A divorcee has been forced by a judge to pay half for her ex-husband’s trans surgery.

[TheywontletmehavethenameIwant]

I thought I link to this, it's on MSN.

"The mother argued that it was unfair that she had to stump up £80,000 for the procedure when the decision to transition had led to the breakdown of her marriage.
But in what is believed to be the first case of its kind, the judge said that the surgery was a “need”, not a “whim”, and therefore it was “reasonable” for the cost to be met out of their joint funds."

Divorcee forced to pay half of ex-husband’s trans surgery in legal first

"She was “deeply shocked” when her husband “stated that she intended to live her new life as a lesbian woman” and that is when she began divorce proceedings.

The husband responded: “You marry a trans person. You live with a trans person. You benefit from a trans person. They are suicidal and you support them.”

Male privilege write large, and another activist judge, from Brighton, of course.

Q: did they divorce before he medically transitioned or after?

I'm just saying if if was before they divorced then yes, their jount money and assets would be used to pay for the surgery. If it was after then I wonder what the financial settlement says, if they agreed one.

Fucking hell So she has to pay for that while hundeds of thousands of men are getting away with not paying any child support Hope MSM covers this so the whole country knows what an arsehole that judge is

Do women in divorce cases generally get their husbands to pay half the cost of extreme plastic surgery because of their 'deep psychological need' to look younger and prettier?

It's always bloody Brighton!

“the lack of empathy” for the ex-wife “is striking

Not surprised at all that he sounds like a narcissist. This case is ridiculous. I feel sorry for the wife

The judge is wrong. the surgery is not required it is wanted.

I would say I suddenly wanted a full body makeover via surgery, after bearing his children. Surely thats even more valid?

I’m deeply thankful that I don’t live in Brighton any more.

However, Western Australia is so far at the end of the line (birth certificate alterations legislated only a year ago), this may still be ahead of us.

Can she appeal?
If so, does she know about JKR's court-cases fund, I wonder? Because (unless there are particular circumstances we don't know about), this sounds like a bad precedent that ought to be nipped in the bud.

During their separation, the husband, who has retrained as a massage therapist and Reiki practitioner, claimed he could not afford to pay the court-ordered maintenance to his wife and children but splashed £14,000 on an Amex card in one month “mainly on clothing, nails, jewellery and restaurants”, got £13,000 worth of tattoos in six months and racked up a £1,000 Milan restaurant bill.

But the husband, who says his wife always knew he was trans, said that it should be “treated in the way of any other medical costs which would ordinarily be met from the joint assets”.

In other words, the husband who says his wife always knew he was a man and therefore capable of behaving like a b@stard and getting away with it. protected by law.

Oh FFS 🤦‍♀️ who is the judge here? They should be barred from sitting

Hell would freeze over before I would pay for this. They would have to jail me but I wouldn't do it no matter what.

I hope she appeals the decision as it's bonkers.

Looks like they are going through/arguing about their spends between separation and divorce. Theres a lesson about sorting that out quickly.

If the surgery was essential it'd be on the NHS.

This. A million times this.

Hmm, they are calling it a 'legal first' like it's some achievement!

Is this surgery a castration? I think some soon to be ex wives might find consolation in that. Interesting precedent to set however, that funding surgery for psychological reasons is a 'need'.

That would piss me right off. I'm thrilled I don't live near Brighton anymore, it was a whole city full of morons like this. The most unpleasant place I've ever lived in.

This falls into the 'You Couldn't Make It Up' category, and I expected it to be a dubious story from some gossip rag in the US.
Silly me. It was Brighton, and not even Brighton, Michigan🙄

I take the point that whether the expense was incurred before or after the divorce is significant, and might explain the decision, though it would also depend on the diagnosis of gender dysphoria which the judge thinks made it necessary surgery and not a whim.

Late onset gender dysphoria.. very late onset gender dysphoria, at age 58😒

I hope this is revisited - though the law being an ass, there might be no way around it legally, despite appearing obviously unfair to non-legal observers.

Please god let the wife appeal this abomin3of the law.

If the surgery was genuinely necessary then it would be provided to him for free, on the NHS, neither of them should have to pay, if it is a genuine necessity.

I'm finding this difficult to understand. Are they in the UK? People don't usually have medical bills/costs so how can it be normal for them to be funded jointly? If it was a need, wouldn't be on the NHS? What did the husband's GP say? Very confusing.

This makes me so angry, it's an absolute travesty. I would hope this is the sort of thing that JKR's fighting fund would help with if necessary.

Whether it was incurred before the divorce or not, this expense is not necessary.
IANAL but I thought you couldn't be liable for your spouse's debts?
Grovelling apologies because I can't be arsed to read the article, but is the judge saying that the wife had no say in it, might have opposed it but she's got to pay half anyway? I can't see how that can be right. The money married couples earn is joint money (I'm told) but I can't believe you don't have to agree how it's spent.
Can someone explain the legal reasoning?

How can we support this woman and her children and who do we complain to? This cannot stand.