What’s a fair divorce settlement? Poll discussion

Mozette

I went for B and would do the same if the roles were reversed. Had they not married she/they would likely have made different choices, so I think to get a small amount is fair.
Though if it were me, I wouldn't take anything, just what was fair for the children. I look after myself, and never have nor will expect anyone else to do it for me.

Dr_Baird

srvr wrote: »

I was just planning to meet the girl of my dreams fall in love and live hapily ever after.

Now i think ill just qualify that at little:

1) Meet girl of my dreams
2) Ensure her wage is near my own or greater
3) Establish she has assets equal to my own or greater
4) Establish that her potential inheritance is equal to my own or greater
5) Live Happily Ever after.

Are women really telling us men folk that they are all Heather Mills McCartney in disguise? If you are, expect us to keep running scared.

When/if I get married a prenuptial will be a cert.

srvr

When/if I get married a prenuptial will be a cert.

Prenups are not legally binding in the UK, they are taken as a guide but essentially they are not worth the paper they are written on.

If you married in the US or else where and got a prenup, they could and would still choose to the very generous UK divorce courts.

Your only solution to avoiding the problem is to make sure that your intended betrothed is your finanical / assest equal or better so ifyou do split it will be equal as you will get half of hers and she half of yours i.e. a score draw. Of course if she is better off than you then your going to benefit from the divorce but marrying down is not common traditionally for women.

Its all just a bit cold and calculating for my liking. It would be nice if prenups were legal in the UK but they also kill the romance too.

stogiebear

He made his fortune before they met. The beeatch female gets nothing.

liz545

I voted D. I’m a WOMAN. Janet should get 30%, although I think 25% should probably be reasonable. If the woman is the primary carer for the children, then it's reasonable to award her enough money to set up a home and look after the children until they're old enough for her to return to work; and it may not be easy for her to find employment at first, having not had a job in 6 years and having two young children. I agree that since Janet isn't responsible for helping John build his fortune, she isn't entitled to a large cut of it, but some recognition should be made for her role raising the children; and if she receives nothing from the divorce that will surely only result in bitterness between them, and she'll be more likely to try and prevent John from seeing the kids.

mollie27

I also voted D. I'm a Woman. I agree with liz545 after 6 years out work it won't be easy to find a job and she has lost those 6 years in terms of career advancement.

They only reason I didn't vote that for the 50% option is because John has already agreed to provide for the kids.

srvr; what you say about a pre-nup might welll be true however there is another option: DON'T GET MARRIED.

Marriage to me represents sharing everything equally, what happened before the marriage is no longer relevant, you get married and plan to share the rest of your lives together, and if one party is good enough to share the house, fortune etc. with during the marriage then they are good enough to share it with should the marriage fail.

Maybe if more guys thought with their heads rather than their pants they wouldn't get married in the first place (or would ensure only they got married to THE ONE so divorce would never be an issue) and then at least we could skip all the whinging about having to share when they get divorced.....

Incidentally with regards to the gold digger comment, that works both ways, I have seen more than a few men (admittedly those of the older generations) that have gotten divorced or widowed that positively hunt for an instant replacement because someone is needed to cook, clean, wash and of course warm the bed, so gold diggers some women might be but at least you can argue that is because they seek financial security for themselves and their future children, what excuse do the men in the above scenario have? Lazyness and selfish pursuit of pleasure?

legolas

I am a man voted she should get 10%.

In an ideal world when a relationship breaks down the respective parties should equally share the results of their union, be that children or assets (from the date of the marriage).

This scenario doesn't state whether the man is having his children 50% of the time, or not at all and so is very simplistic.

If he has earned a further £1 million (in interest) in their six years together then she should be entitled to £500000, as proceeds 'earned' during the marriage.

Otherwise 10% is a lot of money as 'compensation' for her trauma of six years marriage to a millionaire.

Just wondering where his 'compensation' is???????

PerlOfWisdom

I'm a man and I voted 50% for the following reasons:

An average man will usually have to give his ex 50%, leaving him struggling to start again. She is awarded this not because the courts want to be fair but so that she can't claim benefits - saving money for the government.

If an average man has to suffer so much, why should a wealthy man get away with it so lightly - he will still have ample money to live for the rest of his life.

It would be saying that there should be one law for the wealthy and another for the rest of us.

Danny_G

I choose K.
The women should get something nothin too much that she shouldn't deserve.

paddy's_mum

I'm a woman and I vote 40% but only on the assumption that the parents will set up some sort of untouchable trust fund for the advantage of the children. If continuing maintenance were reliant upon the husband's goodwill, I would vote 50% so as to agree with the clean break principle, but also so that he cannot withdraw the agreed support at some time in the future. I've seen several absolute horrors of husbands make wild promises that "the kids will never have to suffer" and that lasts only until the wife meets someone else!

I simply don't agree that because he sold the business before the marriage took place that she isn't entitled to any of it. Remember that old line "with all my worldly goods I thee endow"? That is a specific promise and to my mind should be honoured.

If the marriage had continued and the family hit bad times, we would all expect (or hope) that each spouse would work to support each other, the children and the home. All kinds of things can hit a family - serious illness, natural disaster ... can you imagine the kind of comment to appear on here if the wife said "my husband has inoperable cancer. I guess I'll leave now as when I said I do, I really meant he could have only 10% of me".

The marriage was, and until the children reach adulthood remains, a partnership and I can see no reason why anyone should be disadvantaged. If the poll were based on figures of £20k a year, would any of those who voted low justify one spouse and the children being in abject poverty while the other spouse coasts along quite nicely, thank you, on the remaining £18k? I really don't think that the amount being reapportioned comes into the thought processes operated by the courts to ensure equality and fair play. Just my tuppence worth. Others may disagree.