nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

"Husbands the losers in divorce cases" (research from Irish family law courts)

iptba

I have heard bits of anecodotes giving the impression that rulings from family law courts may sometimes be unfair to men but numerical data seems more compelling.

It all makes me a bit cynical about marriage.

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/husbands-the-losers-in-divorce-cases-51769.html

Husbands the losers in divorce cases
26 September 2010
By Kieron Wood

Husbands are being ejected from their homes in 99 per cent of cases where the family law courts are giving one spouse a sole right of residence, according to a new study.

The study was carried out by law graduate Róisín O’Shea, who was given permission to observe family law cases, which are ordinarily held in private.

She said that, where the courts gave one spouse the right to live alone in the family home, husbands were favoured in only 1 per cent of applications.

Judges ordered the transfer of the property into the wife’s sole name in almost seven out of ten cases.

In 160 contested cases relating to family homes, where an order was made to sell the home, the wife received more than half the proceeds in a quarter of cases, while the proceeds were split evenly between the spouses in the remaining cases.

Since October 2008, O’Shea has observed 493 judicial separation and divorce cases in Dublin, Cork and the southeast.

She said 73 per cent of judicial separation cases and 54 per cent of divorce applications were brought by women.

‘‘To date, all of the contested cases that I have observed were brought by the wife," said O’Shea. ‘‘I have not seen a single case where the wife was ordered to pay maintenance for children or a spouse.

Without fail, where maintenance is at issue, it is the husband who has been ordered to pay."

etc

Find more posts tagged with

divorce

marriage

maintenance

gender

family courts

Quick Links

Comments

minidazzler

I'd be interested to know how many of these involved kids, who got custody (need I ask:rolleyes:) and what was the financial situation of those afterwords?

I doubt there were kids in all those situations, is it a buy out on the property or is the man just kicked out and still made to pay mortgage?

folan

I believe it is law that, in the case of a divorce, where a child is below 18 and therefore dependant, the mother is entitled to full ownership of the house.

I could be wrong though, and I would hope there is some test involved in that.

jjjade

one of the bouncers who worked with me was divorced and had two kids with his wife. the kids were 18+19 . the husband is renting in a 1 bedsit while she has the house, i asked did he not get some money from the house and he was like no she got the whole house as she is the one who will be staying with the kids.

if that was enough the woman wanted to push for all savings, his car etc (thing that are valuable)

the judge gave her the house, and for some reason there was a second hearing. the judge at the second hearing going through the settlement with the pair saw what she was asking for and said to him... do you think she has got enough, and the husband replied she got the house and my kids, i am barely earning enough of a living. ended up that she got half the saving which was good and he kept the car.

but the thing is he left a broken man. the woman is entitled to stuff but the whole house is a bit much, i dont think id feel right taking the whole house of my partner knowing he is going to struggle

[Deleted User]

It's absolutely horrible that things end up this way. You could see the logic back in the days women weren't/couldn't work but given the equality now, the law should be reformed or at least the judges' views should be.
Horrible stuff.

themadchef

There are no winners in family law. Everyone is a loser, especially the kids.

folan

guys/husbands in general seem to loose more than girls/wives though. Thats the point of the OPs article.

Tabnabs

Thinking back to (thankfully) other families who seperated when I was growing up, you'd have to say 'Twas ever thus'.

BUT, the real kick in the head is when the ex wife moves her new boyfriend in and he's sleeping in your old bed, with your ex, kissing your kids goodnight and you're paying for all that. Now that would make me angry...

metrovelvet

Is it husbands or married fathers?

You should show this too all the guys wanting equal dads rights with married men.

iptba

folan wrote: »

I believe it is law that, in the case of a divorce, where a child is below 18 and therefore dependant, the mother is entitled to full ownership of the house.

I could be wrong though, and I would hope there is some test involved in that.

I very much doubt that is the law. You might be confusing what regularly happens often with what the law actually says.

Also ownership is different from living in it. There was a couple across from us and she was allowed live in it as long as the son was in full-time education but ownership wasn't passed on. [It was a bit odd: not too long (but maybe a year or two - don't know the details) before the house was due to be sold as the son was leaving education, they started living together again]

Emme

Divorce destroys men and many are unable to have a rewarding relationship with a woman again, all they're able for is one-nighters or FBs. I think the ex wives are incredibly selfish when they push for more than they're entitled - if they can't make the marriage work between them both partners deserve to have enough to live on and a fair crack at life after divorce.

Having said that children are by far the biggest losers in divorce.

folan

iptba: I would hope your right about that.

I for one support the option of a prenup, and would like to see them legally allowed in Ireland.

On the terms of the custody of children, id liked to have seen more info than

While many fathers asked for joint custody, O’Shea said she had seen the courts order this in only two cases.

Whats many?

More interestingly, id like to see reasoning behind a lot of the judgments.

goose2005

minidazzler wrote: »

I'd be interested to know how many of these involved kids, who got custody (need I ask:rolleyes:) and what was the financial situation of those afterwords?

I doubt there were kids in all those situations, is it a buy out on the property or is the man just kicked out and still made to pay mortgage?

"transfer of the property into the wife’s sole name" is pretty clear-cut.

doolox

Divorce is always touted as an easy solution to marital discord and in rare occasions of cruelty and violence or infidelity or withdrawal of sexual contact for nefarious reasons then divorce is often a hard option.

Unless a man on the average wage is willing to go out on one-night stands or have sex with no intention of having a baby,then he is condemned to celibacy for the rest of his life if he gets divorced, unless he can convince a rich partner to take him on and pay the bills.

It is highly unlikely that an average earner could afford to run two households and have two families without huge state or extended family assistance.

It is nearly always better to have a go at repairing and restoring the relationship if that is possible, at times pride and righteous indignation need to be put aside and outside help needs to be looked for and used.

Of course the legal profession would have it otherwise as they make most money from divorce..................

CDfm

I think the general idea is that society has moved on to double incomes and equality in lots of areas whereas family law and the state has not.

The idea that a system is based on stay at home mums and non parenting absent dads is somewhere in the 1930's- almost a century ago.

I enjoyed asking canvassing politicians about it during the last election, but then, I am over most of that stuff.

For the current stream of young men going thru the system ,and who vote, the system has not changed at all.

I imagine that if ever there was an opportunity for men to create a movement and effecting real change it is during the current recession when people are unemployed and with time on their hands.

Jesus Wept

Marriage strike.

The Corinthian

The-Rigger wrote: »

Marriage strike.

In Ireland, this is no longer an option. With the introduction of the cohabitation bill, your cohabiting partner will automatically be afforded exactly the same rights to financial support as if (s)he was married, after five years of cohabitation.

Of the article in the initial post, an important point is it does not specify how many of the divorces involved children, as this does make a significant difference to the division of assets. The reason for this is twofold; custody of children will go to the mother 90% of the time, and in Ireland there is little or no onus by the state for a custodial parent to financially support themselves.

However, even without children involved, marriage is considered a commitment to care for each other financially and otherwise for life. Of course, divorce means that it is not necessarily for life, and additionally divorce only enforces the financial aspect of that commitment after its dissolution - so if you have a breadwinner-homemaker arrangement, the former still has to fulfill their side of the agreement after the marriage ends, while the latter does not.

This means that a childless marriage, where one is a homemaker and the other a breadwinner, will still result in the breadwinner still losing out, although to a far lesser degree than if children were involved.

Naturally, this would be fine if 50% of men were homemakers, but we're not - we make up approximately 2% (circa 8,000 men versus 400,000 women in Ireland). The reasons for this are principally social, in that it is still presumed that it will be the woman who will take up this role and the man be the breadwinner. Men who stay at home are stigmatized as 'losers' or somehow psychologically deficient.

Of course, this does not mean that childless women homemakers are not increasingly becoming stigmatized too, due to the equal option to have a career being there. However, homemaking still remains a female choice, not male and the level of stigmatization is nowhere near as equal, to the point that it is even recognised as so in the Irish constitution:

"Article 41.2.1 In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."

Of course, a minority of marriages fail and all of this really only becomes an issue when they do. If not, a couple can live a long a happy life together. This too is important to remember.

If it does fail, the man is on a loser and damage limitation is the best he can hope for.

Which brings us back to the first point, of the cohabitation bill, which was almost certainly in response to the marriage strike that has been taking place in Ireland for a while. Of course, the cohabitation bill does allow for a 'pre-nup' type agreement, and actual pre-nups are soon to be introduced too, however it should be noted that pre-nups are not necessarily binding and can be overturned in 'exceptional' circumstances - with 'exceptional' being decided by the judge on the day.

In the end, emigration is always an option.