what do w think about he Ray parlour (?) divorce?

[codswallop]

is she greedy or fighting for our rights?
I cant decide

well I'm sorry but I still think she is being greedy

the original settlement included 1.25 million quid's worth of property plus a big wodge of cash plus 12.5K pa each for the children - how is that not enough?

yeah but the CSA are soley concerned with child support and ensuring that the state doesn't pay what dads should.
I thought that the whole idea of marriage was a partnership, what's mine is yours etc - so on that basis, anything that each brings into the partnership during the marriage is shared. So why is she greedy if she wants half?

(incidentally, I'm not married - and am curious when people who are seem to go against the founding principle of it)

sm she is getting 4ook+ ayear in maintenance too aswell as her kids maintenance. I'm with you sm i think its greedy

the initial settlement was more than enough she is greedy IMO

actually that is fine Blu but should a man have to maintain his ex wife's lifestyle when they divorce? Yes he should pay for the children but she he really have to pay THAT much maintenance to his ex wife?......just a question

I think the problem with the CSA is that it enshrines the principle that the ex-spouse and children live off the crumbs that are left, rather than have a proper piece of the pie.

Also, I don't think it matters about the large sums involved, it's the principle.

take your point blu, but it's a bit different with divorce settlements in high earning scenarios like this, as the judge stated.

the original settlement she was offered was huge - enough to set her up for the rest of her life - but she still chased for more!

but i'm just bitter and twisted because i've never had a penny from my xh for the kids, let alone me

WEll she is governed by his short term earnign potential, he will only be on that salary until he finishe splaying which is probably int eh next 4 yrs, hence the written in review.
The judge also said she had to save £300k per year to secure her future with a few to independence, hopefully within the review period.
So she is probably within her rights to expect him to contribute fully now while he can and to take less and less in the future.
I reckon she deerves it for boffing him, even an Arsenal shirt could never put him in the do able league IMHO
But yes
CSA cackle... I have had nothing from exp, although he is now getting ds for a year, wait until he sees the food bill...

Havent read this thread properly or followed the story really, but you would think that when this is this much money to go around that they could come to some sort of agreement and both be happy. The marriage must have ended really badly for her to go to this .....I guess he might have been really really bad to her, I dont know. If he has to pay a third of his earnings until the kids grow up I guess that could really plumet at some point anyway. Am I right in thinking that she gets a huge pay out, money for herself and a third of his earnings.

I think I could manage with a couple of houses, a 400K lump sum and 12.5K each for the kids ... so why can't she?!

From www.thelawyer.com
Stand by your man?, goes the song, but wives may soon be thinking ?why bother?? thanks to a number of high-profile divorce cases going through the courts that could swing the pendulum very much in their favour.

Two Court of Appeal cases, if they come down in favour of the ex-wives, could bring the UK system in line with that of the US. Karen Parlour, wife of Arsenal football player Ray Parlour and mother of his three children, split from her husband after a three-year marriage. An order gave Karen the family house, a holiday chalet, a lump sum of £250,000 and maintenance totalling £250,000 per annum. Ray Parlour is applying to reduce the award while Karen Parlour wants a further cut of his future earnings.

White v White in 2000 set the precedent that where a couple has contributed equally to a marriage, they should take out equally.

The Parlour case takes this principle a step further. Ray Parlour earns £1m per year and his ex-wife wants to apply the established 50 per cent principle to income, although because of the marriage?s brevity is prepared to take a 37.7 per cent stake, which would equal £444,000.

Her legal team argues that she should be allowed the money to save for the future, as she helped her husband grow up and stay away from alcohol. The other side says that having a share of earning capacity, possibly in perpetuity, is grossly unfair.

Much has been made of the fact that Karen Parlour is a former optician?s assistant and would never have got used to the high-life had she not married Ray Parlour. But in another high-profile divorce awaiting judgment, the same criticism cannot be made.

Julia McFarlane gave up her career working for a City law firm in order to support her husband and his career. She was awarded maintenance of £180,000 but says she is entitled to half of his £1m annual salary on the grounds that she gave up a potentially lucrative career.

Another case that has already reached judgment dealt with the muddier issue of co-habitees. Although Elayne Oxley had a 28 per cent financial stake in the house she had shared with Allan Hiscock for 10 years, the court ruled that she should be awarded 40 per cent of the sale price to take into account her contributions such as paying the bills and making home improvements.

On the subject of greed, she isn't exactly suing him out of house and home, is she? It's precisely because he has huge amounts that she can ask for it. He's still going to be left with far more than enough for himself - while he waltzes off with the woman he dumped her for. And, in reality, it is harder for a wife and mother to find a new partner than a man - and if he entered into a marriage contract, and it was him that broke the terms by leaving her, yes, i do think he should be responsible for her upkeep, at the level she was used to it as his partner, until she chooses another partnership, or decides to be independent.

Emplyers are required to pay redundancy pay when they dump people - and they haven't signed a contract for life, like married people have!

Do feel a bit devils advocate-ish here - and it reflects my feelings about the incongruity of the marriage contract in this day and age, I'm afraid! Don't really give a toss about RP, and am not worried about the precedent of the settlement cos, lets face it, even if dp and I did split, we won't have enough to divide to create this level of lawyer fodder!

I agree totally with MeanBean, the large sums of money are not the issue - it is the principle of the matter. If his earnings were £20,000 or £30,000 a year, she would still be entitled to something if they divorced and if the courts accept that she is entitled to a a third or more then she should get that proportion of the money.

Of course, it will affect women who are the main breadwinners in the same way but the way the press go on, you'd think that only men could ever be the main breadwinners.

It is exactly the reason I don't want to get married, not that Im loaded but I don't want to lose what I worked hard for in the event of a split.

Margaret Cook has done an article on this in the Guardian today. I tried to be competent and post a link to it, but failed, so am just posting the address to cut and paste for anyone interested.

www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1257239,00.html{}

Sorry, ignore the curly brackets at the end...

I'm with Blu; seems fair enough to me. He's got loads of money, partly due to her support. Why shouldn't they have to share it reasonably? Until now courts have given women (it is almost entirely women) a raw deal, expecting them and their children to survive on a tiny fraction of the ex's money. I'm the breadwinner in this house and if, God forbid, we split up and dh was living with ds, I'd expect to pay far more than £300 a month - that wouldn't even cover nursery fees!

I think it's a wonderful judgement. OK so the marriage was only 4 years, but they weer together for years beforegetting married, and y looking after his kids and home and him she enabled him to be earning as much as he is. Of course she could "manage" spacemonkey, but why should she have to manage rather than continue her previous lifestyle and be able to save for a very comfortable future just as he can.

I do think things are slightly different when the woman is the main breadwinner, as very few men, ven if they are SAHDs provide the level of support to their partners as women do - many high-flying women wuld still find tehmselves responsible for the household management/organisation, so I can see why it would grate to have to give up half your income to someone who didn't truly support you through the marriage.

i think its a good judgement from what i have read. his earning potential is very limited, he probably has another 4yr left of playing in him b4 he is too old/worn out for football. he went off with another woman and left his ex with the kids to raise. she gave up her own career to be a SAHM and to support him etc.
didnt the her lawyers uncover that he had assets/property unbeknown to mrs parlour which is why they fought for a higher amount for mainanence etc? i'm sure i heard that somewhere. at the end of the day, footballers are paid way way too much anyway, and why shouldnt he support his kids? he could be unable to play in a few yrs and if he didnt pay up now is kids would be unsupported if he lost everything. this way, if mrs parlour is sensible and puts a % away erach year for the future then she wont have to worry if his career goes tits up and leaves their kids with nothing.

I think it's too much and beyond reasonable!
I disagree with giving his wife a share of his "future earnings" - in my view there should be a split of assets from the time they were together - not before and not after they were married.

Haven't read the whole thread, but think I know where his wife was coming from. My ex bf and I went out from when we were 18 until I turned 30. During this time we were both students, but I finished before he did -as he did a sandwich course and honours - so I paid for all outings etc holidays for two years untlil he started earning. Then he worked for a while and stopped work to do an MBA, again "supported" him financially and emotionally for two years - onw year for course , and then time for him to get fabby job. He then got OK paid job, and then tow years later he dumped me and almost doubled his salary within a month of us splitting up. Now he is mega rich. I would have supported him anyhow, but there was in the back of my mind that he was intelligent and it was going to benefit US in the longterm.

We used to holiday in tents, and cheapo holidays. He now takes his girlfriends to Gleneagles for the weekend, or to Bali for their holidays. No we weren't married, but he wouldn't have got where he is now without my support, so yes I think his wife deserves everything she gets!!!!

But Posy, he's not giving his wife his future earnings - he's giving his children them. If a man earns £100 a week at the time of his divorce, so gets ordered to pay £10 per week towards his children, then gets a job where his pay goes up to £1000 per week, why on earth should his contributions stay at the level they were at when he was earning much less? (I know these figures are very simplistic, but it's just for ease of argument.) It seems obvious to me that when an absent parent is supporting children s/he should be supporting them to a level s/he can afford. As the resident parent does. As anyone who truly loves their children would surely want to.

I guess I think there should be an upper limit on what is reasonable.
Eg £30k per annum per child is plenty in my view - I just don't see why a child is entitled to more, and am not sure what the benefit is really of having more.

I think there is a difference between meeting your resonsibilities - and surely £30k a year would meet them - and being forced to give away what you have earned yourself.

But her arguemnt is that he didn't earn it himself - she was integral to his success by providing practical and emotional support.

I think it's reasonable that his kids shouldn't have a lesser lifestyle just because he has buggered off with some floozie. After all, if he married floozie and had more kids they would be doing much better than his abandoned family if he was only paying basic child support. Also, he sounds such a tosser - he doesn't bother to see his kids now he's got another woman, according to Karen - that I just feel satisfaction that he is having to pay up. Ha!