I agree most mothers do not have the luxury of staying home full time, but I worked part time to bring up my kids and took a step down in my career to do so. This would have meant no problems for me until stbx walked out for someone else. However he did and as I cannot earn now what I would have done I think it only fair he pays towards the lifestyle I once had. Many people will disagree but I did not ask him to leave and put me in a very poor financial situation.
The fact I offered for him to work part time and me full because I earn''t more was dismissed out of hand. Wonder why?
Both parties agree that one will stay at home and look after the children.
Many feel the financial sacrifice is worth it.
So the finances post separation must reflect this joint decision. It''s about both parties taking responsibility for the actions they have mutually agreed upon in the marriage.
I don''t think this article really majors on this particular point, I think it is about legal fees really. A few fee earners have done very nicely out of these two. How sad for them and their childrens futures.
Well it just about sums up how I feel about solicitors (please excuse me the decent solicitors who contribute to this site and the decent solicitors that have represented me in the past and are representing others now!!)
Anyway just goes to show what litigation specialists can do to one another. I personally am not at all surprised as in my own personal view too many lawyers who are litigation specialists are specialists in financial terrorism.
What a pair of money grabbing idiots - I am trying to hold back. A huge income by any standards, a massive house in a privileged part of the country and three children all used to going to private school and look what they have collectively done.
The only good thing I can see is that a pair of rich and spiteful litigators have lined the pockets of family lawyers.
What is wrong though is that the tax payer has had to fund all the court hearings which I have no doubt was numerous.
I''m off now to have a good mutter to myself about litigation lawyers etc blar blar
Well at least VAT means that the tax payer gets something back for all the court time (mutter mutter mutter).
I do think it is about time that civil lawyers started advising their clients in the same principled way that criminal lawyers advise their clients.
Criminal lawyers from what I see do not attempt to say their client is innocent when the charge shows they are guilty, but they do attempt to advise their clients on their rights to silence and what sort of charge or prison sentence they might get and how to reduce it to a minimum and also how to revent any victim being exposed yet again to the abuse of having to attend court (you don''t have those in civil courts - but sometimes it feels like it if you are being misrepresented by a civil lawyer in court and do not realise you can say "objection" a trust lawyer asked me why I hadn''t stood up and said "objection" during one hearing I attended and I told him it was because I didn''t realise I could - you do feel if you are misrepresented that you have no rights to speak at all and yet anything is said in court by a solicitor or barrister is supposed to be their clients instructions or their belief).
I just see so much that is done in civil courts right now as a type of pointless war which is presumably why bitter divorces are described as warring ex-s.
Personally I have never wanted a war but been consistantly caught up in the cross fire.
I do think also that when a case has been properly adjudicated with a fine tooth comb in the example that you post, that Judges should be braver in judicial discretion to put a stop to endless appeals and endless cross petitions and filings.