This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Can anyone say *anything* positive about it?
:-o
:-o
In reply to Dispater:
You get a second chance at happiness? Having watched Mr TC go through one, and having divorced parents myself, that's the only thing I can come up with.
You get a second chance at happiness? Having watched Mr TC go through one, and having divorced parents myself, that's the only thing I can come up with.
In reply to Dispater: Just gone through it. Pretty horrible but once you decide you aren't together anymore, its the only option.
We did it ourselves, we still get on fairly well, as long as we don't mention us.. and no kids, equity in the house, so there was no need to fight anymore.
We did it ourselves, we still get on fairly well, as long as we don't mention us.. and no kids, equity in the house, so there was no need to fight anymore.
In reply to Dispater: Yep, my life got much better after divorce!
A crap couple of months at most and then lots more fun.
We did it ourselves though and it was fairly amicable with no kids involved, just a house.
A crap couple of months at most and then lots more fun.
We did it ourselves though and it was fairly amicable with no kids involved, just a house.
In reply to IainRUK:
I get the feeling it's much less horrible if there are no children. I overheard (through being in the next room twiddling my thumbs) some grim arguments between Mr TC and his ex over their kids.
I get the feeling it's much less horrible if there are no children. I overheard (through being in the next room twiddling my thumbs) some grim arguments between Mr TC and his ex over their kids.
In reply to Dispater:
It was the best thing my mum & dad ever did , it was long messy and very expensive but eventually the knocking the sh1t out of each other stopped when dad moved out ( of his house ) so thats good right ?
When my mum told me they were getting a divorce I said hoorah about time ! I was 11 at the time even I could see it was the best way forward at the time .
I'm sure quite a few solicitors can say a few good things about it as well .
It was the best thing my mum & dad ever did , it was long messy and very expensive but eventually the knocking the sh1t out of each other stopped when dad moved out ( of his house ) so thats good right ?
When my mum told me they were getting a divorce I said hoorah about time ! I was 11 at the time even I could see it was the best way forward at the time .
I'm sure quite a few solicitors can say a few good things about it as well .
In reply to Dispater:
Is there anything bad about it?
I think the bad thing is people staying together when nothing is working any more. The relationship breaking down in the first place is the bad thing, not the divorce itself.
I was SOOOO glad when my parents finally got around to it and wished that they had done it years earlier.
My niece has a far better relationship with both of her parents since they divorced. They both get rests from childcare so enjoy their time with her more and her father in particular really spends time with her now, rather than just happening to live in the same house. My sister still does her exs accounts and he feeds the cat if they are away.
I guess sorting everything out in the first place can be hard, but if there is a bit of give and take it really doesn't need to be. I did it myself, using forms from the internet and it cost me about £150, which didn't seem bad at all!
> Can anyone say *anything* positive about it?
Is there anything bad about it?
I think the bad thing is people staying together when nothing is working any more. The relationship breaking down in the first place is the bad thing, not the divorce itself.
I was SOOOO glad when my parents finally got around to it and wished that they had done it years earlier.
My niece has a far better relationship with both of her parents since they divorced. They both get rests from childcare so enjoy their time with her more and her father in particular really spends time with her now, rather than just happening to live in the same house. My sister still does her exs accounts and he feeds the cat if they are away.
I guess sorting everything out in the first place can be hard, but if there is a bit of give and take it really doesn't need to be. I did it myself, using forms from the internet and it cost me about £150, which didn't seem bad at all!
In reply to Dispater:
potentially lots of positive depending on the circumstances!
This might not all apply to you, but -
+ you get out of an unhappy relationship
+ once the paperwork is all done you've got away from the stress
+ you get to have a second shot at finding happiness
+ sometimes it's hard on the kids but other times it's the best thing that can happen for them - as it was for me when my parents split!
+ change in one thing can often kickstart other changes - it's a time to say "what do I WANT to do with my life?" and have more freedom to do it.
It can be very hard, there CAN be a lot of nastiness involved in some divorces, money can be difficult at first, but often it's for the best. Hang in there.
potentially lots of positive depending on the circumstances!
This might not all apply to you, but -
+ you get out of an unhappy relationship
+ once the paperwork is all done you've got away from the stress
+ you get to have a second shot at finding happiness
+ sometimes it's hard on the kids but other times it's the best thing that can happen for them - as it was for me when my parents split!
+ change in one thing can often kickstart other changes - it's a time to say "what do I WANT to do with my life?" and have more freedom to do it.
It can be very hard, there CAN be a lot of nastiness involved in some divorces, money can be difficult at first, but often it's for the best. Hang in there.
In reply to Dispater:
It's a second chance, and an acceptance that people make mistakes. If it didn't exist, I'd be trapped in a horribly unhappy destructive marriage just because I made a mistake when I was younger, rather than remarried to J and happy.
It's a second chance, and an acceptance that people make mistakes. If it didn't exist, I'd be trapped in a horribly unhappy destructive marriage just because I made a mistake when I was younger, rather than remarried to J and happy.
In reply to Dispater:
It's grim at the time but think of it as the key to a prison door and escape from as life sentence.
It's grim at the time but think of it as the key to a prison door and escape from as life sentence.
In reply to Dispater: It's clearly a horrible thing to go through but it's a very positive thing in the long run, for society as much as anything. Traditionally marriage is there to force two people to stay together once they no longer want to/stop loving each other (if you were definitely going to love someone forever you wouldn't need to get married).
Divorce is the modern day approach of still being able to do the whole "until death do us part" thing while accepting the reality that relationships turn bad, some marriages last, some need to be canned. It's like having brain surgery, it isn't all roses but it's still a positive thing over all.
Divorce is the modern day approach of still being able to do the whole "until death do us part" thing while accepting the reality that relationships turn bad, some marriages last, some need to be canned. It's like having brain surgery, it isn't all roses but it's still a positive thing over all.
In reply to Dispater: + mostly everything above.
Just watching my bud go through this. Its a means to much better end in his circumstances. He is arguing over settlements etc which is never going to be nice but the end result is that he is free to move on from a poor relationship.
Lets not forget that some people probably dont want a divorce and then there's kids.
So in answer to your question, divorce is probably good for some and pretty horrendous for others.
Just watching my bud go through this. Its a means to much better end in his circumstances. He is arguing over settlements etc which is never going to be nice but the end result is that he is free to move on from a poor relationship.
Lets not forget that some people probably dont want a divorce and then there's kids.
So in answer to your question, divorce is probably good for some and pretty horrendous for others.
In reply to Dispater:
There's a woman who lives in our road who has just bought a new car with a "Just Divorced!" sticker on the back.
She seems a very happy soul.
There's a woman who lives in our road who has just bought a new car with a "Just Divorced!" sticker on the back.
She seems a very happy soul.
In reply to Dispater:
I think another good thing is: if you are in an unhappy relationship, then it can be very easy to put the blame for all bad things at your partner's feet. Leaving does make you take responsibility for your own life, both good and bad.
I think another good thing is: if you are in an unhappy relationship, then it can be very easy to put the blame for all bad things at your partner's feet. Leaving does make you take responsibility for your own life, both good and bad.
In reply to Trangia:
And her husband is probably driving an old banger and living in rented accommodation.
> (In reply to Dispater)
>
> There's a woman who lives in our road who has just bought a new car with a "Just Divorced!" sticker on the back.
>
> She seems a very happy soul.
>>
> There's a woman who lives in our road who has just bought a new car with a "Just Divorced!" sticker on the back.
>
> She seems a very happy soul.
And her husband is probably driving an old banger and living in rented accommodation.
In reply to Dispater:
Yes. Its an end to misery.
> Can anyone say *anything* positive about it?
>
> :-o
>
> :-o
Yes. Its an end to misery.
In reply to Dispater: A shit couple of years mainly financial but wow, wish we'd done it sooner.................happy happy happy!!!
In reply to Dispater:
Happiest I've been in a long time. Got my Nisi back on the 17th June and should get my Absolute at the end of July. I have a new life with a partner I love, I have my kids live with me every other week and I don't have to put up with anything I don't like to keep the peace. It's an arse financially but my ex and I came to a reasonable agreement to sell the house and split the equity 50 / 50 and have 50 / 50 childcare. She's a good mum and I'm a good dad to our kids and neither of us wanted to hurt each other or each other's relationship with the kids. I won't be buying another house, I'm going to stay renting so there won't be much to inherit for the kids but we'll be able to continue to provide a happy childhood for them without seeing their parents arguing. Compared to a couple of years ago when we were together, annoying each other and trying to find as many excuses as possible just to get out of the house and away from each other, life is much better now. We've gone down the route of formal divorce and a financial clean break consent order as I don't trust her not to f*ck up her finances in the future, but she was happy to sign up to that in exchange for me not challenging her getting half the equity out of the house despite me paying all the mortgage for 17 years. The money is just a number on a piece of paper at the end of the day, worth it to enjoy the drive home from work rather than dread the evening in the company of someone you've got nothing in common with and don't want to be with any more. We still get on alright, both love, and are loved by the kids, and we still have a chat and a laugh on occasion, but I'm glad we're not together any more.
Happiest I've been in a long time. Got my Nisi back on the 17th June and should get my Absolute at the end of July. I have a new life with a partner I love, I have my kids live with me every other week and I don't have to put up with anything I don't like to keep the peace. It's an arse financially but my ex and I came to a reasonable agreement to sell the house and split the equity 50 / 50 and have 50 / 50 childcare. She's a good mum and I'm a good dad to our kids and neither of us wanted to hurt each other or each other's relationship with the kids. I won't be buying another house, I'm going to stay renting so there won't be much to inherit for the kids but we'll be able to continue to provide a happy childhood for them without seeing their parents arguing. Compared to a couple of years ago when we were together, annoying each other and trying to find as many excuses as possible just to get out of the house and away from each other, life is much better now. We've gone down the route of formal divorce and a financial clean break consent order as I don't trust her not to f*ck up her finances in the future, but she was happy to sign up to that in exchange for me not challenging her getting half the equity out of the house despite me paying all the mortgage for 17 years. The money is just a number on a piece of paper at the end of the day, worth it to enjoy the drive home from work rather than dread the evening in the company of someone you've got nothing in common with and don't want to be with any more. We still get on alright, both love, and are loved by the kids, and we still have a chat and a laugh on occasion, but I'm glad we're not together any more.
In reply to Dispater:
If your wife makes you want to kill yourself or avoid home, divorce would be a good thing.
If your wife makes you want to kill yourself or avoid home, divorce would be a good thing.
In reply to Dispater: not positive but a funny joke i heard which turned out to be very true in my case.
what has a woman and a hurricane got in common?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
they are both wild and wet when they come, and when they leave they take your house and your car , boom boom.
what has a woman and a hurricane got in common?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
they are both wild and wet when they come, and when they leave they take your house and your car , boom boom.
In reply to David Martin:
Or your husband.
> (In reply to Dispater)
>
> If your wife makes you want to kill yourself or avoid home, divorce would be a good thing.
>
> If your wife makes you want to kill yourself or avoid home, divorce would be a good thing.
Or your husband.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I shouldn't think so. It doesn't work like that. The goods get shared out fairly - my sister had to get a mortgage for the first time in her life when she divorced her husband, in order for him to be able to buy a house (she owned her house outright when they met).
> And her husband is probably driving an old banger and living in rented accommodation.
I shouldn't think so. It doesn't work like that. The goods get shared out fairly - my sister had to get a mortgage for the first time in her life when she divorced her husband, in order for him to be able to buy a house (she owned her house outright when they met).
In reply to tlm:
'It sometimes does - and sometimes doesn't' would be more accurate.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> [...]
>
> I shouldn't think so. It doesn't work like that.
>
> [...]
>
> I shouldn't think so. It doesn't work like that.
'It sometimes does - and sometimes doesn't' would be more accurate.
In reply to Dispater:
I've no experience of divorce, but it seems like there's quite a few things in life where you need to get through some crapness to get through to a better way of living on the other side.
Therapy springs to mind, or people coming out with different sexualities, or making new friends when it mightn't come easily to them.
If you stick at keeping strong for the dark and difficult phase, things will get brighter later on.
Least that's how it seems to me, though I don't want to appear glib about divorce, I'm sure it can be heart wrenching.
I've no experience of divorce, but it seems like there's quite a few things in life where you need to get through some crapness to get through to a better way of living on the other side.
Therapy springs to mind, or people coming out with different sexualities, or making new friends when it mightn't come easily to them.
If you stick at keeping strong for the dark and difficult phase, things will get brighter later on.
Least that's how it seems to me, though I don't want to appear glib about divorce, I'm sure it can be heart wrenching.
In reply to Postmanpat:
You are either clairvoyant or speaking from bitter experience.
> (In reply to Trangia)
> [...]
> And her husband is probably driving an old banger and living in rented accommodation.
> [...]
> And her husband is probably driving an old banger and living in rented accommodation.
You are either clairvoyant or speaking from bitter experience.
In reply to tlm:
And there are fluffy bunnies everywhere.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> [...]
>
> I shouldn't think so. It doesn't work like that. The goods get shared <snip>
>
> [...]
>
> I shouldn't think so. It doesn't work like that. The goods get shared <snip>
And there are fluffy bunnies everywhere.
In reply to Tall Clare:
Very true.. so far.. touch wood.. I think we've both been fair and have tried to be far to each other, but I hear people who have been screwed over. What I dislike are retrospective claims.. say if one subsequently does well..
But we still get on so I hope it never gets like that, but I do think we're lucky, still shite but could be a lot worse.
> (In reply to tlm)
> [...]
>
> 'It sometimes does - and sometimes doesn't' would be more accurate.
> [...]
>
> 'It sometimes does - and sometimes doesn't' would be more accurate.
Very true.. so far.. touch wood.. I think we've both been fair and have tried to be far to each other, but I hear people who have been screwed over. What I dislike are retrospective claims.. say if one subsequently does well..
But we still get on so I hope it never gets like that, but I do think we're lucky, still shite but could be a lot worse.
In reply to Dispater:
Hopefully your free to do the things you love (climbing) without some one quashing your plans (dreams)
Free to find new love, companionship, climbing partner?
Hopefully your free to do the things you love (climbing) without some one quashing your plans (dreams)
Free to find new love, companionship, climbing partner?
In reply to Dispater:
Just know a number of slightly embittered middle aged men
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> You are either clairvoyant or speaking from bitter experience.
>> [...]
>
> You are either clairvoyant or speaking from bitter experience.
Just know a number of slightly embittered middle aged men
In reply to laurelja: Don't get that.. can honestly say that never happened..
In reply to Dispater:
I believe that divorce is way too easily available in this country and that too many people do not commit seriously to marriage or respect the institution of marriage. Those seeking divorce should only do so as a last resort and should be made to attend marriage counselling sessions for a long time before being able to apply for divorce and they should be brought before a court so that a judge can decide whether they can divorce or not. I think the Conservative government has plans to tighten up divorce laws in this way if I remember correctly. If you want to know why I believe this: it's about the children. Protecting the children. I know I will be called a flamer for this post and sorry but those are my views.
> Can anyone say *anything* positive about it?
>
> :-o
>>
> :-o
I believe that divorce is way too easily available in this country and that too many people do not commit seriously to marriage or respect the institution of marriage. Those seeking divorce should only do so as a last resort and should be made to attend marriage counselling sessions for a long time before being able to apply for divorce and they should be brought before a court so that a judge can decide whether they can divorce or not. I think the Conservative government has plans to tighten up divorce laws in this way if I remember correctly. If you want to know why I believe this: it's about the children. Protecting the children. I know I will be called a flamer for this post and sorry but those are my views.
In reply to Dispater:
He's speaking as a cynic I think...
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> You are either clairvoyant or speaking from bitter experience.
> [...]
>
> You are either clairvoyant or speaking from bitter experience.
He's speaking as a cynic I think...
In reply to PopShot:
Marriage is an out of date institution really. It's other people "society" dictating how people should live.
Marriage is an out of date institution really. It's other people "society" dictating how people should live.
In reply to SARS:
Well that's the other view. I worry about broken Britain though.
> (In reply to PopShot)
>
> Marriage is an out of date institution really. It's other people "society" dictating how people should live.
>>
> Marriage is an out of date institution really. It's other people "society" dictating how people should live.
Well that's the other view. I worry about broken Britain though.
In reply to PopShot:
And if there aren't children? And if one party has made themselves unavailable for comment? Hmmm under your law I'd still be married to an unfaithful commitment phone who walked out of my life 10 yrs ago with no further comment.
And if there aren't children? And if one party has made themselves unavailable for comment? Hmmm under your law I'd still be married to an unfaithful commitment phone who walked out of my life 10 yrs ago with no further comment.
In reply to Dispater:
I split up from my first wife just over 10 years ago and remarried nearly seven years ago, taking on four step-children. I have always thought that we should all be decent to each other. I imagined graduation ceremonies and weddings - how would they best go? Best if we were all there, I thought. So for ten years I collected my daughters, made my new home their own, and respected their mum, throuigh what I say and by paying maintenance religiously, without question, until they left home, and then some more. Last Christmas, we all had a meal together at ours, with my parents there too. So, it doesn't need to be awful, it can be good, but it is a long haul and everyone needs to be supportive of everyone else.
I split up from my first wife just over 10 years ago and remarried nearly seven years ago, taking on four step-children. I have always thought that we should all be decent to each other. I imagined graduation ceremonies and weddings - how would they best go? Best if we were all there, I thought. So for ten years I collected my daughters, made my new home their own, and respected their mum, throuigh what I say and by paying maintenance religiously, without question, until they left home, and then some more. Last Christmas, we all had a meal together at ours, with my parents there too. So, it doesn't need to be awful, it can be good, but it is a long haul and everyone needs to be supportive of everyone else.
In reply to Caralynh:
Well that sounds fair enough. Just in general I worry about the children in divorce but in that case fair enough.
> (In reply to PopShot)
>
> And if there aren't children? And if one party has made themselves unavailable for comment? Hmmm under your law I'd still be married to an unfaithful commitment phone who walked out of my life 10 yrs ago with no further comment.
>>
> And if there aren't children? And if one party has made themselves unavailable for comment? Hmmm under your law I'd still be married to an unfaithful commitment phone who walked out of my life 10 yrs ago with no further comment.
Well that sounds fair enough. Just in general I worry about the children in divorce but in that case fair enough.
In reply to Dispater: You get to have sex with a whole new range of people without feeling guilty about it.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yeah - I know people who think that because they allowed their other half to reduce their potential earnings by taking time off work to bring up the couple's children (on the basis that married life is a team effort), not pay into a pension scheme, not be able to afford to contribute equally to the mortgage payments etc, that somehow, when they split up, the earner should be able to keep all the goodies.
I do also know cases where the person who has the children living with them the majority of the time has kept the family home, and the other person has ended up having to rent.
But I've never heard of a case where someone got more stuff, purely on the basis of being female?
I've heard people say that they felt they gave too much, but I've never heard anyone gloat that they were able to screw over another person and get more than their fair share...
I always wonder if some of it is the bitterness and upset of all those emotions that are around in a divorce?
> (In reply to Dispater)
> [...]
> Just know a number of slightly embittered middle aged men
> [...]
> Just know a number of slightly embittered middle aged men
Yeah - I know people who think that because they allowed their other half to reduce their potential earnings by taking time off work to bring up the couple's children (on the basis that married life is a team effort), not pay into a pension scheme, not be able to afford to contribute equally to the mortgage payments etc, that somehow, when they split up, the earner should be able to keep all the goodies.
I do also know cases where the person who has the children living with them the majority of the time has kept the family home, and the other person has ended up having to rent.
But I've never heard of a case where someone got more stuff, purely on the basis of being female?
I've heard people say that they felt they gave too much, but I've never heard anyone gloat that they were able to screw over another person and get more than their fair share...
I always wonder if some of it is the bitterness and upset of all those emotions that are around in a divorce?
In reply to tlm:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
>
> But I've never heard of a case where someone got more stuff, purely on the basis of being female?
>
> I've heard people say that they felt they gave too much, but I've never heard anyone gloat that they were able to screw over another person and get more than their fair share...
>
Well there's a surprise!> [...]
>
>
> But I've never heard of a case where someone got more stuff, purely on the basis of being female?
>
> I've heard people say that they felt they gave too much, but I've never heard anyone gloat that they were able to screw over another person and get more than their fair share...
>
In reply to Postmanpat:
I decided to look at some evidence, seeing as it is such an emotive subject and as I know I've been subjected to some Daily Mailisms about it, which might actually be making me react to strongly in an anti Daily Mail way! After all, I don't know what actually happens on average, do I? I just know what people say happens for those people that I know personally.
Maybe you could do the same?
> (In reply to tlm)
> [...]
> Well there's a surprise!
> [...]
> Well there's a surprise!
I decided to look at some evidence, seeing as it is such an emotive subject and as I know I've been subjected to some Daily Mailisms about it, which might actually be making me react to strongly in an anti Daily Mail way! After all, I don't know what actually happens on average, do I? I just know what people say happens for those people that I know personally.
Maybe you could do the same?
In reply to tlm:
Er, that's what I'm doing. What are you're arguing about? That men never get stuffed by divorce settlements?
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> I decided to look at some evidence, seeing as it is such an emotive subject and as I know I've been subjected to some Daily Mailisms about it, which might actually be making me react to strongly in an anti Daily Mail way! After all, I don't know what actually happens on average, do I? I just know what people say happens for those people that I know personally.
>
> Maybe you could do the same?
> [...]
>
> I decided to look at some evidence, seeing as it is such an emotive subject and as I know I've been subjected to some Daily Mailisms about it, which might actually be making me react to strongly in an anti Daily Mail way! After all, I don't know what actually happens on average, do I? I just know what people say happens for those people that I know personally.
>
> Maybe you could do the same?
Er, that's what I'm doing. What are you're arguing about? That men never get stuffed by divorce settlements?
In reply to Postmanpat:
What I'm doing is not arguing. Apparently, the more you try to convince someone of an alternative point of view, the more entrenched they become, so I went off and looked at stuff and then decided that I couldn't be bothered to go through the whole posting links and arguing the point.
I'm quite happy to have evidence and arguements in any direction, however, to help me develop my thoughts in an area in which I am no expert.
> Er, that's what I'm doing. What are you're arguing about? That men never get stuffed by divorce settlements?
What I'm doing is not arguing. Apparently, the more you try to convince someone of an alternative point of view, the more entrenched they become, so I went off and looked at stuff and then decided that I couldn't be bothered to go through the whole posting links and arguing the point.
I'm quite happy to have evidence and arguements in any direction, however, to help me develop my thoughts in an area in which I am no expert.
In reply to tlm:
Same here!
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> I'm quite happy to have evidence and arguements in any direction, however, to help me develop my thoughts in an area in which I am no expert.
>
> I'm quite happy to have evidence and arguements in any direction, however, to help me develop my thoughts in an area in which I am no expert.
Same here!
In reply to tlm:
It wasn't exactly an in depth project! My perception (which my be wrong) is that we have gone from a system in which divorced women were expected to bring up the children but not given an adequate share of assets or income to do this, to a system that favours women bringing up the children and finances them accordingly, but is often exploited (not only by women).
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> What did you find then? Anything to help me develop my ideas?
>>
> What did you find then? Anything to help me develop my ideas?
It wasn't exactly an in depth project! My perception (which my be wrong) is that we have gone from a system in which divorced women were expected to bring up the children but not given an adequate share of assets or income to do this, to a system that favours women bringing up the children and finances them accordingly, but is often exploited (not only by women).
In reply to Postmanpat:
That's the thing. From what I looked at, our perceptions fall short of the reality. I was quite surprised by what I found, but then just thought it was pointless me posting it, as all that happens then is that people go off and find counter evidence and everyone gets entrenched. I also wondered if maybe I was only looking for evidence that suited my existing point of view, in which case it isn't exactly unbiased, is it?
> It wasn't exactly an in depth project! My perception (which my be wrong) is that we have gone from a system in which divorced women were expected to bring up the children but not given an adequate share of assets or income to do this, to a system that favours women bringing up the children and finances them accordingly, but is often exploited (not only by women).
That's the thing. From what I looked at, our perceptions fall short of the reality. I was quite surprised by what I found, but then just thought it was pointless me posting it, as all that happens then is that people go off and find counter evidence and everyone gets entrenched. I also wondered if maybe I was only looking for evidence that suited my existing point of view, in which case it isn't exactly unbiased, is it?
In reply to Postmanpat:
I also thought that when one household is trying to split the money to make enough to run two households, everyone is going to have less than they had when they were together (the evidence indicated that was a wrong presumption).
Everyone is bound to feel that they have had a raw deal as it is all so painful and there is less to go around.
I also thought that when one household is trying to split the money to make enough to run two households, everyone is going to have less than they had when they were together (the evidence indicated that was a wrong presumption).
Everyone is bound to feel that they have had a raw deal as it is all so painful and there is less to go around.
In reply to tlm:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> I also thought that when one household is trying to split the money to make enough to run two households, everyone is going to have less than they had when they were together (the evidence indicated that was a wrong presumption).
>
>
What else did you find?>
> I also thought that when one household is trying to split the money to make enough to run two households, everyone is going to have less than they had when they were together (the evidence indicated that was a wrong presumption).
>
>
In reply to Postmanpat:
I found
In years after a divorce a man's income eventually increases by 11%, while a woman's falls by 17%.
That this difference is slowly decreasing as roles in the family and in the labour market become more equal.
That oft cited 'gold-digger' Heather Mills received around 3% of Paul McCartney's estimated worth.
Men are lonelier after divorce (48%) compared to 35% of women.
I found
In years after a divorce a man's income eventually increases by 11%, while a woman's falls by 17%.
That this difference is slowly decreasing as roles in the family and in the labour market become more equal.
That oft cited 'gold-digger' Heather Mills received around 3% of Paul McCartney's estimated worth.
Men are lonelier after divorce (48%) compared to 35% of women.
In reply to tlm:
This one sounds nuts to me! (from bbc website)
Example II: Joseph and Karen
Marital Profile: Joseph and Karen have been married for 14 years and have no children. Their marriage is a medium-term marriage where spousal support and an unequal division of marital property may be considered.
Divorce Settlement: The marital assets are split 60/40 in Karen’s favor. There is no spousal support or child support.
Joseph and Karen both have high paying careers. Joseph makes more than Karen though and has greater earning potential in coming years. Due to the fact that Joseph’s standard of living will continue to increase and Karen’s will stagnate, the judge awards her a higher percentage of the marital assets to offset the loss of benefits Karen enjoyed during the marriage.
This one sounds nuts to me! (from bbc website)
Example II: Joseph and Karen
Marital Profile: Joseph and Karen have been married for 14 years and have no children. Their marriage is a medium-term marriage where spousal support and an unequal division of marital property may be considered.
Divorce Settlement: The marital assets are split 60/40 in Karen’s favor. There is no spousal support or child support.
Joseph and Karen both have high paying careers. Joseph makes more than Karen though and has greater earning potential in coming years. Due to the fact that Joseph’s standard of living will continue to increase and Karen’s will stagnate, the judge awards her a higher percentage of the marital assets to offset the loss of benefits Karen enjoyed during the marriage.
In reply to PopShot:
Im not sure your beliefs count for anything on this forum anymore.
> (In reply to Dispater)
> [...]
>
> I believe
> [...]
>
> I believe
Im not sure your beliefs count for anything on this forum anymore.
In reply to Postmanpat:
So what did you make of the next example then?
Example III: Mark and Joan
Marital Profile: Mark and Joan have been married for 26 years and have no children. Both earn high salaries in well established careers. Joan earns 1/3 more than Mark which makes her the higher earning spouse.
Divorce Settlement: The marital assets are split 50/50 and Joan is ordered to pay Mark rehabilitative spousal support for a term of five years. The long-term marriage established a lifestyle that both Mark and Joan had become accustomed to.
Marks standard of living will decrease once there is a divorce due to the fact that he makes less than Joan. The two went to mediation and Joan chose to pay temporary spousal support that is deductible at tax time rather than splitting assets in John’s favor.
So what did you make of the next example then?
Example III: Mark and Joan
Marital Profile: Mark and Joan have been married for 26 years and have no children. Both earn high salaries in well established careers. Joan earns 1/3 more than Mark which makes her the higher earning spouse.
Divorce Settlement: The marital assets are split 50/50 and Joan is ordered to pay Mark rehabilitative spousal support for a term of five years. The long-term marriage established a lifestyle that both Mark and Joan had become accustomed to.
Marks standard of living will decrease once there is a divorce due to the fact that he makes less than Joan. The two went to mediation and Joan chose to pay temporary spousal support that is deductible at tax time rather than splitting assets in John’s favor.
In reply to Postmanpat:
also, I could only find it on about.com, not the bbc, and they were US examples - not sure if this matters or not
also, I could only find it on about.com, not the bbc, and they were US examples - not sure if this matters or not
In reply to tlm:
Sorry, you're right! Don't know why I tough it was on BBC. Matters if you're american I guess
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> also, I could only find it on about.com, not the bbc, and they were US examples - not sure if this matters or not
>>
> also, I could only find it on about.com, not the bbc, and they were US examples - not sure if this matters or not
Sorry, you're right! Don't know why I tough it was on BBC. Matters if you're american I guess
In reply to Postmanpat:
I personally thought both of those examples were quite reasonable and wondered why you thought they weren't?
I personally thought both of those examples were quite reasonable and wondered why you thought they weren't?
In reply to tlm:
there was only one example. I don't see why, if no children or other "sacrifice of career" was involved, the lower earning partner should be subsidised by the other when the marriage is over.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> I personally thought both of those examples were quite reasonable and wondered why you thought they weren't?
>>
> I personally thought both of those examples were quite reasonable and wondered why you thought they weren't?
there was only one example. I don't see why, if no children or other "sacrifice of career" was involved, the lower earning partner should be subsidised by the other when the marriage is over.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I showed you the next example down, and asked you what you thought of it, but you didn't answer:
So what did you make of the next example then?
Example III: Mark and Joan
Marital Profile: Mark and Joan have been married for 26 years and have no children. Both earn high salaries in well established careers. Joan earns 1/3 more than Mark which makes her the higher earning spouse.
Divorce Settlement: The marital assets are split 50/50 and Joan is ordered to pay Mark rehabilitative spousal support for a term of five years. The long-term marriage established a lifestyle that both Mark and Joan had become accustomed to.
Marks standard of living will decrease once there is a divorce due to the fact that he makes less than Joan. The two went to mediation and Joan chose to pay temporary spousal support that is deductible at tax time rather than splitting assets in John’s favor.
> (In reply to tlm)
> [...]
> there was only one example. I don't see why, if no children or other "sacrifice of career" was involved, the lower earning partner should be subsidised by the other when the marriage is over.
> [...]
> there was only one example. I don't see why, if no children or other "sacrifice of career" was involved, the lower earning partner should be subsidised by the other when the marriage is over.
I showed you the next example down, and asked you what you thought of it, but you didn't answer:
So what did you make of the next example then?
Example III: Mark and Joan
Marital Profile: Mark and Joan have been married for 26 years and have no children. Both earn high salaries in well established careers. Joan earns 1/3 more than Mark which makes her the higher earning spouse.
Divorce Settlement: The marital assets are split 50/50 and Joan is ordered to pay Mark rehabilitative spousal support for a term of five years. The long-term marriage established a lifestyle that both Mark and Joan had become accustomed to.
Marks standard of living will decrease once there is a divorce due to the fact that he makes less than Joan. The two went to mediation and Joan chose to pay temporary spousal support that is deductible at tax time rather than splitting assets in John’s favor.
In reply to Postmanpat:
If I try to think of a reason, then I come up with:
Maybe because the poorer partner made all sorts of decisions about the way they lived their life based on the presumption that they would be married for the rest of their life and continue to have the same standard of living?
Maybe if they had known that they would get divorced, then they might have looked around for a better job, been more ambitious, saved harder, lived more frugally, paid more into a pension?
Do you think it makes any difference if the richer person was the one who wanted to end things, or if how long they had been married makes any difference?
> there was only one example. I don't see why, if no children or other "sacrifice of career" was involved, the lower earning partner should be subsidised by the other when the marriage is over.
If I try to think of a reason, then I come up with:
Maybe because the poorer partner made all sorts of decisions about the way they lived their life based on the presumption that they would be married for the rest of their life and continue to have the same standard of living?
Maybe if they had known that they would get divorced, then they might have looked around for a better job, been more ambitious, saved harder, lived more frugally, paid more into a pension?
Do you think it makes any difference if the richer person was the one who wanted to end things, or if how long they had been married makes any difference?
In reply to tlm:
Actually I do but in legal terms the first doesn't and the second does (I think).
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> If I try to think of a reason, then I come up with:
>
> Maybe because the poorer partner made all sorts of decisions about the way they lived their life based on the presumption that they would be married for the rest of their life and continue to have the same standard of living?
>
> Maybe if they had known that they would get divorced, then they might have looked around for a better job, been more ambitious, saved harder, lived more frugally, paid more into a pension?
>
As I said, if they can prove they "sacrificed" their career then there is a case. Supposing they just took the easy option?> [...]
>
> If I try to think of a reason, then I come up with:
>
> Maybe because the poorer partner made all sorts of decisions about the way they lived their life based on the presumption that they would be married for the rest of their life and continue to have the same standard of living?
>
> Maybe if they had known that they would get divorced, then they might have looked around for a better job, been more ambitious, saved harder, lived more frugally, paid more into a pension?
>
> Do you think it makes any difference if the richer person was the one who wanted to end things, or if how long they had been married makes any difference?
>Actually I do but in legal terms the first doesn't and the second does (I think).
In reply to tlm:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> I showed you the next example down, and asked you what you thought of it, but you didn't answer:
>
Sorry, doing the ironing. Don't you just hate those wrinkly cotton shirts?!> [...]
>
> I showed you the next example down, and asked you what you thought of it, but you didn't answer:
>
> So what did you make of the next example then?
>
> Example III: Mark and Joan
> Marital Profile: Mark and Joan have been married for 26 years and have no children. Both earn high salaries in well established careers. Joan earns 1/3 more than Mark which makes her the higher earning spouse.
>
> Divorce Settlement: The marital assets are split 50/50 and Joan is ordered to pay Mark rehabilitative spousal support for a term of five years. The long-term marriage established a lifestyle that both Mark and Joan had become accustomed to.
>
>
I think it's nonsense unless he can demonstrate he contributed something to the marriage in excess of income which the women didn't. He had a nice life for a few years subsidised by her. So why should he expect it to continue to be subsidised?>
> Example III: Mark and Joan
> Marital Profile: Mark and Joan have been married for 26 years and have no children. Both earn high salaries in well established careers. Joan earns 1/3 more than Mark which makes her the higher earning spouse.
>
> Divorce Settlement: The marital assets are split 50/50 and Joan is ordered to pay Mark rehabilitative spousal support for a term of five years. The long-term marriage established a lifestyle that both Mark and Joan had become accustomed to.
>
>
In reply to Postmanpat:
anyhoo - it just makes me very glad that my exhusband and I were able to work it out between ourselves in a way that felt fair to us both.
I don't personally know anyone who has had to make any sort of payments for loss of earnings or a decrease in life style in a divorce - maybe I don't know people who are rich enough. I've only ever known people have to make contributions to the cost of their children's lives, and having to find a way to split one house into two - never easy!
I just know my mate, who having entered the marriage with a small mortgage, then having bought a house together which was in negative equity when they left the marriage, had to start again from scratch with nothing.
My sister, who owned her house outright and finished the marriage with a mortgage.
My mum and dad who had no money at the start so didn't have anything to split.
Me and my husband - I bought his half of the house off him.
Maybe personal experience colours all of the evidence too much for us to be able to believe it.
anyhoo - it just makes me very glad that my exhusband and I were able to work it out between ourselves in a way that felt fair to us both.
I don't personally know anyone who has had to make any sort of payments for loss of earnings or a decrease in life style in a divorce - maybe I don't know people who are rich enough. I've only ever known people have to make contributions to the cost of their children's lives, and having to find a way to split one house into two - never easy!
I just know my mate, who having entered the marriage with a small mortgage, then having bought a house together which was in negative equity when they left the marriage, had to start again from scratch with nothing.
My sister, who owned her house outright and finished the marriage with a mortgage.
My mum and dad who had no money at the start so didn't have anything to split.
Me and my husband - I bought his half of the house off him.
Maybe personal experience colours all of the evidence too much for us to be able to believe it.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I never buy them! I do a scrunch test on the fabric before buying anything and then do no ironing at all.
> (In reply to tlm)
> [...]
> Sorry, doing the ironing. Don't you just hate those wrinkly cotton shirts?!
> [...]
> Sorry, doing the ironing. Don't you just hate those wrinkly cotton shirts?!
I never buy them! I do a scrunch test on the fabric before buying anything and then do no ironing at all.
In reply to Dispater:
defnatly mate ,when all is settled you can start living again.!
> Can anyone say *anything* positive about it?
>
> :-0
>
> :-0
defnatly mate ,when all is settled you can start living again.!
In reply to Postmanpat:
This thread has made me realise how many stories there are in the tabloids about rich gold diggers taking all of a rich man's money. And how little such stories represent the experience of the majority of people, as described by the research. I guess for those tabloid readers, it's not surprising that their view of life differs so much from the reality.
This thread has made me realise how many stories there are in the tabloids about rich gold diggers taking all of a rich man's money. And how little such stories represent the experience of the majority of people, as described by the research. I guess for those tabloid readers, it's not surprising that their view of life differs so much from the reality.
In reply to tlm:
There are forums out there full of people feeling very aggrieved at situations that haven't ended as harmoniously - but I suspect most of those involve children.
There are forums out there full of people feeling very aggrieved at situations that haven't ended as harmoniously - but I suspect most of those involve children.
In reply to tlm:
Well most of the 'gold digger' stories relate to high net worth individuals, and while there have been some daft decisions in terms in terms of an ex wife getting millions for an 18 month childless marriage to some city trader it is a far cry from what most people go through which usually results in both parties being less well off!
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> This thread has made me realise how many stories there are in the tabloids about rich gold diggers taking all of a rich man's money. And how little such stories represent the experience of the majority of people, as described by the research. I guess for those tabloid readers, it's not surprising that their view of life differs so much from the reality.
>
> This thread has made me realise how many stories there are in the tabloids about rich gold diggers taking all of a rich man's money. And how little such stories represent the experience of the majority of people, as described by the research. I guess for those tabloid readers, it's not surprising that their view of life differs so much from the reality.
Well most of the 'gold digger' stories relate to high net worth individuals, and while there have been some daft decisions in terms in terms of an ex wife getting millions for an 18 month childless marriage to some city trader it is a far cry from what most people go through which usually results in both parties being less well off!
In reply to tlm:
Never again. I bought them many years ago when I must have paid an ironing lady I think.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
>
> I never buy them! I do a scrunch test on the fabric before buying anything and then do no ironing at all.
>> [...]
>
>
> I never buy them! I do a scrunch test on the fabric before buying anything and then do no ironing at all.
Never again. I bought them many years ago when I must have paid an ironing lady I think.
In reply to tlm:
Probably true.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> This thread has made me realise how many stories there are in the tabloids about rich gold diggers taking all of a rich man's money. And how little such stories represent the experience of the majority of people, as described by the research. I guess for those tabloid readers, it's not surprising that their view of life differs so much from the reality.
>>
> This thread has made me realise how many stories there are in the tabloids about rich gold diggers taking all of a rich man's money. And how little such stories represent the experience of the majority of people, as described by the research. I guess for those tabloid readers, it's not surprising that their view of life differs so much from the reality.
Probably true.
In reply to tlm:
I but whatever shirts I want, and still do no ironing! It's one of the many joys of a happily married life.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
>
> I never buy them! I do a scrunch test on the fabric before buying anything and then do no ironing at all.
> [...]
>
>
> I never buy them! I do a scrunch test on the fabric before buying anything and then do no ironing at all.
I but whatever shirts I want, and still do no ironing! It's one of the many joys of a happily married life.
In reply to PopShot:
And would a judge know what it's like, being forced to live with the person who had changed so much as to be unrecognisable from the partner you married? Would the judge take into account the years of grinding along, putting a brave face on your disappointment of a failed relationship for the sake of your kids before you and your partner finally decided to set each other free?
What exactly are you protecting the children from? Some marriages end because one partner becomes an alcoholic and / or abusive to their partner. How is forcing them to stay together for years of abuse protecting their children?
You do know that you have to be separated for 2 years to apply for consensual divorce or 5 years for a non consensual one don't you?
You seem to be under the impression that you could wake up tomorrow morning and think "you know what, I'm bored with being married, I think I'll pop down the post office and get a divorce". It really isn't that easy, and it really isn't that easy at all if you want a divorce to be a complete severance from your ex, financially and emotionally.
> (In reply to Dispater)
> [...]
>
> I believe that divorce is way too easily available in this country and that too many people do not commit seriously to marriage or respect the institution of marriage. Those seeking divorce should only do so as a last resort and should be made to attend marriage counselling sessions for a long time before being able to apply for divorce and they should be brought before a court so that a judge can decide whether they can divorce or not. I think the Conservative government has plans to tighten up divorce laws in this way if I remember correctly. If you want to know why I believe this: it's about the children. Protecting the children. I know I will be called a flamer for this post and sorry but those are my views.
> [...]
>
> I believe that divorce is way too easily available in this country and that too many people do not commit seriously to marriage or respect the institution of marriage. Those seeking divorce should only do so as a last resort and should be made to attend marriage counselling sessions for a long time before being able to apply for divorce and they should be brought before a court so that a judge can decide whether they can divorce or not. I think the Conservative government has plans to tighten up divorce laws in this way if I remember correctly. If you want to know why I believe this: it's about the children. Protecting the children. I know I will be called a flamer for this post and sorry but those are my views.
And would a judge know what it's like, being forced to live with the person who had changed so much as to be unrecognisable from the partner you married? Would the judge take into account the years of grinding along, putting a brave face on your disappointment of a failed relationship for the sake of your kids before you and your partner finally decided to set each other free?
What exactly are you protecting the children from? Some marriages end because one partner becomes an alcoholic and / or abusive to their partner. How is forcing them to stay together for years of abuse protecting their children?
You do know that you have to be separated for 2 years to apply for consensual divorce or 5 years for a non consensual one don't you?
You seem to be under the impression that you could wake up tomorrow morning and think "you know what, I'm bored with being married, I think I'll pop down the post office and get a divorce". It really isn't that easy, and it really isn't that easy at all if you want a divorce to be a complete severance from your ex, financially and emotionally.
In reply to tlm:
I may be completely wrong, and this is slightly tangential to the thread, but I believe there is an arrangement in law where a relationship (married or not) of a certain length entitles one half of the relationship to a share of the other's assets.
I find that particularly unfair, regardless of the gender. Should my other half, who has been a student until the age of 28, and I split this would represent a lottery win for her while there can be no fair argument that she has sacrificed anything financial or career-wise to be part of the relationship. Put bluntly, it sounds like a good get rich quick scheme: hook up with someone wealthy for enough years then run off claiming half their wealth.
This will no doubt come back to an argument we have had before, that I know we differ on, but I feel the need to re-iterate: the choice to have offspring is in my experience, 9 times out 10, driven by the wife. This is a choice that is funded by the husband. That a wife's desire to have children is accommodated shouldn't then result in the husband having to make some sort of reparations for the inevitable lag it puts on her career hopes.
I may be completely wrong, and this is slightly tangential to the thread, but I believe there is an arrangement in law where a relationship (married or not) of a certain length entitles one half of the relationship to a share of the other's assets.
I find that particularly unfair, regardless of the gender. Should my other half, who has been a student until the age of 28, and I split this would represent a lottery win for her while there can be no fair argument that she has sacrificed anything financial or career-wise to be part of the relationship. Put bluntly, it sounds like a good get rich quick scheme: hook up with someone wealthy for enough years then run off claiming half their wealth.
This will no doubt come back to an argument we have had before, that I know we differ on, but I feel the need to re-iterate: the choice to have offspring is in my experience, 9 times out 10, driven by the wife. This is a choice that is funded by the husband. That a wife's desire to have children is accommodated shouldn't then result in the husband having to make some sort of reparations for the inevitable lag it puts on her career hopes.
In reply to David Martin:
Most guys I know who have children wanted kids. It wasn't just the wife.
Anyway - prenups now are regularly considered in UK courts. So if a man is that worried, he can always draw up a contract pre marriage.
Most guys I know who have children wanted kids. It wasn't just the wife.
Anyway - prenups now are regularly considered in UK courts. So if a man is that worried, he can always draw up a contract pre marriage.
In reply to Tall Clare:
Very true. I am currently one of them, having spent a VERY traumatic day in court this week. I still feel sick and can't sleep, and I suspect I will always feel I have let my daughter down by not being able to protect her from her mother enough.
> (In reply to tlm)
>
> There are forums out there full of people feeling very aggrieved at situations that haven't ended as harmoniously - but I suspect most of those involve children.
>
> There are forums out there full of people feeling very aggrieved at situations that haven't ended as harmoniously - but I suspect most of those involve children.
Very true. I am currently one of them, having spent a VERY traumatic day in court this week. I still feel sick and can't sleep, and I suspect I will always feel I have let my daughter down by not being able to protect her from her mother enough.
In reply to David Martin:
You are completely wrong:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/doc...
"Worryingly, many people believe that
after a couple of years they become
common law husband and wife, with the
same rights as married couples. But this
isn’t the case. As far as the law is
concerned, common law marriage hasn’t
existed in England and Wales since 1753!"
> (In reply to tlm)
>
> I may be completely wrong,
>
> I may be completely wrong,
You are completely wrong:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/doc...
"Worryingly, many people believe that
after a couple of years they become
common law husband and wife, with the
same rights as married couples. But this
isn’t the case. As far as the law is
concerned, common law marriage hasn’t
existed in England and Wales since 1753!"
In reply to David Martin:
Why don't you do it yourself if it really is that simple?
> Put bluntly, it sounds like a good get rich quick scheme: hook up with someone wealthy for enough years then run off claiming half their wealth.
Why don't you do it yourself if it really is that simple?
In reply to gribble:
Heh - sorry to hear that. It can be really hard. The only comfort to you is that it will pass and that you will always be your daughter's dad - the only one she will ever had. Your relationship with her is between you and her...
> Very true. I am currently one of them, having spent a VERY traumatic day in court this week. I still feel sick and can't sleep, and I suspect I will always feel I have let my daughter down by not being able to protect her from her mother enough.
Heh - sorry to hear that. It can be really hard. The only comfort to you is that it will pass and that you will always be your daughter's dad - the only one she will ever had. Your relationship with her is between you and her...
In reply to tlm:
Sorry tlm, but that isn't good enough. Kids only get one childhood and only one chance to grow up and mature under the influence of their parents. I'm fortunate that my ex is very reasonable where the kids are concerned, we have a 50 / 50 care agreement and the kids were old enough to know us both properly before we separated.
It could have been very different if it had happened when the kids were younger or if my ex had wanted to wreck my relationship with them. Where kids are involved, the law IS weighted very heavily in the woman's favour.
> (In reply to gribble)
> [...]
>
> Heh - sorry to hear that. It can be really hard. The only comfort to you is that it will pass and that you will always be your daughter's dad - the only one she will ever had. Your relationship with her is between you and her...
> [...]
>
> Heh - sorry to hear that. It can be really hard. The only comfort to you is that it will pass and that you will always be your daughter's dad - the only one she will ever had. Your relationship with her is between you and her...
Sorry tlm, but that isn't good enough. Kids only get one childhood and only one chance to grow up and mature under the influence of their parents. I'm fortunate that my ex is very reasonable where the kids are concerned, we have a 50 / 50 care agreement and the kids were old enough to know us both properly before we separated.
It could have been very different if it had happened when the kids were younger or if my ex had wanted to wreck my relationship with them. Where kids are involved, the law IS weighted very heavily in the woman's favour.
In reply to teflonpete:
Mr TC's found this too - and one thing I've noticed is how many otherwise sane people saying 'oh but the kids should be with their mother first and foremost'. Er - really? Perhaps when you're a babe in arms, but after that, not convinced - fostering positive relationships with both parents is more important, and it's not always the mother that's the most competent caregiver.
Mr TC's found this too - and one thing I've noticed is how many otherwise sane people saying 'oh but the kids should be with their mother first and foremost'. Er - really? Perhaps when you're a babe in arms, but after that, not convinced - fostering positive relationships with both parents is more important, and it's not always the mother that's the most competent caregiver.
In reply to teflonpete:
Whoa!!! Slow down there mate! I only showed sympathy with someone who is going through a really horrible time! Why isn't that 'good enough' and not good enough for what???!!!
I agree and I don't think it is right. Children do best with both of their parents in their lives, apart from in some very rare extreme cases.
> Sorry tlm, but that isn't good enough.
Whoa!!! Slow down there mate! I only showed sympathy with someone who is going through a really horrible time! Why isn't that 'good enough' and not good enough for what???!!!
> It could have been very different if it had happened when the kids were younger or if my ex had wanted to wreck my relationship with them. Where kids are involved, the law IS weighted very heavily in the woman's favour.
I agree and I don't think it is right. Children do best with both of their parents in their lives, apart from in some very rare extreme cases.
In reply to David Martin: Wow, that sounds like something my granddad might have said, he'd be towards his 110th year now but it's nice to see the early 1900's male is still flying the flag for chauvinism.
What can you say to that? If you live in the uk then you must have experienced an unusually cliched circle of friends.
> "the choice to have offspring is in my experience, 9 times out 10, driven by the wife. This is a choice that is funded by the husband."
What can you say to that? If you live in the uk then you must have experienced an unusually cliched circle of friends.
In reply to tlm:
Not a pop at you, not at all, I just mean that sympathy and empathy from friends aren't enough to counteract the fact that family law is heavily weighted against men. A father's access to his kids can easily be restricted if the ex wife so wishes. Sympathy from the fathers friends (or people on t'interweb) is no substitute for contact with your kids.
And most of us think the same, and yet most of the court system and the CSA are set up for one partner having majority childcare and one partner having limited access. I looked into the financial side of child support at the outset of my divorce proceedings, there is no provision for splitting child benefit or family tax credits between separated partners with 50 / 50 custody, it's so rare it's not worth putting a procedure in place, according to the CSA.
> (In reply to teflonpete)
>
> [...]
>
> Whoa!!! Slow down there mate! I only showed sympathy with someone who is going through a really horrible time! Why isn't that 'good enough' and not good enough for what???!!!
>
> [...]
>
> Whoa!!! Slow down there mate! I only showed sympathy with someone who is going through a really horrible time! Why isn't that 'good enough' and not good enough for what???!!!
Not a pop at you, not at all, I just mean that sympathy and empathy from friends aren't enough to counteract the fact that family law is heavily weighted against men. A father's access to his kids can easily be restricted if the ex wife so wishes. Sympathy from the fathers friends (or people on t'interweb) is no substitute for contact with your kids.
> I agree and I don't think it is right. Children do best with both of their parents in their lives, apart from in some very rare extreme cases.
And most of us think the same, and yet most of the court system and the CSA are set up for one partner having majority childcare and one partner having limited access. I looked into the financial side of child support at the outset of my divorce proceedings, there is no provision for splitting child benefit or family tax credits between separated partners with 50 / 50 custody, it's so rare it's not worth putting a procedure in place, according to the CSA.
In terms of equity split and ongoing payments, the length of a marriage has a significant impact on how assets are split even when there are no children. A friend of mine recently divorced after 16 years and his wife has got 90% of the house equity plus five years maintenance payments based upon the current (not historical) earnings differential.
Sometimes a deal has to be struck to avoid the ongoing legal costs and avoiding court which can be a real lottery.
Sometimes a deal has to be struck to avoid the ongoing legal costs and avoiding court which can be a real lottery.
In reply to Dispater: its great once its over with and your free to go find someone that actually cares for you
In reply to Dispater: in my own on-going experience I am very glad (relieved) to report that the courts have a very mature and foreward thinking regard to fathering. There's still a hole in the law wherein if Mum decrees Dad can't have access that will be so until a court order is obtained contray (she booted me out at Xmas and restricted my access to an access centre since March. 6 weeks without exposure to my own kids, then 2x2hrs a month!!) The court had ignored her deemand for sole parenting. the judge has instilled a transitional programme for repatriation and reparation for myself as father such that 2014 will see me as joint and equal parent (my daughter is only 18 mnths).
so glad to report the law is very progressive and reactive to modern parenting whereby if Dad wants, is willing and has means, he will get for the benefit of the children (particulaly boys research shows).
As for CSA, if you achieve 50/50, its good night to them; each parent stands alone with own means and provision. Tax credits, familt allowence is applied for directly to the gov. depts.
a truely bleak experience and process but fight for being Daddy and the law does respect it.
so glad to report the law is very progressive and reactive to modern parenting whereby if Dad wants, is willing and has means, he will get for the benefit of the children (particulaly boys research shows).
As for CSA, if you achieve 50/50, its good night to them; each parent stands alone with own means and provision. Tax credits, familt allowence is applied for directly to the gov. depts.
a truely bleak experience and process but fight for being Daddy and the law does respect it.
In reply to Dispater:
The only positive thing I can contribute is refraining from posting any of my thoughts or experiences.
The only positive thing I can contribute is refraining from posting any of my thoughts or experiences.
In reply to ali_mac:
Really? That's not what it says on the .gov website child maintenance calculator. According to that, the primary carer is entitled to maintenance from the 'parent paying child maintenance' even if that parent has the children stay with them 50% of the time, on a sliding scale dependent on earnings.
Happy to be wrong on that but that's what I was led to believe by looking at the .gov websites.
https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-child-maintenance/y
> (In reply to Dispater)
> As for CSA, if you achieve 50/50, its good night to them; each parent stands alone with own means and provision. Tax credits, familt allowence is applied for directly to the gov. depts.
Really? That's not what it says on the .gov website child maintenance calculator. According to that, the primary carer is entitled to maintenance from the 'parent paying child maintenance' even if that parent has the children stay with them 50% of the time, on a sliding scale dependent on earnings.
Happy to be wrong on that but that's what I was led to believe by looking at the .gov websites.
https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-child-maintenance/y
In reply to teflonpete:
I think in Mr TC's case it was to do with who was the 'resident parent'. They managed to do it all without getting the CSA involved though he does pay an eyewatering amount of maintenance for someone who has his kids roughly half the time.
I think in Mr TC's case it was to do with who was the 'resident parent'. They managed to do it all without getting the CSA involved though he does pay an eyewatering amount of maintenance for someone who has his kids roughly half the time.
In reply to Tall Clare:
'Resident parent', that's the phrase, not 'primary carer'. My ex is registered as resident parent because she earns below the threshold to be eligible for family tax credits. I don't pay her any maintenance as we have the kids 50/50 but I pay for the kids' clothes, holidays, school trips, extra curricular clubs etc as I earn more than she does. She sorts out her own rent, bills and food for her and the kids when they're with her. She didn't want spousal maintenance or child maintenance but she started a new career as a teacher a couple of years ago (the education for which I funded) whereas I'm likely to be made redundant in a year and unlikely to find a similarly paid job ever again. Cross spousal maintenance would have earned her some income in the short term but then disadvantaged her in the long term. At the end of the day we both wanted independence from each other and that is difficult to do if you're still reliant on your ex - partners income.
> (In reply to teflonpete)
>
> I think in Mr TC's case it was to do with who was the 'resident parent'. They managed to do it all without getting the CSA involved though he does pay an eyewatering amount of maintenance for someone who has his kids roughly half the time.
>
> I think in Mr TC's case it was to do with who was the 'resident parent'. They managed to do it all without getting the CSA involved though he does pay an eyewatering amount of maintenance for someone who has his kids roughly half the time.
'Resident parent', that's the phrase, not 'primary carer'. My ex is registered as resident parent because she earns below the threshold to be eligible for family tax credits. I don't pay her any maintenance as we have the kids 50/50 but I pay for the kids' clothes, holidays, school trips, extra curricular clubs etc as I earn more than she does. She sorts out her own rent, bills and food for her and the kids when they're with her. She didn't want spousal maintenance or child maintenance but she started a new career as a teacher a couple of years ago (the education for which I funded) whereas I'm likely to be made redundant in a year and unlikely to find a similarly paid job ever again. Cross spousal maintenance would have earned her some income in the short term but then disadvantaged her in the long term. At the end of the day we both wanted independence from each other and that is difficult to do if you're still reliant on your ex - partners income.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...