Reply to: Experience of divorce?

[sasguru]

...but thats because I've already chalked most of you blokes off as utter tossers.. .

Tossing is good fer yeh! I've been doing it for years and look what a fine specimen I am.

[Euro-commuter]

Someone I know is convinced that her man is cheating - she's seen a diary and he is giving the obvious signals such as secrecy on emails/phones and out working late etc. In all fairness their marriage broke down months ago anyway.

Would she need to prove adultery and would this gain her any advantage in the eventual split-up?

AIUI (IANAL etc) it doesn't matter any more to the settlement who is at fault. A no-fault divorce is virtually impossible to contest (after all if one party says the marriage is over, then it is). An uncontested "fault" divorce can be quicker, though: for no-fault, 2 years separation is needed.

She needs real advice.

[css_jay99]

What counts is overnight stays - how many nights does your daughter stay? under CSA rules you need min 2 to get a reduction - and if you get 3 nights you can ask for half child benefit if there are 2 children.

rather than justice 4 Fathers I think you man Fathers 4 Justice?

She stays 2 nights a week and i believe I get that mostly bcos the ex wants to enjoy her life with her new man. I forgot to mentio that she is a lawyer herself.

tulip i must remember to sort my will out as will as well !


It breaks my heart every time i see my girl cos i miss her so much. The ex on the other hand will be doing me a good favour if she chocked to death over a KFC.

The reallity is while I accept the divorce, I will forever hate & despise her for taking my daughter away from me, that I just simply know.

i decided not to try to fighty for residense/split residence cos we know who the bloody caught favour! > They will not take into consideration that i have done at least 60% of everything relating my daughter since she was born(time with her, food, nursery, GP, sleepless nights....) while the bitch Ex has not adjusted to the fact that she now has a kid and that drunken days should be a thing of the past!

All talk in early posts about abuse..... has got me very worried and disturbed about my kid's safety round her new man. I am going to have a word with her on this which I know she will not take well but i dont really care what she thinks as long as my daughter is safe. I think she plans to move in with him in about 5 month's time.

you are right andrew, people please no more talk about abuse...., its a very scary thought


css_jay99

[BrilloPad]

that is very harsh on you man, considering you have the kids I am quite suprised the courts allowed you to pay so much. you need to bump her off

I know what you mean that at least u are seeing the kids cos thats an important part that keeps you sain.

I am going via divorce at the mo as well and my daugthter stays with me twice a week. Luckily i paid ex 65% of equity on the property to move out which i guess was a good deal considering sI could have lost the whole house.

Now the problem is working out maintenance and I am definately not letting have her way cos what she wants is not fair considering she gets tax credit as well !. I told her I am only prepared to meet 60% of our daughter's costs considering she stays with me two days a week.

Divorce law accross the world suck's cos it favour women too much

JUSTICE FOR FATHERS !

What counts is overnight stays - how many nights does your daughter stay? under CSA rules you need min 2 to get a reduction - and if you get 3 nights you can ask for half child benefit if there are 2 children.

rather than justice 4 Fathers I think you man Fathers 4 Justice?

[css_jay99]

The courts still give more capital if there are kids. around 65%-85%. And the court will give more spousal maintenance! Child maintenance can be dealt with by court if man is stupid enough to agree - woman can still get full wack from CSA on top!

I gave 65% capital to my ex as she said she wanted to look after the kids. Leaving me enough for a 1 bed flat. Then she decided she wanted to work - so I now have the kids 4 days per week. I now paid my ex 66%(I can't get any back) and I give her spousal maintenance, I pay a mortgague so I have a 3 bed place and I pay my girlfriend to lookj after the kids. My ex lives in luxury while I struggle.

But at least I see the kids. I would pay any amount of money for that. But why does the money always follow the woman? why not the kids?

that is very harsh on you man, considering you have the kids I am quite suprised the courts allowed you to pay so much. you need to bump her off

I know what you mean that at least u are seeing the kids cos thats an important part that keeps you sain.

I am going via divorce at the mo as well and my daugthter stays with me twice a week. Luckily i paid ex 65% of equity on the property to move out which i guess was a good deal considering sI could have lost the whole house.

Now the problem is working out maintenance and I am definately not letting have her way cos what she wants is not fair considering she gets tax credit as well !. I told her I am only prepared to meet 60% of our daughter's costs considering she stays with me two days a week.

Divorce law accross the world suck's cos it favour women too much

JUSTICE FOR FATHERS !

[BrilloPad]

To Jeremytaxman: I felt that 65% to the ex was fair going, because this was achieved with minimal court involvement, such that most of my financial affairs did not put under the spotlight. I found that any information was dangerous in the ex's hands, so the more matters stayed out of the court, the better I think I was. Oh, and initially, her demand was for 92% of joint assets

To Joe Black: There is nothing to say. I have a travel routine now so I just get on with that and don't think about the bad stuff. Yup, I believe the 50/50 contact rule exists in Belgium, France & Sweden - shame it's not all over the EU.

I was initially asked for 100% of joint assets!

SwampThing - Can I ask where the kids are now? Is it in the EU or outside?

The idea of a Europe wide law is a very interesting one. Good point.

There was a test case on family court secrecy in Europe - Europe agreed with family court. Although the secrecy thing is alot lighter in Scotland. Interesting that in the UK there are seperate legal systems.

[Swamp Thing]

To Jeremytaxman: I felt that 65% to the ex was fair going, because this was achieved with minimal court involvement, such that most of my financial affairs did not put under the spotlight. I found that any information was dangerous in the ex's hands, so the more matters stayed out of the court, the better I think I was. Oh, and initially, her demand was for 92% of joint assets

To Joe Black: There is nothing to say. I have a travel routine now so I just get on with that and don't think about the bad stuff. Yup, I believe the 50/50 contact rule exists in Belgium, France & Sweden - shame it's not all over the EU.

[Joe Black]

The NSPCC also had stats to prove that biggest danger to kids is Mum. And that far less abuse if kids had contact with Dad.

Over the years I used think that women/mothers generally put their children first, certainly because the idea of a mothers bond, her love for her children, her 'role' etc has been drummed into us over many a year. I don't quite believe that any longer, having seen the consequences of various break-ups up close and personal.

In some cases certainly, I am left wondering whether it was actually the 'family' and 'children' which came first, or whether it was simply the case that all that mattered was the dream of the nice house, white picket fence, children to show off to their friends, and if it doesn't work out what does it matter if they have to drag their kids through high and hell water, from one place, or from one man to another until they get what they want.

Swampy (getting ready for the first of 10 planned contact visits abroad in 2007 )

What can I say?

From what I've been told, here in Belgium at least, certainly if you have a co-parenting agreement (perhaps that's the key), neither ex-partner is allowed to move more than a certain distance from the other (50 miles?) without some sort of court approval...then again that's what you're saying she got in any case.

Where's she going to if you don't mind me asking? e.g. US, Australia, Falkland Islands?

[BrilloPad]

IRO of the CSA, did anyone know that, if a man (it usually is) challenges an income assessment, even if he is correct, that man will be marked up on the CSA system as a troublemaker. Future caseworkers will then be notified and immediately take the appropriate position with the man, which is to be hostile, non-receptive to logical arguments, and pursue mercilessly for more cash.

Swampy (getting ready for the first of 10 planned contact visits abroad in 2007 )

I really really hope the contact session goes well - good luck to you and your daughter. I know 2 chaps whose children went abroad - in 1 case the daughter reached 13 and came back to the UK to live with dad! Like the girl who went to Pakistan from Scotland, once children reach a certain age its hard to argue with them . So please keep contact and let your daughter know that dad is always there.

Certain f4j friends of mine request their details under the data protection act every 42 days. They also pay one pound more than the CSA ask for - the CSA system goes into spasms!

[jeremytaxman]

65% ... With hindsight I think I got off lightly

why do you say that ?

[Swamp Thing]

I'm not saying that men should have the power. Just a say. They do 30% of child raising (on average) so why not 30% of say. If women want equality in work(which I support) then there needs to be equality in the home.

Spot on. I’m afraid the bias against men is institutionalised, at the courts, CAFCASS and the CSA. In my case I settled at 65% in a short marriage with one kid, no spousal maintenance. With hindsight I think I got off lightly, financially speaking. But in terms of contact, the ex applied to leave the UK with my daughter, and won in the court. On this aspect, the machinery of the legal system swung into gear against the man. The notion of 50/50 contact being good for the child was swiftly set aside in favour of the argument “Well, if the mother is not happy being in the UK, it can’t be good for the child, so they can leave”. Father’s views and daughter’s feelings were cast aside.
IRO CAFCASS, I was in the minority in that the officer supported my case for keeping my daughter in the UK. But when it came to following this through in court, the officer bottled it and came out with a watered-down assessment.
IRO of the CSA, did anyone know that, if a man (it usually is) challenges an income assessment, even if he is correct, that man will be marked up on the CSA system as a troublemaker. Future caseworkers will then be notified and immediately take the appropriate position with the man, which is to be hostile, non-receptive to logical arguments, and pursue mercilessly for more cash.

So yes, if as a man you’re married, try to stay that way. If you’re not, don’t. Or if you really have to, get a pre-nup. Not romantic, but that’s the reality forced upon us today by an antiquated family law system.

Swampy (getting ready for the first of 10 planned contact visits abroad in 2007 )

[jeremytaxman]

Andrew, PMed you if you get some time. TIA.

[BrilloPad]

Exactly Bagpuss. It's mob fear whipped up by the tabloids. The biggest danger to children is their own natural parents.

And that is confirmed by home office. I seem to think in 200n(where n is 2 or 3 or 4?) that 18 killed by dad. 19 by mum. and 38 by Mum's new partner. none by strangers.

The NSPCC also had stats to prove that biggest danger to kids is Mum. And that far less abuse if kids had contact with Dad. but it was pulled when NPCCC joined up with women's aid. Now they support that children should only have contact if mum says so! And gave evidence to MP select committee to that effect. Its why I hate NSPCC.

I'm not saying that men should have the power. Just a say. They do 30% of child raising (on average) so why not 30% of say. If women want equality in work(which I support) then there needs to be equality in the home.

Sorry for the rant. I must stop posting. I must stop posting.

[Spartacus]

Most child abuse happens within the (natural) family unit. The public perception of stalking bogeymen is largely a myth, Morover more children were abused/abducted in the 1970s than now.

Exactly Bagpuss. It's mob fear whipped up by the tabloids. The biggest danger to children is their own natural parents.

[Bagpuss]

And that attitude is why men are now reluctant to help children in distress. There was the case of the girl knocked down that got national attention but it's happening locally all the time with lost children and so forth. To those who say child safety overrides all other considerations I say who is most likely to abuse a child? Their own parents of course. Therefore all who say such nonsense must surely support the raising of all children in state orphanages. Oh, but of course, they are "different" and would never harm a child.

Makes me sick.

Most child abuse happens within the (natural) family unit. The public perception of stalking bogeymen is largely a myth, Morover more children were abused/abducted in the 1970s than now.