I''m finally divorced and all the legal stuff is behind me.
I''m as staggered now as I was at the beginning at how crazy the current system is. I started out in disbelief at how my child and money could be taken from me because my ex wanted to be with someone else.
My position was and is that if you want out of a marriage that is fine. However, if you do you should forfeit your right to have the children and the assets accrued during the marriage. You should also continue to financially support those children. (This clearly not to apply in cases where you leave because of violence or adultery).
I simply don''t buy the counter argument that children should stay with the parent who had primary responsibity for childcare. Kids seem to me to be able to adapt pretty quickly to changes in these kind of situations. (The one preference they always seem to have is a desire for parents to stick together no matter what).
I for one will be raisng this with my local MP etc and any other potential influencer I can think of. I was just wondering if anyone else had simiar views and wanted to do likewise?
Lots of people who have been through divorce/family
separation want to change the law(s) - some campaign to do so. Others just talk about it.
Are you suggesting that a parent should NOT financially support his/her children if the other parent has been violent towards him/her or had an affair? This would mean that children suffer in the face of financial hardship due the actions of their parents - is that fair? Do you not think that the children would have already suffered enough the breakdown of their parents'' relationship?
Hi - no quite the reverse. If someone wants out for these reasons then they absolutely do deserve all the assets and ongoing support. My argument is that if there are other reasons eg partner wanting a new life/partner then the rule should be they forfeit everything as described.
I can understand the way you feel but can I perhaps put another view.
I am old enough to remember the time when conduct was taken into account. What tended to happen is that every detail of a failed marriage was picked over like vultures picking over a carcase. You had the absurd situation of two people who used to love each other cross petitioning for divorce when it was as plain as a pikestaff that the marriage was dead The object of this charade, of course, was to maximise/minimise a divorce settlement. Nobody with experience of that wants to go back to it.
Then we had what was at the time the famous case of Wachtel, where Lord Denning said that conduct could be taken into account if it was '' obvious and gross '' which has appeared in the MCA 1973 section 25 (2) (g) to the point where it would be '' inequitable to disregard it ''.
The problem, as you seem to recognise, is that it''s all very well to talk about spouses who leave a marriage, but what about conduct that may have driven a man/woman into the arms of someone else ? Under the old law there was a term '' constructive desertion '' to describe conduct which drives the other spouse away. In such a case the partner whose conduct led the other to walk out who was regarded as being in desertion.
But I must say, the bar as been set so high that it''s almost correct to say that the word '' outrageous '' has been substituted for '' inequitable ''. Past contributors to this forum who were legally qualified used the expression '' the gasp factor '' and the idea which they were trying to convey was that, if conduct was going to be considered, it had to be such that the average person would be outraged. Certainly, the numbers of cases where conduct has been an issue could be counted on the fingers of one hand and have involved issues like infliction of serious boldily harm and conspiracy to murder.
Perhaps it''s time for the pendulum to swing back just a weeny bit.
It''s quite common for those who have been betrayed to feel like you do, and to make statements like the one above.
However, I don''t agree with you that one party should forfeit everything, often the "reason" for divorce doesn''t always reflect the true nature of the relationship breakdown. What you are proposing is that someone should remain in an unhappy and unhealthy relationship, otherwise if they leave they will lose absolutely everything.