You are saying it''s not about blame but then in the next breath, you are saying that if a person breaks their wedding vows, then they must take full responsibility for that and pay the price?
Have you thought you for a minute that in some cases it is NOT the fault of the person that has left the marriage? That they have made the brave decision to leave because they are not happy for whatever reason?
Would you rather then that people stay together even though they are desperately unhappy? That''s not healthy for anyone.
Kids are resilient.They would rather see their parents happy, even though that means they are apart rather than remain in a destructive relationship which effects the whole family?
Your suggestion that the parent that has been left gets full residency
of the children is ludicrous ! Take it from me that idea has more holes in it than a seive.
As I''ve said before Tim, life isn''t fair and none of us know what the future holds.
Far better to have a bad day as a single person, than have a good day in a bad relationship.
Marriage is a contract.
The most powerful financial contractual obligation you will ever undertake.
The full force of the law is used when a divorce occurs over the financial settlement.
However with any other financial contract there are clauses that say well if they break this contract they forfeit financially.
The marriage contact
in England is devoid of the basic human right.
Your Royal Hawayness Do you Take the ex Harridan to be your lawful wedded wife.
Give her all your worldly goods?(That part applies in law)
Forsaking all others to death you do part (that part in any other financial contract would indeed be a clause that meant the conditions of the contract had been broken)The person breaking that contract would be penalised financially and certainly not gain financially.
Unfortunately in my case scenario the ex harridan fecked one bloke senseless.Used the threats of anti molestation laws to get me out the marital and home.And moved another bloke (not the first one she was fecking) into the family home 3 months later.
2 kids residency
her never done a stroke of work other than 2 day week part time and manged to feck a bloke from there great.
She gets the kids.
The financial settlement £375000 house equity.
Ex Harridan gets £282500.
His Royal Hawayness gets £92500
Does that sound
or more importantly Legal (Bearing in mind a marriage contract is actually enforced by Uk law and you can be imprisoned if you don''t pay what decision a court can impose on division of assets)
c)OUT OF MY PALTRY £92500 i AM THEN LEGALLY OBLIGED TO PAY HER A FURTHER £4800 A YEAR CHILD MAINTENANCE FOR A FURTHER 10 YEARS.After our consent order
Making my split £44500.
In the meantime the ex harridan picks up another load of free money from the govt as a "Single Parent"
Now wiki put that scenario in front of the next Divorce minister and ask them is that legal?
Because that seems like the best con job in the history of mankind to me.
You get rewarded because you feck some other bloke whilst married with a £327000 payout and the innocent party who was sitting at home with the kids when you was out committing adultery
gets to keep £44500 of his own money.Because I was the only fecker earning it.
NO I HEAR YOU SAY THAT''S NOT LEGAL.
And I guarantee you some wxnky politician or that archaic old bird looking into divorce reform will say I can''t comment on specific cases.
That''s why a no blame divorce law is a fecking ass.
But you have to have a no blame divorce law for ancillary relief
as how would you ever prove the guilt.Nightmare.
So the only fair scenario would be like the Scots 50/50 straight down the middle.But what about kids?
Is it fair that The wife with two kids has the same money as the dad on his own?
The woman ain''t never gonna not get awarded custody
of the kids with all the pc barking laws that are passed these days the one of women give birth and look after the kids despite feminism being around 50 odd years now that rule has been around since the creeping out of the swamp.Or since God made Adam and Eve if you''re of a creationist persuasion.
So any Dads out there unless you have the barking maddest of women as exes you''ve got slim pickings on that one.
English and Welsh law is all meant to be equal sex and they''ll never admit it but it ain''t.
SO THAT''S WHY IN ALL SERIOUSNESS TO ALL THE BLOKES OUT THERE I SCREAM DON''T EVER GET MARRIED.
I''m never happy when people say I''ve got married again I look at the bloke and think you fecking mug.
Because sure as feck the kids will never be yours(unless you really have married one that''s more bonkers than the average bear)
So your money might as well be.
Protect your rights as an individual in law.
Y''all thought I never put much thought into this subject.
All the best
Breaking a rule is not about blaming anyone - it is a dispassionate statement of fact like you broke the speed limit, or stole my money.
As I said I don''t believe in apportioning blame here. If somebody leaves it may be brave it may be selfish - who knows what the situation is. I don''t believe it is up to the law to micro-manage relationships. You can only marry as an adult so should be prepared to accept that happiness is not guaranteed over a 50 year period. Happily ever after is just that a fairy story. I and many others believe marriage is much more complex, difficult and challenging. If you don''t think you can cope with that - don''t get married.
Why is the residency
issue flawed? As I said before I would give the remaining parent the right but not the obligation to keep the kids and let them decide when they are old enough. In my case and others I''ve seen young and mature kids will cope with this, as long as they have clarity.
It''s importent to understand that the law as it stands gives the rights to the children, they are after all the innocents when parents break up, the law is also very child centred, some lawyers complained during the Norgrove report it was too focused on the children, not sure I agree with that, either way it''s quite simple, kids have the right to see both parents, which is right, unless of course they are at risk or will not be cared for as they should be.
There are many problems with the law as it stands, any many people work tirelessly to lobby and correct, or make more fair I should say, often these are men who have little contact
with their own children, so who can blame them, often the real problem is not the law, not the judge, it''s the parents who will often not be honest, tell lies even to use the children as a weapon, a stick to beat the father (most of the time).
The law with evolve, improve hopefully, but the law will never intend to punish children for actions of their parents, it can inadvertently by depriving a child of a parent, but only when court are presented with a reason to do so, usually in the short term.
I''ve had a chance to look at this now and to be frank, it is difficult for me to comment on this kind of behaviour as I''ve never come across it first hand. It does seem pretty awful and I have no idea how common it is.
For what it''s worth my only concern would be to make sure there is a very thick line between behaviour which is intended to cause significant distress, such as some of the behaviour in this article and behavior which is simply a reflection of peoples character.
I certainly know couples where one or other side can be bossy, boorish, argumentative, sarcastic etc. I guess we are all guilty of these characteristics to greater or lesser degrees and dealing with it is simply a part and parcel of adult relationships - and in my opinion not a justifiable reason for divorce.
How you differentiate the cases where there is clearly intent to cause significant distress and those that aren''t,in a legal context, - I am not really sure. But maybe others have some ideas?
Trouble is Tim, in a relationship like that you actually doubt your own judgement. I have said elsewhere here that it was only checking out an article flagged up by a very brave friend (most people stay out of it don''t they) that really rubbed my nose into the reality of my situation.
Your word against your partner''s word is all there is. Often the other party doesn''t even acknowlege that there is a problem, as it is always ''someone else''s fault'', never their own. Criticism is not accepted or acceptable to them. (And yes, we all dislike criticsm but dont ostracise the person we live with for days on end becuase they expressed an opnion of our behaviour.)
So this situtation is one of the - now what do we used now instead of the term ''shades of grey'' - in a world you would like to make black and white.
What is the saying: ''Walk a mile in my shoes before you judge me .....'' on my reasons for leaving my marriage.