Advice on "unreasonable behaviour" in divorce proceedings

Comms69

unholyangel wrote: »

You're more blinkered than i thought if you think thats a good comparison to make. But okay, I'll bite.

The first situation is one born of centuries of sexism in which some men see housework as womens work, therefore when they do something (even if its just vacuum once in a blue moon), they feel they "help" their partner with housework, because its their partners job as a female to do it all. While, technically, its the woman who is helping the man - by doing his share of the housework.

The second has no such context. Its not seen as a mans place to pay all the bills and he's not paying most of the bills while his partner makes a token contribution and claims she "helps" him.

You know calling someone ‘blinkered’ because they don’t agree with you is just rude. I’m not getting personal.

‘Centuries of sexism’ really?... I’d suggest that both men and women had a pretty bad time of it for centuries. But we’ll move on; traditional family roles have been defined more by the nature of work than by anything else. Work for the majority of people has for centuries been manual, hence the man of the house was expected to work; without access to birth control it was inevitable that children would be produced and they would need looking after. There is no sexism there; it’s the practicalities of life. The biggest step forward for women across the world has been accessible birth control.

I’d suggest that in marriage it’s each parties job to look after the other; it’s more or less the point... so to call that ‘helping’ is no different

unholyangel

Comms69 wrote: »

You know calling someone ‘blinkered’ because they don’t agree with you is just rude. I’m not getting personal.

‘Centuries of sexism’ really?... I’d suggest that both men and women had a pretty bad time of it for centuries. But we’ll move on; traditional family roles have been defined more by the nature of work than by anything else. Work for the majority of people has for centuries been manual, hence the man of the house was expected to work; without access to birth control it was inevitable that children would be produced and they would need looking after. There is no sexism there; it’s the practicalities of life. The biggest step forward for women across the world has been accessible birth control.

I’d suggest that in marriage it’s each parties job to look after the other; it’s more or less the point... so to call that ‘helping’ is no different

I wasn't calling you blinkered because you disagree with me. I called you blinkered because of your inability to take a situation as it is without bringing it down to men vs women or see how the comparisons you made were inane.

And you've just helped prove my point with the reply you've gave, if you think than manual labour was purely done by men historically. The type of job you had (manual, clerical etc) was more likely to be determined by class than sex.

You suggest marriage is looking after one another - I agree. Which is why the husband should have took what reasonable steps he could to look after himself & his spouse, rather than looking after himself & his niece at the expense of his spouse.

Comms69

unholyangel wrote: »

I wasn't calling you blinkered because you disagree with me. I called you blinkered because of your inability to take a situation as it is without bringing it down to men vs women or see how the comparisons you made were inane.

And you've just helped prove my point with the reply you've gave, if you think than manual labour was purely done by men historically. The type of job you had (manual, clerical etc) was more likely to be determined by class than sex.

You suggest marriage is looking after one another - I agree. Which is why the husband should have took what reasonable steps he could to look after himself & his spouse, rather than looking after himself & his niece at the expense of his spouse.

I didn’t bring it down to men vs women, I was highlighting a clear hypocracy.

I didn’t say women didn’t do manual jobs, I said that; in a couple, who would unavoidably have children; men would work as the jobs were more manual.

If you think that historic sexism is the reason people still CHOOSE to have traditional gender roles, then you give no credit to women’s right to choose.

I’m not sure there’s anywhere near enough evidence to say he was abusing his wife, by helping his niece. Which is what my original point was.

Given I agree for the most part with tradition; I think he SHOULD have been working. But again I’m against labelling him as abusive.

margaretclare

Would his refusal to discuss finances with her and acting in this way be considered "unreasonable behaviour" in the event of divorce proceedings?She is getting to the end of her tether with him.

Yes, I think this is absolutely unreasonable behaviour. I agree that there are different ways of sharing finances in a marriage - some people have just one account for everything, others (like us) have our own accounts into which our (separate) pensions are paid. But the bottom line is, there should be some joint discussion/negotiation/agreement, especially where house property is concerned.


I cannot conceive of any situation that would affect us, that might lead to one of us keeping secret any inheritance or house property. I could not live in that sort of a marriage.

paddy's_mum

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

it sounds like this has always been the situation and it is only now that the OP wants a divorce that it has become an issue.

My reading of this is that the financial shenanigans are actively LEADING to a divorce and not that a planned divorce is highlighting a previously unimportant issue.

I have to say that if my spouse behaved with such blatant disregard for my efforts, earnings and contribution, my willingness to share, my desire to be consulted as (at the very least) an equal partner in the matrimonial venture, I'd have been seeking legal advice long ago!

Why should a spouse be funding everything out of the one pocket while the other spouse keeps their financial running shoes in good order, to the decided advantage of a high earning niece and her spouse and the unhappiness of the person you made vows to...including, I might add, that little promise about all that I own I share with you.

This husband surely cannot claim that he is about to suffer penury (no pension, no job) when he has calmly and cold-bloodedly thrown away a large amount of income, both real and potential.

They are married and all such important decisions should be made jointly and with fairness. If he won't be fair, don't be surprised if she decides she is better off without a millstone round her neck.

POPPYOSCAR

paddy's_mum wrote: »

My reading of this is that the financial shenanigans are actively LEADING to a divorce and not that a planned divorce is highlighting a previously unimportant issue.

I have to say that if my spouse behaved with such blatant disregard for my efforts, earnings and contribution, my willingness to share, my desire to be consulted as (at the very least) an equal partner in the matrimonial venture, I'd have been seeking legal advice long ago!

Why should a spouse be funding everything out of the one pocket while the other spouse keeps their financial running shoes in good order, to the decided advantage of a high earning niece and her spouse and the unhappiness of the person you made vows to...including, I might add, that little promise about all that I own I share with you.

This husband surely cannot claim that he is about to suffer penury (no pension, no job) when he has calmly and cold-bloodedly thrown away a large amount of income, both real and potential.

They are married and all such important decisions should be made jointly and with fairness. If he won't be fair, don't be surprised if she decides she is better off without a millstone round her neck.

I would disagree.

As I said in my last post it would appear the OP married this man knowing all this in advance. It was her mistake if she thought she could change him.

As far as I am aware you do not have to make those vows so perhaps he never even said that!

Presumably he managed without her before and could do so again.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

It certainly sounds like he's taken her for a ride for the entire time.

I'm not a lawyer, but if she were to commence proceedings on the basis of unreasonable behaviour in terms of financial abuse - making her pay all the bills, not discussing finances, not making a reasonable contribution when he had sizeable assets with which to do so, etc - he wouldn't be able to sell that house until all decisions were made (presumably by a judge).

That way, if the Judge decides the house is his alone, he has somewhere to live and she knows he hasn't conned her - and if the Judge rules it to be joint assets, he will have to either sell it, rent it out commercially or at the least buy her out of their current property. It's definitely not a divorce that can be sorted out without lawyers involved, though.


She needs to see a lawyer asap, though - before she tells him that it's over.

Working_Mum

"Unreasonable behaviour" can span the ridiculous to the dangerous - my ex-H divorced me because of "inability to keep a list"and I didn't like his Dad - it was a strategic reason to divorce me because I wouldn't divorce him on the grounds of his adultery (it was a complicated situation and I didn't want to be divorced).

The divorce laws in the UK allocate blame. The OP's sister would have to initiate divorce proceedings on the grounds that the marriage had irretrievable broken down to unreasonable behaviour to be able to cite these reasons amongst other things. BUT the husband could start proceedings first and list a whole host of perceived issues as to why the marriage had broken down and she'd then have to choose either to defend the case (big bucks on legal fees) or swallow i and see the bigger picture.

The key issue is the length of time they've been married. This has a big influence on how finances are divvied up. He could try and get spousal support from the OP's sister but SS is rare nowadays in my experience (friends who were in long marriages, who were stay at home Mum's divorcing high flying business men and they received a diminishing annual sum which they'd lose if they re-married)

Divorce is absolutely brutal financially - it decimated me and my life for a long time which I am only now recovering from.

The OP's sister should get legal advice so she can decide a way ahead in my view.

Comms69

Working_Mum wrote: »

"Unreasonable behaviour" can span the ridiculous to the dangerous - my ex-H divorced me because of "inability to keep a list"and I didn't like his Dad - it was a strategic reason to divorce me because I wouldn't divorce him on the grounds of his adultery (it was a complicated situation and I didn't want to be divorced).

The divorce laws in the UK allocate blame. The OP's sister would have to initiate divorce proceedings on the grounds that the marriage had irretrievable broken down to unreasonable behaviour to be able to cite these reasons amongst other things. BUT the husband could start proceedings first and list a whole host of perceived issues as to why the marriage had broken down and she'd then have to choose either to defend the case (big bucks on legal fees) or swallow i and see the bigger picture.

The key issue is the length of time they've been married. This has a big influence on how finances are divvied up. He could try and get spousal support from the OP's sister but SS is rare nowadays in my experience (friends who were in long marriages, who were stay at home Mum's divorcing high flying business men and they received a diminishing annual sum which they'd lose if they re-married)

Divorce is absolutely brutal financially - it decimated me and my life for a long time which I am only now recovering from.

The OP's sister should get legal advice so she can decide a way ahead in my view.

It doesn't allocate blame as such. Divorces need a reason. There are some that allow for quick divorce.


But the reason has no bearing beyond that. (apart from hurt pride)

Working_Mum

I respectfully disagree with you Comms. There is only one legal ground for divorce, which is that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The person who starts proceedings, (called the Petitioner) must prove that the marriage has irretrievably broken down by establishing one of the following five facts:

Adultery
Unreasonable behaviour
Desertion
2 years separation with consent
5 years separation (no consent required)

My ex-husband couldn't divorce me on the grounds of his adultery!

Divorcing on the grounds of separation has a fiscal impact too so anyone considering this should be very careful