Thank you for some very good and interesting comments from everyone. Divorce is awful for everyone on all sides and mine was a over 10 years ago now so not really something I often think about and certainly does not upset now but those in the thick of it can find it very unfair.
One problem is there is one law trying to deal with so many different situations and so many different family finances. in many couples you ahve one man on about £30k and wife has not worked for 10 years and small children and one house with no assets other than say 5% of equity in the £200k house. That is fairly common situation but not really what we are talking about here. I think most people would agree the non earner's services provided unless she or he's been sitting around drunk all day and the working spouse gets home to 5 hours of childcare and house cleaning, are probably worth about that £30k salary and the children should stay in their home with the other spouse paying some maintenance for spouse and child.
In cases like mine I earned 10x he did but we both worked full time with no career sacrifice on either side, it just happens he's a teacher and I'm a lawyer. In those cases it is hard to be fair under the law. I don't agree with the principle that better off couples after they part have an entitlement to the same standard of living. Eg Paul McCartney had to give his previous wife a lum sum that would generate £700,000 a year as that sum was regarded as what she needed to live to the same standard (plus he had to fund a full time nanny for the child). That is the bit I think is unfair. Just because you got used to expensive ski holidays, hair cuts and all the rest why should you continue to be entitled to those? Before White v White the higher erarner just had to buy a modest house and provide a reasonable income for the ex, not these 50% sharing and not having to make sure they were kept to the same standard.
I was asked " If he was working how could he have claimed for maintenance? " That's the interesting point here where you both work full time but one earns a lot more. The lower earner still gets the higher earner. I know one man who had to pay £60k a year to his ex although I am not sure how long he had to do that (certainly it stops at remarriage or cohabitation but that's easy enough to avoid unless you are one of those who moves from rich spouse to rich spouse).
We covered university costs in our divorce financial consent order - that I should pay them and I would have done whether we divorced or not so I have no problem with that part of it. Occasionally their father has paid for something eg last year one asked for money for his new mobile and his father paid it but if you average that over 10 years and divide between 5 children that kind of gift is pretty de minimis. I remember asking if he could look after the youngest when I had to leave at 5am for business trips abroad or early trains to the North for work (he lives 5 minutes away) and he said "I'd rather not". It's pretty hard to find childcare if you dont' have someone living in at that kind of period 5am to 9am. Anyway we managed. It was more the lack of childcare help that was harder for me (having the children 365 nights a year as you cannot force contact on absent parents) than the money side which was have managed to get through and I kept the house and he knew that which is why he withdrew the one thing that might have helped me after - looking after the children although we we still had a full time daily nanny at that stage for a few months before the twins started "big school".
Sorry this is long but I am putting off starting work ... the university point above is interesting. As people say the full student loan if you don't live at home does not cover your rent although if you rent cheaply and don't go out and get a job students can self support just about. In practice most will be living at home in holidays - I just had mine home for 3 months most of the time over the summer. My heating bills halved this year when they and their older brother left and then they and the food bills go up when they come home. My older 3 came back home to live after university - the girls were doing 2 years law school in London and I was happy to support them all at that period but I agree the law in England does not put a legal obligation on any parent to have children home in university holidays nor once they graduate. This is unusual but I am funding them all without student debt - when we did the divorce consent order student fees were £1k an school fees were about £10k so it was not much. They then grew to £3k. Of course now they are £9250 per twin (I paid one set yesterday so am still suffering the pain) it's a bigger thing but totally my choice - most parents don't pay and if your child does not earn much (which is often the case) then you have wasted your money paying the fees.
However at the end of the day like most higher earners I will still be better off than he is, not that money particularly co-relates to happiness anyway. Very important point is we both worked very hard indeed over 20 years. This not a divorce where one person sat around and did nothing. It is just that my work pays better and I had deliberately chosen better paid work.
I am sure divorce law will not move towards who paid for what and getting back what you paid for England. What is should do however is cut spousal maintenance entirely where you both work full time in my view and I would like a 50/50 presumption of care and residence of children unless the court or parents agree otherwise which would help all those fathers denied any contact and would help those full time wokring mothers who would like 50% or even in my case 10% would have been very helpful.