Gold digging Ex-wives!!

I was quite happily reading the Daily mail with my brekky in Sainsbury’s yesterday when the following Story caught my eye, and really annoyed me.

As a serving married soldier it is quite close to home.

It was about the now Ex-wife of one ex high serving officer.
As a divorced wife of a soldier who has a pension she is entitled to claim a percentage of it for the number of years she was married to him for. In this case I think it was 20 yrs or so, so she will have a big slice of his pension. As it stands at the moment she has to wait till she is 65 for any of it.
She is about to go through the European courts to try and get them to force the MOD to pay it from the day he collected it.

This really really P’d me off for the following reasons:

• I don’t think any wife should be entitled to any of her husband’s pension. She decided not to work so why should she have any of the money he has worked his whole life for?? He put his life on the line etc not her. She married him knowing he was away a lot etc. Which is one of the things she is using to say why she should have the money.
• Women in general seem to think that the whole world owes them a living once they are divorced, and it really annoys me how they all seem to be such gold diggers. I would expect my wife to try it if I got divorced. However again why should she as she married me when I was in, I never asked her to follow me, or give up work. Which she has not as she is in the police and had a career of her own.

I may sound like a woman hater but I am not, it just annoys me that the law is on their side so much in divorce, why does this woman think she is any diff to the other ex army wives and think she deserves any money early. I don’t think she deserves any at all.

I have made it quite clear to my wife if we got divorced and she tried to take me for all I am worth its far easier and cheaper to ensure she has an “accident” !!

Sorry rant over,

Now feel free to discuss.

Sorry my friend but I think your thinking is both archaic and flawed. Based on being married to a serving member of HMF it might well have been difficult for the lady in question to continue her own career. A mutual decision might have been made that she would tend for the home and any children from the relationship etc.

Any accrued pension rights during that time should then be shared.

Your threat to your own wife is cute and if the unfortunate happened,(a break down of your own marriage) if she has any sense she would include your comments in the divorce papers. I doubt very much if the powers that be would view them lightly.

The flip side of your argument would raise the question of how would the female in question otherwise seek financial compensation for the years that she dedicated to her husband and therefore denied herself the ability to accrue pension rights in her own name?

From what you have stated the lady in the scenario presented is not looking to take your friend for all he has got, but merely receive what I believe to be a fair settlement.

Originally Posted by neio79

I was quite happily reading the Daily Mail

[Biker Biggles]

Exactly.While there may be some mileage in the claim that the pendulum has swung too far in favour of women,what my Honda riding,and sometimes crashing,friend says is quite right.The principle is that where one partner(usually the woman) has contributed to the home and family in ways other than through earning money,that is given due weight in a divorce settlement.If done properly that seems entirely reasonable to me.

i don't like the extent to which some people go 'gold-digging', but for this type of case you have to look at it from a different perspective as well.

Firstly, a pension is in effect savings, and if you've got to the sorry stage when you're dividing up assets, it's right that this should also be included. And I say this as someone with 10 yrs pension, much of it public sector, and a husband with no pension at all.

Also, what do you know about why she didn't work? My mum raised 4 kids and looked after my grandad for years. During most of this time she didn't work, though she did do so in her 20s and after we left home. She's now entitled to very little in terms of pension in her own right, so is dependent on that of my dad. But that sort of family situation was very common for my parents' genmeration, and tbh i totally respect any woman/couple who decide that they will make financial sacrifices to enable someone to stay at home and spend time with the kids. Why should then then be penalised later in life for being the person who did so?

I was married to someone in the forces before we divorced after 4 years. i did not lay any claim to his pension for the only reason that i was able to continue with my career as my Ex was posted in this country and we were able to stay in our quarter. when he was posted to Northern Ireland we bought our own house together so i was able to stay in my job and be near the friends i had made.

i don't think it would've been appropriate in those circumstances to lay claim to his pension and signed the paperwork accordingly.

If he had been posted away and i had to move it would've been a different matter. we shared the responsibility for the house and we did not have any children. Also if i had known how much debt he had left us with then again it might have been a different matter

I accept that women contribute to a marriage in a different way, raising kids etc. However I don’t think that they can use the kids as an excuse, my wife and plenty of others still have a job we have a daughter and share the care responsibilities. What with the laws on maternity leave etc nowadays there is no way a woman can say was forced to give up work unless she wanted to, her choice so why should the husband suffer if it all goes wrong??

On the flip side my wife gets a good pension scheme as well, so if we were to divorce If she was to go after mine then I would do the same for hers, therefore there would be no point o us fighting for it.

But this woman is trying to challenge the law to get what she is entitle to before she is entitled to it.

While it Is true that her husband and her split before he retired and yes he got a pay out once he had done his time. You do not get the full pension until 65. Now if that is the rule for the ex soldier, why does this woman think she is entitled to any money before him?? Other than she is gold digging.

Originally Posted by neio79

I accept that women contribute to a marriage in a different way, raising kids etc. However I don’t think that they can use the kids as an excuse, my wife and plenty of others still have a job we have a daughter and share the care responsibilities. What with the laws on maternity leave etc nowadays there is no way a woman can say was forced to give up work unless she wanted to, her choice so why should the husband suffer if it all goes wrong??

I think you're missing the point that this is often a joint decision, especially when children are involved. And most women that I know who work with kids do so part time.

Interestingly, i also know some guys who prefer their other halves not to work, even though they don't have kids - either they earn a good salary and it's a staus thing, and/or it's a cultural thing.

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.

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.

If there then was a divorce, then the woman has a legitimate claim for the time she spent out of work, looking after the children. I think a distinction needs to be made between the wife being unable to work and choosing not to work.

I also believe that the type of employment the wife occupied prior to leaving it for the marriage/kids should be taken into account. If she didn't work/worked in a low paid job....she certainly doesn't deserve an officers pension!