A divorcee has been forced by a judge to pay half for her ex-husband’s trans surgery.

While I see what you mean in principle, I think the example I quoted and the case we are discussing are sufficiently extreme and the sums sufficiently large for courts to allow the dissenting spouse some latitude, especially if the spending takes place after the relationship has broken down and a divorce is being sought. When couples join finances in a joint account, especially if one or both of hem additionally have their own current accounts, there is an implicit understanding that the money is for expenditure which benefits or is necessary for both parties. If one spouse isn't earning, she (or occasionally he) usually gets some sort of allowance out of the joint funds. This is agreed expenditure. I think implied consent should be key. You can't just do anything you want with marital finances, whether you are the principal earner or not.

I still also question the judge's reasoning - whether the ex-husband had thought about vaginoplasty a lot isn't really the point. People think carefully about how to screw someone else over. Plus, again, gender dysphoria is not a medical condition any more and therefore vaginoplasty is not a medical need.

Yep, really shitty journalism. And potentially really quite damaging - we have people on this thread denouncing all the judges in Brighton, FFS, based off their misunderstanding of this issue.

Pretty typical Telegraph clickbait. The way this has been presented in order to promote their agenda is really irresponsible.

I think I disagree. While the man in your example (and the man in the OP story) sounds like a complete arsehole we can't get the courts to fix everything. There are consequences to joining your finances with someone and the idea that a court should have to do a line by line of spending and make a call is impractical, undesirable and will leave everyone except the lawyers worse off financially anyway.

The bar for wanton and reckless spending needs to be a lot lower. The potential for abuse seems so obvious. Another example given in the tweet I linked to upthread was of a husband who had spent thousands ferrying prostitutes around by air out of joint funds.

Thank you, that's a very helpful and clear explanation. It's ridiculous the way this is being spun.

The judge said vaginoplasty in his comments.

Family lawyer here
Haven’t read the full judgment but according to the article it’s clear the £80k surgery has happened and been paid for out of joint money before the division of their assets.

The wife argued that the money should be nominally “added back”, so she would effectively get what she would have got if the money hadn’t been spent (so an extra £40k from their remaining assets).

The law on “add back” requires the expenditure to have been wanton and reckless. There’s plenty of case law examples where there’s been unfair spending from joint assets and it’s not been added back - the court will usually only divide what remains.

This isn’t a trans victory case - it’s been spun as so.

It's not about sending the other party the bill. The equivalent would be if she'd already been on holiday using money from the joint account and then the husband asking the court to make her pay that money back.

It would be unusual for the court to make such an order - this case is being very misunderstood on this thread.

It said surgery not castration.
I'd not make the assumption it was bottom surgery.

Given his very male attitude to the ex wife, my money is on a boob job, face surgery and hair implants.

Dick is most likely intact with all that gender dysphoria neediness.

Disgusting decision by the judge, the woman’s been through enough! And him likening it to ‘cancer surgery’ - he can go fuck right off!

Absolute madness! I hope she appeals and wins

This guy’s clearly read the “arsehole’s guide to getting a divorce” hasn’t he?!

Step one: burn through as much of the joint assets as you can

Step two: fail to live up to your financial and, I think we’re safe to assume, emotional commitments to your children

Step three: make sure you switch from whatever career you were doing well in (he must have been, hence the joint 3mil) to something that’s going to pull in 3/5ths of sweet bugger all.

TBH, the whole transitioning thing is just icing on an already depressingly large ‘cake.’

The surgery happened and it’s already paid for. The wife wanted half that money back as part of the settlement.

Has the surgery already happened? Does the wife still have to pay if he doesn't get the castration?

Maybe she can counterclaim for her need to have a holiday in spain for 20 weeks a year? Preposterous! Sure that is worth an appeal?

The judge agreed with the wife’s legal team that the husband had “shown no understanding whatsoever that her decision to transition to a woman has had an impact on anyone else, and particularly” the ex-wife.

Judge Farquhar said that while “there is no doubt that this has been a hugely difficult and emotionally draining experience” for the trans woman, “the lack of empathy” for the ex-wife “is striking”.
However, he said that could not be considered when dividing up the assets and the court “will not consider the reasons that a marriage broke down within financial remedy proceedings”.

He said he was satisfied the “surgery was meeting a genuine and deep-felt medical/psychological need”.
“This cannot be, and has not been, said to have been carried out as a whim when all of the effort and time that the respondent has invested in the process is considered,” the judge noted.

Therefore, it was “reasonable” for the money to be spent “out of joint resources”, he ruled.

I've just read a thread on TwiX which confirms what a pp said about this being an "add back" application by the wife, and that such appeals nearly always fail.
However, since the right to use matrimonial funds is based on a "need", I think it confirms that the judge has made an error, because this was not a need.
Gender dysphoria is not a medical condition any more.
Not all men with gender dysphoria want vaginoplasty ops. At the very most, you can say that some men choose vaginoplasty, the vast majority do not.

She's probably exhausted her funds and personal resources but I would love this woman to appeal.

https://x.com/anyabike/status/1944359518562857051

My thoughts were the same when I read this appalling “ judgement “ and of course it’s fucking Brighton…🤬

How on earth have they both spunked so much money on legal fees?

Like seriously.

He's a dead beat dad who hates his ex wife and used the system to effectively punish her.

Firstly for claiming he has no money to pay maintenance for his own kids when he can afford to spunk so much money on legal fees and clothes. (Note it doesn't sound like he's got a 50:50 arrangement does he? No 'living like a woman' in terms of who does the lions share of the child rearing.)

Secondly he's not remotely interested in his wife's mental health. She's supposed to be super interested in her to ensure it's ok. The judge even acknowledges this. The reason he's making her pay for the surgery is partly about getting revenge on her for ending the marriage. It's vindictive. He could just say "fine fair enough".

Given that elements of coercive control are financial abuse, emotional abuse and using the system against a victim it's a case that highlights the legal systems inability to acknowledge and recognise this.

Any former partner who has assets of over £1million who claims they can't afford maintenance for their own kids, is a liar and abusive. It doesn't matter what their gender identity is.

This is another aspect that is bothering me.

IANAL, but - from a position of ignorance - I am convinced that the judge has made an error in law, rather than just following legal reasoning to an unpalatable conclusion.

Disgraceful!

Read to post i was replying to. It in involved a hypothetical situation of a husband leaving a wife , and the wife spending money from the joint account while separated but not divorced. Hence the she.

In this case, the surgery is already done. It is already paid for , from joint funds. From the sounds of it, the wife wanted that money back, as part of the divorce settlement. The judge said no. Which , whether you agree or not, is a completely different scenario .

It is very confusing, and we don't have all the details - the fact that he had the surgery done privately is interesting because if he had gone to the NHS with 'gender dysphoria', he would have been offered things like counselling, therapy, hormone treatment and voice-coaching before surgery was considered.

I'm guessing that if you access surgery privately, they do exactly what you pay them to do without further ado.

So he possibly could have mitigated the costs of his transition, but chose the most expensive option, which his ex-wife has to share because the money was in a joint account and they were not yet legally divorced.

I can see him getting away with it if they were not actually divorced at the time😠

BlueberryFlapjack · Yesterday 17:24

Sounds like a classic case of the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee and encouraging a fight. Assets of £3m and they spent £1m on legal fees. It’s a ridiculous ruling, but she would’ve been much better off not fighting this.

It's travesty, but I agree with you. She'd have been £400,000 better off now. I can't believe that the judge called elective surgery a necessity, it's bonkers.

As to the lie that he can't afford child support... a million in the bank and 28 grand on fripperies in a few short months - we all know what he is.

@WhenYouSayNothingAtAll not she, he.

He has had or wants to have the money. Because once the money is in his bank account, who is to say he will go through with it?

If I was to be petty, perhaps the wife could say the money is to go into a trust account which he doesn’t have access to and only paid out to the surgeon etc once procedure is completed. And put a time limit on it.