Divorce, sexism & gold-digging

[LiquidEyes]

Let's go back to your statement:

 

QUOTE

I think that the money awarded to her is in conjunction with what she would have got, spent, been given, had the marriage lasted.

 

You are effectively claiming that, because she got a certain amount of money DURING the marriage, she should therefore get some money AFTER the marriage.

 

Why?

[Lisa]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 10 2004, 14:07)

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 10 2004, 13:30) QUOTE It's all very well quoting the marriage vows, but they have BOTH broken the marriage vow by splitting up. Why should the richer party be penalised more than the poorer party? How can you say that ... you don't know how or why the marriage split. I'm not talking about the reasons for their divorce. They have *agreed* to divorce. Ergo they have both agreed to terminate the marriage and all associated vows. Agreed?   I repeat: why should the richer party be penalised? Im not arguing here with you Andy, but how do we know they agreed, but I take it they did, due to the quickie divorce ref, divorces are not always as smooth run as each partner saying ok.   For example, I wanted to divorce my X husband, on reasonable grounds, but he didnt want to divorce me, I had grounds to get it over & done within 4 months or so, but because he decided, he wanted to remain married, the arsehole, he didnt sign the papers, then i had to get a warrent type thing & a bailif to place papers on him, twice , which he eventually signed, because he had too, but by this time, two years had passed & i was entitled by law to one anyway

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 10 2004, 14:32)

Please dont patronise me .. i'm full aware of what the word 'analogy' means thank you.

In that case, I can only presume you are deliberately side-tracking the debate from the main issue?

 

You still haven't answered my question. Why should the poorer party profit?

 

Don't try to tell me that this woman is not profiting from the divorce. Go back to the article if you are in any doubt.

[LiquidEyes]

Okay I take your point about 'agreeing' to the divorce. Fair comment. However that doesn't change my point about the richer party being penalised.

 

Again, you are side-tracking the argument.

[Dawn]

I repeat ... because they chose for her to give up her career to bring up their children, or put it another way, her career is bringing up their children with him paying her a wage, she is still doing this so is entitled to a wage.

 

 

If she was awarded £2000 a month would you still think that was wrong.

[Dawn]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 10 2004, 14:36)

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 10 2004, 14:32) Please dont patronise me .. i'm full aware of what the word 'analogy' means thank you. In that case, I can only presume you are deliberately side-tracking the debate from the main issue?   You still haven't answered my question. Why should the poorer party profit?   Don't try to tell me that this woman is not profiting from the divorce. Go back to the article if you are in any doubt. Your telling me to read the article.   You don't know what she did in that marriage, she could have been the brains behind investments, which is how 'they' accumalated far more than his wages would of, more than likely it was a joint partnership, but in his name, no one knows, you cant berate this woman for what a judge has awarded her.   How can you say she is profiting from this, perhaps she is going to have far less than if he'd stayed married to her.

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 10 2004, 14:47)

perhaps she is going to have far less than if he'd stayed married to her.

So she should!

 

Now they are divorced, why should she stay minted? Just because she's "used to it"? (!) What kind of an argument is that?

 

You seem to be suggesting that she is entitled to have all the benefits of still being married to him (i.e. the kids, plus loads of dosh) but without all the hassle (i.e. actually being married to him!)

 

You think she should have the right to have her cake and eat it? You still haven't given one good reason why a person's situation WITHIN marriage should have any bearing on their situation AFTER divorce.

 

She may have helped him with his career in various intangible ways, but unless he was paying her a wage to be his manager/agent/whatever, she would be clutching at straws to quantify the value of her contribution in monetary terms.

 

The controversy of this case relates in particular to the fact she (for example) "rescued his career" by helping him out of alcoholism, which sets a very dangerous legal precedent, as I have already argued, and nobody has come up with a satisfactory counter-argument.

 

As I have said: if I save my wife from being knocked down by a bus, does this mean I'm entitled to a portion of her future earnings? Does it bollocks.

 

It is your DUTY to help your partner if you love them. But retrospectively trying to claim entitlement to money for it is treading on very dodgy ground.

 

I'm trying to avoid dwelling on this particular case, because as you rightly say we don't know all the details. But the fact remains, in a typical divorce situation, an arbitrary amount of the richer party's money is given to the poorer party. Why should this be so?

[Guest]

In summary ?

 

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 10 2004, 14:47)

you cant berate this woman for what a judge has awarded her.

Unless there is some major factor that has not been reported by the papers (e.g. he actually agreed to pay her a wage to be his agent) then I would berate both the woman and the judge. More to the point, it seems a terrible reflection on our legal system and dated divorce laws.

[Aaron]

in summary : its a complex leagel mine field, and one that cant be resolved in this thread. Maybe the two of you should agree to disagree on this one

[Guest]

QUOTE (Aaron @ Jul 10 2004, 15:28)

in summary : its a complex leagel mine field, and one that cant be resolved in this thread.  Maybe the two of you should agree to disagree on this one

Hello Aaron.

 

Thank you for that.

 

Have you posted my CD ?

[squeakage]

I think it shud continue!

 

really interesting

 

andy has made some good points

[Guest]

THREAD MADE STICKY.

[Aaron]

QUOTE (Maria @ Jul 10 2004, 15:28)

QUOTE (Aaron @ Jul 10 2004, 15:28) in summary : its a complex leagel mine field, and one that cant be resolved in this thread.  Maybe the two of you should agree to disagree on this one Hello Aaron.   Thank you for that.   Have you posted my CD ? I believe its being kicked around a royal mail sorting office as we speak!

[Guest]