Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by cBay)
    Hmm a fair point, but surely in such a situation the lower earning divorcee is already receiving a lump sum settlement far in excess of their financial contribution to the marriage, so would be a fair compromise?
    I'm not sure. That lump sum could maybe only cover the cost of getting a deposit for a house.

    Also I disagree with pre-nups being totally legally binding. I think they should be taken into account but in much the same way someone cannot sign away their rights according to law situations can change so I think that the situation leading to the end of marriage should be taken into account always.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    aye
    (if I count, someone say if I don't)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    aye
    (if I count, someone say if I don't)
    Not really, tbh…
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Not really, tbh…
    ok
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    It depends on the situation though. Sometimes you can get the higher earning spouse almost forbid the other one from working or getting a promotion so they should support them for a limited time until they get back on their feat.
    They can't forbid them from doing anything if they're divorced.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I wish divorce never happened, but it does and so amending the law to reflect recent cases and experiences is a move that I support.

    There are some details that I suggest could be reviewed in time for a second reading. I think that the provision for children should be for those under a given age (not sure if 18 is right) and should include all those who lived in the home (adopted, those from previous relationships). If we are to reduce the amount based on adultery, then the definition should be widened as I proposed in the previous parliament. A divorce because one of the people enters into a new relationship with a member of the same sex, and somehow catering for the breakdown of a same sex marriage should be catered for.

    Finally, I find pre-nups distasteful and the House should separately consider whether they should have legal status.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    They can't forbid them from doing anything if they're divorced.
    no but if you have never had a job or only done low paid work you might need maintainance for a short period, say 3 years just to get back on your feet.

    But anyway this was my smallest gripe. My biggest issue is section 5, taking pre-nups as fully binding instead of just a guide and The limited support given to children barnetlad makes the brilliant point that people who adopt together wouldn't be protecting their adopted child under this bill and my point that the people can have an unwed child and then go on to marry and that too will not protect the child.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I won't move on pre-nups, other than in cases where one party is clearly abusing the spirit of them then individual liberty should be paramount.

    I will remove section 5. I included as a source of revenue for councils and because higher divorce costs would provide an incentive not to.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    no but if you have never had a job or only done low paid work you might need maintainance for a short period, say 3 years just to get back on your feet.

    But anyway this was my smallest gripe. My biggest issue is section 5, taking pre-nups as fully binding instead of just a guide and The limited support given to children

    barnetlad makes the brilliant point that people who adopt together wouldn't be protecting their adopted child under this bill and my point that the people can have an unwed child and then go on to marry and that too will not protect the child.
    It is not an ex spouses job to maintain the standard of living of the other after divorce. We have a welfare state to tide them over.

    Will amend to protect adopted children and those born before marriage.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Aye, I would like to see father given more legal status about the housing of their children after divorce to correct the imbalance of children usually ending up with their mothers, but I will support this bill.
    I considered this but it would be very difficult to achieve and we don't know in how many cases the father even wants full custody. I also felt it probably would be a step too far for some people.

    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Leaning towards nay. I'm not sure of the merits of using court time to try and prove that someone's committed adulatory when it isn't a criminal offence.
    Its not a criminal offense but we've changed from the 60's where fault was abolished. In todays world a woman is just as likely to be spreading her legs during marriage and that makes it deeply unfair that a higher earning man should still be raped by a divorce court when the fault may not have been theirs.

    For marriage and divorce to remain credible, we need to bring back fault and take into account modern circumstances.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Agree with most of it, except section 5. I prefer a higher divorce charge rather than letting councils decide. Plus 5(2) is quite inconvenient as mentioned before.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye, but I would amend it so couples intending to marry must undergo a pre-marriage course to ensure they are 'compatible', like many religious groups do.

    It's a good idea - extreeeemly low failure/divorce rate, trust me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. The rulings on prenuptial agreements already made by the courts (e.g. recently Radmacher v Granatino) do enough; statutory intervention is unnecessary.

    I'd also like confirmation that s1 actually differs from the existing law.

    Re: s3, I assume you mean 'adultery' ('adulatory' means to be in a manner in awe of something, or extremely praising of it) and in any event I see no need to reduce the court's discretion - especially if similar limits are not created e.g. for abuse.

    I strongly disagree with s4, which is far too extreme. While I don't think it should necessarily be the case that any given standard of living which pre-existed the divorce should be maintained, it seems only reasonable that someone who might have a large career gap should be given enough to sustain the damage effectively caused to them by the relationship.

    I support s5 if you add a provision for the grant of subsidy to poorer members of society.

    I'd also suggest reading part 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act before submitting this for a second reading.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    What is the current divorce maintenance payment system? I don't follow what that segment changes.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    What is the current divorce maintenance payment system? I don't follow what that segment changes.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Right now the courts are able to issue maintenance orders requiring one partner to maintain the standard of living of another in addition to any payments for children.

    This bill makes it clear that spousal obligations to each other end upon divorce and that only payments for children will occur,
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay. The rulings on prenuptial agreements already made by the courts (e.g. recently Radmacher v Granatino) do enough; statutory intervention is unnecessary.

    I'd also like confirmation that s1 actually differs from the existing law.

    Re: s3, I assume you mean 'adultery' ('adulatory' means to be in a manner in awe of something, or extremely praising of it) and in any event I see no need to reduce the court's discretion - especially if similar limits are not created e.g. for abuse.

    I strongly disagree with s4, which is far too extreme. While I don't think it should necessarily be the case that any given standard of living which pre-existed the divorce should be maintained, it seems only reasonable that someone who might have a large career gap should be given enough to sustain the damage effectively caused to them by the relationship.

    I support s5 if you add a provision for the grant of subsidy to poorer members of society.

    I'd also suggest reading part 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act before submitting this for a second reading.
    Will read that case although I still think prenups should be legally binding.

    Will change the spelling.

    Very much disagree. We have a welfare state to keep the unemployed alive.

    Section 5 will be abolished for second reading.

    Will do so.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Aye, but I would amend it so couples intending to marry must undergo a pre-marriage course to ensure they are 'compatible', like many religious groups do.

    It's a good idea - extreeeemly low failure/divorce rate, trust me.
    I don't think its the states place to require people to attend things like that.

    (Original post by McRite)
    Agree with most of it, except section 5. I prefer a higher divorce charge rather than letting councils decide. Plus 5(2) is quite inconvenient as mentioned before.
    Section 5 will be abolished.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I don't think its the states place to require people to attend things like that.
    Maybe, but since these people are entering binding legal contracts they should be obligated to do something like it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Very much disagree. We have a welfare state to keep the unemployed alive.
    If the welfare state were anything like sufficient to maintain a reasonable standard of life I'd accept this point.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Right now the courts are able to issue maintenance orders requiring one partner to maintain the standard of living of another in addition to any payments for children.

    This bill makes it clear that spousal obligations to each other end upon divorce and that only payments for children will occur,
    I thought so, I don't agree with this point. There need be a compromise should one partner sacrifice their career for family or otherwise. There should be some payments to support retraining when one partner drops out.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 5, 2015
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.