Dr foster new thread...sept 20 2017 *Contains Spoilers* [edited by MNHQ]

[Dowser]

Bloody loving this.

Even if there are inconsistencies.

Welcome back all.

Prenups aren’t legally binding in the UK and a divorce court can overturn them. I think Kate was making it clear that whilst theoretically he has a claim on both the assets and the child they would use their ‘very expensive lawyers’ to make this as difficult and as prohibitively expensive as possible for him.

He wont get much.

Short marriage, not the primary carer of the child.

Also half of what? Kate doesnt work and her parents bought her that house which was likely to be heavily mortgaged with kates parents paying the bills. Kate's parents were maintaining them, kate wasnt.

Simon has a claim to half of what kate owned which isn't much as her parents paid her way. Simon doesnt have a claim to any of Kate's parents money

So simon gets what? Half the equity of a heavily mortgaged house?

But he wouldn't get half anyway - they were only married a couple of months, and he would only get half of what was acquired/gained/earned during the actual marriage - what you bring into the marriage is yours. Unless things are different outside of Scotland??

The prenup wouldn't make a lot of difference, as HaHa says, they're not legally binding in the UK - a court would only honour it if it were pretty much in line with a reasonable settlement anyway.

Courts don't like one parent living in luxury and the other in penury. I reckon he'd get enough for a deposit on a flat somewhere. And certainly this threat of never seeing Amelie is bollocks.

True. If her parents bought her that house before they were married then techincally it is all hers.

In any event, in last season and this one, Kate doesnt seem to work, lives off her parents money and so she has nothing to take anyway.

Simon has no claim to Kate's parents money in a divorce only anything Kate may have which is nothing her parents havent paid for. No income, nothing.

He would get very little/nothing. They were married 5 minutes, parents in law provided all funds for their daughter, nothing in his name and his wife had no independent wealth to speak of. Probably in reality, she would offer him a token sum to get him to piss off. It was made pretty clear to him too that he was not to have anything.

Courts don't like one parent living in luxury and the other in penury.

Kate lives in luxury as her parents pay her way. Kate will continue to live in luxury as her parents are paying for her. She doesnt even have a job.

No court is going to order anyones parents to pay their adult childs ex spouse maintenance after a 2 month marriage. They can give their daughter what they like, they have no obligation to maintain Simon.

Courts don't like one parent living in luxury and the other in penury. I reckon he'd get enough for a deposit on a flat somewhere. And certainly this threat of never seeing Amelie is bollocks

Not so sure with such a short marriage and no assets brought into it by wife (former divorce lawyer). He has an earning capacity- he has not been disadvantaged by the marriage in any way by e.g. caring for children. As non resident parent, he would also owe child support.

As for Amelie, yes, he could apply to stop Kate taking her out of the country. However, if Kate made an application for leave to remove Amelie to France to start a new life, the court might grant the application and then it would be difficult for him to see her regularly. In reality, if she made some allegations against him (he has a conviction for assault, remember), it might be enough to make him give up any court application. Not saying that is morally right, but where one party has money and the other does not (and is not entitled to legal aid), what the law says and what happens in reality are two different things.

I also am willing to bet that Kate's parents have paid for Amelie's keep too.

Her clothes, shoes, everything she needed as a newborn, nursery.

Simon hasnt even maintained his child nor maintained Tom either.

Court would take a dim view of that. He has a habit of living off women with more than him.

I enjoyed this week's episode, it seems to be getting better.

Did anyone notice Kate's geometric necklace? Anyone know where it's from?

Yes the necklace was gorgeous 😍

finally caught up after being on holiday and read this and last dr f thread and all 1500 psts

so the pressie was simons speech, the same

how would gemma know he would say that

and was she mind fucking with lkate with same clthes/shoes setc as when kate said that to simn he looked puzzled

dont think she ran him over, just scared him

I hate Gemma now. I actually want to see her reap what she has sown, and end up with nothing.

I don't dislike Gemma. She was a woman scorned!

I have zero sympathy for Simon. I hope she does run him over. Could say it was suicide.

How could running someone over ever be seen as suicide? You can't run yourself over!

Simon is a cunt, he got what he deserved. I am shocked at all the Gemma hate!

Just caught up with ep4 - I thought that was the last one and got very irritated. We need to find out what Simon said to Tom to make him move out of his mum's house.

The whole Gemma telling Kate but was really anti-climactic- ooh I used to wear jeans and boots too, and I really like Jimmy Cliff! WTAF! Thought she'd have something more than that. Same when she dragged Kate's parents to the hotel for a big showdown, what was the point of all that?

I mean she could squash him and then tell the police she was just driving and he deliberately stepped out (because he was bereft at losing everything)

NamedyChangedy, Gemma was portrait in the film a bit like a psycho, a maniac.

I doubt the house is mortgaged. Kate's parents couldn't have got a mortgage and then put the house in Kate's name - the lender would not allow that, would it? And Kate couldn't have got a mortgage - no income (assuming she doesn't have massive assets generating enough income to get a mortgage - unlikely). So I think Kate must own the house outright.

Good post @NikiBabe.

It is unbelievable in this day and age how women still naturally blame the woman as unhinged.

I agree, she was getting on fine until he showed up and started gaslighting her. Not that I think anyone is covered in glory in this programme but she is responding to him rather than attacking first.

It doesn’t matter that he fucked her over first (they’re not kids!), she’s a hateful bitch who needs to get her comeuppance.

A few people on the thread from the first series said she deserved to have her head smashed into the patio door too.

I think he's a total headfuck, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (and I mean that in a lighthearted way). I think he got what he deserves. It's interesting how we all view it differently.

As I said I don't think anyone covers themselves in glory - I certainly wouldn't behave that way and you are right they aren't kids BUT I still think she is reacting - I didn't say she was right to do it. That man is not the just victim though, he gave as good as he got.