Divorce (honest opinions)

HeadPig

Can somebody explain in simple terms why women receive a settlement when they divorce their husbands (in a large majority of cases).

shopaholic01

The higher earner pays support for the lower earner.

If the wife has a lower income the husband is liable, is the husband has a lower income the wife is liable.

If the couple have children the wife is almost always granted custody due to outdated Irish family law. She also gets to stay in the family home until the children are eighteen, or until the youngest has finished full-time education.

In some cases, women stop working, or work part-time after having children. This may be by choice or for financial reasons - child-care costs etc. So, in these cases the husband continues to financially support his ex-wife and children.

Pre-nups and updated family law acts are the only real solution. Having said that, both parents should continue to provide for their children to the best of their ability.

ancapailldorcha

shopaholic01 wrote: »

If the couple have children the wife is almost always granted custody due to outdated Irish family law. She also gets to stay in the family home until the children are eighteen, or until the youngest has finished full-time education.

I'm pretty sure that's not just an Irish thing. It's the same over here as well.

shopaholic01

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that's not just an Irish thing. It's the same over here as well.

It probably happens in most countries, I was just giving the answer from an Irish prospective. I'm not sure if children are consulted as to which parent they would like to live with. Family law cases are held in-camera here, although I think there is a change to allow outcomes to be published without naming the family involved.

HeadPig

shopaholic01 wrote: »

The higher earner pays support for the lower earner.

If the wife has a lower income the husband is liable, is the husband has a lower income the wife is liable.

If the couple have children the wife is almost always granted custody due to outdated Irish family law. She also gets to stay in the family home until the children are eighteen, or until the youngest has finished full-time education.

In some cases, women stop working, or work part-time after having children. This may be by choice or for financial reasons - child-care costs etc. So, in these cases the husband continues to financially support his ex-wife and children.

Pre-nups and updated family law acts are the only real solution. Having said that, both parents should continue to provide for their children to the best of their ability.

But why does the higher earner support the lower earner after the divorce? The agreement (marriage) is over and the parties have separated, so why is there an onus for one to support the other?

longhalloween

HeadPig wrote: »

But why does the higher earner support the lower earner after the divorce? The agreement (marriage) is over and the parties have separated, so why is there an onus for one to support the other?

I think it's so the lower earner (who may have sacrificed a career to look after the children or the home under the impression that the other partner would support them) is not left destitute when the breadwinner is no longer wishes to support them.

Would I be right in saying this would not be the case if the lower earner wishes to initiate the divorce?

shopaholic01

HeadPig wrote: »

But why does the higher earner support the lower earner after the divorce? The agreement (marriage) is over and the parties have separated, so why is there an onus for one to support the other?

Marriage - when you sign the civil registry you sign away half of your personal wealth.

longhalloween wrote: »

I think it's so the lower earner (who may have sacrificed a career to look after the children or the home under the impression that the other partner would support them) is not left destitute when the breadwinner is no longer wishes to support them.

Yes, this is taken into account in a settlement. How much would this have cost if you had to pay someone to so it? Society values children and caregivers.

longhalloween wrote: »

Would I be right in saying this would not be the case if the lower earner wishes to initiate the divorce?

Not sure, but I would have thought the situation would be the same regardless.

Pro Hoc Vice

HeadPig wrote: »

But why does the higher earner support the lower earner after the divorce? The agreement (marriage) is over and the parties have separated, so why is there an onus for one to support the other?

Because that's what our constitution says, the court must be satisfied there is proper provision. Its not as simple as a wife always gets maintenance, it depends on the husbands income, it depends on the length of marriage, it depends on children, it depends on the wife's income or access to other funds. In a huge amount of cases maintenance is only paid in relation to children. While the marriage may be over people must still raise their children.

HeadPig

Say a man and a woman get married and the man is the higher earner. They have children and the woman gives up her job to raise them. 10 years later they divorce.

The courts will see that the woman deserves compensation because she gave up her job. But does the man also not deserve equal compensation as he provided for the woman and children when she quit her job? This is what allowed the woman to give up her job. Both parties compromised in this situation. The woman gave up her job but the man gave up the earnings from his job

Pro Hoc Vice

HeadPig wrote: »

Say a man and a woman get married and the man is the higher earner. They have children and the woman gives up her job to raise them. 10 years later they divorce.

The courts will see that the woman deserves compensation because she gave up her job. But does the man also not deserve equal compensation as he provided for the woman and children when she quit her job? This is what allowed the woman to give up her job. Both parties compromised in this situation. The woman gave up her job but the man gave up the earnings from his job

The women is not getting compensation. She has not broken her leg due to the fault of the man. Both the man and women entered into a contract when the married one or both of them now want to break that contract, but the state wants to make sure that no one becomes an undue burden on the state so if the husband is earring 100,000 a year it is his duty to maintain the family into the future.

the world wonders

HeadPig wrote: »

But does the man also not deserve equal compensation as he provided for the woman and children when she quit her job?

Ten years of food/accommodation for one adult costs a lot less than ten years of full time 24/7/365 childcare service.

And it's not just 10 years of lost earnings for the woman, her future career prospects will also be considerably impacted by 10 years out of the workforce.

barman linen

infosys wrote: »

The women is not getting compensation. She has not broken her leg due to the fault of the man. Both the man and women entered into a contract when the married one or both of them now want to break that contract, but the state wants to make sure that no one becomes an undue burden on the state so if the husband is earring 100,000 a year it is his duty to maintain the family into the future.

Let me make this a little more controversial. Most of the coments above refer to a wife giving up work and raising children. What about a situation whereby both spouses worked during the marriage and then the wife gives up work after the divorce - expecting to be maintained ? I am in a situation whereby we had two incomes and one household and now after separation we have one income and two households.

I pay significant maintenance to my spouse and children. I am happy to support my children and fulfill my obligations and duties but why would I have to continue supporting my wife when during the marriage she contributed to the joint household but refuses to do so now ?

In fact she comes back regularly for more money when her social welfare status changes. The maintenance I pay equates to a gross salary greater than anything she earned during our marriage and results in her not receiving a number of social welfare benefits as an unemployed person so she is not a burden on the state.

What provisions or practice do the courts follow to ensure both parties contribute to the upkeep of their children? ( 17 & 15 yrs old )

Pro Hoc Vice

barman linen wrote: »

Let me make this a little more controversial. Most of the coments above refer to a wife giving up work and raising children. What about a situation whereby both spouses worked during the marriage and then the wife gives up work after the divorce - expecting to be maintained ? I am in a situation whereby we had two incomes and one household and now after separation we have one income and two households.

I pay significant maintenance to my spouse and children. I am happy to support my children and fulfill my obligations and duties but why would I have to continue supporting my wife when during the marriage she contributed to the joint household but refuses to do so now ?

In fact she comes back regularly for more money when her social welfare status changes. The maintenance I pay equates to a gross salary greater than anything she earned during our marriage and results in her not receiving a number of social welfare benefits as an unemployed person so she is not a burden on the state.

What provisions or practice do the courts follow to ensure both parties contribute to the upkeep of their children? ( 17 & 15 yrs old )

If you are unhappy with the situation then you have a number of legal actions. But right or wrong your children should not suffer by either spouses actions. Paying less maintinance to either spouse will result in less money to support children.

As an aside ye both made the kids tough if you have to pay a small fortune to keep them. They are not my kids I don't see why it's any of my issue how much your Mickey now costs you.

johnnyskeleton

HeadPig wrote: »

But why does the higher earner support the lower earner after the divorce? The agreement (marriage) is over and the parties have separated, so why is there an onus for one to support the other?

Because the law recognizes that marriage is a lifetime commitment and even when it ends there is still an obligation to do right by the former spouse.

If you don't agree to that, don't get married. Awfully simple really.

No Pants

barman linen wrote: »

What provisions or practice do the courts follow to ensure both parties contribute to the upkeep of their children? ( 17 & 15 yrs old )

I think your bill should start to drop in the next 12 months as your kids reach 18. Eventually you'll be able to sell the house.

Pro Hoc Vice

No Pants wrote: »

I think your bill should start to drop in the next 12 months as your kids reach 18. Eventually you'll be able to sell the house.

Usually 23 if in full time education. But it amazes me that some parents who separate believe any moral obligation they owe their children disappears just because the atain a certain age.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, contrary to popular opinion, neither spouse is entitled to half the assets of the other, especially after a short marriage. But it might be cheaper to just pay spouse off than have long fight, also having a child will complicate things.

No Pants

infosys wrote: »

Usually 23 if in full time education. But it amazes me that some parents who separate believe any moral obligation they owe their children disappears just because the atain a certain age.

I wasn't advocating that, kids are for life in my opinion. But the poster I quoted had a spouse who retired upon divorce. His obligation to her isn't eternal.

barman linen

infosys wrote: »

If you are unhappy with the situation then you have a number of legal actions. But right or wrong your children should not suffer by either spouses actions. Paying less maintinance to either spouse will result in less money to support children.

As an aside ye both made the kids tough if you have to pay a small fortune to keep them. They are not my kids I don't see why it's any of my issue how much your Mickey now costs you.

Who said it is your issue to deal with ? Perhaps you haven't quite got to grips with Internet fora after 569 posts.


If you re-read my post I think you will find where I said I accept all my obligations and pay as required.

Paying less to my spouse will not necessarily result in less funds for the children as the money remains at my disposal.

The question was about whether there is a court practice to look at the contribution of both parties to the maintenance of the children when during the course of the marriage both contributed. As you said we both made them.

barman linen

.duplicate

barman linen

No Pants wrote: »

I think your bill should start to drop in the next 12 months as your kids reach 18. Eventually you'll be able to sell the house.

Maintenance will continue right through college and beyond. I am happy to support my children until they can pay their own way in life.

I signed the house over to my wife 8 years ago.

The question is really about the moral obligation of both spouses to maintain their children. I do not see it as fair that one can simply decide they no longer want to work and then receive maintenance from the other.

barman linen

No Pants wrote: »

I wasn't advocating that, kids are for life in my opinion. But the poster I quoted had a spouse who retired upon divorce. His obligation to her isn't eternal.

I think the Courts do see it as eternal.....

limklad

barman linen wrote: »

Maintenance will continue right through college and beyond. I am happy to support my children until they can pay their own way in life.

I signed the house over to my wife 8 years ago.

The question is really about the moral obligation of both spouses to maintain their children. I do not see it as fair that one can simply decide they no longer want to work and then receive maintenance from the other.

I cannot see why not go to Family court and ask the court to reduce your maintenance costs, in order to force your wife back into the workforce and help pay for her own keep unless you are very wealthy. It is not like she needs to be at home to look after the elderly teenagers (17 & 15 yrs old), to change their nappies, wipe their noses, clean up after their toys. They are well and truly old enough to help look after themselves without major supervision unlike much younger children. They can easily learn how to clean their own rooms and wash their clothes and learn how to cook and do the various house chores as well.

They will need those skills when they move out of the family home. If you wife is doing all of the work then she is not preparing the kids for adult life and you will be paying for them all well into their thirties, like some families I know, where the adult children are spoilt.

I suspect that your ex wife is abusing your position and is looking for entitlement that is no longer hers especially when she choose to gave up work after the divorce. If I were you, I would talk to a solicitor who deals with family law and go to Family Court and be open about your financials and the commitment about paying for your children third level education. Ask the Court for your ex wife contribution for it too. If you are paying far more money that she did earn then I suspect you will get a drop in maintenance cost going forwards from the court.

After the kids are 18, if the court allows, let them know that you will no longer give your ex wife money for their maintenance that you will directly pay it into their bank account, so records are kept for legal purposes. Once the kids are 18 she no longer have the entitlement to ask you for maintenance for the kids as they are legally adults.

Before you do anything you will also need to talk to the kids after you talk to a solicitor, and only when they are old enough to have the adult conversation. Beware that they may react against you, depending on their understanding and attitude. You will need to ensure them that you will keep paying for the keep and third level education but directly to them ,and not giving payment for them to your ex wife and only until the children are 23 when rearrangement depending on circumstances at that time or earlier if they give up third level education, that you are now treating them as young adults learning to fend for themselves.

You need to tell them that they will need to start thinking about their own financial futures. It will be an eye opener to them when their mother will demand money from your kids after they become 18 for their keep. They will then have to make choices for themselves as young adults. It will change their relationship with their mother and with you for good or worst. You will also need to keep a room or two open for them in your home if possible, in case they have a major fight with their mother. You will also need to tell them that they will need to find part time jobs for work experience for their CV's and build up a reputation for their own good which should help them in the future and get better life time experience for when they get that job that will launch their careers.

While I do not know your ex wife attitude or personality, giving up work is not a great way of looking after herself when most women in her situation would look to keep financial independence, especially when children are reaching 18 and for her own retirement for her own upkeep as women live far longer than men. You will not be working or be alive long enough to maintain her upkeep until she dies.

You too will need to look at your own future retirement funds and make sure you have your legal will made out. So contact your Family Law solicitor.

CrystalDrop

What if the wife gives up her job, leaves the child with his father and starts living with another man? After a year she takes the child back and demands huge maintenance. She worked before and during marriage and 4 years after, why should her ex-husband pay her now when she is living with someone else as husband and wife? She gave up her job so she could move in with her boyfriend in small town, as "it is expensive for him to rent elsewhere".

The household chores and babysitting where divided equally during marriage, as both worked different shifts.

Solicitors are not of much help as they only want peaceful settlement, saying it will cost fortune to have a court battle. They just say this "sign and forget" thing. What to do?

Sala

CrystalDrop wrote: »

What if the wife gives up her job, leaves the child with his father and starts living with another man? After a year she takes the child back and demands huge maintenance. She worked before and during marriage and 4 years after, why should her ex-husband pay her now when she is living with someone else as husband and wife? She gave up her job so she could move in with her boyfriend in small town, as "it is expensive for him to rent elsewhere".

The household chores and babysitting where divided equally during marriage, as both worked different shifts.

Solicitors are not of much help as they only want peaceful settlement, saying it will cost fortune to have a court battle. They just say this "sign and forget" thing. What to do?

A peaceful settlement is the best way forward - a battle between Solicitors over every little thing racks up huge costs and going to Court is basically just handing over decisions that affect your personal life to a Judge. If people can come to their own agreements it saves money and more importantly fosters a calmer environment for the children.

In the (presumably hypothetical!) scenario that you outlined I would suggest that the person has gone through this with his Solicitor and the Solicitor thinks the figure proposed is fair and they will not do better in Court. If he doesn't agree, he can instruct his Solicitor he wishes to go to Court. A Solicitor is there to advise you but will act on your instructions. If it ends badly he/she will know that they advised you correctly and you chose not to take that professional advice. Or he can hire a new Solicitor. It is not clear if this is a maintenance application only and whether there has been a formal separation or divorce. If this is part of the divorce negotiations obviously all the financials will be laid out. At the end of the day the Judge doesn't really care who did or said what - the Judge is mainly concerned with the the welfare of the children and divvying up who has what