A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Lines open: Monday to Friday 9am-5pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info

Do you need help sorting out a fair financial settlement?

Our consultant service offers expert advice and support to help you reach agreement on a fair financial settlement quickly, and for less than a quarter of the cost of using a traditional high street solicitor.


LC to tidy law on financial provision

  • dukey
  • dukey's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
08 Feb 12 #311065 by dukey
Reply from dukey
Sorry i meant there are mad ideas being talked about, not necessarily the one you quoted.

Still lets take a look at the quote.

Boy meets girl at the local chippy and end up sharing the last fish, boy looks at girl and thinks nice, girl looks back and thinks indeedy, before you know it they are spending nights watching pretty women and ghost, all the movies women make you watch :(, boy asks girl to move into his nice house, six months later its i love you will you marry me, girl says yes but only if you cut down on the golf and i decide what cloths you wear, boy says deal.

A year later the marriage is blessed with twins, boy meets another girl at the chippy and shares the last fish, all too soon boy does not want wife anymore he wants chip shop girl.

Divorce.

Would it be right that wife girl should leave the boys house with no claim? what about the kids?, some would say yes after all the boy owned the house before the first fish sharing! others would say no the children`s needs should come first!, the law says the fact that the boy ended the marriage is irrelevant but the law also says that the needs of children who have not attained the age of 18 should be the first consideration.

Personally i agree, the children are innocent, and parents should always be responsible for their needs.

By the way any of you naive people who think it gets cheaper once the kids leave school, FAIL as the lady Imo says, they get way more expensive.

So a starter for ten points what am i having for dinner, ill give you a clue, it once swam a lot.

  • maggie
  • maggie's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
08 Feb 12 #311066 by maggie
Reply from maggie
www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2012/02/what-role...mily-justice-review/
Marilyn Stowe writes "On the same day as the government’s response was released this week, I received an invitation from Law Commissioner Professor Elizabeth Cooke to join the advisory group of legal practitioners, academics and members of the judiciary who will be considering this subject. I was delighted to accept since I have long been interested in pre and post-nuptial agreements, together with the application of the law in disputes relating to matrimonial and non-matrimonial property. More importantly, throughout this blog, I have been been extremely fortunate to gather a great deal of information from readers, who have expressed varying and diverse opinions about the present state and operation of the law.
I am very grateful to all my readers because, if I can, I intend to make reference to what I have learned from you in my new position. Thanks to you all."


Are they going to rewrite the Ancillary Relief law in England and Wales?
Govt Response:
"The Law Commission is already taking forward a project to look at how provision might be made for pre-nuptial, postnuptial and Separation Agreements to be given legal effect, so as to provide couples with more control and certainty about how their assets are to be divided on divorce. Ministers have agreed that this project should be extended to include a limited reform on the substantive law on Financial Orders relating to needs and non-matrimonial property. The project will take around 18 months to complete. The Law Commission will then undertake a separate project to make recommendations for improving the enforcement of Financial Orders. These two projects together will improve the substantive law and make it easier to enforce Financial Orders once made by the courts."

  • dukey
  • dukey's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
08 Feb 12 #311089 by dukey
Reply from dukey
I very much doubt it Maggie, bold moves crop up from time to time, after the last lengthy consultation they changed the wording of the forms and decided the Petition should now be called divorce application, that Ancillary Relief should no be known as a financial order or remedy.

Were the changes worth the cost of the consultation?.

In 1989 they decided child custody should be known as residence, the term custody is still widely used even by none specialist family law solicitors oh and all the papers.

Do you remember the song nothing really changes.

  • maggie
  • maggie's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
08 Feb 12 #311094 by maggie
Reply from maggie
www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission/news/Pr...ancial_provision.htm

"The Commission will examine the extent to which one party should be required to meet the other''s needs after the relationship has ended."

Sounds quite radical?

  • dukey
  • dukey's Avatar
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
08 Feb 12 #311097 by dukey
Reply from dukey
It does and i`m sure an age will be spent consulting and a ton of money, will anything change much though, even if the politicians were to agree changes they have to get it passed the House of Lords first, and how will the judiciary react to any radical changes?.

The answer to the quiz question was fish by the way.

Can anyone see why i don`t do the wiki quiz..................

  • maggie
  • maggie's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
25 Feb 12 #314529 by maggie
Reply from maggie
This looks like something Wikivorcers should be able to contribute to?

www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2012/02/24/updati...better-define-needs/
...." So, I am interested to know: what do you think about this subject? What does “needs” mean in the context of a divorcing couple? How do you think “needs” should be further defined, and why?
I do hope you will contribute to this debate, one which is current and at the very heart of divorce law."


"The trick of course, is to get the “needs” figure agreed between the parties, but usually I have the feeling that courts may apply an unspoken cross-check. They ultimately order payment of a percentage of income that they believe in the round to be the right figure for one party to pay, and the other to receive. So, is a percentage award the right approach? Or is that too swingeing? The Child Support Agency (CSA) formula is similarly based on a percentage, and I have yet to meet a single client who believes it to be fair.

And then the million dollar question: for how long should spousal maintenance be paid? How long do “needs” last post-divorce? Many might argue that in certain circumstances they persist until death or remarriage. Others would suggest that it shouldn’t go past a few years, if at all.

Readers of this blog know that paying ongoing spousal maintenance, particularly without a cut-off point, seems to be one of the thorniest topics of all. It touches raw nerves and emotions for everyone involved. Those paying maintenance regard it as a penal form of taxation, which affects new relationships for evermore. And recipients regard tax-free maintenance as their right, earned for their contribution during the marriage and “much needed” income, without which they cannot manage.

So, I am interested to know: what do you think about this subject? What does “needs” mean in the context of a divorcing couple? How do you think “needs” should be further defined, and why?

I do hope you will contribute to this debate, one which is current and at the very heart of divorce law."

  • hawaythelads
  • hawaythelads's Avatar
  • User is blocked
  • User is blocked
More
25 Feb 12 #314535 by hawaythelads
Reply from hawaythelads
Do you think they might make me swap back my breville piggy toastie and george foreman grill for the free house I gave the ex harridan?............I''d be devastated :blink:
His Royal Hawayness :blink:

P.S. I''m glad that us Royalty and Upper classes are still generating millions of pounds for ourselves by debating a load of old bollox for how summmit is worded that''s all open to interpretation and can rack up a few more fees in court for all my friends from Eton on the bar in these times of austerity :P

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11