What’s a fair divorce settlement? Poll discussion

k-k-k-katy

All assets should be jointly owned on marriage, and split equally on divorcing. Marriage is a legal contract, so we should know what we are getting into from the start. Don't marry if you don't like it, there isn't any pressure these days.

foreversomeday

There should have been 2 polls really as the male/female option doesn't show the results accurately if a different number of men and women vote (I know it's just meant to start a talking point but I am a bit anal about maths sorry!)

Anyway here's accurate percentages for now if anyone's interested:

As of 2,510 votes:

Women:
15% said Janet should get nothing
21% said Janet should get 10%
18% said Janet should get 20%
19% said Janet should get 30%
5% said Janet should get 40%
21% said Janet should get 50%
1% said Janet should get more than 50%

Men:
25% said Janet should get nothing
29% said Janet should get 10%
22% said Janet should get 20%
11% said Janet should get 30%
3% said Janet should get 40%
9% said Janet should get 50%
1% said Janet should get more than 50%

Anyway. I'm a woman and I voted for 20%, because he is still supporting the kids and it was his money (his hard work) in the first place. I don't think he would notice the difference between £8million and £9million! If he had still been working to earn that money, and she had been looking after the children, I would have said more, because I think on some level it must have been a joint decision in the marriage to have one working parent and one housewife/husband, and presumably if they had decided the other way around the woman would have been working and bringing in a wage. Being a housewife is not just sitting around all day having fun with the children! If there was no stay-at-home parent and the other parent still needed to work, they would have to pay for childcare and housekeeping if they wanted it done. Therefore I see it fair that in a divorce situation the stay at home parent gets something at least to keep them going until they can manage to work and support themselves and the children.

foreversomeday

thanmuwa wrote: »

The underlying assumption that Janet should get the kids is sexist. He managed to earn £10 million quid, and then gave it up and looked after kids/family full time? Surely he should be looking after the kids (and keeping the nice house) and she should be paying a chunk of her wages (assuming the bum got a job, although it sounds like she is work-shy) towards child support.

It was mentioned in the original poll question that Janet would be getting custody of the children. Maybe they decided to share childcare because they felt it was better for the children?

SyrupSponge_2

How comes Janet gets the children by default?

Are they not Johns children too?



EDIT: Ok this point has no relevence as it's already been made. I should've read the whole thread first! [/high horse]

Tigsteroonie

sinbinjack wrote: »

Why are some women so anti men ?.Just because you get married why do you expect to be cared for for the rest of your life?

I'm glad you said "some"! I'm obviously in a minority - I'm a woman and I voted that Janet should get zilch. An appropriate amount is being paid for the children. She didn't contribute to his fortune, she shouldn't benefit. (Just my opinion ...)

To the person who asks for our experience ... when I divorced, I took nothing except what I had clearly either brought in at the start or was obviously mine e.g. clothes. It was my choice to leave, not a mutual decision. I had moved into his house, I was moving out.

SyrupSponge_2

Another point though - surely the fact that Janet would require John's support to keep the children means it would make more sense for him to have custody of them in the first place?

newsgroup_monkey

mollie27 wrote: »

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.....

Ignore all of the above. It doesn't matter these days whether you're married or not.

In addition, pre-nups are barely worth the paper they're written on in this country....

In addition, I'm a man. I voted 30%. I think that in addition to providing for the kids, 3 million quit ought to sort it out.

Also, you have made it look like the man is at fault here and it has been assumed that custody has gone to the mother.

Now tell me if I'm wrong here, but

a) What has the woman done to deserve her 3 million? All she needed to do was open her legs and give birth a couple of times. Everyone always blames it on the bloke needing some. Most of us blokes are well aware of how to use birth control (and use it believe it or not)
b) why has she got custody of the children? surely in this scenario joint custody would be suitable.

I'm sure I'm not alone, but a friend of mine went through all of the above. The girl left her boyfriend for him, got married, had a child (there's even more to this, but it's very personal), made sure he had a high paying job and got a very nice house. Once she'd got everything, she dumped him, kicked him out, made some very nasty accusations (meaning he couldn't see his child) AND moved the ex-boyfriend back in!

DdraigGoch

I am a woman and I voted 30%

I worried about this, but didn't read the thread first as I didn't want to vote influenced. Having voted 30% - my reasoning was that although she had had no influence on the business, he did go into the marriage with the full intention of sharing life and everything with her. I thought that to ask for/receive 50% would be unfair as he'd obviously been very skilful and I presume worked very hard for the money he made on the sale of his business. 40% would be too much, 30% felt a bit too much, but 20% would definitely be too much of a change for the children. If the children's "running costs" were covered then it comes down to their home and surroundings, plus upkeep for her to stay at home to look after them. That's why I voted for 30% - but felt unfair about it.

Coming on here I feel even worse, but still can't agree to zilch due to the impact on the children.

I too wondered why Janet had the children. I think that it probably would have been fairer 10% but the children stay with their Dad.

Just my two penn'orth.

leezygeezer

I vote this because the courts will decide any level or share of the assets anyway. I have to assume that the children will get 30% and she will get 20%.
To say that they should be kept in the style to which they have become accustomed is meaningless unless they go to private schools, have multiple holidays each year, their own horse and stables and any other supposed trappings of the wealthy.
Otherwise, the father may have taught them the value of money and they may live quite frugaly, again not enough information to make a judgement.
There are some moral issues on the side of both parties here and im sure its only such a sensitive issue because most of us would never even see 10% of the 10 million in one go in our lifetimes.
I have read assumptions that she will be unable to get a job but we don't know enough of her background, she could be a fully experienced qualified CEO and have no problem whatsoever walking into a £150K a year job - or not.
It is irrelevant whether she worked during the marriage, the guy was obviously happy to have her stay at home with him and presumably married her in the hope that they would stay together till they both ended up in a 6 x 3 hole in the ground.
50/50 seems fair to me although I do firmly believe that the ability to pay whatever amount should depend on the outgoings of the party.
EG John might quit the mansion and have to buy his own house for say 5 million, we don't know what his original house cost him only that he took 10 milllion from the sale of his business. His house could be worth more than that. Should he leave, buy similar and have a 2 bed council house for his kids to stay in?.
This scenario is simply lacking in too much of the 'meat' of the whole thing to make an unbiased decision.
And before you make comment I have been divorced, my ex split with me, forced me to leave and moved her new boyfriend in within a month, I had to repay the debts she had built up over the 6 years we were together (£50K through an iva and remortgaging!) and I actually received less than 30% of the value of the remaining equity in the house because when I lost my job and received compensation £22K (post divorce) she said that if I wanted my fully share of what was left in the equity that she wanted half my settlement.
Not sure how that would have worked considering I had no actual income but as I was unable to get legal aid (due to the lump sum) and was not in a position to pay £180/hr plus trying to figure it out I left it.
When I left the house I took the clothes on my back, my home computer and some of my personal belongings, books and records etc and left everything else.
Seems perfectly fair on the man to me........... not.

Still i do believe 50/50 should apply because if you are that bothered about the money in the first place you wouldn't get married.
Still my lesson was a hard one but I leanred from it don't get married again!

And before all the women say 'you cant say that we are not all like that', I am sure that some are not, but in my experience I have to say otherwise.

My wife made her vows in front of family/friends/witnesses and god and decided she didn't want to pay any attention to them, despite saying the usual crap like 'you are my soulmate, i'll never love anybody as much as I love you, etc etc' its just words and you can't possibly know how serious the other person is about their vows regardless of what they say.
You can NEVER know exactly what another person is thinking unless of course you are telephathic, which lets be honest you aren't.

And of course this goes for men too who do likewise I'm not picking on women here just expounding on my own personal experience (which I believe an earlier post asked for).

MiserlyMartin

mollie27 wrote: »

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?

This comment is rather strange. I'm sure that most men are not getting married just because something of in their pants! It's attitudes such as yours which ensure plenty of men have a very cautious view of marriage. In 6 years out of work she won't find a job... well it was her choice not to work and live off her husbands 10 Million fortune so you cannot blame the man for that.

He is already providing generously for the children, so she should get nothing else period. That 10 million was earnt before the marriage, and therefore is not a product of the marriage. She is not entitled to anything other than maintenance for which he is already paying. This thread is a reminder of the reasons not to get married if you are a man.. you'll get screwed. Happy Valentines Day. (Thats a rip off too!)