thought this was interesting on divorce nd blame

[cod]

\link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,24391-2147731.html\here}

.

it is interesting but. But if the potential breakdown of their marriage is not enough to put adulterors off then I doubt that financial risk would be enough.

dependso on the person of course

I read this on Sunday and I have to say I pretty much agree with most of what she said (will duck my head and wait for the liberals to disagree now).

Have to say on most things I am a wishy washy liberal but on marriage I am of the old school - consequences and responsibilities etc but then I never was an old romantic, so the 'but I can't help it I love him/her line' always ticks me off instead of making me go 'ahhh well that's understandable then'.

Agree lazycow.

Sorry to go on but this does push some of my buttons. I also hate the 'but I'm bored now' line lots of people use about their relationships or another way of saying the same thing
'I don't think I love them any more' in that sad doe eyed way which is supposed to translate as 'well these things happen and my happiness is of paramount importance in all things so obviously I have to leave regardless of how many lives it screws up in the meantime'

Yup.

Interesting. Could it be the start of a backlash? I must admit I've always found it disturbing that your signature on a mortgage document or loan agreement appears to be more binding than on a marriage certificate, and without a certain amount of stability and certainty that if you behave blamelessly you will not be penalised financially if your spouse unilaterally pulls out of the deal, then couples can't plan. Instability of relationships is a modern curse. I don't know if it's a worse curse than the ancient one of not being able to escape a very unhappy relationship though.

And of course the logic of having no blame divorce, is that where there is blame, the innocent party doesn't get justice.

But sometimes justice isn't the best thing for famiies and children.

god I really need to respond to this because this woman knows NOTHING really nothing about divorce.
first of all - allocating finances according to blame would mean a change from the current allocation, which takes account of need i.e. somewhere for both parties to be homed, and somewhere for the children to be homed and to stay with the non resident partner. Is she really saying that it is fairer/better/more just to allocate according to blame than according to NEED?
Talking about £5m divorce cases is a total red herring - this kind of settlement is a tiny tiny minority. In the vast majority of cases it is a case of dividing up a small amount of money/debt as fairly as possible according to need.
Also, if you start making decisions of residence according to blame - well then dear GOD we are back to the dark ages, where adulterous women could expect to have the children removed. She can't SERIOUSLY be suggesting that?? Questions of children's residence must surely be considered separately from questions of blame for the break up of the marriage - i.e. chidlren's welfare must come before financial/moral justice. And if that is the case, then she can't seriously be suggesting that adulterous mothers should suffer financially notiwthstanding that their resident children would also suffer?
AND lastly, can she really seriously be suggesting that issues of blame in divorce are as clear cut as a wife getting bored and running off with her personal trainer.... good lord. Human relationships are rarely, if ever, that clear cut. Divorce cases are ime 50% farce, 50 % tragedy. There are pretty much always two sides to the story. The woman has a drink habit, he has an affair, she has an affair, he works all hours at the office, she spends too much, he is neglectful and distant, she is possessive, he can be violent, but only (he says) when provoked.... the reason why the blame element was taken out of divorce was not for reasons of wolly loberalism but for practical pragmatic reasons. Yes, a divorce court can seek to apportion blame - but at what cost? The financial cost of lengthy hearings/proceedings eating away at capital, the court time taken up in bitter wranglings, and - most importantly - the human cost of acrimony and mud slinging and where does this leave (utterly blameless) children if their parents are forced to "earn" every penny of their settlement by convincing a judge that their partner is to blame.
oh PARP.

woolly liberalism

Not at all convinced to be honest by any of her arguments to be honest. It is inevitable that you won't be able to keep your pants on but there is no need for divorce, eh? So how does that work?

What if Partner A is an utter git/intotlerable to live with and refuses sex so Partner B takes a lover or maybe even a companion (no sex but emotional fulfillment) so where does most of the blame lie here? Who is responsible for apportioning it and hence the financial settlement?

Unworkable and a huge step backwards IMO. Financial seperation should be based on means and contribution to the marriage not some arbitary decision as to whose fault it was the union failed.

exactly gomez
it would be up to the judge in each case to apportion blame
after hearing evidence and arguments from each side

Oh aye - those centered, emotionally intelligent and life-experienced judges should of course be fully responsible for such decisions

great post, hc.

Hmm good post HC. But. We don't allocate according to a child's need necessarily, but according to what we judge a child's need to be. A hundred years ago, they also had that attitude believe it or not - they genuinely believed that a child who was brought up by a parent who was judged by the court to be "immoral", was most certainly not having its needs met. Therefore, giving the parent seen to be without blame custody, was in their worldview, acting in the child's needs.

No doubt what society considers a child's needs in divorce will be very different in fifty years time, to what it is now. Some of us may be around to see it and post on Mumsnet in outrage.

thats all very well not relating blame to finance

however if the man is the one to go off cos bored/not happy/not enough attention etc AND earns mega bucks while wife is SAHM or part-time working, why should she lose out?

I think divorce is too easy these days AND no stigma so people just shrug shoulders & accept

why should my ex be financially better off being divorced & part time dad THROUGH CHOICE while me & kids are financially worse off NOT THROUGH CHOICE

sorry for getting PND
sorry for looking after you & kids

Love the way these journos just chuck out "opinion" articles based on little or no actual genuine statistical evidence.
Having been through the divorce process, I don't think it is easy at all. If you have children and even a smidgen of money then it is a protracted, painful damaging process for everyone concerned.
The thought of aportioning blame, while attractive from a "spurned wife/husband" perspective is abhorent. I can just see how it would go. Philandering partner says "Well, m'Lud I only strayed because my wife hadn't had sex with me for 15 months & I felt unloved and unwanted.....". Bloody hell, that's going to be a real blood fest. Who was actually to blame for straying partners?!!!! Ghastly.

Hmm methink dp will stay a dp and not a dh!