Incorrect application of divorce law is leading to discrimination against women – research warns

[IwantToRetire]

Laws intended to ensure the fair sharing of finances following divorce are not being correctly applied, new research warns.

A landmark judgment by the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) is failing to help wives during divorce who have made compromises and taken on more caring responsibilities during the marriage, the study says.

https://news.exeter.ac.uk/faculty-of-humanities-arts-and-social-sciences/incorrect-application-of-divorce-law-is-leading-to-discrimination-against-women-research-warns/

Please note I dont really understand this. Have tried to understand.

However am posting in case it is of interest to others.

I think if you’re not understanding it, @IwantToRetire, it’s because it’s poorly written.

The landmark judgment itself isn’t ‘failing’ women, it is (as the article says right next to this strange error) the lower courts that apparently are failing women (as ever) who have made sacrifices.

The proposals to introduce financial reform when unmarried couples split up look even more dodgy on the back of this. If the concept of sacrifice/compensation is not being fairly applied after divorce, it certainly won’t be fairly applied for women in sequentially financially disadvantageous relationships that break down, where they’re barely hanging onto their home as it is.

I think what they are saying is that the Law Lords ruled that a divorcing couple should (generally) leave the marriage on equal financial footing.

The lower courts have taken this to mean split assets 50:50 so they are equal at the moment of separation.

But the original intention was wider than that, and meant for them to remain equal - or at least have the opportunity to do so - and the settlement should account for future loss of earnings, not only past loss. For example if a mother has lost out on 5 years of career progression because of maternity leave and taking on the childcare, the lower courts may make up the difference in pension earned during those years but fail to take account of the fact her career will remain 5 years behind where it 'should' have been.

So the original ruling was - in effect - 'work out 50:50, then if 1 partner has taken on more family responsibilities work out a fair and holistic compensation for that and add it to their share'. But the lower courts are only doing step 1.

Thanks for PP taking time to explain.

And really sad the announcement of this research doesn't make it clearer.

But hope it will help some women, or maybe their solicitors, to take a stand for their rights.

Not quite the same, but interesting parallels.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5564638-why-egypts-new-family-law-could-leave-women-without-rights-to-marital-wealth