Divorce: who gets what in the break-up?

Separate ways!

The wife always wins!

Alan, In most circumstances I agree with you and pity the poor male; however, I would say things are loaded against the higher earner and, just occasionally, that's the female! Something needs to be done about the parasitic partner, of whichever sex.

Reading the above puts me right off marriage. When you do the maths considering divorce statistics, a man is very likely to ruin his life (financially at least) if his marriage goes wrong. A lot to lose, and not much to gain (considering the difference between living together and marriage).

Marriage is not a rational choice when there is a discrepancy in assests or earning potential. The present law seems to stem from a time when women were chattels with no independance or earning potential of their own. Don't get me started on child maintenance though!

How exactly is it that 'the wife always wins'? Upon marriage breakdown it is usually the woman who ends up burdened with the care of children, even though women on average earn less even if working full time, and with children to look after it is well near impossible to get a decent job??? It also means that women don't have any free time to socialise, date, or even have a quiet evening by themselves, while men are typically free agents after a divorce. Yes, poor men indeed, having to help pay for the upkeep of the children they've made - how grossly unfair, huh? Men truly are such victims.

When everything is fine, women have children because they want and desire them as a lifestyle choice. Women here call their offspring "my children".

When divorce comes to the door, women are burdened with the care of children and had to abandon their careers. Women here call their offspring "his children".

It is funny how the tune changes.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs it's the children that suffer and grow up with bitter memories. When will divorcing couples take responsibility for their actions and stop trying to score points, and using children as a weapon against their ex?

Men (or the high earner, usually the man) will stop 'scoring points' when the law gets real. Most women can 'blow the whistle' at any time (whether morally justified or not) knowing that the law will favour them heavily. Notice not one of the criteria is based on who earned the wealth (with all its pressures), whether before or after the marriage.

Ridiculous comments re the wife 'burdened' with the children. As an estranged father, I certainly do not see myself as a 'free agent' but rather as one who feels that the divorce courts are adversorial and marginalise the role of the father. Indeed, the courts intepretation of the Children's Act, and the resultant garbage CAFCASS, are laughable.

Personally, I sought court action (as a last resort to gain access to our children) after giving everything to my ex to ensure that the inevitable divorce 'dislocation' to our children was minimised. CAFCASS made sure, in their astoundingly biased incompetence, that this was undermined.

But why am I surprised?

CAFCASS is staffed by former parole officers (who have an intuitively negative view of men given that the prison population is over 90% male). A major source of non-parent input into the case file is from the childs primary school (guess what? over 80% of primary school teachers are female).

As a single father myself (my son decided to live with me), it appalls me that when I contact the CSA, they automatically assume that I am the non-resident parent, because I am male.

..need I go on to illustrate the Courts etc are heavily biased towards women? No, I don't need to, or indeed have to.

When one party divorces the other party to a marriage, divorce concerns the dissolution of the marriage contract, the division of marital assets, the division of responsibility of the child/children. With respect to the children, the sooner the Courts adopt a co-parenting approach as they do in many European countries, the better.

So, yes, the woman ALWAYS wins, due to the adversorial and institutionally woman-biased nature of the family courts.

divorce after retirement and a long marriage means that after the death of one of the parties, the spouse pension is not paid to anyone. Why should the insurance company be allowed to withold this pension that has been contributed to for years?

I can say, from first hand experience it is not the woman who ALWAYS wins!!

Not all of us are 'unreasonable or parasitic'. The law may be 'on the side of the woman', but if there's no point in going to court because the ex-husband has got himself into a financial position where he can hardly support himself - then what affects his life, unfortunately remains an influence on 'ours'. So guess what, no maintenance and 'the woman' has all the financial pressure and responsiblity of raising 2 children while working full time!!

Now who ends up 'holding the baby'?!

So NO, the 'women' do not always 'win'!

Never approach a third party such as a solicitor. This just adds an expensive communications barrier. You always know how much a partnership costs. If you choose to leave then meet your part of the family costs.

"Winners"- anyone using this term is still struggling with the bitterness- get over it!

Headline divorces are simply that. Most of us work through the fog of the first couple of years then start getting back on our feet. A good time to develop some focus- saved my company.

By the way- I left.

It really is a sad state of affairs (no pun intended)isn't it. As a chap you tend to try to work as hard as you can to get the finanical security to look good, be attractive etc. then once you get the girl you work hard to give them all you can.

as the other contributors have said, when one party normaly the woman pulls the trigger, she can move on to another guy and not marry him, therefore still enjoying the cash from the divorced chap. you would basically have to be a moron to marry and put yourself in to such a position.

Hi there , I have recently seperated from my wife after 34 years of marraige ,we have one dependant child (15 ) I have stayed at home to look after our child for the last 14 years ( to allow my wife to pursue her career ) and in my late 50s have little chance of employment . my wife works and enjoys a very good salary , we have no mortgage , and very few outgoings , substantial savlngs, and two properties , My wife has offered for me to keep one of the properties and she the other , and also an amount per month for myself to live on until she retires and this amount to be reduced by half then , we will split our savings 50/50 as anyone any idea what percetage of her salary i should be looking at for my monthly allowance or any other possible problems along the way !! we intend to agree to the proposals ourselves with no lawyer involved