Divorce ruling - don't stop...

[platypus]

Good to see you haven't lost your sense of humour in France.

They've not beaten it out of me yet .

 

[Haggisman]

I don't think it's about rolling the clock back, it's about allowing for the future. The woman in this example would have a perfectly good future if she's as employable as she would have been with 15 years' work under her belt, but fact is that's not true.

Admittedly this is taking it to extremes, but lets imagine for a second that a couple get married at 30, the husband agrees that his wife should quit her job and act as a stay-at-home housewife/parent/socialite. Now, 35 years down the line, he decides that he wants a divorce.

The woman, then, is left with no pension, presumably 50% of assets (which may be a 200k share of a house), and no income. Not to mention she's 65.

Now, under your argument, that's fair enough. He can keep his pension, and sail off into the sunset. Meanwhile, she needs to move into council accommodation and live off of goodness knows what income. It's not exactly reasonable.

That to me is the point - it's not about rolling things back, it's about accounting for the fact that people make very serious life choices when they marry, and just erasing them several (or 35) years down the line doesn't work.

Fox also makes some good points, though I feel that ascribing value to the non-working partner is a tangent in terms of your argument.

What about the successful guy who marries a girl stuck in a dead end job with no qualifications, who then financially supports her so she can quit her job to go to college/uni, vastly improving her prospects (and earning potential) for her to then go on to divorce him, demanding half his assets and future earnings? Sound fair?

It's all very well saying "oh but the woman has sacrificed her career etc. for X years!", but unless you know the full ins and outs of the situation then you can't really decide who's sacrificed what or who's gained what from the marriage, and unfortunately it does seem very skewed in favour of the woman, especially when children are involved:

Man working, woman not working - woman more likely to get the kids because he's too busy working to look after them, but she still gets the house and he needs to pay for her to look after them.

Man working, woman working (and all other things being equal) - woman more likely to get the kids because she's the mother (and she gets the house and he needs to pay for her to look after them)

Man not working, woman working - woman more likely to get the kids because she's working so can support them properly (and she gets the house and he needs to pay for her to look after them)

I agree that the guy in question shouldn't have lied to the court or hidden his assets, but when the odds are so heavily stacked against him, it's kinda understandable!

 

[dowie]

Aren't most of the people missing the point here: that this specific case is about people lying in family court about the extent of their assets?

yup... it seems they had **** advice or just ignored the advice they paid for and decided it was a good idea to try and conceal things from the court

frankly they fact that one of them is seemingly worth hundreds of millions now, was presumably an entrepreneur before marriage and didn't get a prenup is silly in itself

 

[LzR]

Why the hell should they be able to live off a settlement? They could just work, you know, like the people that earned the money in the first place.

Just disappoints me that people that don't actually do anything to get the money other than supposedly 'love' are entitled to so much, unless obviously there is more to the story.

It is absolutely not that simple, every case is different. If you think that 'love' is the only thing shared, given, or sacrificed, you are havinga giraffe mate

Jay

 

[Surfer]

one word..

pre-nup

problem solved.

 

[Jim99]

What about the successful guy who marries a girl stuck in a dead end job with no qualifications, who then financially supports her so she can quit her job to go to college/uni, vastly improving her prospects (and earning potential) for her to then go on to divorce him, demanding half his assets and future earnings? Sound fair?

Well that's a totally different scenario to the one I described, so you would expect it to have a different outcome.

The one thing that is often forgotten in these threads is that it does go to court, where people argue each side of the case and try to find a reasonable and equitable solution.

It's not just a case of married, divorced, 50% split, done.

 

[Haggisman]

Well that's a totally different scenario to the one I described, so you would expect it to have a different outcome.

I agree completely

However "expect it to" is a far cry from "will do"

 

[XeNoN89]

one word..

pre-nup

problem solved.

Pretty sure prenups aren't even enforceable in the UK - The court can decide to simply ignore them if they wish.

 

[evsknight]

If they lied about the assets at the time, fair enough.

But if suddenly it's found that the assets are worth far more post decision, then it's tough.
In the reverse if they are found that the assets are worth far less post initial court decision I can't see her paying back what she would owe - but obviously can't prove that she wouldn't.

Does seem like one rule for one etc

 

[D.P.]

The difficulty for me is this: suppose a couple both work hard, get well-paying jobs, then get married and have children.

At that point, let's say the wife (because more often than not it is), gives up work and earns nothing any more. Then, after 15 years, they get divorced.

Now, the bloke has 15 years more experience, and could be earning huge amounts. Meanwhile, the woman has not been in work for 15 years, and probably has no hope of getting the well-paying job she left 15 years previously. OK, she could get a job as a PA/delivering post/administrative etc, but it's going to be nowhere near what she would have done if she had never entered into the relationship. That decision to pack in work was done, most likely, on the assumption that the husband would continue to provide through work.

It's those situations where I see the point - though I accept that's not always the scenario that leads to divorce settlements.

That is indeed the main reason why insecure men on OCUK get their panties I a twist.
If one of the partnership gives up a lucrative career then there is not only the missed earnings but the future missed earnings by not having been successfully proofed and continued the career path to senior levels.

 

[Haggisman]

That is indeed the main reason why insecure men on OCUK get their panties I a twist.
If one of the partnership gives up a lucrative career then there is not only the missed earnings but the future missed earnings by not having been successfully proofed and continued the career path to senior levels.

I don't think anyone's got a problem with that?

It's when one of the partnership doesn't give up a lucrative career and yet after divorce expects to be compensated as if he/she had done then it's a bit of a ****-take

 

[markweatherill]

They'll be wanting the vote next.

 

[Jim99]

I don't think anyone's got a problem with that?

It's when one of the partnership doesn't give up a lucrative career and yet after divorce expects to be compensated as if he/she had done then it's a bit of a ****-take

But how often do we actually know the details? It's a huge gripe of mine.

Court cases (of various types) necessitate long and drawn out presentations of evidence, witness statements, dismiss unworthy evidence, etc, sometimes taking months.

Then, at the end of a very complicated process, a newspaper will print the verdict, the settlement/punishment, and a paragraph laying out the crime/issue.

So in this case, we might get a headline that says 'Ex-wife awarded £10m in settlement' and a story that explains she's not worked for 20 years. And then everyone spins off and makes their own (and in some cases overzealous) assumptions.

How do we know from that story what kind of career she gave up? How do we know what she's contributed to her partner's career? How do we know what she's contributed to their family?

I can understand why you're angry about the circumstances you describe, but isn't there a possibility that they're not really true, and just embroidery / exaggeration in reports?

 

[Catanonia]

But how often do we actually know the details? It's a huge gripe of mine.

Court cases (of various types) necessitate long and drawn out presentations of evidence, witness statements, dismiss unworthy evidence, etc, sometimes taking months.

Then, at the end of a very complicated process, a newspaper will print the verdict, the settlement/punishment, and a paragraph laying out the crime/issue.

So in this case, we might get a headline that says 'Ex-wife awarded £10m in settlement' and a story that explains she's not worked for 20 years. And then everyone spins off and makes their own (and in some cases overzealous) assumptions.

How do we know from that story what kind of career she gave up? How do we know what she's contributed to her partner's career? How do we know what she's contributed to their family?

I can understand why you're angry about the circumstances you describe, but isn't there a possibility that they're not really true, and just embroidery / exaggeration in reports?

+1 knowing the people involved.

So much crap in this thread with no facts of the case other than media headlines.

 

[[TW]Fox]

When I was starting out I did a lot of family work, and although I hated it I was surprised at how different the reality was from the assumptions I had made.

The Courts in most cases have a really difficult job trying to divide assets, one home is far cheaper to run than two, so no one comes out as well off as they went in. The first priority is housing the kids, and if possible a house/money to buy a house will go to the resident parent. Often this is on terms until the eldest child is 18, or remarriage/co-habitation, (as a parent this seems entirley reasonable).

The next principle to remeber is that the courts are trying to achieve a "clean break", so if there is sufficient then there is no need for ongoing maintainance for the other party. There is rarely if ever an expectation that future earnings will be divisible, and even if there was should those earnings decrease there is always the option to return to court, (not possible when there is a clean break...except as in these cases where there has been fraud, and in these cases a criminal attempt to pervert the course of justice).

However assets earned during the marriage are assets in the divorce, so share options or pensions can be considered. As in this case if and when he sells his shares, no doubt at the time he thinks is in his best financial interests, she will receive 30%. It is not as if he has been ordered to sell them at a sub optimal time just so she can have more cash.

30% not 50% because there is no "law" that says it should be a 50/50 split. In low assest cases it is oiften weighted much more heavily in one persons favour, and in big money cases it tends to go the other way.

In short marriages, where there are no children the "goldigger" gets a few quid, and told she can keep her diamond earrings, she does not get a mahoosive payout.

Remember most judges are men, and not rampant feminists. They seek to do what is fair to all. Perhaps they having spent many tears doing a stressful job they value the input a wife/mother can have in a family.
I could not do my job without my wife, (who gave up a well paid job to look after our kids.) By the time the youngest is at school she will look to go back to work. Not doing what she was, her qualifications will have expired by then, so as something less well paid, and more child friendly.
Yes that allows me to "bring home the bacon", and yes she probably has more leisure time than before. Consequently we have a happier marriage, less stress, and a better overall lifestyle, despite a significant cut in income. Alternitively we could have both carried on working had th ekids in nursery full time/hired a nanny etc, but I don't want that for my family. If she hadn't married me, hadn't taken time out to have kids, who knows she might have ended up as a judge, she certainly had the brains and the work ethic, as it is I value her contributions equally to my own. Should the worst happen I would want her to be provided for, our children to be provided for, and her not to be penalised for giving 10 years of her life over to support me, which in turn enables me to support her and the kids.

Some people on here clearly don't realise what marriage is about.

This is an absolutely fantastic post which completely sums the whole thing up. Best thing I've read on here all day.

 

[Haggisman]

I can understand why you're angry about the circumstances you describe, but isn't there a possibility that they're not really true, and just embroidery / exaggeration in reports?

I'm not talking about this particular case really as I don't know the ins and outs of it, but in general, the defence for why the man gets milked dry is that the woman is hard done by and sacrificed a promising career to look after the kids and should therefore be compensated, when that is by no means a universal truth.

 

[shorttricky]

once the kid is 4 they can go to nursery , full time placement = 9am-3pm
then they get loads of time until the kid is 16

Why can't the women work part time whilst the kid is at school?

Tell us more about the wealth of jobs that have working hours between 0930 and 1430 and offer 13 weeks holiday plus 5 random inset days a year.

 

[FoxEye]

Tell us more about the wealth of jobs that have working hours between 0930 and 1430 and offer 13 weeks holiday plus 5 random inset days a year.

Single working mums find a way. Either after-school clubs or grandparent support or both.

 

[Jim99]

I'm not talking about this particular case really as I don't know the ins and outs of it, but in general, the defence for why the man gets milked dry is that the woman is hard done by and sacrificed a promising career to look after the kids and should therefore be compensated, when that is by no means a universal truth.

But that's a huge assumption. Do any of us, trilobite excepted, actually know what is typical or normal? I doubt it.

 

[arknor]

Tell us more about the wealth of jobs that have working hours between 0930 and 1430 and offer 13 weeks holiday plus 5 random inset days a year.

well even the city centre here has shops that don't open until after 10am.

your telling me no jobs exist that a single mum with kids can fit in to their lifestyles ? No single mum ever managed to work or just ones with well off husbands?