have the money but dont want it to go to kids

Fiona wrote:

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.

Oh Fi you are not that old

E

The problem is legally at least - there isn't a victim. I don't think this is an entirely satisfactory arrangement but the old arrangements of "the guilty party" would completely clog everything up. But I have absolutely no idea how it could be improved, though mandatory counselling could conceivably be a way forward.

In my case I got chucked out, she has now moved her new partner in and truly believes that basically 500k to her 300k to me (in 4 years time) is fair. Unsurprisingly I don't. If she had been a stay at home mum - she was for a few years - then I would certainly be paying a fair chunk in SM going forward.

Whatever happens I am - to a certain degree - shafted. If there is any movement back towards blame, whilst it would enable those who feel "wronged" a certain amount of closure I think it would turn into an Absolute disaster.

It's a rotten business. It's always unfair to at least one of the parties (usually the NRP - but if they were largely responsible for the breakdown thats poetic justice). It's only really a question of just how unfair the financials end up being.

How wonderful to have SM for life. What I could do with all that money. No more working, just socialising, gym, watching Loose Women.

Seriously though, no, I would hate to think that my ex would provide for me for life. I would hate him to have that power over me.

Jo x

The problem with comparing divorce and separation to a criminal action is that with criminal cases such as a murder, burglary, rape, mugging etc there is a clearly defined party who is innocent and party who is guilty. In divorce there isn't.

After the initial upset and emotions have died down which can take years the 'who did what to whom' can change and as such it can come to light that no one party was pure. Both sides could have done and said things which in turn could have led to the end result. So how then can guilt be determined? What happens if both parties are to blame but neither will back down?

What happens when the party has secretly been planning for months/years?

The lines are often blurred as to who's guilty and who's innocent as BOTH sides have a view point as to what contributed to the break up. The courts are well aware of this fact and prefer to look at the fact that if one party has gone to the exreame of filing papers that the reasons are irrelevant as you cannot make two parties stay together who don't want to be. To then start trying to unravel which party is innocent and which is guilty would involve too much paperwork and court time. This then takes away court time and money from the actual criminal cases where there is a true guilty and innocent party who should be convicted.

T

T

Temporary blame is perfectly natural but problems will never be addressed when people remain stuck with notions of blame and victimhood. Blaming is just an unhappy judgment.


Those who engage in ongoing blame will seemingly continue to do so until all those being blamed change. Such a result is impossible. The more someone is criticised the more they feel attacked and the more they will defend themselves. Therefore blame is counter productive in bringing about change and victimhood keeps the blaming person unhappy.

I don't blame my ex for telling me that he had shagged loads of women. At the time I was angry with myself for having stayed in a miserable marriage, whereas if I had known he had shagged loads of women I could have left sooner.

But, I am so so grateful that he did tell me. Whether he really did sleep with those women is another question, which to be honest I don't care to ask. However, if he had not told me when he did I can honestly say I would have stayed in my unhappy marriage and would still be there now.

So, no, I don't blame my ex, I am pleased he told me, for whatever reason, because I was able to get out with good reason, as I would never have left a marriage, simply because I was unhappy, even though the abuse was often intolerable. Somehow, in my warped mind, abuse was not a good enough reason to leave. Of course, nowadays I think differently, 100% differently.

Jo x

All benefits should be properly means tested.
especially in the case of divorce sitting on house equity of vast amounts of money .that money should have to be liquidated to provide for the family.
The taxpayer should not be picking up the bill for divorcees to be sitting on thousands of pounds of personal wealth tied up in house equity and getting state provision to raise the kids.
It is not fair on couples who stay married have no personal wealth and get no financial hand outs to raise the kids whatsoever.
The first time my family started getting thousands of pounds worth of handouts every month was when she declared herself a single parent after having an affair.
The state in this instance is rewarding someone for getting divorced.
Nothing changed financially i still worked the house was still worth the same but just transferred into her ownership.So why is the taxpayer picking up the bill to a tune of £1000 a month to her.Especially after moving in another male who she just doesn't admit lives there and thats very easy to get away with also.