Family Law ; Change of circumstamces

jack just

Just suppose, 1962 Catholic Ireland, 19 year old labouring class guy is informed by-recent girlfriend she is with child. He as one off the (he thinks) good guys marries her.
Other kids arrive and while it's obvious to all this is not a good match they soldier on.
Years pass he works hard has some success she likes social life has lots off friends, thinks nothing of going on holidays with same friends leaving him with (2 then 3 then 4 children)
During holidays there would be no contact whatsoever no phone call,no postcards nothing.
Routinely she would kick him out, after a 2-3 sometimes even 4 or 5 weeks she would tell him to come home this went on for 22 years. Until she says go,he goes,she says come , he says no
And keeps it up so family law court, legal separation. By this time the children are adults, the family home is middle class 4 bed semi in quite an upmarket area,he is running small business
As you probably quessed she gets house and maintenance fast forward 20 years Divorce, remarriage for him. Business fails he's broke , family home now worth excess 7 figures
I know if other way around she would have recourse to the court.
Is it possible for him to make a case seeing as the reason he married this person was because he wanted to do the right thing and now D N A proves he was not the daddy.
Just suppose guys and girls could a case be made?
Not you usual boards question this one requires you actually think.

4ensic15

How is he going to pay a solicitor?

hullaballoo

Seems very specific for a "just suppose" question. Also, lawyers are not used to thinking so I'm not sure how much use we'll be.

Subject to the rule that disallows legal advice, the thread will remain open for now.

jack just

hullaballoo wrote: »

Seems very specific for a "just suppose" question. Also, lawyers are not used to thinking so I'm not sure how much use we'll be.

Subject to the rule that disallows legal advice, the thread will remain open for now.

I know posters here like a challenge I meant no disrespect. We both know they are lawyers and lawyers the good ones are here

jack just

4ensic15 wrote: »

How is he going to pay a solicitor?

Just suppose he would do the unthinkable and be a law litigant.
Just suppose you might be able to help I mean if you think he has right on his side .
Off course if you think he is wrong to even think he should have the same rights as a woman that's ok two

4ensic15

jack just wrote: »

Just suppose he would do the unthinkable and be a law litigant.
Just suppose you might be able to help I mean if you think he has right on his side .
Off course if you think he is wrong to even think he should have the same rights as a woman that's ok two

I would think a woman who has remarried would have severe difficulty trying to get maintenance or a capital sum from the first husband years after separation and divorce.

nuac

Mod
Title amended from "can a worm turn" for clarity

jack just

4ensic15 wrote: »

I would think a woman who has remarried would have severe difficulty trying to get maintenance or a capital sum from the first husband years after separation and divorce.

Thank you that's what I think myself. I agree not easy but as marriage is a contract and contract was entered into on false grounds ( please use your education to make this make sense I did say labouring class guy)
Is there any possible case to be made?

jack just

nuac wrote: »

Mod
Title amended from "can a worm turn" for clarity

Thank you that reads much better

December2012

Would he apply for Legal aid? It is available for family law.....

Caranica

I'm going through a divorce and had a chat with my solicitor about the possibility of the settlement being revisited should circumstances change. He said it very rarely happens and usually is only granted if something has been deliberately hidden at the time of divorce.

Peregrinus

In this [entirely hypothetical] case the suggestion is that something was hidden, not at the time of the divorce, but at the time of the marriage.

Still, I think the courts would say that that is not sufficient grounds to unpick the settlement at this stage. The settlement reflect not only the fact that the parties had married in 1962, but everything that had happened since then - the years of shared life, the other three kids (who I presume are his), the divorce, the financial position of both parties at the time. It may be true to say that none of these things would ever have happened but for the initial deception, but the fact is that they did happen, and the court is not going to ignore them. The real motivation for reopening the settlement at this point is not because the husband has found that one of the children is not his; it's because, years after the marriage ended, the husband's business failed. That's not a good reason for reopening the settlement.

The OP says "I know if other way around she would have recourse to the court." Maybe she would, but I doubt that the court would give her any relief.

4ensic15

It would seem that he would be trying to get a nullity and then have the divorce settlement set aside on the basis there was no marriage in the first place and then after that have the assets of the marriage divided according to equitable principles.
A very tall order.

jack just

Seems posters believe this to be a family law matter, I was thinking it would be more contract law.
Had the facts been known the marriage would not have happened.
Thanks to all who replied, I suppose the husband will as always accept than life is not fair and carry on. Thanks again Jack

Donald Trump

Sounds like yer wan knew how to play the game alright

Riding around and having a great time and picked a nice gullible mark to live off for the rest of her life

Sorted