Its too late for me, but I can only hope that there is light at the tunnel for short childless marriages. I had two properties prior to marriage (one small one which I rent out) and prior to meeting my ex wife.
My marriage lasted 18 month, my wfe contributed very little to the outgoings and then ''fell in love'' with a work colleague (it didnt last...). By the time we divorced my wife was on £50k. I earn slightly more. She refused mediation and took me to court asking for the sale of the matrimonial home so she could buy herself a 2 bed/2 bath luxury flat - she even put a price on it! Her solicitor said it was a ''needs based case'' I say it was a ''set up'' case. Fortunately, I just ended up giving her a lump sum by ''negotiation'' at the first appointment but it is an experience I am in no hurry to repeat.
Why, I ask, did my 28 year old ex who is in a more secure job than me, have to somehow be compensated because she chose to leave? The problem with the law as it stands at the moment is that many men my age (early 30''s) and beyond who have worked hard and attained a reasonable standard of living are reluctant to marry/co-habit because, should the relationship end - and several of my male friends and colleagues have had this happen to them - then the woman, even though she is childless, can walk away far better off than she was when she entered the relationship/marriage. It''s a gold-digger''s charter.
Drifting in and out of consciousness on this: lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/marit...perty-agreements.htm
"It has now been agreed with the Ministry of Justice that the scope of the project will be extended to include a targeted review of two aspects of financial provision on divorce and the dissolution of a civil partnership.
We will be reviewing the law relating to needs,
examining the extent to which one spouse or civil partner should be required to meet the other''s needs following divorce or dissolution......"
Read this appeal for information lately: www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed99646
"Because of the difficulty of obtaining materials from first instance courts,..."
ie please can someone tell us what''s going on ?
Does this demonstrate that no-one in charge has a general overview/any information at all about what happens at first instance/District Judge level on any issue -non-marital property /joint lives spousal maintenance/pension sharing let alone what happens about the much more serious issue of relocation ? .... or is it a particular problem about confidentiality with cases involving children?
How does anyone know what''s "within the normal parameters"
Do the District Judges get together to compare family court notes/rules of engagement?
PS - looked up the FPR quoted: [better late than never??]
the information required for the research on child relocation cases is specially protected so releasing it has to be specifically permitted for that purpose -
I just wonder how much information the Law Commission will have on run of the mill financial provision on divorce cases when it reviews the "law relating to needs".
I hope they will look carefully at the needs of older divorcers on the brink of retirement.