Men screwed by Divorce

van der vart

my divorce was strung out for years (12 ), by the other party, who was on free legal aid.
every court case was hampered by her not feeling well or not being able to cope ( the build up ) i was never given an estimate or quote from my solisitor, end of the day i was told i can have 35 % of my house when my youngest leaves home and a bill for 24k.
im paying maintenance, their mortage and trying to make a life for myself with a wonderful person who has put up with all this ****

Talk to me, i cant be the only bloke in Ireland to get double Fxxxed.
Solisitor and ex

van der vart

cheers lads, first time on this, small bit pissed,
wrong page, no offence

Sonics2k

No offence, but you got screwed in this case.

My ex's Father had a very similar deal years ago when he got divorced, and even looking back on it he know's he was totally screwed by his lawyer.

SugarHigh

I think in a bad divorce neither side act amicably but the difference seems to be that the court system seems to give the woman power to make bits of the man.

I don't really understand why men get married in the first pace. I don't have anything against long term relationships but I just see marriage certificate as something that can be used against you.

There is probably something to do with parental rights but tbh I just view kids as something else that can be used against you.

Galvasean

Firstly, my sympathies OP.

There was athread a while back about the unbalance in the divorce system here. I warn you though, it's not exactly encouraging reading:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056038474&highlight=divorce

iptba

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think in a bad divorce neither side act amicably but the difference seems to be that the court system seems to give the woman power to make bits of the man.

I don't really understand why men get married in the first pace. I don't have anything against long term relationships but I just see marriage certificate as something that can be used against you.

There is probably something to do with parental rights but tbh I just view kids as something else that can be used against you.

But with the Civil Partnership Bill last year, people (in virtually all cases, it's likely to be men based on past experience) can potentially get screwed without a marriage cert once they lived with somebody even if they don't have kids together. There was barely a whimper about it. In many other European countries, they have an opt-in system but this was barely mentioned at the time.

In my view, there needs to be strong men's organisations.

MagicMarker

This is one reason why I will never, EVER, get married.

iptba

MagicMarker wrote: »

This is one reason why I will never, EVER, get married.

I wonder is this why some men don't campaign/be that interested on some issues e.g. the Civil Partnership Bill - they think they'll never marry (or never re-marry if they have already been married)?

A lot of girls dream of getting married when they're young and certainly it doesn't seem to me that lots aspire never to get married (/never to have a long-term marriage-like relationship). Whereas I think it just "happens" to a lot of men.

Wibbs

MagicMarker wrote: »

This is one reason why I will never, EVER, get married.

Ditto. I've seen too many guys I know be seriously screwed up emotionally and financially by the aftermath of one going wrong(never mind the not so great marriages that are going "right").

iptba wrote: »

I wonder is this why some men don't campaign/be that interested on some issues e.g. the Civil Partnership Bill - they think they'll never marry (or never re-marry if they have already been married)?

I do think you've hit on something there iptba.

Whereas I think it just "happens" to a lot of men.

I woud agree that women tend to drive the milestones of relationships more. They invest more in them, they invest more of their worth in them, they discuss them more. Relationships are just more important to women than men I'd say(all kinds of relationships, not just romantic). Like you say it happens to many men. They're like an ant on a slowly turning tractor tyre, the tyre being the relationship. They don't notice anything until it runs over them Men do tend to be more black and white, status quo, why ruin a good thing by overthinking it. That said I do know men who are not, but in general I'd be confident enough of that notion.

Funny when I was younger I was not against marriage at all. Quite the opposite little romantic I was. Now? Through direct and close mates experience and the cynicism that came with it for me personally? No way would I be up for it. Not at the moment.

amacachi

Just remember one thing, lawyers get paid more the longer cases go on and the legal community is pretty close-knit and linked together. One party claiming free legal aid is just a cherry amongst cherries on the cake.

iptba

Wibbs wrote: »

I woud agree that women tend to drive the milestones of relationships more. They invest more in them, they invest more of their worth in them, they discuss them more. Relationships are just more important to women than men I'd say(all kinds of relationships, not just romantic). Like you say it happens to many men. They're like an ant on a slowly turning tractor tyre, the tyre being the relationship. They don't notice anything until it runs over them Men do tend to be more black and white, status quo, why ruin a good thing by overthinking it. That said I do know men who are not, but in general I'd be confident enough of that notion.

Funny when I was younger I was not against marriage at all. Quite the opposite little romantic I was. Now? Through direct and close mates experience and the cynicism that came with it for me personally? No way would I be up for it. Not at the moment.

I remember talking with a female acquaintance (can't say I knew her well enough that she was a friend even though I don't dislike her): anyway, we were talking about people we both knew and I mentioned this person who had been going out for somebody for a year or two (can't remember the details now). She said that "sounds promising". In other words, it hadn't developed into a full relationship/similar at that stage. I think that women are much more likely to see a relationship in this way ("promising") than men.

Daisy M

I dont think its just men who get screwes, a friend of mine got completly done over by her ex, he was self employed loaded and knew how to cover every track that would have proven he had assets galore. They reached some sort of setttlement which ended with family home needed to be sold and give her a certain amt of money out of sale or he keep house and just pay x amt of money, in the next year he doesnt have to pay maintainance?????????????? The exwife knows due to circumstances the house wont sell and she will probably never see a penny and doesnt hold out much hope of getting much maintainance when judge reviews it again. On the other hand a family members estranged wife is trying to take him for everything, a house that was built and 80% paid for and furnished before they ever met, there was a tiny mortgage over a small number of years which she paid from her account (he gave her cash every week) so now she maintains house should be hers!
I think the person who wins in these situations is the one with the meanest streak and who knows exactly how to manipulate the system.

iptba

is mise astra wrote: »

I dont think its just men who get screwes, a friend of mine got completly done over by her ex, he was self employed loaded and knew how to cover every track that would have proven he had assets galore. They reached some sort of setttlement which ended with family home needed to be sold and give her a certain amt of money out of sale or he keep house and just pay x amt of money, in the next year he doesnt have to pay maintainance?????????????? The exwife knows due to circumstances the house wont sell and she will probably never see a penny and doesnt hold out much hope of getting much maintainance when judge reviews it again. On the other hand a family members estranged wife is trying to take him for everything, a house that was built and 80% paid for and furnished before they ever met, there was a tiny mortgage over a small number of years which she paid from her account (he gave her cash every week) so now she maintains house should be hers!
I think the person who wins in these situations is the one with the meanest streak and who knows exactly how to manipulate the system.

I imagine x in the first case has to be reasonably big or else it may only be one year he doesn't have to pay maintenance??

Daisy M

iptba wrote: »

I imagine x in the first case has to be reasonably big or else it may only be one year he doesn't have to pay maintenance??

I honestly cant remember was like half the value of the house am thinking 100,000. Thing is she is unlikely to see it for a long long time and in the mean time no maintainance for 4 kids, seems strange, however she was awarded one of the many (12) properties he owns to live in. He owned them throughout marriage, she worked with him in his business. Btw her legal bill was 60,000 no legal aid.

metrovelvet

The only people who benefit from divorce are the lawyers.

And with the cohabitation bill, they will get even more clients.

iptba

(I don't know much/anything about the law so forgive my ignorance)
Are there any sort of reports like this one* for Irish or indeed "UK" courts around the internet:
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In AZCO 20110329000.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

It's like reading an episode of Judge Judy/The People's Court.

I notice $90,000 of legal fees are mentioned at one stage (not sure if that's everything or just for the appeal?? - was only skimming).

* nothing special about it - just turned up in a Google search I was doing

krudler

Are prenups used much here? I'd def ask for one, if she gets offended then tough sh1t.

Bottle_of_Smoke

New life mission:

Marry girl with job. Take care of children whilst she works overtime to pay mortgage and eventutally drives herself to drink.

Win custody of children. Continue living in house whilst she pays mortgage.

Epic win for mankind

krudler wrote: »

Are prenups used much here? I'd def ask for one, if she gets offended then tough sh1t.

Don't think they're recognised in Irish law.

amacachi

metrovelvet wrote: »

The only people who benefit from divorce are the lawyers.

And with the cohabitation bill, they will get even more clients.

Is there a draft of that around or has it already gone through?

metrovelvet

amacachi wrote: »

Is there a draft of that around or has it already gone through?

Was wondering that myself.

iptba

amacachi wrote: »

Is there a draft of that around or has it already gone through?

I've seen nothing to say it hasn't gone through.

Here's an extract from a newspaper piece - the last paragraph is really the bit I'm referring to:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfeyojsncwey/rss2/

First civil partnership ceremony for same-sex couple
By Scott Millar

Monday, February 21, 2011

IRELAND’S first civil partnership ceremony between a same-sex couple took place two weeks ago.


The two men were registered as civil partners at a ceremony on February 7.

The partnership is registered under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 which came into force on January 1.

family10

just wondering can anyone tell me if you can do a bit of babysitting while drawing the dole. i am currently going through a separation and i have a young college girl babysitting for me while i work.
my soon to be ex has thretned to report my baby sitter to the dole . what i want to know can you work and do a few hours baby sitting. is there a limit how many hours you can work.

Logical Fallacy

family10 wrote: »

just wondering can anyone tell me if you can do a bit of babysitting while drawing the dole. i am currently going through a separation and i have a young college girl babysitting for me while i work.
my soon to be ex has thretned to report my baby sitter to the dole . what i want to know can you work and do a few hours baby sitting. is there a limit how many hours you can work.

As far as i am aware you can work a certain number of hours but you have to be disclosing this to the Social Welfare.

chicken fingers

What a complete b1tch of an ex...

HellFireClub

MagicMarker wrote: »

This is one reason why I will never, EVER, get married.

I think the point being made is that you don't even need to be married these days to get screwed, the Civil Partnership Bill foists these obligations on you now if you are living together for a minimum amount of time...

Stheno

HellFireClub wrote: »

I think the point being made is that you don't even need to be married these days to get screwed, the Civil Partnership Bill foists these obligations on you now if you are living together for a minimum amount of time...

You can opt out of the CPB though

iptba

Stheno wrote: »

You can opt out of the CPB though

It's not so easy, though: both you and your partner have to get separate legal advice before you can do that.

rolly1

metrovelvet wrote: »

The only people who benefit from divorce are the lawyers.

And with the cohabitation bill, they will get even more clients.

+1

The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 (some mouthful) has been in force since January of this year and is the latest legal gravy train to pull into the family courts station.

In this article Muriel Walls, Solicitor, can hardly contain herself at the thought of all that extra litigation...

You can opt out of the CPB though

Oh thats nice, so I can opt out of legal liabilities imposed by the state on my private relationship by the ticking of the clock!

In virtually all european countries where cohabitation laws exist, it is every couple's active choice to opt-in to having legal liabilities placed over their private relationship.

It most certainly is marriage by default, as explained here,even though nobody gets to walk down the aisle..Welcome to Ireland where government is for the lawyers, by the lawyers and of the lawyers.

And lots more legal nets are currently being fashioned, to drive ever more people into the family courts. After all, conflict = cash

rolly1

The whole cohabitation laws setup reminds me of that fateful day of September 29th, 2008 when everybody woke up to find out that we were all married to the banks of Ireland through the government guarantee!

And that's been a sweet honeymoon ever since...

JuliusCaesar

There is always, of course, mediation, which tries to arrive at a conclusion both parties will live with, rather than the competing-interests-in-conflict with each party trying to 'win' which is driven by the solicitors.

Mediation should be mandatory and should be the first option for anyone undergoing a separation/divorce.


Although, having said that, there are cases in which the judges will throw the book at vindictive women who claim that their ex-partner is a paedophile, and vindictive men who claim their ex-partner is an unfit mother/alcoholic. Unfortunately, the emotions involved in separation often make people vindictive - even against their own interests, never mind those of their children.

(Despite the easy cliches of women getting everything and men being ripped off, judges have more insight than you might think - they have this stuff in front of them on a daily basis - and do try to act fairly in the main. Even if you're getting the story from your best friend, you may be getting a biassed story, or not the full story.)

iptba

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

(Despite the easy cliches of women getting everything and men being ripped off, judges have more insight than you might think - they have this stuff in front of them on a daily basis - and do try to act fairly in the main. Even if you're getting the story from your best friend, you may be getting a biassed story, or not the full story.)

But what has become seen as fair/normal can also be seen in another way as a bit odd i.e. after a relationship breaks up, one person (A) is told to give the other person (B) money into the future sometimes meaning B doesn't work (even when children have gone).

As was mentioned when the partnership bill was discussed, this theory is based on A achieving so much because of B's help - they were a team: but after the relationship breaks up, there is an obligation on A to help B financially but no obligation on B to help A in other ways.

rolly1

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

There is always, of course, mediation, which tries to arrive at a conclusion both parties will live with, rather than the competing-interests-in-conflict with each party trying to 'win' which is driven by the solicitors.

Little known fact but solicitors are required by law to discuss mediation, counselling and parental agreement options prior to making a court application, but few if any ever do it; wonder why?:rolleyes:. But more importantly our Minister for Justice has no interest in bringing solicitors to book for breaking this law; see his answer to parliamentary question 258 here despite his public condemnation pronouncements.

Mediation should be mandatory and should be the first option for anyone undergoing a separation/divorce.

Agreed, but mediation only works where two people want to make it work.

Although, having said that, there are cases in which the judges will throw the book at vindictive women who claim that their ex-partner is a paedophile,

Can you source a case reference to this?

(Despite the easy cliches of women getting everything and men being ripped off, judges have more insight than you might think - they have this stuff in front of them on a daily basis - and do try to act fairly in the main. Even if you're getting the story from your best friend, you may be getting a biassed story, or not the full story.)

Well if no bias against fathers truly exists in the family courts then can you please source a reference to a case where any mother has been given the full legal sanction for breaching an access order?

Breach of access is one of the single biggest problems faced by separated families in this country and it is not being dealt with.

mariaalice

Everyone loses...it helps if you are very rich...rearing children costs a fortune it would probably run into hundreds of thousands if you added it all up.

If you divorce or separate you will be responsible for maintaining your children until they are 23 if they are still in education.

It is almost impossible financially for the average couple to maintain two home and provide for children.

Its more about the way we have constructed our society that about men losing out in Divorce.

mariaalice

And by the way Judges aren't stupid for example say the wife stayed at home to look after the children but she had been a nurse.... there will be an expectation that she will be resuming her career and that will be factored in to the divorce.

There are little or no situations where a man after divorce would be expected to maintain his wife for the rest of her life. It was different in the past when it was the norm for women not to work out side the home after she had children.

rolly1

mariaalice wrote: »

Everyone loses...it helps if you are very rich...rearing children costs a fortune it would probably run into hundreds of thousands if you added it all up.

If you divorce or separate you will be responsible for maintaining your children until they are 23 if they are still in education.

It is almost impossible financially for the average couple to maintain two home and provide for children.

Its more about the way we have constructed our society that about men losing out in Divorce.

So men must be screwed in divorce, because society can't afford to treat him, or the children, fairly.

Society doesn't think it appropriate to sell the family home and divide the proceeds equally amongst the parents.

Society doesn't think it appropriate to have as a default a 50:50 shared parenting approach.

But society can afford to throw one parent into a bedsit with no kids, no family home and a pension fund obliterated.

I have to say, I don't like this society much.

Funny how other societies are able to do equality though?

Let me guess, they must be all mega-rich or something...

rolly1

In case anyone is in any doubt about men and children's fate in divorce cases have a look at the latest paper from phD Researcher, Roisin O'Shea released today on this website.
Just take a look at who gets the family home, who gets the kids, who applies for separation & divorce and who continually undermines children's rights by unilaterally deciding to cease access.

But more importantly for men going through separation or divorce look carefully at her advice on the second last page, particularly with regard to the family home.

strobe

krudler wrote: »

Are prenups used much here? I'd def ask for one, if she gets offended then tough sh1t.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Don't think they're recognised in Irish law.

Pre-nups are recognised in Irish law. They exist and have been used. The odd thing is courts are not obliged to enforce them. A Judge can decide to disregard it if they so wish. Only Ireland and Britain have this situation in the EU.

The Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 provides for them in section 14-1-c.

14.—(1) On granting a decree of divorce or at any time thereafter, the court, on application to it in that behalf by either of the spouses concerned or by a person on behalf of a dependent member of the family, may, during the lifetime of the other spouse or, as the case may be, the spouse concerned, make a property adjustment order, that is to say, an order providing for one or more of the following matters:

---

(c) the variation for the benefit of either of the spouses and of any dependent member of the family or of any or all of those persons of any ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlement (including such a settlement made by will or codicil) made on the spouses,

So basically the above (as I read it in anyway) says the Judge is permitted by law to decree that the agreement must be upheld, if he/she wants. But it's his/her call. :rolleyes:

=====================

I can sympatise with the people who have said they would never get married because of the divorce situation in the country but have you considered the implications of that if you ever have kids? What with the Father's rights situation in the country? Talk about screwed if you do, screwed if you don't...

iptba

rolly1 wrote: »

In case anyone is in any doubt about men and children's fate in divorce cases have a look at the latest paper from phD Researcher, Roisin O'Shea released today on this website.
Just take a look at who gets the family home, who gets the kids, who applies for separation & divorce and who continually undermines children's rights by unilaterally deciding to cease access.

But more importantly for men going through separation or divorce look carefully at her advice on the second last page, particularly with regard to the family home.

I had to knock off a few probably stray characters to get the link to work - this one works for me: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mens-Support-Groups-of-Ireland-MSGI/169591076418639

mariaalice

Rolly1 I am all for 50/50 parenting...I am curious what countries has got it right as regrades post Divorce parenting?

I am divorced and we had joint custody of our children we had complete joint parenting of our children it worked.


But it worked for us for a few reasons when we separated I moved less that a mile away ( that's very important ). We both had good jobs and a small mortgage on out original home, thus we could both have homes ( with a mortgage ) and a reasonable life style after we separated. My ex husband is not and never was an angry bitter resentful man. I know it is not like that for most people and my solicitor said we very lucky, it can be made to work but a lot of people cant seem to leave their resentment of their ex partner behind and that poisons everything.

carlybabe1

is mise astra wrote: »

I dont think its just men who get screwes, a friend of mine got completly done over by her ex, he was self employed loaded and knew how to cover every track that would have proven he had assets galore. They reached some sort of setttlement which ended with family home needed to be sold and give her a certain amt of money out of sale or he keep house and just pay x amt of money, in the next year he doesnt have to pay maintainance?????????????? The exwife knows due to circumstances the house wont sell and she will probably never see a penny and doesnt hold out much hope of getting much maintainance when judge reviews it again. On the other hand a family members estranged wife is trying to take him for everything, a house that was built and 80% paid for and furnished before they ever met, there was a tiny mortgage over a small number of years which she paid from her account (he gave her cash every week) so now she maintains house should be hers!
I think the person who wins in these situations is the one with the meanest streak and who knows exactly how to manipulate the system.

+++++! for the above, I dont think its a women against men thing, I def think its the party that is most spitefull and vindictive (and in my experience, the one who sees themselves as the injured party)
I broke up a previous relationship (no-one else was involved), the relationship was dead in the water, however he then set about making my life a misery.
He would take the kids, but use them as a way of controlling my movements, i.e. he would supposed to have them on a saturday night, but would ring/arrive back with them later in the evening, hoping to upscuttle any plans or dates I might have (pissin against the wind with that one, I was like a hermit)
He refused to pay maintenance. Then he refused to take his kids at all. Then he demanded all the appliances from the house, everyone of them, even though they had been paid for mutually and he had a house with all that stuff in it anyway. When I tried to arrange for him to get them back the time would never suit him. He then took me to court to get the stuff back, and the judge awarded them back to him. Granted he allocated maintenance, but he didnt grant back payments(he was working two jobs at the time. Also, he came and took the car from outside the house, and there was nothin I could do about that either.
He dragged me in and out of court so often that the judge eventually warned him, if he saw our names on the dockets once more, that he would up the maintenance order considerably.

Wompa1

I was working for a couple of weeks in Los Angeles. A guy there said his wife cheated on him with his best friend over a few years and left him. She filed for divorce, his response was to hand her the keys to his BMW and sign the house over to her. He moved into a crappy 1 bed apartment and bough a used Ford and was basically starting again. He gets to see the kids on weekends.

He said there was no way he was going to go to court because he'd have got screwed even worse. The wife didn't work...it seems a little unfair that somebody who doesn't financially contribute gets so much. I get compensation for taking care of the kids but it's a bit extreme! Rewarding an unfaithful wife with the husbands nuts in a jar on the table

metrovelvet

Wompa1 wrote: »

I was working for a couple of weeks in Los Angeles. A guy there said his wife cheated on him with his best friend over a few years and left him. She filed for divorce, his response was to hand her the keys to his BMW and sign the house over to her. He moved into a crappy 1 bed apartment and bough a used Ford and was basically starting again. He gets to see the kids on weekends.

He said there was no way he was going to go to court because he'd have got screwed even worse. The wife didn't work...it seems a little unfair that somebody who doesn't financially contribute gets so much. I get compensation for taking care of the kids but it's a bit extreme! Rewarding an unfaithful wife with the husbands nuts in a jar on the table

No offense but your friend is an idiot.

There is no way after only a few years of marriage anyone would be getting alimony, number one.

Secondly, she cheated. She broke the contract.

Thirdly, what is accumulated DURING the marriage is split 50/50.

Its when kids get involved, it gets tricky and then not even that tricky. There are standardised percentages in NY state for example.

Wompa1

metrovelvet wrote: »

No offense but your friend is an idiot.

There is no way after only a few years of marriage anyone would be getting alimony, number one.

Secondly, she cheated. She broke the contract.

Thirdly, what is accumulated DURING the marriage is split 50/50.

Its when kids get involved, it gets tricky and then not even that tricky. There are standardised percentages in NY state for example.

No offense taken, he's not a friend. Just worked with him for 2 weeks. He took the high road, I'm guessing he had knowledge of how things were handled in California

metrovelvet

Wompa1 wrote: »

No offense taken, he's not a friend. Just worked with him for 2 weeks. He took the high road, I'm guessing he had knowledge of how things were handled in California

No. He blindly accepted the myth without thinking about it.

Long term marriage and kids gets complex. A couple of years. Lol. No one would get anything.

discus

carlybabe1 wrote: »

[/U][/B]



+++++! for the above, I dont think its a women against men thing, I def think its the party that is most spitefull and vindictive (and in my experience, the one who sees themselves as the injured party)
I broke up a previous relationship (no-one else was involved), the relationship was dead in the water, however he then set about making my life a misery.
He would take the kids, but use them as a way of controlling my movements, i.e. he would supposed to have them on a saturday night, but would ring/arrive back with them later in the evening, hoping to upscuttle any plans or dates I might have (pissin against the wind with that one, I was like a hermit)
He refused to pay maintenance. Then he refused to take his kids at all. Then he demanded all the appliances from the house, everyone of them, even though they had been paid for mutually and he had a house with all that stuff in it anyway. When I tried to arrange for him to get them back the time would never suit him. He then took me to court to get the stuff back, and the judge awarded them back to him. Granted he allocated maintenance, but he didnt grant back payments(he was working two jobs at the time. Also, he came and took the car from outside the house, and there was nothin I could do about that either.
He dragged me in and out of court so often that the judge eventually warned him, if he saw our names on the dockets once more, that he would up the maintenance order considerably.

Jesus. I don't think I'd handle any of the situations some of the boardsie have reiterated, but yours seems the hardest by far. I dread to think of how I'd cope under that pressure.

metrovelvet

mariaalice wrote: »

And by the way Judges aren't stupid for example say the wife stayed at home to look after the children but she had been a nurse.... there will be an expectation that she will be resuming her career and that will be factored in to the divorce.

There are little or no situations where a man after divorce would be expected to maintain his wife for the rest of her life. It was different in the past when it was the norm for women not to work out side the home after she had children.

Judges can be very stupid. Some have bad days, some legislate from the bench. They have to provide a decision, they cant solve problems or find solutions.

The court gives minimums where kids need maximums.

rolly1

mariaalice wrote: »

Rolly1 I am all for 50/50 parenting...I am curious what countries has got it right as regrades post Divorce parenting?

I am divorced and we had joint custody of our children we had complete joint parenting of our children it worked.


But it worked for us for a few reasons when we separated I moved less that a mile away ( that's very important ). We both had good jobs and a small mortgage on out original home, thus we could both have homes ( with a mortgage ) and a reasonable life style after we separated. My ex husband is not and never was an angry bitter resentful man. I know it is not like that for most people and my solicitor said we very lucky, it can be made to work but a lot of people cant seem to leave their resentment of their ex partner behind and that poisons everything.

Sweden, Denmark and Australia to name just a few.

The common theme running through this thread seems to be that the adversarial system run by the family law courts of Ireland is failing separated families miserably day in and day out. Litigation and court battles seem to be the order of the day.Roisin O'Shea's work on 675 individual Circuit court cases also seem to confirm this.

One of her few suggestions to encourage pro-active parenting is that men should not move out of the family home upon the breakdown of the marriage/relationship. Again this situation is bound to result in court battles also.

We need a fair default position in law as per the earlier mentioned countries, which treats both parents equally and does not encourage a winner take all approach as per the irish system. Hand in hand with this we need an active government policy of decreasing litigation and encouraging cooperation between parents through alternative dispute resolution methods. Australia has been doing this since 2006 and a 2009 review of this approach has shown dramatically better outcomes for both children and parents.

But hell will freeze over before the legal profession will give up their death grip on the system here. As a recent radio one expose on drivetime about exorbitant legal fees show family law is probably the last remaining cash cow being milked for all it's worth..

metrovelvet

What they need is conflict resolution classes in Irish secondary schools.

There is something in the culture.... two men...three political parties...

Stheno

mariaalice wrote: »

There are little or no situations where a man after divorce would be expected to maintain his wife for the rest of her life. It was different in the past when it was the norm for women not to work out side the home after she had children.

That's completely incorrect as a statement in reference to Irish Law.

Spouses of either gender can be compelled to pay spousal maintenance until either remarriage/civil partnership or death of the spouse receiving the maintenance.

The rates of spousal maintenance (seperate from maintenance for children) can be up to €500 per week in the District Court and higher if taken to other courts. Personally I know three couples with no children who have seperated/divorced, and in all three cases spousal maintenance is being paid, and it's a mix of both men and women paying the maintenance.

Note particularly that even after divorce, if I am divorced my former spouse can apply for an adjustment of the order, e.g If I won the lottery they could apply for maintenance to be adjusted upward to reflect that.

From Citizens Information

Maintenance following separation, divorce and dissolution

Under Irish law, there is no clean break from the obligation to support one's spouse and children, or for civil partners to support each other. A clause in a separation agreement stating that a spouse/civil partner will not seek maintenance in the future or seek increased maintenance is unenforceable. The spouse/civil partner can apply for a maintenance order and a court will consider this application, particularly if the circumstances of the parties have changed or the spouse/civil partner who executed the agreement did not have legal advice at the time.

A divorced spouse can also apply to a court for a maintenance order or a variation of a maintenance order after the divorce decree has been granted. Similarly, a former civil partner can apply to the court for a maintenance order or a variation of a maintenance order after the dissolution decree has been granted. The only bar to an application is the remarriage or entering into a new civil partnership of the spouse/civil partner applying for the order.

iptba

@carlybabe1, I am sorry to hear your situation. It sounds difficult.


However, nothing to do with your situation per se but the following situation strikes me as suggesting there can be problems with the system, that it is a bit arbitrary: that the judge had the power to increase the maintenance order considerably not on the basis of any change of financial circumstances but just as some sort of punishment (and the corollary would be possibly in some situations judges may then set orders at a higher level initially because he/she didn't like something or other)

carlybabe1 wrote: »

He dragged me in and out of court so often that the judge eventually warned him, if he saw our names on the dockets once more, that he would up the maintenance order considerably.

iptba

metrovelvet wrote: »

Secondly, she cheated. She broke the contract.

I don't know about US law but in Ireland we have no fault divorce so that wouldn't play a part (AFAIK).

I don't know whether bringing that in to the system would be too problematic or not but I know if a wife of mine cheated and then she walked away with a large settlement, I'd be frustrated.