Changing the Law?

Tim, I remember posting almost the same post as you.
I owned my house for 20 years.
Met my ex, she moved in, we had two kids.
Although I didnt realise it at the time, she is one of those that just wanted two kids and as much money as she could get from a marriage. The sacrifice of going through the facarde was worth it.
After being with me for less than 6 years in the house, She ejected me and kept over 70% of the pot. Equity in the house was £100K plus all the savings, money she had squirelled for years and two kids, whom I see once a fortnight.
What was I doing? being a father, husband, dedicating myself to the house and bringing home the bacon and looking after the family.
I had the same thoughts as you.
Some investigation as to whom is destroying the family.
Its too fraut with corruption.
What happened to me was human devastation. No wonder there is suicide!

Hi Charles

Losing your house and savings equivalent to stoning? Not sure I could agree though I''ve never actually seen a stoning.

You still get to see the kids - just don''t have the right to take responsibility. You continue to be able to work - life continues

Many people in the current system become financially screwed - I''m just proposing a more just division.

Hi Bobbingalong

Sorry to hear that. As a matter of interest did you take this up with your MP or anyone else?

Hi Downland

Not sure I understand - you say physiological abuse - what do you mean by that?

Tim, link to explanation:

divorcesupport.about.com/od/abusiverelat.../emotional_abuse.htm

tim waits wrote:

Hi Charles

Losing your house and savings equivalent to stoning? Not sure I could agree though I''ve never actually seen a stoning.

What I actually said was "What you propose is a less harsh system of stoning adulterers to death.". This differs as stoning to death is clearly wrong in our culture whereas you are saying that adultery is meritorious of some punitive response.

You still get to see the kids - just don''t have the right to take responsibility.

You say that you still get to see the kids but how does that work if you have no responsibility. Responsibility equals a right to be heard and a right to make decisions. If responsibility is removed the parent with care has carte blanche on contact arrangements *if* they choose to offer any such arrangements.

Many people in the current system become financially screwed - I''m just proposing a more just division.

What you believe is ''just'' does not equal justice I''m afraid.

As society evolves acceptance increases but at the expense of traditions. One of those traditions is marriage which holds a fraction of the value that it once did.

Cohabitation and children out of wedlock is accepted whereas, in my living memory (I''m in my 30s), was pilloried. It also transpires that there were many people who were in destructive relationships but were afraid to get out as divorcees were publicly shamed - even those who were not at fault.

The penalty for adultery is in the form of an adverse costs order in the petitioner''s favour. It amounts to as little as £1000.

The penalty that you advocate is financial ruin and removal of responsibility for children. Leaving financial issues aside how can this be fair on the children?

The solution you prescribe is not appropriate as you stand too close to the issue. If a friend of a member of your family committed adultery and suffered the punishment what would happen if you were in business with them or owned property with them? The ramifications are far-reaching.

You have also failed to address the issue of proof of adultery. It would be the work of a moment to ''fit someone up'' by creating a fictitious event and pay off a witness. The matter would have to be decided by trial similar to that in a crown court. How much harm would that do?

I''ve said enough about this now. There was no intention to persecute you for your views but I, and others, merely offer our own views for other forum readers. A worthy debate though!

Charles

Hi Charles,

I guess we are not going to agree on this. but for the record.

Children should still get the same contact as the non-resident parent gets now. They would have the right to move in with whichever parent they want to at a reasonable level of maturity. So no real difference to the existing system.

I think your hypothetical example is a good one. If a friend of mine committed adultery in a marriage I would expect him to be kicked out by his wife (if she wants), she should keep the children, the house and the other financial assets accrued in the marriage. He has broken his commitment to the marriage and has to pay a heavy penalty for that. Moreover, the wife should have everything available required to rebuild her and her children''s life. The husband would continue to see the kids and decide on their schooling etc in much the same way as now.

I think your point about social mores changing is also spot on (I wouldn''t use the word evolution though), but I would argue in the opposite direction. My strong hunch is that marriage is slowly being recognised by society as being under threat - the statistics speak for themselves - and that radical change is the only way to address this threat. I can understand that this will be strongly resisted in many quarters, not least of which the legal sector.