What’s a fair divorce settlement? Poll discussion

ringoschplingo

As he has made provisions for his children, I don't see why the wife should get any more than 10%. So many [women] seem to think that once you marry, everything should be split 50%, which reminds me of a t-shirt my mother once had with the slogan "what’s yours is mine and what's mine is mine". This seems to reflect a mindset which a significant minority of UK females seem to hold (though this is probably being picked up by some guys now more and more women become wealthy through their own efforts).

Many also state that the women are entitled to much of his money as they look after his children, even ignoring the fact that he has made provisions for his children, taking this argument to the absurd leads to the conclusion - instead of transferring the financial assets from the partner who made them to the partner with the children, why not simply give the father custody of the children.

It strikes me as sad that there are many posts here and not one seems to question that fact that the woman has custody.

paddy's_mum

To be fair, I think nobody has questioned the custody issue because by the information given in the opening scenario, it is implied that the children will remain with their mother. If you go back and read it, it comes across as a "this is the state of play" kind of statement, in which the father has accepted that the children will not be living with him. I take the point but would suggest that this aspect of their divorce was not part of the original discussion.

whowants2brich

mollie27 wrote: »

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.

I agree with this - if the couple stay together then they would share everything. If they divorce, why should they suddenly be allowed to hide their savings from the settlement? Neither party having worked for six years shows that he is happy to pay for them both to do nothing, so he has to pay for the fact that she has been accustomed to not working - she is somewhat entitled to continue to live the standard that she is used to, ie lazing around. It's harsh, but that's what divorce courts are like.

mollie27 wrote: »

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.....

OK, This, I strongly disagree with!!! Mollie, do you really think that it's the guys that decide to get married, and that it's the guys who make the wrong choices in life? I've read through the posts on this thread, and on a few occasions, the ladies have been the ones who have chosen to end the relationship and settle in a divorce court. Not the guys. Some ladies in some of the stories on here are portrayed to be far too cold and calculated, and plan only to get the money of their partner. Flip things around, and I'm sure the guys would be happy to leave more of the assets with the wife, while they set up a new life elsewhere...

Finally, my partner is a divorce lawyer by profession, and she's been pushing for me to propose to her for well over a year now (we've been together for just over 3 years) - is it any wonder that I'm holding back? She earns more money than me, but I have more savings than her, so it's pretty level. But still, too many scare stories and it's no surprise why fewer couples are getting married nowadays - and with all these stories of ex-partners getting massive settlements, it's no wonder why divorces are so commonplace nowadays too...

cazrobinson

how sad that you think your girlfriend is after your money - do you love money more than her? or do you not trust her?

it's all about trust and from the signs on here - men trust their wallets more than they trust their wives! 10% settlement my !!!!, the men who voted in this way should be ashamed of themselves!!

veloo

After what I have been through, I will certainly trust my wallet than another woman... especially if she pressures me to marry her and she hasn't got the income or assets to match... if she has built up her assets from an ex, all the more reason to watch out...

ringoschplingo

it's all about trust and from the signs on here - men trust their wallets more than they trust their wives! 10% settlement my !!!!, the men who voted in this way should be ashamed of themselves!!

Judging by how many women are voting for or expect a 50% share [or more] of money that they didn't earn I'm not surprised men have a cautious air about them nowadays!

And I agree trust is crucial to a relationship, but if there is a risk that your partner at some point in the future is simply going to split up with you and take half of what you had beforehand, then you have to absolutely sure before you make the commitment, remember trust is earned and not given, and marriage seems to be a very convenient way for a woman to get hold of half of a mans wealth.

Anyone has every right to be cautious with their possessions, pushing people into marriage on the old ‘but you love her’ line or implying they're somehow acting improperly for trying to make a major decision (usually the biggest of a person’s life) on a rational basis I would say is somewhat unreasonable.

laughing_cow

veloo wrote: »

And if there are children involved, the father always suffers the most...

I disagree - it's usually the children who suffer more than either parent.

veloo wrote: »

This is what happened in my case. I haven't seen my children, since my ex left me, with grave threats of what might follow... Once I called asking to speak to them, and was told that they were playing and didn't want to be disturbed... Never called again...

Initially, it was v.painful, but (I think) I have moved on now...

OK, I don't know your ex, nor the full circumstances, so forgive me if it was traumatic, but are you seriously saying you phoned up your kids, were told that they were busy and you just didn't bother again and have "moved on"? I find that astonishing.


Re the poll. If there were no kids involved then I wouldn't expect much from a short marriage - I'd expect to stand on my own two feet. There are obviously some exceptions for particular circumstances - eg if you're in a high profile marriage you may require money for security if being in that marriage has made you more 'vulnerable'. These points apply to either men or women.

However, if kids are involved and it has been agreed that the mother will look after them after divorce, then I think she should be entitled to some form of maintenance. The decision to have children was taken by both parents and it was taken presumably with the intent that they would be together for ever and knowing that they were in a comfortable financial situation to have those children without working. I don't think it's appropriate in those circumstances for the mother to suddenly struggle after divorce, particularly if it wasn't her choice to end the marriage.

I can't vote on this one though - there's not enough information about the amount of money for the children, and we don't know if she/both of them prefer her to be a stay at home mum. We also don't know much about nor about the background leading to divorce - one the one hand she could be a deliberately gold digging cow, on the other other, he might be a git who is guilty of serial adultery - it's never black and white.

GinnyvonPinny

I'm sorry but I don't see the issue here....................except that if we were not talking about millions........if it was an average household income, regardless of who had built it, then I suspect more people would say a 50-50 split was fair. So I say 50-50 and yes I am a woman but I would like to think it doesn't make a difference to my opinion.

As far as I understand it the courts are only interested in what's fair, not who did what with whom etc, and in a lot of cases 50-50 is fair. Even standing on your head with your left foot in a bucket of baked beans then surely 50-50 is usually fair!!!

Tiger_greeneyes

I think this stat just show how many women are money-grabbers these days. Us poor guys

Where does this "poor victim me" mentality come from?

I've read this thread from the beginning and am astounded that there are so many men who are happy to stereotype women as being gold-diggers and themselves as innocent victims to be taken advantage of. Don't you realise how spineless and weak that sounds? There's nothing less attractive than a self-proclaimed victim.

Women do not get married so we can get divorced as some kind of 'get rich quick' scheme, neither are we mercenary, nor is giving birth 'merely opening the legs and popping out a kid' :rolleyes:

As far as I can tell, you need to be a) over 18 and b) actually present in order to get married. If you're mature enough to choose to get married, then you should also be mature enough to realise there'll consequences if it goes wrong and to take responsibility for your own actions if it doesn't work out. Don't make yourself look like a plum by adopting a "poor me" mentality. It's a sad fact of life that there are greedy people in this world, don't be surprised if you come across one - your choice was to be with them and it's not their sexes fault they're greedy!

When I divorced my ex-husband, I stayed in the house but bought him out of his share. It was me who had the separation agreement drawn up (and paid for it) to say I wasn't going to ask for maintenance payments, despite the fact I was entitled to them. He also made sure he took plenty of money from me - for everything, right down to every last household item I'd bought before we even met, despite the fact that he's a high earner and I can't work due to ill health - although I was the highest earner out of the two of us when we met. I also had to pay all the divorce costs because it was me who wanted the divorce as I was fed up with the aggro I was getting from both him and his new girlfriend (he played the victim because I hurt his ego by calling time on the relationship) it was worth it to get it over with as it was the only way I could get divorced so I had to put up with it. I'm nowhere near being rich btw.

I'm not a victim, I wasn't forced into anything against my will, I made my own decisions all the way along, and I'm not blaming anyone but myself for my choices not working out nor for being much worse off financially after the divorce, I'm certainly not blaming the opposite sex! In other words, I took full responsibility for my own actions.

Fact: the only 'winners' out of divorce are the lawyers. The irony is, if people argued less over the divorce, they'd have more in their pockets at the end of it.

That's my rant over with for today

gaily

Tiktoc wrote: »

Like others I've been through this but fortunately did not have 10m. My generous monthly payments (more than statutory guideline) for the children was spent on luxury items for my ex's lifestyle and relatively little for the direct benefit of the lads. No more Mr Nice guy from me in future.

I have a friend who split with his girlfirend once they had had a child together. He was paying her the going rate for the child as he didn't want his child missing out (They didn't split on the best of terms as she went off with someone else), but she regularly phoned him to ask for more - as she couldn't afford to go out on a Saturday night !! That's just wrong

I was too late in all this to vote, but I think the best points made were those saying she would have made different choices if she hadn't met her millionaire. She should get something to help her start over - houses cost money, but don't have to be huge. 10% would keep her going until she could get herself a job - or if she lived frugally (ie the MSE way) she may get by on the interest if she invested wisely!!