Are UK divorce laws fair?

[spokette]

In light of some recent high profile cases, does anyone think like I do that as long as provision is made for the children (if any are involved), both parties should leave the marriage with what they have proportionately accumulated together?

Divorce should not be viewed as a means of personal enrichment imho but sadly, there are unscrupulous and as well as undignified men and women who think this way.

spokette

It's a very vexed question.

Here in France there are three main sorts of marriage contract (régime), and what you inherit from your spouse should he/she die before you, your liability for your spouse's debts, as well as what you leave the marriage with should you divorce, is dependent on the régime you choose, either at the outset of your marriage (in fact a few days before) or^ after the 18th birthday of your youngest child (and you can change more than once).

It's all very complicated and quite honestly not very fair either.

It's difficult (and I'm not sure I properly understand "they have proportionately accumulated together"!) Divorce settlement does need if possible to take into account what one partner has been able to achieve only with the support of the other. If my DH was a single dad to our two DDs, it's unlikely he would have been able to rise in his career as far as he has done because my work allows me the flexibility to do most of the childcare.

But what about when both parties work and therefore use childcare that enables them to pursue their careers? Should the party who earns more by virtue of the field they are in or due to their inherent capabilities or both, subsidise the other party?

When DH and I married, I was earning nearly £10k more than him because I was older and more senior. Now it is the other way round and that is down to his hard work and ability.

I don't understand how the allocations are decided in divorce and hope I never do!

spokette - it's a vexed question because it is exceedingly difficult to determine who brings what to a marriage and what the size and value of the contribution of each party really is.

Looking at earnings only is completely avoiding the issue IMO and leads to gross discrimination. Thank goodness English law is actually more sophisticated than that...

But it is rare for any two marriages to have the same sort of history and factors. Not sure what you are implying about what each person "proportionately accumulates"? But if it means what I think that it means what about the vast number of relationship where one person takes a lower salary for the good of the family, either to provide childcare, or to enable their oh to earn more. Why should they be penalised later on for something that was jointly decided at the time?

It's not always as easy as just saying who earns what though Spokette. Even if you use childcare/don't have children I think most couples end up making sacrifices and compromises for their lives together. E.g. I was in the City when we married, we found that didn't suit us as a couple (DH hates London and commuting plus long hours were too much for us) so I switched jobs and now earn less than him - should I bear all of that sacrifice or is it a joint loss? We've both had times as postgrad students supported by the other so wouldn't necessarily be in our jobs without each other - does that mean we 'own' part of the other's career? We've both passed up on opportunities elsewhere because the other wouldn't be able to continue their career if we moved etc etc. If your marriage is a partnership then it's ikely to involve compromise the whole way through, it's not just two individuals selfishly pursuing their own careers (well if it is that might explain the divorce!)

I think the problem is that I am looking at it from my personal perspective and neglected to consider LadymMuck's point about one person taking a lower salary to enable the other party to progress their career.

You are right Anna, we should be glad that the laws are more sophisticated than just looking at who earns what.

Catz, you're right too. I decided to work part-time becaause I wanted to spend more time with my DTS.

spokette, what is your understanding of "proportionate accumulation"? As regards non-economic contributions to a marriage, it is a well known legal adage that "the cock can feather the nest because he does not have to spend most of his time sitting on it." The law can and should recognise non-economic contributions to a marriage in dividing the marital assets, otherwise a lot of SAHPs would be in deep doodoo in a divorce.

Generally, UK law only divides up assets accumulated during the marriage.

Apart from high profile divorces where the assets involved are large, I don't think divorce tends to enrich. If anything, it cuts up what little there is to share.

"the cock can feather the nest because he does not have to spend most of his time sitting on it."

Blueshoes - I LOVE IT . And will use it (must translate)

anna, . It will be particularly impressive in Latin ...

I think this is complicated by virtue of the fact that many (mostly women) don't work. The fact of their not working leaves them with very little economic power, and vulnerable to their partners' mid-life crises, choosing younger models etc.

But the reason that they chose not to work, or only to work a little, might be very well founded economically (ie not laziness). It might be that the cost of childcare in the early years was so prohibitive that there was little incremental benefit in their working. That would normally be a joint decision IME, so how could they then leave with what they "contributed" only in financial terms.

When I met and married DH, he earned twice as much as I did. Now I earn three times as much as he does. The scale does not remain constant through a marriage either ...

Are you suggesting that what they earned during the period together is what should be divided between them? There are difficulties of measurement ...

I'm wondering whether the McCartney case is going to set a major new precedent in short marriage divorce law or whether it will stand alone as a unique and unusual case (due to the fact that their assets were so diverse before the marriage). I've been trying to read more about this in the papers but of course they all focus on Heather bashing so not much help.

Xenia has corrected me, but my understanding was that recent divorce law worked on the basis that a 50/50 division was the starting point, with the details worked out according to all the different factors such as children, length of marriage, how the wealth was made etc. It might not have been fair to the higher earner but it did provide some certainty. From the limited amount of the judgment that I've read, it seems to be reverting back to the old system of proving "need" and lifestyle. This makes divorce expensive. Also behaviour is supposed to not be taken into account, whereas this judgment contained a lot of personal speculation, some of which didn't seem strictly relevant to the financial dispute. I'm wondering if the judge was star struck.

With regard to the OP's point, it seems fair but I agree with the others it is hard to measure. In general terms, women are economically disadvantaged compared to men and I would hate to see any changes which increase this gap. There are some women who choose to walk away with nothing (Billie Piper who declined any of Chris Evan's money on the grounds that it was "immoral" to take someone else's money) and plenty of men (Rod Liddle) who think this way.

As for children, I wonder what percentage of PM's annual income £35,000 is? Not CSA guidelines anyway.

Evie, I think you're basically right on the law but in short marriage cases (like the McCartney/Mills case) the 50/50 starting point essentially only applies to those assets generated within the marriage. In this case the vast bulk of the assets came from before the marriage and the increase in wealth during the marriage was largely just an increase in the value of those assets. The judge therefore focused on her "needs" because he found there was no need to compensate her for lost earnings and that she had no grounds to claim that his assets should be shared. At least that's what I understood from skim reading it.

Agree that there were some quite harsh comments in the judgment but I think the evidence conflicted at quite a few points so he had to work out who to trust...

Good points Catz.