Court rule on Mr G

Love2love

In a landmark case for unmarried fathers Judge Liam McKechnie has ruled that the removal of three-year-old twin boys from Ireland to their mother's parental home in the UK was contrary to the meaning of the Hauge Convention of 1980.

The boys father, referred to as Mr G in order to protect the identity of the children, is not married to

their mother and therefore does not qualify for custody of his sons under current Irish law.
He had, however begun guardianship proceedings by the time the twin's mother (referred to as Ms O) took them abroad last January.

Today's ruling means Mr G has won the first battle in his attempt to have his sons returned to Ireland.

Legal proceedings that were running in the UK were frozen while the Irish case was in process.

On Friday legal representatives for the applicant (Mr G) and the respondent (Ms O) will return to the Hight Court where the wording of an order to be served in the English jurisdiction will be formulated.

The scheduled hearing will take place in the UK next week.

Carrigart Exile

Love2love wrote:

In a landmark case for unmarried fathers Judge Liam McKechnie has ruled that the removal of three-year-old twin boys from Ireland to their mother's parental home in the UK was contrary to the meaning of the Hauge Convention of 1980.

The boys father, referred to as Mr G in order to protect the identity of the children, is not married to

their mother and therefore does not qualify for custody of his sons under current Irish law.
He had, however begun guardianship proceedings by the time the twin's mother (referred to as Ms O) took them abroad last January.

Today's ruling means Mr G has won the first battle in his attempt to have his sons returned to Ireland.

Legal proceedings that were running in the UK were frozen while the Irish case was in process.

On Friday legal representatives for the applicant (Mr G) and the respondent (Ms O) will return to the Hight Court where the wording of an order to be served in the English jurisdiction will be formulated.

The scheduled hearing will take place in the UK next week.

Hallelujah, the parental rights of men creep into the late 19th century

Nevyn

The judge but a lot of stock in the fact hat they had been livign together as 'husband and wife' and that he played a role in caring for the twins and was an active daily part of thier lives.

Anto McC

If the fathers are willing to be good fathers and play an active role then it's a great move but it can't be said of all fathers unfortunatly.

K-9

Thaedydal wrote:

The judge but a lot of stock in the fact hat they had been livign together as 'husband and wife' and that he played a role in caring for the twins and was an active daily part of thier lives.

Yeah, I think as a legal expert said on RTE, he was a responsible father. The judge used European Law and that part specifically relating to co-habitating couples. To all intents and purposes he acted like a married father.

The expert did point out too, unmarried fathers still have to apply for guardianship and that is the way to prevent a mother taking the kids out of Ireland. It's mad that it took a court case in 2007 to right this wrong.

Hotblack Desiato

Anto McC wrote:

If the fathers are willing to be good fathers and play an active role then it's a great move but it can't be said of all fathers unfortunatly.

Many good fathers who wish to play an active role are shut out of their child's lives by our legal system.

Agent Smith

Anto McC wrote:

If the fathers are willing to be good fathers and play an active role then it's a great move but it can't be said of all fathers unfortunatly.

neither can be said of all mothers either...

Love2love

I think what AntoMcC means is that it's great for those who are genuinely seeking to play a proper role in the child's life and not just in spite of the mother. I know of one who actively uses his time with his child to defy the wishes of the mother.Although the same can be said for mother's who do the same.

Anto McC

Love2love wrote:

I think what AntoMcC means is that it's great for those who are genuinely seeking to play a proper role in the child's life and not just in spite of the mother. I know of one who actively uses his time with his child to defy the wishes of the mother. Although the same can be said for mother's who do the same.

Exactly, i know of 2 prominent members of a unmarried fathers organisation who do just this. They have both, at time, told the mother of the child they thay only want access to get back at them.

Don't get me wrong i know there are some terrible mothers out there too and in such cases i don't think they should be left with the children either.

Nevyn

I don't think that father's rights or mother's right should be the issue.
I think it should be about the rights of the child and what is best for the child.
Children should have the right to know and have a relationship wth both thier parents.

Love2love

Thaedydal wrote:

I don't think that father's rights or mother's right should be the issue.
I think it should be about the rights of the child and what is best for the child.
Children should have the right to know and have a relationship wth both thier parents.

I agree, I don't think its in the child's best interest for the parent to act like this. Buying a child sweets purposely defying the wishes of the mother just because you have a right as a parent to do so.... just out of spite.

goldenbrown

each case is different but if you find yourself down there at inns quay or smithfield, be absolutely committed in the legal process if you want to remain a parent and not be marginalised in your child's life - the courts will test your resolve......:) and many legals will want you dangling on a string as a perrennial 'maintenance' cash crop...including your own legals...www.parentalequality.ie

The Corinthian

I don't think many people have considered some of the implications of this case.

At the center of this ruling is the redefinition of a family, in that the marital status is no longer a defining issue. That is that marital rights can be given regardless of the marital status of the two people involved.

Of the objections I've heard, the main two appear to be firstly a mistaken belief that a woman could be stopped from going for an abortion (given a married man cannot supersede his wife's right to travel, then this is a moot point). The second objection is that the child could then be used as a weapon by the father against the mother, to which all I can say is "welcome to single fatherhood".

However, it is the other implications of this ruling that are equally interesting. Other than essentially giving unmarried fathers guardianship (if they qualify), it opens the road to tax equality with married fathers.

However, it's not all good news for men as the other side of the coin of being seen as the same as a married family is spousal maintenance and division of 'family' assets. I expect this will become a new hot topic in the next few years (especially in light of the reforms being proposed in the UK).

Nevyn

Well it will open up the pensions isue again and the assement not only under tax but of prsi. A married spouse can claim against thier spouse prsi to advail of a range of things were a co habiting couple can not.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote:

Of the objections I've heard, the main two appear to be firstly a mistaken belief that a woman could be stopped from going for an abortion (given a married man cannot supersede his wife's right to travel, then this is a moot point). The second objection is that the child could then be used as a weapon by the father against the mother, to which all I can say is "welcome to single fatherhood".

The abortion objection isn't relevant as you say with the right to travel. In fairness on kids being used as weapons, well in the G case the mother did this, as plenty of others do too.

thecorinthian wrote:

However, it's not all good news for men as the other side of the coin of being seen as the same as a married family is spousal maintenance and division of 'family' assets. I expect this will become a new hot topic in the next few years (especially in light of the reforms being proposed in the UK).

Was there a case being taken here by a unmarried mother re property rights i.e. getting some share in the property that she had not financially contributed to, but a share due to her being a stay at home mum who cared for the children in the house? Remember seeing it somewhere.

Works both ways I suppose!

Hotblack Desiato

Thaedydal wrote:

Well it will open up the pensions isue again and the assement not only under tax but of prsi. A married spouse can claim against thier spouse prsi to advail of a range of things were a co habiting couple can not.

The flipside of that is that an unmarried couple can pretend to be not co-habiting if that enables one or both of them to get means tested benefits.

Nevyn

???

Hotblack Desiato

You mentioned something that married couples can do that unmarried ones can't, but it's possible for it to work the other way sometimes too.

K-9

ninja900 wrote:

You mentioned something that married couples can do that unmarried ones can't, but it's possible for it to work the other way sometimes too.

Seamus Brennan at the time, was chatting about reforming the Single Parent payment to allow for co-habitation. No details though! The Social Welfare knows it goes on and I suppose instead of using vast resources investigating it, I think they wanted to reform the payment

Carrigart Exile

The Corinthian wrote:

I don't think many people have considered some of the implications of this case.

At the center of this ruling is the redefinition of a family, in that the marital status is no longer a defining issue. That is that marital rights can be given regardless of the marital status of the two people involved.

Of the objections I've heard, the main two appear to be firstly a mistaken belief that a woman could be stopped from going for an abortion (given a married man cannot supersede his wife's right to travel, then this is a moot point). The second objection is that the child could then be used as a weapon by the father against the mother, to which all I can say is "welcome to single fatherhood".

However, it is the other implications of this ruling that are equally interesting. Other than essentially giving unmarried fathers guardianship (if they qualify), it opens the road to tax equality with married fathers.

However, it's not all good news for men as the other side of the coin of being seen as the same as a married family is spousal maintenance and division of 'family' assets. I expect this will become a new hot topic in the next few years (especially in light of the reforms being proposed in the UK).

spousal maintenance in the 21st century, what a joke

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

spousal maintenance in the 21st century, what a joke

It depends on the circumstances. Spousal maintenance seems mad where both parents are working and earning good money and in good careers. However, if the mother gave up her career to mind the children, or maybe went part-time and that was a joint decision, then there probably does have to be some form of spousal maintenace. Would be the same for fathers too if the situation was reversed.

Elessar

Does anyone know if this case has been heard again in the UK courts? It was meant to happen this week...

I know that the mother in question is going all the way to the supreme court to try to get the ruling overturned. Hopefully the judges there will still see the injustice that is inherent in the system for unmarried fathers.

K-9

Elessar wrote:

Does anyone know if this case has been heard again in the UK courts? It was meant to happen this week...

I thought she would have had even less sympathy from the English courts as they're are more advanced on unmarried fathers rights.

Elessar wrote:

I know that the mother in question is going all the way to the supreme court to try to get the ruling overturned. Hopefully the judges there will still see the injustice that is inherent in the system for unmarried fathers.

I think they will see the politicians have ignored the issue and see child abduction is child abduction, regardless of gender.

The Corinthian

Carrigart Exile wrote:

spousal maintenance in the 21st century, what a joke

In what sense?

Carrigart Exile

The Corinthian wrote:

In what sense?

why should one adult human being have to provide for another adult human being because they were once married. The most recent UK case I can remember is that of the footballer who had provided for his children (all of whom were now in secondary school) and his ex wife demanded one third of his future earnings to keep her in the style she had become accustomed to. Sorry, but get up off your well upholstered lazy ass and get a job

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

It depends on the circumstances. Spousal maintenance seems mad where both parents are working and earning good money and in good careers. However, if the mother gave up her career to mind the children, or maybe went part-time and that was a joint decision, then there probably does have to be some form of spousal maintenace. Would be the same for fathers too if the situation was reversed.

sorry that's an feckless charter, if the issue is childcare that's something that can be agreed between them, but maintenance for an adult, you are having a laugh.

The Corinthian

Carrigart Exile wrote:

why should one adult human being have to provide for another adult human being because they were once married. The most recent UK case I can remember is that of the footballer who had provided for his children (all of whom were now in secondary school) and his ex wife demanded one third of his future earnings to keep her in the style she had become accustomed to. Sorry, but get up off your well upholstered lazy ass and get a job

I half agree with you. Some spouses do make serious sacrifices for the other spouse that affect their future earning potential. It's not unusual for one spousal career to be given priority over another in a marriage or even for the other to be abandoned altogether, not to mention the additional assistance one spouse may give to another in their career.

My own view is that it comes down to opportunity cost - that is, if a spouse was never married, what would their income likely be? If they would be better off, vis-a-vi earning, if they had never met, then spousal support should be taken into account (on both sides). Spousal maintenance is certainly appropriate in such circumstances.

Certainly the idea that once married you are entitled to half of even the preexisting assets of your spouse or should be entitled to a standard of living you could never have achieved without the wealthier spouse, is ridiculous though, IMHO. It's based upon the traditional notion that a divorced woman could not support herself or work - another one of those aforementioned 'privileges' that oddly were not rolled back in the name of 'equality'.

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

why should one adult human being have to provide for another adult human being because they were once married. The most recent UK case I can remember is that of the footballer who had provided for his children (all of whom were now in secondary school) and his ex wife demanded one third of his future earnings to keep her in the style she had become accustomed to. Sorry, but get up off your well upholstered lazy ass and get a job

That's a typical example alright! :rolleyes: Pure madness. Then again how many children where involved, what age? Was she a stay at home Mum anyway?

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

sorry that's an feckless charter, if the issue is childcare that's something that can be agreed between them, but maintenance for an adult, you are having a laugh.

If both had agreed that one parent should stay at home with the kids before the split up, no. If it's affordable and makes sense it could still be the best option. With childcare costs etc. it may not be worthwhile for the mother to work yet with young children. Definitely as they get older and there's less need for childcare the ex wife should work then.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote:

I half agree with you. Some spouses do make serious sacrifices for the other spouse that affect their future earning potential. It's not unusual for one spousal career to be given priority over another in a marriage or even for the other to be abandoned altogether, not to mention the additional assistance one spouse may give to another in their career.

My own view is that it comes down to opportunity cost - that is, if a spouse was never married, what would their income likely be? If they would be better off, vis-a-vi earning, if they had never met, then spousal support should be taken into account (on both sides). Spousal maintenance is certainly appropriate in such circumstances.

Certainly the idea that once married you are entitled to half of even the preexisting assets of your spouse or should be entitled to a standard of living you could never have achieved without the wealthier spouse, is ridiculous though, IMHO. It's based upon the traditional notion that a divorced woman could not support herself or work - another one of those aforementioned 'privileges' that oddly were not rolled back in the name of 'equality'.

I think he said it better than me!

It's not a black & white issue with a black & white solution.

Carrigart Exile

Certainly the idea that once married you are entitled to half of even the preexisting assets of your spouse or should be entitled to a standard of living you could never have achieved without the wealthier spouse, is ridiculous though, IMHO. It's based upon the traditional notion that a divorced woman could not support herself or work - another one of those aforementioned 'privileges' that oddly were not rolled back in the name of 'equality'.[/QUOTE]

That I believe is the greatest inequality, the courts suddenly turn victorian when divorce is mentioned

The Corinthian

Carrigart Exile wrote:

That I believe is the greatest inequality, the courts suddenly turn victorian when divorce is mentioned

What are you going to do about it?

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

That's a typical example alright! :rolleyes: Pure madness. Then again how many children where involved, what age? Was she a stay at home Mum anyway?

The kids ages ranged from early teens to late teens. She was a very typical footballers wife who considered it a hard days work getting the kids up for school

Carrigart Exile

The Corinthian wrote:

What are you going to do about it?

moan and gripe every opportunity i get:D

Actually, I have written to politicians regarding the issue and their responses assured me things were much worse when the previous party was in power

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

The kids ages ranged from early teens to late teens. She was a very typical footballers wife who considered it a hard days work getting the kids up for school

Not exactly a real world example! If it was the real world, it would depend on childcare costs, if any, and the income she could earn. It may not be worth her while earning minimum wage with increased childcare costs. If it would be worth her while and she refuses, the husband shouldn't have to subsidise her lifestyle choice.

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

Not exactly a real world example! If it was the real world, it would depend on childcare costs, if any, and the income she could earn. It may not be worth her while earning minimum wage with increased childcare costs. If it would be worth her while and she refuses, the husband shouldn't have to subsidise her lifestyle choice.

who's to say what 'worth her while', if her attitude is I can get as much from the state or him for sitting on my toosh you think that's okay???

The Corinthian

As has been suggested it's not a good example.

A more common example is where a wife gives up her career (let's say it was not all that high flying), to raise children and keep the home. She takes care of the husband and aids his career - ironing his shirts, cleaning, cooking and accompanying him to business dinners and receptions. This frees him up to concentrate on his work and so he does better than he may have if she had continued working. Certainly he's been footing the bills during this period, but bed & board is not an acceptable salary for a live in servant.

Had she never met him or simply had continued with her career and divided the responsibility equally, she would have a better pension, more money saved and the opportunity to work and support herself than if she had remained a housewife.

In that scenario she is certainly entitled to maintenance as she has both sacrificed her own life and aided his.

Of course, the concept that one should maintain a wife's standard of living that they could never afford in the first place alone simply because they married someone wealthy is a bit bizarre when you think about it. The only way I could imagine that would be justified is where that wealth was in significant part generated by the actions of that wife through her support.

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

who's to say what 'worth her while', if her attitude is I can get as much from the state or him for sitting on my toosh you think that's okay???

They're his kids as well so if he is paying half the childcare it may be worth her while to work. IMO, if they both made a choice that one parent staying at home was best then that should still be an option. Nobody forced the father to decide that. As the kids get older this may be less important.

Carrigart Exile

The Corinthian wrote:

As has been suggested it's not a good example.

A more common example is where a wife gives up her career (let's say it was not all that high flying), to raise children and keep the home. She takes care of the husband and aids his career - ironing his shirts, cleaning, cooking and accompanying him to business dinners and receptions. This frees him up to concentrate on his work and so he does better than he may have if she had continued working. Certainly he's been footing the bills during this period, but bed & board is not an acceptable salary for a live in servant.

Had she never met him or simply had continued with her career and divided the responsibility equally, she would have a better pension, more money saved and the opportunity to work and support herself than if she had remained a housewife.

In that scenario she is certainly entitled to maintenance as she has both sacrificed her own life and aided his.

Of course, the concept that one should maintain a wife's standard of living that they could never afford in the first place alone simply because they married someone wealthy is a bit bizarre when you think about it. The only way I could imagine that would be justified is where that wealth was in significant part generated by the actions of that wife through her support.

You have argued successfully against yourself, and that is the conundrum with this issue. I recognise the first scenario you paint from magazines only. It is a joint decision (hopefully) to have children yet you accredit all of the sacrifice to her.

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

They're his kids as well so if he is paying half the childcare it may be worth her while to work. IMO, if they both made a choice that one parent staying at home was best then that should still be an option. Nobody forced the father to decide that. As the kids get older this may be less important.

And no one forced the mother neither.

The Corinthian

Carrigart Exile wrote:

You have argued successfully against yourself, and that is the conundrum with this issue. I recognise the first scenario you paint from magazines only. It is a joint decision (hopefully) to have children yet you accredit all of the sacrifice to her.

Actually the scenario I painted is quite commonplace - I would point to my own parents to begin with.

Even taking children out of the equation, the reality is that one spouse may well make sacrifices for the good of the other, based upon the presumption that it will be for their common good and for life. One example is where one spouse will need to relocate for their career, meaning that the other will need to sacrifice theirs for the greater good.

The decision for this is based upon a pooling of lifetime recourses, so that if those resources are not then pooled for a lifetime, one will be left with the liability of their sacrifice and the other with its benefits when the relationship ends. Naturally the former would require compensation.

The alternative is that neither party is ever willing to sacrifice their individual future for the combined good and any cohabitational relationship will run into problems rather quickly if that is the case. Of course, if one managed to avoid any such sacrifices, then I'd agree that compensation should not be part of the equation.

Please bare in mind that I am not defending the current model of maintenance or division of assets, only that I can see the reason behind some model of said.

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

And no one forced the mother neither.

No, a joint decision.

If a women goes to college and trains for her career while the father works and looks after the kids in the evening there should be some financial recognition of that for the father. This scenario is more common place now.

What would be your outlook on a situation like that?

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

No, a joint decision.

If a women goes to college and trains for her career while the father works and looks after the kids in the evening there should be some financial recognition of that for the father. This scenario is more common place now.

What would be your outlook on a situation like that?

My response is still the same, these are life choices you both made, the relationship has not worked, both continue to provide for the upkeep of their children. But to then consider allow one adult human being to parasite off of another adult human being because they once had a relationship is a loafers' charter

johnnyskeleton

Carrigart Exile wrote:

My response is still the same, these are life choices you both made, the relationship has not worked, both continue to provide for the upkeep of their children. But to then consider allow one adult human being to parasite off of another adult human being because they once had a relationship is a loafers' charter

The phrase used by the courts in a divorce is "reasonable provision". The courts can't impose an objective standard for this, because that would be "minimum provision" or "standard provision". What the courts are concerned with is, what is the most appropriate provision as between the individuals concerned.

When 2 people get married, they are agreeing to love and provide for each other, through sickness & health etc, for the rest of their natural lives. That has a legally binding effect, and although a court can't force people to love each other, they can force them to continue to provide for each other.

To give two examples of reasonable provision:
1) a man and woman marry, both are similar professionals, no children, married for 2 years and decide to separate while still in their 20s/30s. Both continue working, and there is little or no need for one spouse to provide for the other.
2) a man and woman marry, the wife gives up her job to care for the children. she is out of the workforce for 20 years, they divorce and, although the children support themselves, she has no real means of taking care of herself. In this scenario, she has a very real need for provision because otherwise she will be out on the street (social welfare requires that a spouse try to obtain maintenance from their former spouse prior to giving any benefits).

So, in many situations, one former spouse is required to provide for the other former spouse because they agreed to do so (when they took their marital vows) and because to do otherwise would be an injustice.

A more interesting scenario is this: lets say that a couple who earn low income obtain a judicial separation, and because the husband doesn't have much discretionary income, the wife decides not to seek any maintenance. The husband moves to China and earns millions from investment and industry. He decides to marry his new girlfriend and so petitions for divorce. At this stage, the husband is exceedingly well off and the wife remains on her low income. Should the husband be required to make reasonable provision for his former spouse, even though the majority of his wealth is self created while they were separated?

Carrigart Exile

johnnyskeleton wrote:

The phrase used by the courts in a divorce is "reasonable provision". The courts can't impose an objective standard for this, because that would be "minimum provision" or "standard provision". What the courts are concerned with is, what is the most appropriate provision as between the individuals concerned.

When 2 people get married, they are agreeing to love and provide for each other, through sickness & health etc, for the rest of their natural lives. That has a legally binding effect, and although a court can't force people to love each other, they can force them to continue to provide for each other.

To give two examples of reasonable provision:
1) a man and woman marry, both are similar professionals, no children, married for 2 years and decide to separate while still in their 20s/30s. Both continue working, and there is little or no need for one spouse to provide for the other.
2) a man and woman marry, the wife gives up her job to care for the children. she is out of the workforce for 20 years, they divorce and, although the children support themselves, she has no real means of taking care of herself. In this scenario, she has a very real need for provision because otherwise she will be out on the street (social welfare requires that a spouse try to obtain maintenance from their former spouse prior to giving any benefits).

So, in many situations, one former spouse is required to provide for the other former spouse because they agreed to do so (when they took their marital vows) and because to do otherwise would be an injustice.

A more interesting scenario is this: lets say that a couple who earn low income obtain a judicial separation, and because the husband doesn't have much discretionary income, the wife decides not to seek any maintenance. The husband moves to China and earns millions from investment and industry. He decides to marry his new girlfriend and so petitions for divorce. At this stage, the husband is exceedingly well off and the wife remains on her low income. Should the husband be required to make reasonable provision for his former spouse, even though the majority of his wealth is self created while they were separated?

so this legal contract of marraige only works one way. The contract to provide through sickness and health till death us do part, would allow me to sue a wife that left me to take up with another man because her feelings had changed would they? After all, I was expecting to be loved and looked after for life. Now do you see the nonsense. Looking at your scenarios outlined above you forget to mention that the wife would already have gained access to half (if not all) of the house and half of his pension, yet for you that is not enough.

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

so this legal contract of marraige only works one way. The contract to provide through sickness and health till death us do part, would allow me to sue a wife that left me to take up with another man because her feelings had changed would they? After all, I was expecting to be loved and looked after for life. Now do you see the nonsense. Looking at your scenarios outlined above you forget to mention that the wife would already have gained access to half (if not all) of the house and half of his pension, yet for you that is not enough.

I think you can't see any circumstance where spousal maintenace is justifiable.

Most posters on here see, that if 2 people make joint decisions that involves one giving up a career, they may be entitled to some compensation.

They made that decision based on a "till death to us part contract" but the contract ended.

Half a pension isn't much good if your 35. Maybe say 1/2 the pension for some income then. I don't agree with 1/2 pension anyway, but neither do I agree with no spousal maintenance, depending on circumstances.

On adultery, to me, they should give up any rights. Then again, what about a woman who endures a marriage where she is battered? There is no black and white!

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

I think you can't see any circumstance where spousal maintenace is justifiable.

Most posters on here see, that if 2 people make joint decisions that involves one giving up a career, they may be entitled to some compensation.

No you are correct, I can see no circumstance where one adult should have to provide for another adult (irrespective of gender) because they were once emotionally involved. You cannot govern the marraige vows under contract law otherwise the nonsense scenario I painted above would also apply. Joint decisions imply both arriving at that conclusion and both accepting responsibility for the implications of that conclusion. Spousal maintenance appears to me to imply one partner carrying the 'responsibility can' more than the other.

Do you see spousal maintenance also applying to unmarried couples?

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

Then again, what about a woman who endures a marriage where she is battered? There is no black and white!

Similarly, many men endure marraiges where they are the victims of domestic violence and I know that is not the point of this discussion, but just thought that should not be lost sight of

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

No you are correct, I can see no circumstance where one adult should have to provide for another adult (irrespective of gender) because they were once emotionally involved. You cannot govern the marraige vows under contract law otherwise the nonsense scenario I painted above would also apply. Joint decisions imply both arriving at that conclusion and both accepting responsibility for the implications of that conclusion. Spousal maintenance appears to me to imply one partner carrying the 'responsibility can' more than the other.

Instead of contract law treat it as a relationship. People make sacrifices. Like a mother or father who gives up a career to be a stay at home Mum or Dad. Say, She/he did this by agreement with the husband for the betterment of the marriage and kids. The marriage ends, consideration should be given of those decisions. At the time the couple didn't say, well we'll split up so we'll do this!

If it was important to a Father or Mother to have a full time carer when they where married, why should that change because of divorce? It should still be important regardless.

To me you see this as a black & white issue, I don't. The couple made a decision to give up her career for the whole family, including the husband. If no spousal maintenance, maybe the Mother should sue the Husband for restricting her career and income potential?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Do you see spousal maintenance also applying to unmarried couples?

There's talk of changing some parts of the law for unmarried couples. E.g. if a mother stays at home to mind the kids and the father works and the house is in his name, the mother should get some financial recognition of her role if they split up.

I would agree to it in certain circumstances. Unmarried parents shouldn't be treated differently to married parents. So the sames rights and responsibilities would apply. Again, would depend on circumstances, it's not black & white.

In my case, my ex was facilitated in her training as a Nurse by me. I was the main carer. In a case like that, where one person helped the other partner to a new career, No. Why would there be spousal maintenance, the ex has a new career!

The point on domestic abuse of men, I totally agree with. In my points, I'm adding the caveat that there is no differential between sex. Same situation would apply reagardless of gender!

The Corinthian

Seanies32 wrote:

Instead of contract law treat it as a relationship.

Unfortunately when it comes to separation or divorce you'll be the only one treating it as a relationship and not contract law.

Marriage is essentially considered a form of contract law. There are differences, the most obvious being that it is the only contract that either party can break without automatic liability and that humanitarian issues also make up part of any judgment (especially in the case of children).

While I would not agree with Carrigart Exile's black and white view, I do think that the question of spousal maintenance is in serious need of reform.

Carrigart Exile wrote:

Do you see spousal maintenance also applying to unmarried couples?

My observation, which started this tangent, was that the G case judgment (along with present trends in the UK that we are want to ape) will likely introduce exactly that.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote:

Unfortunately when it comes to separation or divorce you'll be the only one treating it as a relationship and not contract law.

I was responding to Carrigart Exile, who doesn't view it as contract law.

The Corinthian wrote:

Marriage is essentially considered a form of contract law. There are differences, the most obvious being that it is the only contract that either party can break without automatic liability and that humanitarian issues also make up part of any judgment (especially in the case of children).

While I would not agree with Carrigart Exile's black and white view, I do think that the question of spousal maintenance is in serious need of reform.

Fully agreed.

The Corinthian wrote:

My observation, which started this tangent, was that the G case judgment (along with present trends in the UK that we are want to ape) will likely introduce exactly that.

Spousal maintenance and property rights could be next! If unmarried father eventually do get the same rights as married fathers they will probably also get the same responsibilities.