifying requirements laid down, while 28% felt there should, and 28% were unsure. A wide range of additions or modifications to the suggested qualifying requirements was noted by respondents. Others called for strengthened training and accountability to support consistency, or for stronger protections against abuse and forced marriage.

Mixed views were expressed on whether there should be a Code of Conduct for celebrants instead of laying down qualifying requirements, with one third (33%) of those answering in favour, two fifths (42%) opposed and a quarter (25%) unsure. The most prevalent open comments were opposition, such as because it was felt there was a need for a stronger approach and enforcement or that it could lead to inconsistency. Others suggested it could be complementary to qualifying requirements or that it could aid good practice. Mostly positive comments were left on the draft Impact Assessments, with a few respondents suggesting areas for further consideration, such as the impact on vulnerable groups or to ensure compliance with the requirements.

Extending simplified divorce and dissolution

Over two thirds (69%) of those answering agreed with making simplified divorce and dissolution procedures in cases where there are children under 16 and have agreed about their upbringing. However, a fifth (21%) disagreed, and 10% were unsure. Reasons for agreement centred on benefits for applicants, such as saving time, strain and costs. However, the need for safeguards was emphasised, with concerns about child welfare or the breakdown of childcare arrangements raised by some. The need to consider the views of the child was also highlighted.

A suggestion to amend the Orders which helped establish the simplified divorce and dissolution procedures to remove the references to ‘mental disorder’ and instead exclude only cases where one of the parties ‘lacks capacity’ was supported by almost two thirds (64%), while 16% disagreed and a fifth (20%) were unsure. Removing references to ‘mental disorder’ was felt to align with other legislation and was considered more up-to date and appropriate. However, concerns were raised about how capacity is determined, with these respondents being more likely to disagree or advise a cautious approach.

Views were mixed on whether procedures to withhold addresses in simplified divorce and dissolution cases should change; 43% agreed, 25% disagreed, and 32% were unsure. The need to protect people from risks such as harassment and stalking was raised in open comments. Supporters suggested the approach seemed reasonable and could reduce the costs involved. However, some felt the current arrangement was sufficient, as it was felt to work satisfactorily or was consistent with other civil court actions.

Other views on the extension to simplified divorce and dissolution mostly centred on the need for access to appropriate information, such as legal advice. Other views included that evidence-led approaches should be adopted, to maximise access to justice, to prioritise marriage and to pursue further policy changes. Comments on the draft Impact

Assessments in this area indicated they should better reflect risks to women and children, such as from domestic abuse, and a few felt there should be a greater focus on financial impacts for parties involved.

Conclusion

A range of individuals and organisations with varied and detailed knowledge and experiences participated in the consultation. This report provides a high-level summary of the consultation responses. For more details, readers are encouraged to read individual responses, where permission was given for publication, via the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Overall, there was majority support for reforms to the aspects of family law under consideration. The consultation allowed respondents to describe a range of both positive and negative potential impacts and highlight issues they feel need to be considered if the proposals are progressed.

These responses will provide a valuable evidence base for the Scottish Government to consider when developing the proposals and associated impact assessments, and for future engagement with key stakeholders.