Divorcing a criminal

Apologies for long post. Friend A is thinking of divorcing spouse B. Long history of incompatibility & major lack of domestic sharing. In the last few years spouse B has been convicted of major theft and has had to pay back a large amount of money. B has always been the far higher earner and is continuing to hold purse strings and threaten A. A is struggling, particularly as B isn''t assisting with costs of home and child either. During court proceedings B was violent to A but A chose to overlook it for the sake of child C (ten). Child would like equal time with each parent if split occurs.
Question: would the financial implications of the theft, or the conviction itself assist A in receiving a fairer settlement during divorce? Lawyer just saying 70/30 shares to whoever has the son in residence, so A currently frightened to proceed in case of penury. Thanks very much

I see you haven''t had a reply, so I will try.

By the way, it''s not what I would call a long post.

Generally conduct is ignored in arriving at a financial settlement. For conduct to matter it would either have to be outrageous or else reflect on the financial position of the parties, for example if one spouse is a compulsive gambler/drunk/drug addict and dissipates all the family cash in fuelling his/her addiction.

The fact that your husband has been convicted of fraud obviously reflects on his credibility.

Only your friend can assess the risk of violence but it is something that she must consider with her solicitor.

It means she will have to scrutinise his financial statement with the greatest of care.

There is also another issue, namely that there is grave doubt about about whether he would honour a Court order and even at this early stage you need to give consideration to how any order might be enforced in the case of default. It may be advantageous to go for a high capital settlement.

And last but not least, you need to consider the possibility of non-molestation orders, injunctions, or occupation orders, even now.

LMM

Thanks for this. Lawyer advises that B, being out of work because of the theft and thus now the lower earner and also at home more of the time than A is in pole position for a) maintenance and b) custody of child. Advises A to go for 30%, which would mean he couldn''t buy a house for himself. Think they will continue to live unhappily together to keep roof over head. Feels a very unfair system. Thanks for answering this complex one.