Gold digging Ex-wives!!

Originally Posted by plowsie

Not really sure on this one and i may sound young and naive saying this but dont people think that when a couple are getting married, they should sign some sorta thing to say that she can't take anything from him whatever the matter. I'm pretty sure there is summit but the other way round.

You mean a pre-nuptial agrement Plowsie. Seems to work well in the US, but in England they always seem to be overturned, so not really worth the paper they are written on.

"Oh i signed it under duress....i was confused and didn't comprehend what i was committing to" etc

isnt there a song by Kanye west called gold digger??

That is what i hate in all this is that she so blatently is.
Yes while i dont agree with it, the law says she is entitle to some of her pension, but to go to the courts to get it before 65 when even the officer wont get his full allotment before 65 is 100% gold digging.

I really hope this gets thrown out of the court room!!

ASM-Forever - so what about the time for which you are not able to further your career because you're not working?

for example Person A works as a shop assistant, then (after discussion with Person B, their partner) takes 12 years out to have 3 kids & see them through to school age. After this point they return to work on a part-time basis (since they still have the main responsibility as carer, picking kids up from school on time, etc) and eventually makes supervisor level. During this time, Person B, who started at the same level, has been able to progress due to their increased experience, and is now managing several stores, earning a good salary.

A has obviously accrued less personal pension, both due to no of years worked and salary level. So in the event of a split, are you saying that it's person A's tough luck that they were the one chosen to lead on bringing up the children?

IMO they both made this decision and contributed in their own way to the relationship + any assets accrued, therefore it's not unreasonable to split these equally.

(Oh and no i don't happen to be a kept woman )

12 years out for 3 kids....i'd say the women has plotted her exodus from work quite precisely. As soon as one goes to school, she pops another one out.

I agree that the scope for employee development is a relevant factor, but you can't presume that she will have furthered her career.

As i said before, when the wife(or indeed husband) is looking after kids, thats more legitimate. I just dislike the looking after the kids/maintaining the home argument, when it comes to divorce. For the most part, working is far harder. Also in the real world, the spouse who works, is often is involved in the household anyway.

Of course all my comments are made from the lofty heights of 21 years of age and i have no direct experience of marriage....so what do i know.

Been there, done that and still have the financial scars after 15 years!!! I readily accept that the woman should get something but should be 50/50 at most. I lost everything and still have to pay personal maintenance (kids 22 and 20 so no dependents).

Why did I get hit so hard? She got Legal Aid - I didn't. She set the scene and didn't budge an inch, even her own solictor couldn't believe how greedy she was (solicitors words not mine!!) I had to agree cos I couldn't afford to argue. My solictor was drunk on the first day (stopped trading shortly after so I never paid the git) And the judge... if only you could

Child Support Agency is like legal aid for mothers too... sorry

Now I'm all wound up again!!!! Thanks Neio

I agree that assets should be split evenly and if kids are involved maybe the parent responsible should get more but it should be FAIR.

Im not married yet (next year) and have no kids so my only experience of divorce is my parents and as with skint above my dad got well and truly shafted.

I wrote a pre-nup type agreement before I moved in with my girlfriend, never mind before we got married. Personally, I think you'd have to be insane (or just very, very naive) not to, these days.

[timwilky]

Have to agree with the pseudo dago.

I have an pension plan, so does my wife. Whilst mine will pay considerably more, all our financial planning has been made purely on my pension. Should I die tomorrow, she would be entitled to half my pension plus the life insurance payout and our life had been played out knowing exactly what her entitlements should be. Why should her rights to an income from me change as a result of a divorce.

Conversely I am entitled to half her pension. and have to admit that when first she developed her cancer, I did look up what her payouts would be for death in service etc.

Originally Posted by ASM-Forever

The best solution is for the wife to look after the kids, until they are old enough to attend school. Then the lazy bint should go back to work....job done. In my experience(of friends families etc) the wife usually gives up work because of kids and then never goes back.

Im offended by that remark. Ever looked after kids full time (or tried holding down a job when they are at school) have you??? ...that is all I have to say

Originally Posted by ArtyLady

Im offended by that remark. Ever looked after kids full time (or tried holding down a job when they are at school) have you??? ...that is all I have to say

If i directed that remark at you, then you would possibly have every right to feel aggrieved. As i didn't tbh i think you're being excessively sensitive!

On occasion i've looked after friends/families kids. Whilst i accept this is nothing like being a full time parent, the whole "looking after kids" argument is the biggest con going. Working a full week+commuting or looking after the kids....i know who gets the better deal.

The whole argument is based on on the assumption, that all kids are complete terrors.....like something off 'Supernanny'. Thats far from reality in my experience.