have the money but dont want it to go to kids

ah, yes, well thats different and of course in my case where my ex informed me that he had slept with every drunk slapper willing to lie down on a concrete pavement so he could use his truncheon on them (he was a police officer, including his sister and he wanted to stay with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was more thinking of the individuals who leave because some totty (male or female) has given them the eye.

Jo x

I was trying to remain focused on the topic of the thread and didn't pick up on the point about pay inequality earlier. Pay inequality, or rather rates of pay, isn't such a huge issue it once was. It is estimated that about 20% of women now earn more than their partners. The big problem is more related to the parenting differences between men and women. At the last count 90% of employed men with dependent children are in full time inflexible jobs whereas the majority of women with dependent children take career gaps and work in part time and/or flexible jobs. Our labour market severely punishes those (men and women) who sacrifice career or put it second to family.

If society wants a more equitable division of labour, pay and parenting it seems to me working practices are going to have to change. They already have a little, the figure of 90% above is a drop from 95% of men in full time inflexible jobs and there have been new measures introduced for flexible working. However, the big questions are how far is society prepared to go and do men and women really want a more equitable outcome. See;

www2.lse.ac.uk/ERD/pressAndInformationOf...008/sexequality.aspx

And then of course there are those women (like someone I know) who basically have never worked because they have fully supported their husband in order for their husband to be able to forward their career so that the whole family benefitted.

These women kept the home and children in such a manner that the husband could concentrate on building up their career and thus their income without having to worry about anything on the domestic front, knowing their wives were looking after all their domestic needs, including their children.

What happens to those women in the event of divorce?

Jo x

So is this punishment going to be in the form of ducking stool or stocks on the village green?

The problem you have that even in the no fault divorce system that we have now ex partners do not admit when they've done something wrong so making it a fault system will make it worse in terms of drawn out litigation and trials to assess who the guilty party is.

What happens when the situation becomes so bad at home that one party is driven out of their home and it then comes to light the party that stayed put already had a new partner from before the split?

Children who already have parents who can't get on would find they get caught in an even worse situation.

The courts would melt down due to the additional number of trials required.

Solicitors and private eye's would be rubbing their hands together with glee.

And the downside is the family becomes poorer and the children become worse off both financially and emotionally.

Just a thought!!

T

sadmother wrote:

the ducking stool was a no win situation. The occupant always ended up dead!

That depends, some ex's would want it back purely for that reason!!

Life insurance payout etc.....

T

sadmother wrote:

Yes my point about inequality of pay was just that......

Yes, the gender pay gap is a serious issue, if it is resolved then some of the problems re maintenance on seperation may go away. However, I suspect that equality would be found somewhere in the mid point of the gap (over time). A company is unlikely to simply up femal payrates to male - where is the money going to come from? In this were indeed the case then the overall effect on your scenario woud be broadly neutral. I am not trying to suggest that the pay gap is in any way justified, it isn't.

Regarding the higher earning parent paying 50% I didn't say that. I did say half in text - but this was assuming a position of equality. If you look at my example it assumes the father is paying 2/3 and the mother 1/3 - due to the disparity in incomes. This figure is maintained even after payment of SM to reach equality of income.

I do understand your point about the mother being a stay at home mother. The decision for that would have been made in happier times. Why should that decision remain relevant post divorce? Clearly other joint decisions haven't remained relevant - like getting married for life! However, it does put the mother in a very difficult position. Certainly her pospects may be significantly diminished - and she should be compensated for this. There certainly are some cases where she should perhaps be paid spousal maintenance for life - paricularly where she has sacrificed her career for the sake of the family.

I'm with nbm. I can remember the unedifying spectacle in the days when divorce was based on fault and every minute detail was fought over. If anything there was even more bitterness, hurt and pain.

In my experience the most common features in highly conflicted divorces are when spouses rewrite marital history and have a vilified image of each other. Over time the overly negative images the spouses make of each other become fixed as though they were true. Each spouse is then surrounded by a cadre of supporters (family, new partners, lawyers, mental health professionals) who after only hearing one side of the story in distorted detail take on the dispute of their own.

The detrimental effects on children are well documented and countless adults have childhood memories of their parents' divorce experience as a living hell of divided loyalties, forced court-ordered examinations, pressure to take sides, and the absence of any sense of security, safety, trust, or sanity.