Ireland Divorce law - settlements?

Placebo

I was wondering where i could read up on the settlement laws in ireland, i found a website but it doesnt seem to be making much since with YE OLE ANGLAIS.
but, is it 50/50 ? and only childsupport for kids under 18 ?
thanks

py2006

Well I am no expert but I believe its pretty much 50/50 if there are no kids involved and both partners agree on a 50/50.

If there are kids involved everything goes to the woman.

Nevyn

You need to look up seperation settlements, you have to be seperated a certain ammount of time legally before you can apply for a divorce decree.

Placebo

any links ?

maidhc

Your local library should have a copy of Alan Shatter's book on Family law. I have never read it though as Family Law makes me go into uncontrollable rants.

Some recent family cases here which should give you a flavour of the court's (sometimes odd) decisions: http://www.ucc.ie/law/irlii/irliiindex/indexcat_seach.php?typ=Family

Our man in Havana

maidhc wrote:

Your local library should have a copy of Alan Shatter's book on Family law. I have never read it though as Family Law makes me go into uncontrollable rants.

I know how you feel. Family law angries up the blood. :mad:

Bamboozled

Thaedydal wrote:

You need to look up seperation settlements, you have to be seperated a certain ammount of time legally before you can apply for a divorce decree.

You must be living apart for 4 out of 5 years you have been separated. (Unlesss they've changed it since Jan 2005 when I was sorting mine out)

You can be legally separated but still living in the same house, hence the living apart for 4 out of the 5 years.

As for settlements, dont know where you can find anything out about them as I've not had to worry about it. We did a 50/50 thing when we separated without solicitors involved, we had no kids and it was all nice and friendly.

Eru

Family law makes my blood boil with its bizarre rules and processes.

From what I have seen its rarely 50/50 and spouse (when married) and kids (upto 18 minimum but also 21/24 if in education) is a given against the male.

Sorry if I offend female readers, I know the law was enacted with good and (then) justified intentions but society and times have changed.

Put it this way, I know a guy, married 15 years with 2 kids, woke up one morning, kicked out of the house. Gave the house in leu of settlement and maintanence for his wife but still pays for kids.

He is renting a house, no assets and had to buy a new (not really new but new for him) car whereas she now lives in the family home with the 2 kids and her (prior to splitting) boyfriend.

Hows that fair?

Bamboozled

Its not fair. The divorce law here is ridiculous.

Was the house given in lieu of the settlement as part of a legal thing?

Usually it is the wife left in the house to raise the kids, and when the kids turn 18, the wife and husband sell the house and split the proceeds.

I'm sure someone would word that better but right now i'm tired and can only form basic sentences.

dermot_sheehan

Divorce law in Ireland is goverened by the 15th amendment to the constituion: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/gen11996a.html and the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA33Y1996.html.

Judicial Separation is governed by the Family Law Act 1995 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA26Y1995.html and Judicial Separation Act 1989 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA6Y1989.html



Basically the requirements for a divorce are 4 out of 5 years separation, no prospect of reconcilliation, and "proper provision" for both spouses and any dependent children. Dependent children means any child till 18, or until 23 if in fulltime education. Lots of arguments about "proper provision". Basically courts have said equal sharing of misery so 50:50 roughly. Court also looks for best interests of child, which is normally residence with mother in family home, then house sold and split between spouses, but of course this varies on a case to case basis. The above formula protects the best interests of the child by ensuring least disruption to their life.

For the four out of five years before a divorce most parties live under a judicial separation. Property orders, maintenance and custody can be decided for this period also. The requirements for a judicial separation are:



2.—(1) An application by a spouse for a decree of judicial separation from the other spouse may be made to the court having jurisdiction to hear and determine proceedings under Part III of this Act on one or more of the following grounds:

( a ) that the respondent has committed adultery;

( b ) that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent;

( c ) subject to subsection (2) of this section, that there has been desertion by the respondent of the applicant for a continuous period of at least one year immediately preceding the date of the application;

( d ) subject to subsection (2) of this section, that the spouses have 3 lived apart from one another for a continuous period of at least one year immediately preceding the date of the application and the respondent consents to a decree being granted;

( e ) subject to subsection (2) of this section, that the spouses have lived apart from one another for a continuous period of at least three years immediately preceding the date of the application;

( f ) that the marriage has broken down to the extent that the court is satisfied in all the circumstances that a normal marital relationship has not existed between the spouses for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the date of the application.

Our man in Havana

What annoys me is that there is no mechanism to punish behaviour leading to the breakup of marraiage, ie if the wife is unfaithful then she is should be held to account and receive squat in settlement. It seems that under irish law that this sort of this is encouraged as the wife comes off well always. Whats to stop a wife who has a rich husband from simply having an affair and then cleaning out the innocent husband in the courts?

In some jurisdictions if you can show fault then the other spouse gets nothing. The family law act 1995 is in need of updating.

dermot_sheehan

Supreme court said in the T case http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IEHC/2001/166.html&query=t.&method=phrase said fault should not be used in divorce property allocation, overturning high court ruling. The supreme court said the constitution requires "proper provision", not punitive sanctions.

The problem with fault based divorce as it leads to lots of acrimony in proceedings in order to prove fault. For example, look at new york which had (or still has) a fault based system, where parties fund private detective to gather evidence for a divorce.

maidhc

gabhain7 wrote:

The problem with fault based divorce as it leads to lots of acrimony in proceedings in order to prove fault.

In fairness it gets pretty acrimonious when a wife starts trying to close down the successful family business so she can be provided for.

I would have thought the feminists would be very upset at the blatent discrimination which takes place in favour of the woman, even where no children are involved. Surely such treatment has no place in a just and equal society...

Lplated

Placebo wrote:

I was wondering where i could read up on the settlement laws in ireland, i found a website but it doesnt seem to be making much since with YE OLE ANGLAIS.
but, is it 50/50 ? and only childsupport for kids under 18 ?
thanks

Fair play Placebo, you've asked a question that obviously raises a lot of hackles!

Short answers to your questions are that the test (in relation to either spouse), before a Court will approve a settlement, is that 'proper provision' is made. The most comprehensive judgment to date has been T v T in the Supreme Court, which suggested that once the proper provision condition is satisfied, that that is likely to amount to between 30 and 50% of the family assets going to the non-asset owning spouse (in Ireland, usually the wife).

Childsupport is essentially a different matter, covered under Divorce law, Separation Law and Child law. Parents will be fiscally responsible for their issue until same reach the age of 18 (or 23 if in third level education). As a matter of logic, if only one spouse is earning, she will be required to pay child maintenance to the other non-earning, child rearing spouse.

As a general comment, the main problem facing Irish couples splitting up is that most families have only one asset, the family home, sometimes with a mortgage. When there is a family breakdown, there will then be two households. Courts need the wisdom of solomon to try to divide assets between two people, particularly when those assets are really only sufficient to cover one household. As a (very general) rule of thumb, the spouse rearing the children will get the better deal (because the children are legally more important than either of the parents). Equally, the non-earning spouse who has spent X years rearing the family will get what appears to be the better deal, this is essentially to compensate for the fact that he spent years at home, rearing kids etc.. and diminishing his own employment prospects so that she could go out and earn a fortune which she then complains about having to share with the poor husband whose work in the home enabled her to create the fortune in the first place.

dermot_sheehan

Lplated wrote:

Fair play Placebo, you've asked a question that obviously raises a lot of hackles!

Short answers to your questions are that the test (in relation to either spouse), before a Court will approve a settlement, is that 'proper provision' is made. The most comprehensive judgment to date has been T v T in the Supreme Court, which suggested that once the proper provision condition is satisfied, that that is likely to amount to between 30 and 50% of the family assets going to the non-asset owning spouse (in Ireland, usually the wife).

Childsupport is essentially a different matter, covered under Divorce law, Separation Law and Child law. Parents will be fiscally responsible for their issue until same reach the age of 18 (or 23 if in third level education). As a matter of logic, if only one spouse is earning, she will be required to pay child maintenance to the other non-earning, child rearing spouse.

As a general comment, the main problem facing Irish couples splitting up is that most families have only one asset, the family home, sometimes with a mortgage. When there is a family breakdown, there will then be two households. Courts need the wisdom of solomon to try to divide assets between two people, particularly when those assets are really only sufficient to cover one household. As a (very general) rule of thumb, the spouse rearing the children will get the better deal (because the children are legally more important than either of the parents). Equally, the non-earning spouse who has spent X years rearing the family will get what appears to be the better deal, this is essentially to compensate for the fact that he spent years at home, rearing kids etc.. and diminishing his own employment prospects so that she could go out and earn a fortune which she then complains about having to share with the poor husband whose work in the home enabled her to create the fortune in the first place.

Remember however that the T case was in many ways unique in the the high wealth of the spouses allowed the transfer of enough income producing assets to enable a "clean break". In T. no further maintenance payments were required from either spouse, the one off capital payment severed all future obligations.

This was regarded as good for practical reasons in that it's easier and less acrimonious to have a clean break and start afresh.

It was criticised as it discriminated in favour of wealthy couples. They can achieve a "clean break" because they have enough assets. For the vast majority of people however, to ensure proper provision regular maintenance will have to be paid.

Gobán Saor

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

......I know a guy, married 15 years with 2 kids, woke up one morning, kicked out of the house. Gave the house in leu of settlement and maintanence for his wife but still pays for kids.

He is renting a house, no assets and had to buy a new (not really new but new for him) car whereas she now lives in the family home with the 2 kids and her (prior to splitting) boyfriend.

Hows that fair?

It's not. BUT, it doesn't have to be like this. First, she can't just "kick" him out of the house. It's his bloody house too!! He can stay there UNTIL a court directs otherwise. I'm amazed at how many men just accept a "kicking out." Ìt is just making it SO easy for his wife to install the boyfriend. And of course, accommodation, maintenance and property orders follow almost automatically, and will favour the parent with de facto custody with almost no regard to spousal conduct. There is a better way. He should stay in the family home at all costs. AND look for custody and child maintenance if she wants to bugger off with the boyfriend. AND try to buy out her interest in the property if it can at all be afforded. Not easy but it can be done. I should know - I am that soldier. Contrary to popular opinion the Family Law Courts are fairly gender neutral - but they DO come down heavily in favour of the parent with child rearing responsibilities. Be that parent:)

Our man in Havana

Gob&#225 wrote: »

And of course, accommodation, maintenance and property orders follow almost automatically, and will favour the parent with de facto custody with almost no regard to spousal conduct.

That's the most worrying part of the Irish system. Would it take much to bring in a fault system? Would it need another consitutional ammendment?

Gobán Saor

Bond-007 wrote:

That's the most worrying part of the Irish system. Would it take much to bring in a fault system? Would it need another consitutional ammendment?

No. Legislation would suffice. Article 41.3.2 provides that:
A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that
i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

dermot_sheehan

Gob&#225 wrote: »

It's not. BUT, it doesn't have to be like this. First, she can't just "kick" him out of the house. It's his bloody house too!! He can stay there UNTIL a court directs otherwise. I'm amazed at how many men just accept a "kicking out." Ìt is just making it SO easy for his wife to install the boyfriend. And of course, accommodation, maintenance and property orders follow almost automatically, and will favour the parent with de facto custody with almost no regard to spousal conduct. There is a better way. He should stay in the family home at all costs. AND look for custody and child maintenance if she wants to bugger off with the boyfriend. AND try to buy out her interest in the property if it can at all be afforded. Not easy but it can be done. I should know - I am that soldier. Contrary to popular opinion the Family Law Courts are fairly gender neutral - but they DO come down heavily in favour of the parent with child rearing responsibilities. Be that parent:)

But all that other spouse has to do is make allegation of spousal abuse and get a barring order (on the civil evidentiary standard, not criminal), and spouse is kicked out of home. Can then make application for maintenance/sole custody of children until full trial of judicial separation goes forward.


I'm not saying that this does happen, just raising it as a possibility.

Nevyn

It is very hard to get an temp/interm barring order unless there has clearly been an assult.
Judges are more inclinded to hand out a temp/interm safety order.

A Safety Order prohibits the abuser from further violence or threats of violence. It does not oblige the violent person to leave the family home. If the abusive person does not live with you, the Safety Order prohibits them from being in the vicinity of or watching your home. This order can be granted for up to 5 years in the District Court.

http://oasis.gov.ie/relationships/separation_divorce/barring_safety_and_protection_orders.html

and a date is set for the review of the matter.

Gobán Saor

gabhain7 wrote:

But all that other spouse has to do is make allegation of spousal abuse and get a barring order (on the civil evidentiary standard, not criminal), and spouse is kicked out of home. Can then make application for maintenance/sole custody of children until full trial of judicial separation goes forward.


I'm not saying that this does happen, just raising it as a possibility.

`

Fair point! And yes it does happen. You will then need to arm yourself with a) solicitor and possibly barrister and b) the facts. Then meet the challenge head on. Call witnesses who can testify to your peaceful nature (assuming this is the case!) When did the allegation first surface? Who was told? GP records? Mediation? Keep your own log of spouses behaviour. Remember, this type of malicious allegation will certaìnly succeed when its unchallenged or the respondent doesn't even put in an appearance. Which, amazingly many don't. But the best strategy is to make sure the other person knows that any messing will be challenged firmly and they will be subjected to robust cross-examination. Which for all its faults, does tend to make all but the very best of liars sweat. Keep cool, take your (expensively bought) advice and you will find the system is not as bad as its painted.