Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Divorce/separation

Here you'll find divorce help and support from other Mners. For legal advice, you may find Advice Now guides useful.

Original poster

Justice turned upside down

127 replies

NotBeingRobbed · 10/12/2018 12:32

When I married there was no such thing as pension sharing - it wasn’t in the “contract”....you know the contract we are never shown but apparently sign up to in a church service!!

Then it came in to protect women who were the old fashioned Stepford types and gave up work to support their dear hubby and stay at home baking apple pie for the cherubs. They found when they were divorced they had no pension... so the law changed.

Now it’s 2018. I am a woman and I am raising my kids plus have worked throughout in a difficult job with difficult hours - I juggled being home with the kids and working.

My hubby had an easier job and lower pay and longer holidays.

Cue the divorce. He wants to strip me of my pension and 65% of the assets. He resents paying child maintenance and has made it clear my DS at uni won’t get a penny from him.

The pension sharing was clearly aimed at protecting partners who had never worked. But I will lose out and will have my kids to support.

He has turned justice on its head. Or would you say it’s fair? I cannot begin to explain how unjust this seems to me.

OP posts:
Unicornandbows · 12/12/2018 22:03

Why don't you try and speak to him and tell him my last offer is 50/50 if you are not happy with this i will drag it to the courts and back. We will both loose out so its up to you.

See what he then turns around and says

Walkingdeadfangirl · 12/12/2018 22:13

I wouldn't bet on it. He is the lower earner by quite a way
Unless she is a millionaire I cant see him getting any spousal maintenance. He worked full time, was never a SAHP or on maternity leave. His wage is purely a result of his own endeavours and the marriage didn't affect his career in any way.

On he other hand the OP has lots of reasons why the marriage affected her career eg childbirth, RP, working PT, SEN child and probably more.

So not one single reason why he would even get 50% other than by default.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 13/12/2018 00:07

To NBR

Does your Ex have a solicitor? If so what is their position?

If you both complete Form E accurately and truthfully then two experienced family solicitors should be able to assess what is a fair deal. If both partners take on board advice provided you should be able to avoid the Courts and the associated stress and costs.

You have offered 50% and your ex wants 70%? Did your solicitor produce this figure or is it your own "I will be damned if he gets a penny more than me" figure?

You also state he wants 85K more than he is entitled to receive. So does the 85K represent the 20% difference?. ie total assets are 5 x 85K = 420K?

85K is a lot of money of course, but will soon be eroded by Legal Costs if you go down the Court route. However, if one partner (or both) are hell bent on destroying the other then court involvement is likely.

The child over 18 will not be taken into consideration. Yes there is moral argument over who pays for University Costs, but the courts will apply Legal principles as opposed to morals even though the Judges as individuals may actually agree?

You state that the other child who is under 18 has special needs? That would be taken into account. Does the child with special needs prevent you from working full time?

That you earned double that of your ex, even when working part time, may go against you.

Hope you can avoid the Courts as stress and costs can be huge. Upside of Courts is that they have the Power to award costs if they think reasonable offers have been wrongly rejected.

Maybe you should try and get over the "I am being robbed" anger you have and move forward? If the child with special needs does not prevent you from working full time then your earnings will outstrip those of your Ex and you soon recover the 85K?

Good Luck

Original poster
NotBeingRobbed · 13/12/2018 08:11

I don’t know what planet you live on but £85k in savings takes a very long time to accumulate. I have all the expenses of running the household and supporting both children (whether over or under 18) plus legal fees and my income is taxed like everyone else’s. I’ve made an offer the courts should find fair, with legal advice, in spite of my own opinion that it isn’t the fairest split. It’s not a starting point offer but the finishing point.

OP posts:
MissedTheBoatAgain · 13/12/2018 08:49

£85k in savings takes a very long time to accumulate

and no time at all to spend on Legal Fees if the Courts become involved.

Original poster
NotBeingRobbed · 13/12/2018 09:17

That isn’t justice though is it? As I said before, it’s a very bad system if you have to agree a grossly unfair settlement just because of fear of the costs!

OP posts:
Spanglyprincess1 · 13/12/2018 09:42

Sorry but how is it unfair? If the situation were reversed you would be entitled to as much as him. 50:50 for first marriages is what the spouses are entitled to. Sometimes that changes due to childcare etc. I can't see this being an issue as his solicitor will surely advise him to accept if it matches their recommendations.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 14/12/2018 00:04

If the situation were reversed you would be entitled to as much as him

That's the part that NBR can't get their head around. Seems to think that when Divorce Law goes against women then the Law is wrong, but if men who have been the only earner are bled dry by ex wives who have never worked then it is okay?

MissedTheBoatAgain · 14/12/2018 05:06

That isn’t justice though is it? As I said before, it’s a very bad system if you have to agree a grossly unfair settlement just because of fear of the costs!

Using the courts is not free. After all why should it be free? People need to decide whether or not the amount in dispute is worth the legal costs to pursue through the courts and remember there is no certainty they will come out as the winner.

bastardkitty · 14/12/2018 05:59

I think your main problem is that you're divorcing a greedy, selfish, uncooperative and inconsiderate person who seems hell-bent on getting more than his share for no actual reason. Whatever it costs you, it will be worth it to get away from him.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 14/12/2018 06:05

I think your main problem is that you're divorcing a greedy, selfish, uncooperative and inconsiderate person who seems hell-bent on getting more than his share for no actual reason. Whatever it costs you, it will be worth it to get away from him

If you change the word "him" to "her" then it's what men have been saying for decades?

Wallywobbles · 14/12/2018 06:12

Your lawyer sounds like a bit of a wet blanket too.

Bohemond · 14/12/2018 06:26

You're suffering because you married and stayed with a dick. Not because the law is bad.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 14/12/2018 06:38

You're suffering because you married and stayed with a dick. Not because the law is bad

Stayed for 22 years of her own free will and now thinks the Law is wrong?

Where in Law does it state that neither partner can end a marriage if they are unhappy? I seem to remember that there was a solution that either partner could pursue? Erm...let me think...?

Oh yes I remember now it's called Divorce.

BoneyBackJefferson · 14/12/2018 06:56

Another here saying calm down, you can't make good decisions when you are angry.

And this isn't justice its divorce and the only real winners are the lawyers.

wondering1101 · 14/12/2018 07:04

If you change the word "him" to "her" then it's what men have been saying for decades?

They shouldn’t have been saying that though Hmm.

In my case my abusive ex made it clear while we were married that he thought I was worthless, and that what was “his” was “his” only.

The courts and the legal system put him in his place.

wondering1101 · 14/12/2018 07:05

Or rather the law - not the legal system.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 14/12/2018 07:19

its divorce and the only real winners are the lawyers

That's why people should settle amicably

Silkie2 · 14/12/2018 07:23

Have you worked out how what you will end up pension wise over the rest of your working life. You will be supporting one less adult, the DCs will leave home at some point. It should be a biggish figure, that you've earned without ex DH in your life. Perhaps it is worth just giving away the 85K.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 14/12/2018 07:35

and that what was “his” was “his” only

If you change "his" to "hers" that is NBR's argument.

wondering1101 · 14/12/2018 08:48

Yes but I know how hard I worked - not always for money - but marriages are made up of financial and non financial contributions - and contributed to the marriage - all the while being married to an impossible, difficult and extremely uncompromising person. I wasn’t perfect, but he was verbally and emotionally abusive. Not that that had any bearing in court either.

Obviously we can only talk for our own situations, but thank God for the law - things that I had been trying to say to him for years were suddenly being said by other people, and people he couldn’t ignore or be rude to / bad tempered with. Though he tried.

wondering1101 · 14/12/2018 08:54

I am never going to forget the amazing realisation that the FDR Judge agreed with my proposal rather than ex’s - and the lucid way in which he disposed of ex’s ridiculous arguments.

Ex would have had us shackled forever but I got my clean break Smile.

In my case the law gave me a voice which I had not previously had.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 14/12/2018 09:01

but marriages are made up of financial and non financial contributions

That's why Law does not discriminate between Breadwinner and Homemaker.

Was your Divorce settled after the FDR? My FDR was a shambles. Reading comments made by Legal FDR is often rushed though in minutes.

Original poster
NotBeingRobbed · 14/12/2018 09:11

The homemaker can also be the breadwinner - the roles are not mutually exclusive. This is where the law is old-fashioned and blinkered. Hardly surprising at the rate the U.K. legal system proceeds.

OP posts:
Everytimeref · 14/12/2018 17:07

The financial spilt in divorce is based on "need" not fairness. To deviate from 50-50. The financially weaker party need to prove their "need" for the assets is greater so that they should receive more.

Swipe left for the next trending thread