The two nastiest pieces of anti-male legislation in the UK are the child support laws (see first article) and the DIVORCE laws. They are soon to be joined by a third – the co-habitation rules.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6083814.stm
The expert divorce lawyer in this article states – “A rich man in my view should not marry a poor woman. If he does, then he must have a pre-nuptial agreement.”
In the UK, it still makes a difference whether couples are married or not. The rules on inheritance are also different with or without the marriage contract. Similarly the acquisition of parental responsibility depends on whether you are married or not.
The feminists view marriage as a trap for women and argue that women suffer financially more than men. This is (as usual) complete nonsense!
http://www.fmwf.com/columnHelen.php?id=290&cat=33
Needless to say they compare the financial position of the woman in the marriage with that after the divorce. the correct comparison is between her position BEFORE the marriage and AFTER the divorce – then overwhelmingly women are the big winners and men the big losers.
1) Divorce
The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 now covers the divorce. The previous similar law (Divorce Reform Act 1969) came into law in 1970. Since this was introduced, the number of divorces has rocketed. Every year in the UK we have 250,000 marriages and 150,000 divorces, 70% started by women. The risk of divorce is around 40% for first marriages and over 50 for second and subsequent marriages.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS…set.asp?More=Y
Prior to these laws it was necessary to prove ‘fault’. Now it does not matter who broke up the marriage, the result is the same. It is only rarely that ‘conduct’ affects the division of the assets – and it is normally conduct in the proceedings, rather than conduct in the marriage itself that matters. This means that a woman can sleep with the entire England football team and she will still get the same fianncial share of the family assets as if he was the person who was responsible for the ending of the marriage and she was blameless.
The Anciliary Relief checklist is used a guidance by the Judges in deciding how to divide up the ‘family assets’. There are three types of ‘marriage’ – short, medium and long. In a short marriage of less than two years (you cannot get a divorce until 12 months have elapsed), the rules are similar to the rules on co-habitation (see below), at least they were until a lead case last year has thrown doubt on this. Long marriages are 12 years or more and ‘who paid for what’ becomes irrelevant and the rule ‘equality is equity’ prevails – in other words, the starting point for carving up is 50-50.
The Judge would then move from the 50-50 position in favour of the parent with the children, normally the mother. Thus we end up with the absurd position that rather than give the children to the person with the money, the Courts award custody to the woman and then transfer the lion’s share of the wealth to the woman as well! Plus she gets all the benefits and tax credits associated with having a child (see state support article) PLUS she can set the CSA on her ex (see first article)! So much for fairness!
I thought that marriage was a contract.
In contract law, the person who breaches the contract must pay damages to the innocent party. Not with divorce. regardless of who broke the marriage contract, the result is the same. The person with the larger financial wealth suffers the most. The person who gets the children wins the most – normally the mother. The Judge would say that he must compensate her for the loss of income whilst she stayed at home and looked after the house and children (if she did – often this job is delegated). Her non-financial role as ‘mother and housekeeper’ is directly equiavalent financially to his role of working eighty hours per week to earn enough to keep her in the lifestyle she would like to be accustomed to.
This is complete nonsense but it is how the Judges think!
I thought that when people get married they would sit down and voluntarily agree that if they ahve children the one who earns the least, normally the woman, would stay at home. This is a voluntary agreement. It is part of marriage. One person looks after the children and the home and supports and encourages the other party while they are at work. The role of going out to work acts as a role model for the children in indicating that ‘money does not grow on trees’ and needs to be earned. If he earns enough they can have all the capitalist goods that the media tell them that they should have.
She voluntarily gives up her lower paid dead-end job to have the benefits of being with the children, watching them take their first step, utter their first word, be there when they are sick, take them on their first day at school, attend parent’s evenings etc. The father at work misses out on those priceless moments. How much has he lost?
Unlike the myopic judges, I believe that the loss of this non-financial quality time with the children is directly equal to the loss of earnings that the mother allegedly has ’suffered’. The poor woman had has free accommodation, free holidays, free food, free clothes for as long as they are living together.
Okay – this is my controversial bit!
When the marriage ends, normally when the mother decides to collect on her investment, I believe she should get NOTHING. This is because the contract is complete. The contributions and financial and non-financial balance exactly. She has earned nothing fianncially only non-financial, so why should she be ‘compenmsated’ when she had all the financial beneifts and earned none of them? In financial terms she has had a ‘free-ride’.
Since the man has earned it all he should keep it all. He has suffered the huge non-financial priceless loss of all that quality time with his children. This is irreplaceable. To be further punishe by losing the majority of his financial assets and earnings until she remarries is unbelievable double punishment! How can the Courts be so cruel? But they are!
2) Prenuptial agreements
I have had interesting discussions with people over whether a pre-nuptial agreement is a sign that ‘you don’t really love me’ or an insurance policy.
http://www.prenuptialagreements.co.uk/
Whilst they are not legallly binding in the UK, the lead case of K -v- K (Ancillary Relief: Prenuptial Agreement) [2003] 1 F.L.R. 120 (Fam Div) did set down a check list
(1) the agreement was made abroad;
(2) the length of the marriage;
(3) financial contributions made by the spouses;
(4) the provision made in the contract for the support of the wife;
(5) whether the parties were on equal terms when the agreement was signed; and
(6) the parties’ intentions.
It is possible that if these factors are taken into account, then it may be valid. Otherwise it is simply one of many factors to be taken into account.
3) Co-habitation
This is a summary of the present situation in the UK -
http://www.manches.com/practices/fam…ice.php?id=143
Basically, no legal rights unless a co-habitation agreement is signed. Otherwise, ‘you get out what you put in’. Whoever bought or paid for the item can keep it. The lead case is still Burns v Burns. A woman lived with a man for 16 years, did all the cooking, cleaning and changed her name to the same as him, but never married. He paid for everything. When they split she got nothing. It was cases like these that pushed the feminists to do something to stop men ‘getting away with it’ – as they perceive it.
The proposals in the Queen’s speech 2006 are out for discussion at present. Basically, they propose to introduce an ‘opt-out’ system. In other words, unless you specifically choose to take advantage of the opt-out, divorce type financial punishment will happen on the ending of the relationship. These changes will further undermine marriage as pre-nuptial agreements are not legally binding, but the opt-out will be. Thus once again, ‘ignorance of the law will be no defence’. men will drift into co-habiting and lose the majority of their financial assets without ever knowing what hit them! Needless to say, legal education of basic rights is not part of the school curriculum! Most men will find out the hard way as with losing their children on separation – nobody believes how bad things are until it happens to them.
Tags: ancillary relief, children, discrimination, divorce, father, female, gender, human rights, male, men, mother, unfairness, women
