\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 ...money that her husband made 20 years after their divorce: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11463632/Delayed-divorce-battle-Ecotricity-founder-Dale-Vinces-New-Age-traveller-ex-wife-wins-payout.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11464262/Kathleen-Wyatts-delayed-divorce-what-it-means-for-other-couples.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Nuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 SMH. And people wonder why marriage- and birth-rates have gone down, down, down in the Western world. And why women end up dead in domestic violence because they threaten to literally take a guy for all he is worth and make his life not worth living. A "Humans of New York" picture on Facebook last week showed a guy who has a corrections officer job and after paying child support for one kid, he has $39 per week to live on. Thirty-nine dollars a week. In NYC. Family/divorce law is seriously £@($ed up. It needs to be blown up (figurative speech there, FBI/NSA/etc.) and start over from scratch. At its heart is the fundamentally untrue notion that women love their children more than fathers, that fathers provide while women keep house, or the ever-great 'He's got money and this person doesn't. C'mon, pay up!!!!' Eat-The-Rich attitude that comes from the judiciary in so-called civilized societies. She was out of the picture for 30 YEARS, had NOTHING to do with how he made his money, and now has her hand out?!!?? Piss off!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Crazy...but this is also why you don't just take off and wait ten years before you get around to filing for the divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Read the articles. She didn't win any settlement. She simply has the right to pursue one because no formal financial settlement was made at the time of divorce. And the supreme court already made the statement that her requested 1.9 million pound settlement was out of the question too high. The dude took off and abandoned his 1 year old son to go traveling for 8 years. But neither parent had much money. I don't know British divorce law but sadly know how things work in Ohio. To relevantly simplify, you are responsible to financially support your child until they turn 18. They take into account you and your ex's income total as if you had never divorced and the time your child(ren) now spend with each parent. Then you either owe or are owed based on that and your court agreement. In a fair world, if the dude had any income during the 8 to 17 years he wasn't supporting his son, he should owe based on that and whatever his ex was bringing in. But not his net worth 20 years later. I agree with the court, and the guy was certainly beyond stupid not to have a financial settlement at the time of divorce. But he sounds like a dead beat dad. Edited March 12, 2015 by GaryPinC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 SMH. And people wonder why marriage- and birth-rates have gone down, down, down in the Western world. And why women end up dead in domestic violence because they threaten to literally take a guy for all he is worth and make his life not worth living. A "Humans of New York" picture on Facebook last week showed a guy who has a corrections officer job and after paying child support for one kid, he has $39 per week to live on. Thirty-nine dollars a week. In NYC. Family/divorce law is seriously £@($ed up. It needs to be blown up (figurative speech there, FBI/NSA/etc.) and start over from scratch. At its heart is the fundamentally untrue notion that women love their children more than fathers, that fathers provide while women keep house, or the ever-great 'He's got money and this person doesn't. C'mon, pay up!!!!' Eat-The-Rich attitude that comes from the judiciary in so-called civilized societies. She was out of the picture for 30 YEARS, had NOTHING to do with how he made his money, and now has her hand out?!!?? Piss off!!!! Things are slllowly getting better about divorce law. The law now expects both parents to provide for their children as able. But it still depends on the district and judge though. I got a fair shake in my divorce but my ex was reasonable about things. My only advice to those getting married, don't marry a woman with little or no earning potential whose only future is stay-at-home mom. And if things go south, be the one to take it to court and file the first paperwork. Judge automatically sees you as the victim until proven otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts