Divorce lawyer who understands contractors

[cailin maith]

Good point. In my case it was, but when I was back dating again I met a lot of decent divorced/separated women who weren't trying to squeeze their exs and could stand on their own two feet.

I don't agree with you about being difficult starting again from nothing at any age though. 58 and you are in poo poo, but I was 32 and lost everything apart from my pension. Within 5 years I was ahead.

I guess I meant emotionally aswell as financially - it's still hard though, initially to get on your feet. Well, I thought it was.

[MaryPoppins]

Erm... seeing as we are playing the "lets tar all women with the same brush" game, what about all the men (my ex husband included!) who simply can't keep their cock in their pants - who lie, cheat and steal to get exactly what they want?

There are 2 sides to every tale of divorce woe.

The man isn't always the main earner and the woman isn't always the whore.

Yup. Luke seems quite bitter about ladies in general - not all women are out for what they can get, it would be depressing to think otherwise. Similarly men, of course.

[Old Greg]

Yep, that will explain why all my girlfriends divorced friends are buying brand new cars and have houses that they own outright.
It's unbelievable, quite simply she has got you by the spuds, do as you are told or you are f***ed.
Don't tell me yours is different, they are all capable of being vicious, even if it takes a few sessions with the girls egging them on to screw you over to bring it out.

Mine's different, but then I have excellent judgement.

[MarillionFan]

Why not just piss all the money up against the wall now.

A cousin's husband blew the equity in the house and money in the bank on some massive holidays, a sportscar and a boat.

When she found out, they get divorced and she landed up with nothing.

So did he, but at least he had a good time spending it.

[Fishface]

it is sad that men see it as an inevitability rather than a desperate consequence.

---

see this situation:
2 kids, then divorce and 50-50 split plus maintainence.
Then he has 2 more kids with new woman and his 50%

does this mean his 3rd and 4th kids are to be significantly less well off then 1 and 2?

and in the same way if wife No.1 has 2 more kids with new man - does new man just pay for his own or does that family become wealthier due to two incomes for the children?

[mudskipper]

I find the idea that contribution to a marriage is measured based on money earned horrifying.

It is a partnership. For a marriage of any proper duration it is right that assets are split 50/50, with provision for children.

I don't doubt there are a small number of 'money-grabbing' women, but I imagine that it's far more common that a mum with, say, a part time job is absolutely panicked at the idea of bringing up her kids on her own on little or no income when things go wrong.

If a woman has given up her career to raise a family, what the hell is she supposed to do if the man doesn't continue to support her?

The decision for the woman to be the one to take the hit earning-wise is usually a shared one.

[MarillionFan]

I find the idea that contribution to a marriage is measured based on money earned horrifying.

It is a partnership. For a marriage of any proper duration it is right that assets are split 50/50, with provision for children.

I don't doubt there are a small number of 'money-grabbing' women, but I imagine that it's far more common that a mum with, say, a part time job is absolutely panicked at the idea of bringing up her kids on her own on little or no income when things go wrong.

If a woman has given up her career to raise a family, what the hell is she supposed to do if the man doesn't continue to support her?

The decision for the woman to be the one to take the hit earning-wise is usually a shared one.

Back in the kitchen toots.

[AtW]

It is a partnership. For a marriage of any proper duration it is right that assets are split 50/50, with provision for children.

It's right just because you say so? So, let's say in your view ex of Paul McCartney was somehow entitled to 50% of the money he mostly earned from his work waaaaaaay before the marriage because she was married to him for a few years? Supporting child is another matter (and that may cost more than 50% of assets) but it should be reasonably capped to stop making marriage a profit making for some and life destroying for others.

This gold digging stuff isn't limited to very rich - the situation is way too one sided (especially when children are involved but I can understand that), however it's totally and utterly unreasonable to expect any side to have any claim whatsoever on money earned prior to marriage OR independently during marriage.

Joint account does not need to include 100% of assets of both sides.

Guess this will mean that my future wife will have to be a lawyer, I am sure she'd understand me

[mudskipper]

It's right just because you say so? So, let's say in your view ex of Paul McCartney was somehow entitled to 50% of the money he mostly earned from his work waaaaaaay before the marriage because she was married to him for a few years? Supporting child is another matter (and that may cost more than 50% of assets) but it should be reasonably capped to stop making marriage a profit making for some and life destroying for others.

This gold digging stuff isn't limited to very rich - the situation is way too one sided (especially when children are involved but I can understand that), however it's totally and utterly unreasonable to expect any side to have any claim whatsoever on money earned prior to marriage OR independently during marriage.

Joint account does not need to include 100% of assets of both sides.

Guess this will mean that my future wife will have to be a lawyer, I am sure she'd understand me

Celebrities are slightly different to us mere mortals. If Macca is stupid enough to marry a woman a fraction of his age, he should be asking himself exactly what it is she sees in him.

Most of us aren't bringing millions of pounds into our relationships. The real inequality in earnings start when one partner gives up work. Giving up work by mutual agreement - sacrificing a career to focus on home and family.

I think it's very sad that you think the only valid contribution to a relationship is a financial one.

[AtW]

Celebrities are slightly different to us mere mortals. If Macca is stupid enough to marry a woman a fraction of his age, he should be asking himself exactly what it is she sees in him.

Well, he was super famous and like millions of women in the world would have loved to marry him for free - it is normal to assume he still thinks that, and I think the law should be on his side because that gold digger he married had no right whatsoever to any money he made from his music career - he got way too much anyway, £20 mln I think for a few years of marriage.

I think it's very sad that you think the only valid contribution to a relationship is a financial one.

Both sides make their own contribution, like in partnership one partner can bring money, another brings his/her time etc. That's normal, what's not normal is that assume to treat marriage as profit machine that is one sided - giving up career, ok - but why demand 50% of money? It is easy to put a cost to most careers, that should be maximum cap on any claims - £1 mln probably, unless the person who's given up career was really coining it in (say working in the City as sasguru's assistant).

I mean FFS, what's there to argue about - many countries recognise prenups in Europs, and USA - only UK is so bloody backwards.