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.

It seems to refer one specific surgery(the vaginoplasty?) and it sounds like the woman wanted her share back during the financial settlement because he used joint money. He’s an absolute selfish prick , don’t get me wrong, but it’s not quite as OP’s title is making it sound.

She needs to appeal.

There will be some nuance missing, but yes he is a prick.

What difference does it make if it was a whim or not?
Also how and why would this be part of a financial settlement?
I am desperate for a passing divorce lawyer to explain this.

This is appalling. What change in law would be needed to prevent this happening again? Or is it always going to be down to the discretion of the judge?

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.

If you read the full article it makes for sense, and why this is nothing to do with the NHS.

This is about a couple who were / are wealthy and could go private.

Do read it, as without knowing the back story, some comments just aren't relevant.

I agree, what a disgusting comment.

i hope your treatment goes well

I do hope there are enough savings for her to go and get that Mummy Makeover and a lovely new set of Turkey teeth cus she will absolutely 'need' it due to mental health issues brought on by the divorce.

Wonder if the judge would be as supportive of that?

You know what?

That judge has now cemented in law that being trans is a mental illness which needs or requires medical intervention.

It is definitely not "optional" in any way.

That is very, very, very interesting.

The lie has taken one more step to self implosion.

I think it's appalling. If a husband wishes to divorce his wife & run off with a younger woman, can the wife demand she 'needs' cosmetic surgery to make herself look younger and a tunny tuck etc to feel more attractive after her body has changed due to childbirth? If she racks up 160K on procedures is that ok & he has to pay half?

There must be some way to introduce law stating that if a married person wishes to medically transition, their spouse is not beholden to fund ANY part of that.

Sounds like an TRA judge to me, trying to get more NHS funding for trans surgery.

Trans charities took a case to the ECHR (and won) that transpeople should NOT have to have any surgery, let alone genital surgery. (Most don't, and you don't have to have any surgery to get a GRC in the UK ,as the supreme court observed).

And if this judge says it is needed due to a medical condition (ie gender dysphoria in someone's mind )- then why would someone need physical surgery for a problem in their mind? Surely mental health support/ counselling would be more beneficial, than surgery that will leave lifelong medical problems...

You think it's an own goal? that could be helpful if it were.

The question is, is a judge qualified to make it a mental health issues, even in law?

Personally I don't think the ruling is correct, because the GRA allows:
a) men to transition without any expectation of surgery, and
b) the non transitioning spouse to object to a full GRC and exit the marriage.

To me that makes the intention of the GRA very clear. Transitioning takes place after the marriage has ended. I don't see how the judge reached his decision.

I would donate if she crowdfunded to raise the money to appeal!

I really hope JKR and the Sex Matters crew get involved with this. I don't think I've ever heard anything so disgusting and outrageous.

It might be an own goal; its possibly a step towards making surgery necessary for a full GRC, and for women to be unable to object to inclusion of any man with a full GRC in a single sex facility.

If she had those procedures while separated, but not divorced and used joint funds, it may very well be that a judge wouldn’t order her to pay it back, whether using the same reasoning , or something else. Which is what actually happened here.

@WhenYouSayNothingAtAll not she, he.

He has had or wants to have the money. Because once the money is in his bank account, who is to say he will go through with it?

If I was to be petty, perhaps the wife could say the money is to go into a trust account which he doesn’t have access to and only paid out to the surgeon etc once procedure is completed. And put a time limit on it.

BlueberryFlapjack · Yesterday 17:24

Sounds like a classic case of the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee and encouraging a fight. Assets of £3m and they spent £1m on legal fees. It’s a ridiculous ruling, but she would’ve been much better off not fighting this.

It's travesty, but I agree with you. She'd have been £400,000 better off now. I can't believe that the judge called elective surgery a necessity, it's bonkers.

As to the lie that he can't afford child support... a million in the bank and 28 grand on fripperies in a few short months - we all know what he is.

It is very confusing, and we don't have all the details - the fact that he had the surgery done privately is interesting because if he had gone to the NHS with 'gender dysphoria', he would have been offered things like counselling, therapy, hormone treatment and voice-coaching before surgery was considered.

I'm guessing that if you access surgery privately, they do exactly what you pay them to do without further ado.

So he possibly could have mitigated the costs of his transition, but chose the most expensive option, which his ex-wife has to share because the money was in a joint account and they were not yet legally divorced.

I can see him getting away with it if they were not actually divorced at the time😠

Read to post i was replying to. It in involved a hypothetical situation of a husband leaving a wife , and the wife spending money from the joint account while separated but not divorced. Hence the she.

In this case, the surgery is already done. It is already paid for , from joint funds. From the sounds of it, the wife wanted that money back, as part of the divorce settlement. The judge said no. Which , whether you agree or not, is a completely different scenario .

Disgraceful!

This is another aspect that is bothering me.

IANAL, but - from a position of ignorance - I am convinced that the judge has made an error in law, rather than just following legal reasoning to an unpalatable conclusion.

How on earth have they both spunked so much money on legal fees?

Like seriously.

He's a dead beat dad who hates his ex wife and used the system to effectively punish her.

Firstly for claiming he has no money to pay maintenance for his own kids when he can afford to spunk so much money on legal fees and clothes. (Note it doesn't sound like he's got a 50:50 arrangement does he? No 'living like a woman' in terms of who does the lions share of the child rearing.)

Secondly he's not remotely interested in his wife's mental health. She's supposed to be super interested in her to ensure it's ok. The judge even acknowledges this. The reason he's making her pay for the surgery is partly about getting revenge on her for ending the marriage. It's vindictive. He could just say "fine fair enough".

Given that elements of coercive control are financial abuse, emotional abuse and using the system against a victim it's a case that highlights the legal systems inability to acknowledge and recognise this.

Any former partner who has assets of over £1million who claims they can't afford maintenance for their own kids, is a liar and abusive. It doesn't matter what their gender identity is.

My thoughts were the same when I read this appalling “ judgement “ and of course it’s fucking Brighton…🤬

I've just read a thread on TwiX which confirms what a pp said about this being an "add back" application by the wife, and that such appeals nearly always fail.
However, since the right to use matrimonial funds is based on a "need", I think it confirms that the judge has made an error, because this was not a need.
Gender dysphoria is not a medical condition any more.
Not all men with gender dysphoria want vaginoplasty ops. At the very most, you can say that some men choose vaginoplasty, the vast majority do not.

She's probably exhausted her funds and personal resources but I would love this woman to appeal.

https://x.com/anyabike/status/1944359518562857051