Divorce rights

[MrsMisstery]

If the husband did a crime which led to the divorce, does this mean his rights to assets etc is reduced/eliminated?

No. Behaviour is only relevant if it had a direct effect on the finances, e.g. one partner ran up huge debts.

Not entirely correct. The seminal case (Barder v Barder) in this instance was a very extreme case in which the wife walked away with the home etc, then shortly afterwards killed herself and the children. That had no effect on the finances, yet the court still revisited the order and changed it in favour of the husband. However generally speaking bad behaviour has to either affect the finances or be very extreme.

Thank you both. And what sort of thing would be classed as extreme?

If it is the kind of crime for which assets can be confiscated, then it can all get rather messy, because if assets which could be argued are marital assets were acquired as proceeds of crime and are forfeit, then yes, divorce settlement will be lower for both as the available 'pot' is smaller. That would all have to be sorted out in front of a judge.

But divorce is never about punishing someone again for their crime. So there is no expectation that there wouid be an alteration simply because of a crime. If they have legally contributed to marital assets, they would still reasonably expect their share. But if incarceration makes a relevant difference to the care of DC or other acknowledged dependents, that should be taken into account. Just as needs of DC come first in any divorce.

If someone is incarcerated, with a whole life tariff (rare) or a very long tariff then their 'needs' would be rather different, so occupying FMH until DC reach majority would probably be straightforward. But it's not likely to make much difference other than that. Except perhaps a slightly higher share of any liquid savings or %age of house, to cover what would otherwise have been expected in CM during the expected period of incarceration.

Well the crime will make it very difficult/impossible for him to be employed again and if he manages it, it would be such a fraction of his previous earnings.
I feel that this means that the children will be disadvantaged.
Me and the children are the innocent party.

Employment prospects after incarceration don't usually come in to it. It's just the impossibility of employment during the sentence that could be allowed for. As you might get something because there is no prospect of maintenance for the years of the sentence, you will need to think about how best to use this so you can support your DC whilst he cannot. Which might mean using some to train/retrain so your career prospects improve.

That you are innocent. I'm afraid, also doesn't come in to it, and it might be useful for you to start to direct your thinking so you do not dwell on unhelpful concepts.

You do need to talk this through in RL with a solicitor. Other factors, such as age of DC will be relevant, as for extreme crime they will reach their majority before their father is out.