Court evidence non supply

I suspect you and I fundamentally agree with each other; I agree that if we are to live in peace in society we must have laws and they should only be changed in a lawful manner but...

As I understand it there are two ways to change the law: 1. putting a bill, or an amendment to a bill, through Parliament 2. challenging the law through the courts. I'm not brave enough to disobey a judge or a court order to produce evidence of my income but I'd applaud and support anyone who did because ultimately their actions may lead to a change in a law I believe to be unfair.

As for your example, you're right - if the ex who married a rich person still claimed 50% of the family home and left their first partner in a grave situation then it would be very, very unfair but as I see it you can't make laws on the basis of individual cases; I can think of reasons why it could be unfair to take a partner's income into account and I bet there are people on this site who could give examples from their personal circumstances that are as unfair as your example.

Laws have to be generic and I just think someone needs to work out a fairer formula than there is at present. Then we'd both be happy!

Ephelia

QED

BVG,

You need to change your signature to this:

www.wikivorce.com/divorce/Divorce-Blogs/8438-BVG/

if you want people to be able to click to yoru blog

I am not sure whether I agree that it can be fair at all to take a partner's income into account - bear in mind I am looking at this from the perspective of the partner!

But, if you marry someone and you collect assets of, say £100k, during the marriage, then surely that is what should be split fairly? Why should one side be penalised becuase they are deemed to have found a "higher source of income" that is not their own? They should still be entitled to whatever percentage of the marital pot is deemed fair.

Also, if someone has historically only earned £10k a year throughout their life, then they always will have been on the breadline, why should their standard of living be given a boost becuase of a new partner?

Having said that, I don't believe that people should be put in a sticky financial situation becuase of a divorce, but they are all free to find their own new partner, and if instead they choose to struggle for martyrdom (or whatever reason) by living on a single income, then that is their choice, and noone else should be penalised because of it.

If you award "bonuses" from the pot to those who would otherwise struggle, then they have no incentive to better themselves.

People remain single for all sorts of reasons and I don't think an increase in income is a good reason to find their own new partner.

No doubt there are problems within the system, but it's a very sticky wicket when people decide they are right not to comply with the requirements of the courts. People need to work within the system the best they can.

"People remain single for all sorts of reasons and I don't think an increase in income is a good reason to find their own new partner."

I just think it is a crying shame that some people decide to use the new relationships of others to make financial gain though - how is it different?

I am not a new partner (though I used to be one) and I agree with Juttabeck on this. That someone else is sharing the bills should be taken into account, but nothing else beyond the needs of any children. Suppose the person without a new partner finds someone rich soon after the settlement? Is that fair? What is being split is the proceeds (or debts) of the marriage, and, once the children are taken into account, that is really the only thing that matters. Of course you are nearer that situation in Scotland as regards pensions than we are in England.

I agree with Fiona that it is foolish to ignore court requirements, though.

Sadie