Court rule on Mr G

The Corinthian

Carrigart Exile wrote:

That I believe is the greatest inequality, the courts suddenly turn victorian when divorce is mentioned

What are you going to do about it?

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

That's a typical example alright! :rolleyes: Pure madness. Then again how many children where involved, what age? Was she a stay at home Mum anyway?

The kids ages ranged from early teens to late teens. She was a very typical footballers wife who considered it a hard days work getting the kids up for school

Carrigart Exile

The Corinthian wrote:

What are you going to do about it?

moan and gripe every opportunity i get:D

Actually, I have written to politicians regarding the issue and their responses assured me things were much worse when the previous party was in power

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

The kids ages ranged from early teens to late teens. She was a very typical footballers wife who considered it a hard days work getting the kids up for school

Not exactly a real world example! If it was the real world, it would depend on childcare costs, if any, and the income she could earn. It may not be worth her while earning minimum wage with increased childcare costs. If it would be worth her while and she refuses, the husband shouldn't have to subsidise her lifestyle choice.

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

Not exactly a real world example! If it was the real world, it would depend on childcare costs, if any, and the income she could earn. It may not be worth her while earning minimum wage with increased childcare costs. If it would be worth her while and she refuses, the husband shouldn't have to subsidise her lifestyle choice.

who's to say what 'worth her while', if her attitude is I can get as much from the state or him for sitting on my toosh you think that's okay???

The Corinthian

As has been suggested it's not a good example.

A more common example is where a wife gives up her career (let's say it was not all that high flying), to raise children and keep the home. She takes care of the husband and aids his career - ironing his shirts, cleaning, cooking and accompanying him to business dinners and receptions. This frees him up to concentrate on his work and so he does better than he may have if she had continued working. Certainly he's been footing the bills during this period, but bed & board is not an acceptable salary for a live in servant.

Had she never met him or simply had continued with her career and divided the responsibility equally, she would have a better pension, more money saved and the opportunity to work and support herself than if she had remained a housewife.

In that scenario she is certainly entitled to maintenance as she has both sacrificed her own life and aided his.

Of course, the concept that one should maintain a wife's standard of living that they could never afford in the first place alone simply because they married someone wealthy is a bit bizarre when you think about it. The only way I could imagine that would be justified is where that wealth was in significant part generated by the actions of that wife through her support.

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

who's to say what 'worth her while', if her attitude is I can get as much from the state or him for sitting on my toosh you think that's okay???

They're his kids as well so if he is paying half the childcare it may be worth her while to work. IMO, if they both made a choice that one parent staying at home was best then that should still be an option. Nobody forced the father to decide that. As the kids get older this may be less important.

Carrigart Exile

The Corinthian wrote:

As has been suggested it's not a good example.

A more common example is where a wife gives up her career (let's say it was not all that high flying), to raise children and keep the home. She takes care of the husband and aids his career - ironing his shirts, cleaning, cooking and accompanying him to business dinners and receptions. This frees him up to concentrate on his work and so he does better than he may have if she had continued working. Certainly he's been footing the bills during this period, but bed & board is not an acceptable salary for a live in servant.

Had she never met him or simply had continued with her career and divided the responsibility equally, she would have a better pension, more money saved and the opportunity to work and support herself than if she had remained a housewife.

In that scenario she is certainly entitled to maintenance as she has both sacrificed her own life and aided his.

Of course, the concept that one should maintain a wife's standard of living that they could never afford in the first place alone simply because they married someone wealthy is a bit bizarre when you think about it. The only way I could imagine that would be justified is where that wealth was in significant part generated by the actions of that wife through her support.

You have argued successfully against yourself, and that is the conundrum with this issue. I recognise the first scenario you paint from magazines only. It is a joint decision (hopefully) to have children yet you accredit all of the sacrifice to her.

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

They're his kids as well so if he is paying half the childcare it may be worth her while to work. IMO, if they both made a choice that one parent staying at home was best then that should still be an option. Nobody forced the father to decide that. As the kids get older this may be less important.

And no one forced the mother neither.

The Corinthian

Carrigart Exile wrote:

You have argued successfully against yourself, and that is the conundrum with this issue. I recognise the first scenario you paint from magazines only. It is a joint decision (hopefully) to have children yet you accredit all of the sacrifice to her.

Actually the scenario I painted is quite commonplace - I would point to my own parents to begin with.

Even taking children out of the equation, the reality is that one spouse may well make sacrifices for the good of the other, based upon the presumption that it will be for their common good and for life. One example is where one spouse will need to relocate for their career, meaning that the other will need to sacrifice theirs for the greater good.

The decision for this is based upon a pooling of lifetime recourses, so that if those resources are not then pooled for a lifetime, one will be left with the liability of their sacrifice and the other with its benefits when the relationship ends. Naturally the former would require compensation.

The alternative is that neither party is ever willing to sacrifice their individual future for the combined good and any cohabitational relationship will run into problems rather quickly if that is the case. Of course, if one managed to avoid any such sacrifices, then I'd agree that compensation should not be part of the equation.

Please bare in mind that I am not defending the current model of maintenance or division of assets, only that I can see the reason behind some model of said.

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

And no one forced the mother neither.

No, a joint decision.

If a women goes to college and trains for her career while the father works and looks after the kids in the evening there should be some financial recognition of that for the father. This scenario is more common place now.

What would be your outlook on a situation like that?

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

No, a joint decision.

If a women goes to college and trains for her career while the father works and looks after the kids in the evening there should be some financial recognition of that for the father. This scenario is more common place now.

What would be your outlook on a situation like that?

My response is still the same, these are life choices you both made, the relationship has not worked, both continue to provide for the upkeep of their children. But to then consider allow one adult human being to parasite off of another adult human being because they once had a relationship is a loafers' charter

johnnyskeleton

Carrigart Exile wrote:

My response is still the same, these are life choices you both made, the relationship has not worked, both continue to provide for the upkeep of their children. But to then consider allow one adult human being to parasite off of another adult human being because they once had a relationship is a loafers' charter

The phrase used by the courts in a divorce is "reasonable provision". The courts can't impose an objective standard for this, because that would be "minimum provision" or "standard provision". What the courts are concerned with is, what is the most appropriate provision as between the individuals concerned.

When 2 people get married, they are agreeing to love and provide for each other, through sickness & health etc, for the rest of their natural lives. That has a legally binding effect, and although a court can't force people to love each other, they can force them to continue to provide for each other.

To give two examples of reasonable provision:
1) a man and woman marry, both are similar professionals, no children, married for 2 years and decide to separate while still in their 20s/30s. Both continue working, and there is little or no need for one spouse to provide for the other.
2) a man and woman marry, the wife gives up her job to care for the children. she is out of the workforce for 20 years, they divorce and, although the children support themselves, she has no real means of taking care of herself. In this scenario, she has a very real need for provision because otherwise she will be out on the street (social welfare requires that a spouse try to obtain maintenance from their former spouse prior to giving any benefits).

So, in many situations, one former spouse is required to provide for the other former spouse because they agreed to do so (when they took their marital vows) and because to do otherwise would be an injustice.

A more interesting scenario is this: lets say that a couple who earn low income obtain a judicial separation, and because the husband doesn't have much discretionary income, the wife decides not to seek any maintenance. The husband moves to China and earns millions from investment and industry. He decides to marry his new girlfriend and so petitions for divorce. At this stage, the husband is exceedingly well off and the wife remains on her low income. Should the husband be required to make reasonable provision for his former spouse, even though the majority of his wealth is self created while they were separated?

Carrigart Exile

johnnyskeleton wrote:

The phrase used by the courts in a divorce is "reasonable provision". The courts can't impose an objective standard for this, because that would be "minimum provision" or "standard provision". What the courts are concerned with is, what is the most appropriate provision as between the individuals concerned.

When 2 people get married, they are agreeing to love and provide for each other, through sickness & health etc, for the rest of their natural lives. That has a legally binding effect, and although a court can't force people to love each other, they can force them to continue to provide for each other.

To give two examples of reasonable provision:
1) a man and woman marry, both are similar professionals, no children, married for 2 years and decide to separate while still in their 20s/30s. Both continue working, and there is little or no need for one spouse to provide for the other.
2) a man and woman marry, the wife gives up her job to care for the children. she is out of the workforce for 20 years, they divorce and, although the children support themselves, she has no real means of taking care of herself. In this scenario, she has a very real need for provision because otherwise she will be out on the street (social welfare requires that a spouse try to obtain maintenance from their former spouse prior to giving any benefits).

So, in many situations, one former spouse is required to provide for the other former spouse because they agreed to do so (when they took their marital vows) and because to do otherwise would be an injustice.

A more interesting scenario is this: lets say that a couple who earn low income obtain a judicial separation, and because the husband doesn't have much discretionary income, the wife decides not to seek any maintenance. The husband moves to China and earns millions from investment and industry. He decides to marry his new girlfriend and so petitions for divorce. At this stage, the husband is exceedingly well off and the wife remains on her low income. Should the husband be required to make reasonable provision for his former spouse, even though the majority of his wealth is self created while they were separated?

so this legal contract of marraige only works one way. The contract to provide through sickness and health till death us do part, would allow me to sue a wife that left me to take up with another man because her feelings had changed would they? After all, I was expecting to be loved and looked after for life. Now do you see the nonsense. Looking at your scenarios outlined above you forget to mention that the wife would already have gained access to half (if not all) of the house and half of his pension, yet for you that is not enough.

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

so this legal contract of marraige only works one way. The contract to provide through sickness and health till death us do part, would allow me to sue a wife that left me to take up with another man because her feelings had changed would they? After all, I was expecting to be loved and looked after for life. Now do you see the nonsense. Looking at your scenarios outlined above you forget to mention that the wife would already have gained access to half (if not all) of the house and half of his pension, yet for you that is not enough.

I think you can't see any circumstance where spousal maintenace is justifiable.

Most posters on here see, that if 2 people make joint decisions that involves one giving up a career, they may be entitled to some compensation.

They made that decision based on a "till death to us part contract" but the contract ended.

Half a pension isn't much good if your 35. Maybe say 1/2 the pension for some income then. I don't agree with 1/2 pension anyway, but neither do I agree with no spousal maintenance, depending on circumstances.

On adultery, to me, they should give up any rights. Then again, what about a woman who endures a marriage where she is battered? There is no black and white!

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

I think you can't see any circumstance where spousal maintenace is justifiable.

Most posters on here see, that if 2 people make joint decisions that involves one giving up a career, they may be entitled to some compensation.

No you are correct, I can see no circumstance where one adult should have to provide for another adult (irrespective of gender) because they were once emotionally involved. You cannot govern the marraige vows under contract law otherwise the nonsense scenario I painted above would also apply. Joint decisions imply both arriving at that conclusion and both accepting responsibility for the implications of that conclusion. Spousal maintenance appears to me to imply one partner carrying the 'responsibility can' more than the other.

Do you see spousal maintenance also applying to unmarried couples?

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

Then again, what about a woman who endures a marriage where she is battered? There is no black and white!

Similarly, many men endure marraiges where they are the victims of domestic violence and I know that is not the point of this discussion, but just thought that should not be lost sight of

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

No you are correct, I can see no circumstance where one adult should have to provide for another adult (irrespective of gender) because they were once emotionally involved. You cannot govern the marraige vows under contract law otherwise the nonsense scenario I painted above would also apply. Joint decisions imply both arriving at that conclusion and both accepting responsibility for the implications of that conclusion. Spousal maintenance appears to me to imply one partner carrying the 'responsibility can' more than the other.

Instead of contract law treat it as a relationship. People make sacrifices. Like a mother or father who gives up a career to be a stay at home Mum or Dad. Say, She/he did this by agreement with the husband for the betterment of the marriage and kids. The marriage ends, consideration should be given of those decisions. At the time the couple didn't say, well we'll split up so we'll do this!

If it was important to a Father or Mother to have a full time carer when they where married, why should that change because of divorce? It should still be important regardless.

To me you see this as a black & white issue, I don't. The couple made a decision to give up her career for the whole family, including the husband. If no spousal maintenance, maybe the Mother should sue the Husband for restricting her career and income potential?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Do you see spousal maintenance also applying to unmarried couples?

There's talk of changing some parts of the law for unmarried couples. E.g. if a mother stays at home to mind the kids and the father works and the house is in his name, the mother should get some financial recognition of her role if they split up.

I would agree to it in certain circumstances. Unmarried parents shouldn't be treated differently to married parents. So the sames rights and responsibilities would apply. Again, would depend on circumstances, it's not black & white.

In my case, my ex was facilitated in her training as a Nurse by me. I was the main carer. In a case like that, where one person helped the other partner to a new career, No. Why would there be spousal maintenance, the ex has a new career!

The point on domestic abuse of men, I totally agree with. In my points, I'm adding the caveat that there is no differential between sex. Same situation would apply reagardless of gender!

The Corinthian

Seanies32 wrote:

Instead of contract law treat it as a relationship.

Unfortunately when it comes to separation or divorce you'll be the only one treating it as a relationship and not contract law.

Marriage is essentially considered a form of contract law. There are differences, the most obvious being that it is the only contract that either party can break without automatic liability and that humanitarian issues also make up part of any judgment (especially in the case of children).

While I would not agree with Carrigart Exile's black and white view, I do think that the question of spousal maintenance is in serious need of reform.

Carrigart Exile wrote:

Do you see spousal maintenance also applying to unmarried couples?

My observation, which started this tangent, was that the G case judgment (along with present trends in the UK that we are want to ape) will likely introduce exactly that.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote:

Unfortunately when it comes to separation or divorce you'll be the only one treating it as a relationship and not contract law.

I was responding to Carrigart Exile, who doesn't view it as contract law.

The Corinthian wrote:

Marriage is essentially considered a form of contract law. There are differences, the most obvious being that it is the only contract that either party can break without automatic liability and that humanitarian issues also make up part of any judgment (especially in the case of children).

While I would not agree with Carrigart Exile's black and white view, I do think that the question of spousal maintenance is in serious need of reform.

Fully agreed.

The Corinthian wrote:

My observation, which started this tangent, was that the G case judgment (along with present trends in the UK that we are want to ape) will likely introduce exactly that.

Spousal maintenance and property rights could be next! If unmarried father eventually do get the same rights as married fathers they will probably also get the same responsibilities.

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

I was responding to Carrigart Exile, who doesn't view it as contract law.

Fully agreed.

Spousal maintenance and property rights could be next! If unmarried father eventually do get the same rights as married fathers they will probably also get the same responsibilities.

Why would any man get married or indeed cohabit with a woman when it is clearly the edge of financial suicide. This law making has made cities like New York marraige wastelands

The Corinthian

Carrigart Exile wrote:

Why would any man get married or indeed cohabit with a woman when it is clearly the edge of financial suicide. This law making has made cities like New York marraige wastelands

Not at all. They have the option of prenups.

Nevyn

Carrigart Exile wrote:

Why would any man get married or indeed cohabit with a woman when it is clearly the edge of financial suicide. This law making has made cities like New York marraige wastelands

Love
Honour
Duty.

Being a stay at home parent is not a bed of roses either, esp in a socity where one of the first things people will as is what do you do or where do you 'work'
and when you say you are a stay at home parent the response is what you don't work which is certainly not the case.

While in the short term personally providing childcare can make more sense financially for the stay at home parent or the parent who cuts back their hours or curtails their career path or is the one to stay home when the child is sick it is financially damaging in the long term, in terms of earnings, earning potentials and pensions.

If a couple are pooling their resources ( which are more then just financial )
to run a family and that ends then both sides have to be looked at sorted out.

We are starting to see second wife's and couples breaking up when the children are reared. Women in their 50s who have been the stay at home spouse have started to find themselves trying to get back into the work place after a break up in the marriage when the children have grown and they can't get back into the work place on a parity level with their spouses as they have been out of the work place for 20 years or more.

Yes this was their choice and the choice of their spouse but the spouse did benefit from their labour in the house and them being supportive in their career.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote:

Love
Honour
Duty.

Please. While I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, pulling out those cliches is close to insulting for anyone who's witnessed where "love, honour and duty" are shoved when someone is looking to screw you for half (or more) of all you own.

Nevyn

The Corinthian wrote:

Please. While I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, pulling out those cliches is close to insulting for anyone who's witnessed where "love, honour and duty" are shoved when someone is looking to screw you for half (or more) of all you own.

They are the reasons why people get married or start to co habit esp when there are children, but they are not reasons to stay in a dysfunctional relationship.

Yes the rights of fathers need to be sorted out but honestly I see it personally as the middle ground should be about the rights of the child and spousal/partner maintenance to be a separate issue.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote:

They are the reasons why people get married or start to co habit esp when there are children, but they are not reasons to stay in a dysfunctional relationship.

How is that related to what I wrote in response to you?

Yes the rights of fathers need to be sorted out but honestly I see it personally as the middle ground should be about the rights of the child and spousal/partner maintenance to be a separate issue.

Yes, well I agree that spousal and child maintenance are and should be seperate and in this regard the present thread has gone off topic.

However it went off topic when I noted that the court's decision was based upon the unmarried couple having essentially acted as a married one, as this has potential legal implications far beyond those addressed in the G case - such as spousal maintenance.

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

Why would any man get married or indeed cohabit with a woman when it is clearly the edge of financial suicide. This law making has made cities like New York marraige wastelands

Your proposal of no spousal maintenance would make a parents decision to be a stay at home parent financial suicide.

Why stay at home, if in a divorce/split up situation you will be punished later on financially? There's enough disincentives to be a stay at home parent, as it is.

My point is a general one and I'm not disputing the current spousal maintenance system needs serious reform. The general point is, if unmarried fathers want the same rights as married fathers, they should also accept the same responsibilities and drawbacks.

The Corinthian wrote:

However it went off topic when I noted that the court's decision was based upon the unmarried couple having essentially acted as a married one, as this has potential legal implications far beyond those addressed in the G case - such as spousal maintenance.

Don't think it's that off topic. Extra rights for unmarried fathers may come from the Mr.G ruling but also extra responsibilities, such as spousal maintenance or property rights. We can't have it both ways!

Carrigart Exile

Thaedydal wrote:

They are the reasons why people get married or start to co habit esp when there are children, but they are not reasons to stay in a dysfunctional relationship.

Yes the rights of fathers need to be sorted out but honestly I see it personally as the middle ground should be about the rights of the child and spousal/partner maintenance to be a separate issue.

The 'rights of the child' have been used by women to ride roughshod over men's rights for decades

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

Your proposal of no spousal maintenance would make a parents decision to be a stay at home parent financial suicide.

Why stay at home, if in a divorce/split up situation you will be punished later on financially? There's enough disincentives to be a stay at home parent, as it is.

My point is a general one and I'm not disputing the current spousal maintenance system needs serious reform. The general point is, if unmarried fathers want the same rights as married fathers, they should also accept the same responsibilities and drawbacks.



Don't think it's that off topic. Extra rights for unmarried fathers may come from the Mr.G ruling but also extra responsibilities, such as spousal maintenance or property rights. We can't have it both ways!

why not, women have been doing it for years. If you want to experience instiututionalised sexual discrimination supported by the state be a man in the divorce courts. She can be a crack addicted lady of the night and still it will be assumed she will get the child(ren), the house, your pension, your future salary, the dog and get to make access as awkward as blazes for you with the law not prepared to take action against her even if she breaches court orders.

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

The 'rights of the child' have been used by women to ride roughshod over men's rights for decades

Doesn't mean childs rights have to be ignored!

Carrigart Exile wrote:

why not, women have been doing it for years. If you want to experience instiututionalised sexual discrimination supported by the state be a man in the divorce courts. She can be a crack addicted lady of the night and still it will be assumed she will get the child(ren), the house, your pension, your future salary, the dog and get to make access as awkward as blazes for you with the law not prepared to take action against her even if she breaches court orders.

Well prove, she's a crack addicted lady of the night then!
If it's that bad it will affect the children, so you would be awarded custody.A wee bit overdramatic methinks!

Again and it has been said over and over by me and others, the system needs overhauled. Believe me, I know where you are coming over access and that needs overhauled!

Again, going back to your idea of no spousal maintenace, stay at home parents would be committing financial suicide.

Do you want revenge or serious, fair reform?