1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Divorce

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Lonewolf, Nov 12, 2019.

  1. Gornall

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 2, 2007

    Posts: 1,959

    My ex-wife has decided to withdraw my access to the children citing my lack of responsibility as a parent. The youngest bumped his head falling backwards after taking a photo. The fact that we are in court in two weeks time re/ financial settlement I can't help but feel this is purely using the children as a weapon to try and leverage more from me.

    She wants to keep the house, but as a £20k part time worker she's going to struggle to pay the mortgage on a £300k house...expects me to pay the whole thing for the next 15 years and then accept that her 'maintenance' of the house means I only get 15% of the value back...

    It's despicable that she's using the children in this manner.
     
  2. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,657


    And you can form them
     
  3. RxR

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 16, 2019

    Posts: 1,280

    Yes, that's a painful, too-common thing. Speaking from experience. Even now, 10 years on, I find the conclusion that I once mixed it with a moral dwarf irrefutable.
     
  4. Django x2

    Capodecina

    Joined: Sep 28, 2008

    Posts: 12,873

    Location: Britain

    Sell your house now, rent, get divorced, profit.
     
  5. Gornall

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 2, 2007

    Posts: 1,959

    Yeh, I think the same regularly. Makes my skin crawl to think about it.
     
  6. wolfie138

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 8, 2013

    Posts: 3,398

    I honestly find it amazing there's not a lot more spousal "accidents" when they try this sort of thing on.
     
  7. Skillmister

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 3, 2009

    Posts: 19,507

    Location: Wales

    Not unsurprising given his assets.
     
  8. dod

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 31, 2002

    Posts: 3,785

    Location: Inverness

    I'm well into 5 figures with solicitors fees in my three year divorce although it looks like we've now got a settlement. No kids involved but I've agreed to 55% including her getting the house mortgage free, chunk of cash and chunk of pension, none of which she contributed to at all significantly. Only because the cost of taking it to court is eye watering.
     
  9. darkgen

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 8, 2005

    Posts: 2,591

    Location: London, UK

    ^ did she not work? What was the rationale as you were child-free?
     
  10. iamtheoneneo

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 15, 2010

    Posts: 9,033

    Location: Bucks

    I think this is a lesson to married couples across the country. You have both got to work and both split 50/50. I only ever hear of issues where the wife has been doing **** all for years and then wants a share of the pot.

    Dont let it happen guys. Even kids arent an excuse for a wife bailing on employment.

    Anyone in this situation needs to go to the courts to make sure they get access to children in a manner that suits both parties.
    Yes its more money, but dont even entertain the notion of talking to someone that will do this. It's what the courts are there for.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2019
  11. dod

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 31, 2002

    Posts: 3,785

    Location: Inverness

    Not as such for about 20 years, I financed her home based business. Rationale was effectively agree now or go to court for an agreement with no guarantee of the outcome and a **** load more costs. This arguably works out cheaper
     
  12. vanandjuanunited

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 20, 2005

    Posts: 5,245

    Some of these figures make my eyes water.

    I got a clean break agreement. Ex got the house and equity and I took on the credit card debts. Pension etc untouched. Seems I got it easy compared to some of you.
     
  13. phonemonkey

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 15, 2009

    Posts: 1,003

    Location: On the wagon

    I think the law reflects the unfairness of the fact that in the past women were expected to give up work, at least full time work, to undertake the unpaid tasks of child care and housework while her husband earned the money they needed. This obviously left her financially beholden to him and at a significant disadvantage in the case of divorce with little/no savings and reduced or no income and earning potential despite the contribution she had made to marriage. I'm sure in such circumstances it makes perfect sense for her be entitled to half the assets collectively acquired dusing the marriage. It also makes sense that if she is going to be the sole or primary guardian of any children that her ex husband shoulders his fair share of the financial burden of child rearing. After all having children was likely to have been a joint decision.

    I do think, however that the law in this area has been slow to catch up with societal changes; the financial and domestic responsibilites of a marriage are less clearly defined and likely to be more evenly distributed than would have been the case in the past and divorce settlements should reflect the actual contribution, both financial and domestic made by both parties. In some cases, where the marriage has been more 'traditional' this may mean the wife is entitled to half the assets acquired collectively during the marriage. In others it should mean that there is little or no division of assets since neither party has been disadvantaged financially by the division of labour within the marriage. The law is slowly beginning to catch up but it is taking time.

    The only advice I have for the OP is to speak to a lawyer and keep it as amicable as possible. Testy and difficult divorces seldom bring either side what they want.
     
  14. 413x

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 13, 2010

    Posts: 17,233

    Location: Cardiff

    Agreed.
    Whatever life you lead make sure you are happy with getting 50pc. If one partner doesn't work make sure they are effectively contributing.

    This stuff is horrendous.
    Obviously we only hear one side of story on forum but it's brutal if totally true.

    Add kids into the mix and h nothing matters
     
  15. wolfie138

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 8, 2013

    Posts: 3,398

    you can see why pre-nups are such a big thing over in the US.
     
  16. Tom_ed1987

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 1, 2004

    Posts: 1,479

    Location: Warwickshire

    In the breakup of a typical male breadwinner / female childcarer type relationship the woman would have far less rights when unmarried - for example there is no starting point of a total asset split 50/50 - your gf must have been able to evidence how she had specifically contributed to the property; financially or otherwise, in order to get any sort of settlement?
    Have a look at some threads on mumsnet (if you dare) for the opposing view in these circumstances - It actually makes for pretty grim reading. Women in solid relationships sacrificing their careers to raise the children, separating after 10 years, realising they are not on the deeds to the house & being left with no home, no career prospects, & children to house/care for, while the man starts afresh with his new squeeze, a house & a stable job.
     
  17. FlapR

    Hitman

    Joined: Oct 5, 2011

    Posts: 646

    Location: Manchester

    This thread is absolutely grim. :(
     
  18. dod

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 31, 2002

    Posts: 3,785

    Location: Inverness

    Speaking to various guys I'd say a lot of people are also staying unhappily married because it's cheaper.
     
  19. ci_newman

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Feb 24, 2004

    Posts: 9,039

    Location: Hook, Hants

    Or not wanting to lose access to their kids (as several guys have reported happening to them in this thread)
     
  20. PAz

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 6,469

    Location: Bucks

    I wake up almost daily and think that way - if I could turn back the clock I wouldn't do it if I knew what I know now. Not seeing my boy every day is very painful.