If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
As for kids, I think that they should be treated completely seperately, and after the rest of the finances are split, the courts should make sure that each parent is contribuing based on their ability to pay.
As to the £200 million, I'm taking that with a pinch of salt at the moment, it just seems to be being pushed most by the papers whose perspective tends to see women as gold diggers.
That is just untrue.
If a man had taken charge of the parenting role during the marriage - and been the "house husband" of whom we speak - and was going to continue to be the main custodian of the children post-divorce then of course he would be given a fair hearing and awarded his dues in terms of the marriage and the maintenence he would require in the future. However, I think that proportionally there are far, far fewer husbands who are given or take on that role of sole or main custodian... it therefore baffles me that people would deny a woman a good settlement and reliable future payments when she is more than likely going to be looking after the kids (hypothetically the job she was doing throughout the marriage and being supported financially) and have to get a job to provide the suddenly disappearing finances. As for people scoffing at and rubbishing the idea of keeping people in the lifestyle they are "accustomed to" - I agree with keeping people (children, especially) in the lifestyle they are accustomed to, and I think as far as possible a status quo should be maintained for their sake. But yes, I also don't see why the childless ex-wife should suddenly have to take a nose-dive because she didn't have the foresight (during the "happy days that shall last forever and ever", as I said before) to insist on continuing to earn a big fat wedge in preparation for the inevitable split. If that's the way people actively go into marriage these days, then you can count me out.
To imply that even in that situation of the husband having being the main caretaker [and remaining so post-split] that the woman would undoubtedly come off better and not have her finances garnished equally is pretty offensive to me.
With that, I'm out
I am not talking about this. I have said this already. In a non-children concerned situation, why should the woman get more, she is not being the custodian, and has no real entitlement to any of his earnings... so why does she get them?
If their are children, or the man told her to giveup her job, ok, fair enough. Otherwise... why? Did she go to work and do his work? Yes, so the wife shouldn't have to take a "nose dive" in her lifestyle. So, the man should have to so she can continue her happy life? Yes, Marriage should be something we go into in a happy positive way. But, I can't help but feel with the soaring number of Marriages and Divorces people aren't taking it seriously these days.
Either way. I say you take out what you put into a marriage, in the basic scenario, without kids, etc. You don't take half of the other person's stuff when you leave.
Well if she hadn't been earning (for whatever reason) and then come the end of the relationship she didn't get a good settlement then she's in a pretty fucking tight situation come the end of the marriage, isn't she.
For [a childless] example, if a woman managed the house and a man had a job and earned the wages then those are what they tangibly "put in" to the marriage. The man walks off with his previous earnings and his continuing wage (possibly quite high through consistent years of employment) and what does the woman walk off with if not a healthy cut, or the house? Maybe she should just pack up her tea cosies and Domestos and leave with what she put in, but I don't think so. If a marriage is a partnership then everything is taken to be shared, "ours", it then gets fiercly ugly when you're in splitsville and sudddnely everything becomes "mine" again.
Exactally why I don't want to get married. Besides, I don't see why I need some confirmation to affirm my love, that I have to pay for.
I just don't feel that if one partner has worked hard alot, and made thier money, then, why should the other run off with it all if a breakup occurs? Say it was you. You had worked a full time job supporting your chap, who stayed at home all the time, a househusband. How would you feel if the courts ruled that he got 50% of your income and 50% fo the property in the house/flat? When he has not worked and just done cleaning, tidying, etc.
Surley rather unfair? This is exactally why people should, as Jim V suggested, get a good prenup. It solves these issues. All it takes is a Solicitor, and it saves having to go through this agro. You can safeguard your assets that way. And if the other partner doesn't want to - surley alarm bells should ring?
Surely you can see that you seem to be implying that being a housewife is just some kind of extended holiday...
you also have to consider the factor that some of the money is given as a certain example of compensation. If you fell over in the street because of a wonky flagstone you would sue the council, if somebody printed libellous remarks about you, you would sue them, if an operation went terribly wrong you would sue the hospital etc. If a husband cheats on his wife, this causes hurt, pain and embarrassment, and some of the money is classed as compensation.
The reason why you think that the men get a worse deal, is that in the majority of cases children are involved, and a huge percentage of the time they stay with their mother, and it is ALWAYS the priority of the court to deal with a child's best interests, and therefore will award more to a mother.
Wouldn't you feel like you are getting a bit ripped off as well, if you were the working partner, and you had to hand over 50% of what you'd earned? When your partner had done little? And whilst being a housewife isn't easy - if the chores can be managed well by a couple who both work - and many, many, couples manage this whilst both working - can they really require the full time attention given by staying at home and not working?
Also, this 50% thing opens it up for gold diggers really well.
I guess I just have a problem with the fact that someone who has worked all throughout the marriage having to hand over half their wage to someone who hasn't. It just seem unfair. Sure, they'll need financial help when leaving the marriage... but aren't benefits there for this?
And £35 per week and living in a B&B after being thrown out by someone earning £50,000 a year?
And, as I said earlier - should the man do this it - it is his responsibility to provide for her.
If the woman choses to do it herself - her choice.
Ok, so seeing as were having hypotheticals, how about you were married, and you were then left with nothing. You were well educated, but couldnt get a job due to lack of experience, your age and no references. You had been experiencing a good lifestyle, and we suddenly left with nothing. no home, no money and no way of getting any. But someone came up to you and said, oh its ok, we can put you on benefits.
You wont see your friends much as they live in a different area of town, you will be living with people who you feel are nothing like you, dealing with trouble you have never witnessed before and generally feeling rather shit and alone. You think someone should go through this? I dont. If their partner can afford to pay them some form of 'allowance' then that should be the way. If every woman who was divorced ended up on benefits, there would be none left for the people that need them, and eventually it will increase the taxes that come out of yours and my pockets.
It is not necessarily that the wife will be awarded 50% of the husbands estate, it is dependant on circumstances as i said before.
Basically she could live in luxury for the rest of her life now at his expense.
Not sure thats fair.
If its more close cut, then ok - but how can you justify being entitled to that money for life? Even in 30 years time he's still going to have to be shelling out money to her, how is she helping him then? She sounds like shes just out to see what she can get tbh.
Well perhaps instead of taking it off of the other partner the state could pay for the better quality of life? The idea it isn't possible through lack of money is a lie. If the state got its act into gear and stopped forking out for actual spongers and wasting money on stupid bureaucratic shit it could do it and have change left to do it again. The fact is, the country is in a mess all over. It all needs balancing out. The state should help those who get the worse deal in a divorce out, and support them until their life is in order.
As well as screwing up the partner who has to pay to support his or her Ex, it also alienates the two furthur. The partner who is having to pay resents having to pay for the Ex, and the Ex resents having to still, after divorce, be dependant upon their Ex.
It isn't a happy circle.
We differ. I don't think she's done anything to earn the money (To be fair - not always women. My mum works with a lass who has to support her husband who is doing loads of Uni degrees.) and as such, isn't really entitled to it. If they say, worked together to make alot, then it should be split equally. If they haven't, the one who has worked gets it.
I sort of get the impression you're not one that ones to be married in the future, and thats obviously your choice.
This is not the first case where someone has been awarded a substantial amount of money in a divorce and will certainly not be the last. but please remember, the courts do take into consideration many things the media dont explain...dont believe everything you read.
I never do. My parents buy the Mail. :yuck:
yeah i can see in the long run, why they are a good idea, i just dont think you should be going into marriage with the thought that it wont work long term. if this is the case, you shouldnt get married in the first place. Damn sight better than the Mirror
But in the same vein, you don't get into your car expecting, or even thinking that you will crash on the journey. Yet you still fasten the seatbelt. Good to be prepared - and if both partners are intending that the relationship works - the prenup will never be needed, so no need to worry you got it? I'd rate them about as bad as each other.
Guardian is where its at.
I dont think seriously, long and hard everytime I get in the car like I should before my wedding, but i can see your point
We were told in 1st year that we should buy the Times every day. I can honestly say I have bought it no more than the fingers I have on both hands
True... true that. When I get in a car to drive, I always think "Shit. Who the hell sat in this before me, this is all wrong!"
I have bought less papers than the fingers on both hands. I find thme on trains.
Why on earth did they tell you that though?
exactly noone should have the expectation of living in wealth from past experiences
im not saying put the person in abject poverty, im just saying she shouldnt be living in luxury because she is used to it
No but she should be if she has contributed to it's creation.
I have concerns about one case, but where the lady in question gave up her own career to care for their children whilst he worked, I think she has earned every penny.