System not fit for purpose?

[NotBeingRobbed]

Am I the only one who thinks the legal system is not fit for purpose when it comes to divorce.

I am now 18 months on from separation - using the “quickie” unreasonable behaviour route. I’ve been trying to move this on as quickly as possible.

Decree Nisi took six months. Another year for a financial settlement. Still waiting for absolute.

I needed to use a solicitor to protect myself. Aside from the fact that the settlement is unfair (but apparently what the courts would want), the legal costs have been high and unavoidable. There have been various mistakes by both courts and solicitors and the waits have been huge. I just want shot of my ex-husband. Every hoop to jump through is more stress. It really is unreasonable for the legal system to work at quill pen speed.

Yes I’m wondering what will become of my case
A child with life long issues will never live dependently.
I ve worked and saved more so ,due to the child two pensions good pensions at that every single penny I earned due to promotions in the last 8 years when I knew what my daughter had I worked hard and saved .
He worked hard and gambled.
Refuses to engage a solicitor,I’m already paying in the thousands as I got a very good law firm to represent due to my youngest needs.refused to engage with the mediator not that I cared so much what a waste that was.
It’s going to court that’s clear but I’m hoping that the judge will look out of the box .I want my savings considering I’ve furnished the house with every white good ,chair,mower etc I’m getting angry and saved for my future as well as my daughters .I I tend to hold on to my pension.
We have two properties I want to stay put because all support for her schools, hospitals etc are here.I also want to be given some money to pay of the little that’s left on the house we live in there is enough .
I want the judge to be fair.I worked all my life even when he wasn’t working .my decree Nisi was yesterday.Let the battle begin.

The thing is the only way you can argue your case is to go to court, which is prohibitively expensive. That doesn’t feel like justice.

Even when you get there it seems the robotic system will look to split 50:50. This is particularly unfair on mums who have worked very hard in a salaried job, raised the kids and saved for their futures. You are then left with the kids to raise single handed and less money saved to provide for them. Of course there may be men in the same position, I’m just talking averages.

The courts basically presume that the person who earned less did more of the childcare. It’s institutionalised sexism. It is possible for a woman to earn the most, raise her children, save for them and be ripped off by a wastrel husband - be it an alcoholic, gambler, porn addict or simple layabout. Nonetheless, his contribution is equal in the eyes of the law. What utter nonsense m’lud.

That is actually a different issue. My point is the sky-high costs and the creepingly slow legal system make it impossible even to argue your case. Not fit for purpose.

And your right that’s why it’s adviced to try to sort it out amongst yourselves but most of the time one won’t have enough insight on what’s right.
In my case this is his intention to crawl and make me spend punish me
I am going to court as we can’t discuss spit if it came to that.
The cost is high and you are right definitely not fit for purpose.

I was basically advised by my solicitor to let him have more than he was entitled to because it would be more expensive to go to court and argue the point. I think that is ludicrous.

Also, even though the solicitor was highly recommended she made lots of mistakes that would be very serious in my own line of work. And of course I had to pay her to correct them!

I do particularly think working mums left supporting kids need to take a test case to court - but to cost is too high. The courts are still working on the presumption there is a SAHP and WOHP, whereas in reality many families have two WOHPs.

The idea that someone, who has a job but earns less, automatically might get more in settlement is an injustice. Equally I do not think two working parents should have a right to take each other’s pension pot.

In my case the lawyers said from the beginning you’ll need to take him to court when they realised the sort of person he is.He wouldnt even fill or acknowledged any thing sent to him .They have actually had to entrap him to get him to say he was not contesting the case.
Your lawyer was wrong to suggest that.very wrong.
The laws are still medieval slowly changes are coming through but for us it’s too late.

He knew (presumably with the assistance of his own lawyers) that he could get more if the cost of disputing that was too high. The whole thing has cost me a fortune all round and I have meanwhile had to support the kids.

My divorce took almost two years. Obstructive partner dragged it out in hope I would change my mind.

Who had paid for what does not make any difference as assets accrued during the marriage are considered jointly owned. However, that does not make it a certainty that split will be 50:50. Many different factors taken into account. Priority will be given to needs of children.

Courts involve huge costs. Sadly my ex could not work out that the more spent on legal the less there would be at the end to share out. Upside of courts is that they can awards costs against the partner who has been obstructive as in my case.

The current system requires one partner to blame the other as mutual consent is not yet accepted. I think this is why some divorced end up in the court as the blamed partner seeks revenge.

Good luck

Who had paid for what does not make any difference as assets accrued during the marriage are considered jointly owned.

This. Not fit for purpose from start to finish.

Maybe prenup should be allowed in UK

There is a reform coming to divorce laws in the UK, hopefully soon. The new bill is currently going through parliament.

It will mean anyone who wants a divorce just because the marriage has broken down/they simply don't love each other anymore, will be granted one. There will no longer be the need to list unreasonable behaviours and place the blame with one party or cite adultery or desertion.

Divorces will be granted after a "reflection" period of six months. Probably the best thing of all though is that the person being divorced will no longer be allowed to contest a divorce.

It's being done to try and reduce the damage to children in particular during a divorce, but also for the divorcing couple. It's finally being recognised that the awful "blame game" couples are forced to take part in to get their divorce is really damaging and makes an already appalling situation much more antagonistic than it needs to be.

www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/09/no-fault-divorce-lawyers-england-wales

I don’t mind blaming my ex. I just object to the ludicrously expensive, creekingly slow and unjust legal system.

I agree the system is not fit for purpose.
I would rather put our information into a computer programme than the stress and uncertainty of a judge deciding it.
(I am pretty anti-authority and those in authority can smell it on me).
I am going to self-present, sod it, I would rather fuck it up myself rather than pay
Several times my small annual salary to lawyers, who I have engaged part way and have had lots of mistakes, which basically I
am paying for.
I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer....but I'm going to give it a shot going it alone....I actually find it a lot less stressful this way.
Hoping to get a fair outcome at trial, but am prepared for it not to be, I am ready to put it all behind me and dance off into the future either way!

I'm sure many men also dislike the 50/50 split idea- but that's supposed to in past at least protect women who may have not earned as much. You can't ask a court system to protect women who have worked hard and saved with partners who haven't, unless you want to give the same rights to men who have worked hard and women who have done a role more home based. I'm not sure there would be a way you could start things which would be fairer.

But if both worked and one didn’t give a toss about saving and investing why should the one who did suffer if your for example on similar salaries.
If one didn’t pay into a pension and one has 2 pensions .
Why should the one who sacrificed be out of pocket.
It’s not fit for purpose all a mess.

@Palaver1 at least YOU understand.

The system assumes that one person stayed home. That is less and less the case. There is an assumption that the one who earned less or nothing did all the work at home “the wife work”. But that’s not always the case. Maybe in families where there is a definite decision for one person to be a SAHP then they should sign a contract laying out the terms and conditions just like a job. I don’t mean the marriage contract.

There are such things as bank statements, tax returns, accounts. Instead of the Form E, which asks ridiculous questions (e.g. how much is spent each year at the fishmonger), there could be a similar form asking who earned what, how many hours childcare they provided each week - including school drop-offs, pick-ups, play dates etc and what other lump sums they brought to the marriage. A forensic accountant could check if necessary. But no, that’s too difficult for the family courts, which as well as being so slow and so prohibitively expensive, as skewed in favour of SAHPs.

All logic is turned around. The less you earned, the more you get.

For me marriage has been an entirely negative one-way street.

I was the wife, I did the wife work, I earned more, I saved and budgeted, I am penalised now.

@SD1978 yes, this system also shores up the gender pay gap - it assumes women earn less - so no wonder employers think women don’t need the money.