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

If she had those procedures while separated, but not divorced and used joint funds, it may very well be that a judge wouldn’t order her to pay it back, whether using the same reasoning , or something else. Which is what actually happened here.

It might be an own goal; its possibly a step towards making surgery necessary for a full GRC, and for women to be unable to object to inclusion of any man with a full GRC in a single sex facility.

I would donate if she crowdfunded to raise the money to appeal!

I really hope JKR and the Sex Matters crew get involved with this. I don't think I've ever heard anything so disgusting and outrageous.

Personally I don't think the ruling is correct, because the GRA allows:
a) men to transition without any expectation of surgery, and
b) the non transitioning spouse to object to a full GRC and exit the marriage.

To me that makes the intention of the GRA very clear. Transitioning takes place after the marriage has ended. I don't see how the judge reached his decision.

Sounds like an TRA judge to me, trying to get more NHS funding for trans surgery.

Trans charities took a case to the ECHR (and won) that transpeople should NOT have to have any surgery, let alone genital surgery. (Most don't, and you don't have to have any surgery to get a GRC in the UK ,as the supreme court observed).

And if this judge says it is needed due to a medical condition (ie gender dysphoria in someone's mind )- then why would someone need physical surgery for a problem in their mind? Surely mental health support/ counselling would be more beneficial, than surgery that will leave lifelong medical problems...

I think it's appalling. If a husband wishes to divorce his wife & run off with a younger woman, can the wife demand she 'needs' cosmetic surgery to make herself look younger and a tunny tuck etc to feel more attractive after her body has changed due to childbirth? If she racks up 160K on procedures is that ok & he has to pay half?

There must be some way to introduce law stating that if a married person wishes to medically transition, their spouse is not beholden to fund ANY part of that.

You know what?

That judge has now cemented in law that being trans is a mental illness which needs or requires medical intervention.

It is definitely not "optional" in any way.

That is very, very, very interesting.

The lie has taken one more step to self implosion.

I do hope there are enough savings for her to go and get that Mummy Makeover and a lovely new set of Turkey teeth cus she will absolutely 'need' it due to mental health issues brought on by the divorce.

Wonder if the judge would be as supportive of that?

I agree, what a disgusting comment.

i hope your treatment goes well

If the surgery was genuinely necessary then it would be provided to him for free, on the NHS, neither of them should have to pay, if it is a genuine necessity.

If you read the full article it makes for sense, and why this is nothing to do with the NHS.

This is about a couple who were / are wealthy and could go private.

Do read it, as without knowing the back story, some comments just aren't relevant.

This is appalling. What change in law would be needed to prevent this happening again? Or is it always going to be down to the discretion of the judge?

What difference does it make if it was a whim or not?
Also how and why would this be part of a financial settlement?
I am desperate for a passing divorce lawyer to explain this.

There will be some nuance missing, but yes he is a prick.

She needs to appeal.

It seems to refer one specific surgery(the vaginoplasty?) and it sounds like the woman wanted her share back during the financial settlement because he used joint money. He’s an absolute selfish prick , don’t get me wrong, but it’s not quite as OP’s title is making it sound.

Great point.

I think this case shows that women need to try to get divorced ASAP before they start doing surgeries if possible.

I don't know the law there, but wouldn't he be applying for a gender certificate? In which case she could get an annulment and then half of their money is hers right now, end of story, right?

I suspect that that various surgeries have been paid for and he is claiming half back as part of the financial agreement.

If all of the surgeries have not been done I would make sure that there was a clause in there that she got the money back and that he didn't keep it.

Just in case anyone thought I was sympathetic to the man(!) it was more about the position of those who have a shared bank account, is she has to accept his surgery being paid for, how come she does get the money he didn't pay for child support etc..

That was an essential.

Just doesn't make sense.

“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.

Whereas the effort and time that a woman puts into bearing and raising children - often at the cost of health, body and career - is not sincere enough to warrant maintenance payments from the father. Sorry, the ejaculator.

Not a need, a fetish.

And that's not a judge it's an activist.

He got away without paying any CSA - what a bastard - that’s just stealing money from his kids to pay for his beauty treatments. Just goes to show that we need to be more financially astute.

Do not hold a lot of cash in a joint account. divide up as you go along into ISAs and bonds etc. Gift to kids as soon as you can.

The article is very confusing. He already had the surgery. It is already paid for, out of joint money . So , did the wife want that £80k back and she was denied? Which is not the same as being court ordered to pay her for her husband’s divorce.

What the hell? That is horrifying.

I was going to post about whether the couple had a joint account, as it would be different if they each had their own bank accounts, and a shared one for household expenses. But it was a joint account, as made clear in the article, which is worth reading in full:

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.

And further evidence if needed as to why there needs to be a trans widows group:

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.