This one is really sick.......

lazerous42 · 2011-07-29T19:15:15+00:00

A core issue here that's needs to be addressed is that child support has nothing to do with how much money it requires to raise children, it is based solely on how much money the man makes. If a man has 10 million dollars and gets a divorce from him wife (let's say they have one child), what's going to happen here. Will the man be required to pay half the costs of raising a child. No, the courts will aware at least half of his assets to the mother with absolutely no oversight on how the money is even spent. Once she divorces her husband, she should no longer have any right to access his wealth. Now the child's needs certainly be attended to but that can be accomplished without keeping the ex-husband as a debt slave for the rest of his life. She can move on an find another partner (to financially feed off of) but the man's future has been severely limit. His life's wok has been stolen.

lasertits69 · 2011-07-29T18:11:43+00:00

The wife has suffered real relationship-generated disadvantage.

Yes--getting a divorce for a woman is indeed like losing a leg and suffering spinal damage--it leaves her a disabled, semi-invalid who cannot even provide for her children herself; instead, her former husband must continue to stand over her, giving her hand-outs and coddling her. Because even a man without full use of his body is still more able to provide than a fully-functional woman. Oh, this truly is feminism's sexist version of equality...

kachapati · 2011-07-29T20:07:34+00:00

A partner able to support her? That couldn't be more subjective. Women are now back to being chattel in the UK? Married to her for 10 years are now responsible for finding her next husband in order to recoup his loss?

This is one of he saddest most backwards ruling I have seen in recent memory. If he is the one with the financial capital and the roof, why wasn't he simply awarded custody of the 2 children? It seems I should search for a husband by researching whom has received the largest personal injury payout in the UK.

Craysh · 2011-07-29T17:50:32+00:00

In this day and age of equal opportunity, being able to support your children should absolutely be taken into account for custody hearings.

This woman shouldn't have been awarded custody nor this windfall.

legendary_ironwood · 2011-07-29T15:26:43+00:00

Judges really dress like that in england?

Bobsutan · 2011-07-29T18:45:36+00:00

[permanently deleted]

2011-07-29T20:20:50+00:00

She doesn't need that money to support her children. I had a single mother and she supported me fine without a man.

Ma99ie · 2011-07-29T15:33:10+00:00

This makes me sick.

2011-07-30T01:28:54+00:00

just look at all the women defending her in the comment section (under "Worst Rated")

sooooo much rage.....

Gherkiin13 · 2011-07-29T16:33:02+00:00

This is from the daily mail, it is never to be trusted, they consistently use your own fears to make you angry and upset.

If these people are even real, the details most certainly aren't, there's more to this story than they've reported.

It doesn't even have the authors name on it!

2011-07-29T18:28:34+00:00

Raising children is harder than being disabled? Absolute shit.

Airazz · 2011-07-29T16:02:57+00:00

Note to self: hide all and everything that has any value if I ever plan to marry.

extermin8tor_2nd · 2011-07-29T15:43:58+00:00

I nearly cried when I read this.

Aavagadrro · 2011-07-29T17:38:46+00:00

A glimmer of hope that she will remarry and pay back 95k pounds? YEAH FUCKING RIGHT! That is not going to happen, she will surely hook up and just live with some guy while her ex scrapes along and has to live like a homeless guy so she can have a nice new house.

I guess I have the same thing going, since they want me to pay most of my disability to the ex so she can make over $6k a month while I can either live indoors or eat, but not both.

2011-07-29T18:25:12+00:00

So if they believed that, then why aren't the kids living with him, so he can support them?

RyudoKills · 2011-07-29T14:33:26+00:00

I almost just threw up. I've got an idea. Chop her legs of and call it even. On a different note, TIL that judges in the U.K. still wear those crazy wigs.

DownSoFar · 2011-07-29T14:19:31+00:00

The Appeal Court declared that her needs and those of their children were more important than those of the disabled man.

Why does it matter who needs the money? What matters is who owns the money, and that in this case is the man. Feminism is part and parcel with socialism.

fondueguy · 2011-07-29T20:14:31+00:00

What the fuck is wrong with their heads.

The settlement was for his personal pain and suffering. It is not a f*king asset in the first place.

"He is responsible for his wife"... What is a wife that would leech off the remnants of a damaged man? She will profit on his personal pain. He was given that money because of the damages he experienced... She pretty much owns his being if she can take his damage and pain compensation... But she never had his damages.

What she needs is a job. What he needs is to get by after becoming disabled.

This is pretty much advocating that men can get injured to pay in divorce. I... The judge...

IkirysAtWork · 2011-07-29T19:02:42+00:00

What happens if you just spend it all in the next 24 hours out of spite? Let's say...by buying a boat and sailing into international waters?

3825 · 2011-07-29T20:55:52+00:00

would this ruling happen if you switched the man and the woman? If she had gotten the compensation and he had gotten the custody, would she?

WesternCardinal · 2011-07-29T21:02:23+00:00

Sorry for the wall of text, just sharing a story--

So this article prompted me to ask a coworker her opinion on this matter, and she summed up her view by saying that once they joined together, his stuff became her stuff, so when they split, she should get half of that, and since he was the provider, she gets half of the money because she probably had to take care of him since he was disabled; that was her job, and his was to provide income.

So I asked her after that, "if that's the case that he provides the money for her and the rest of the family and she provides support for him and the rest of the family, shouldn't she be then required to do something for him when they split up? Help him out somehow?" And she said, "No..." So I asked her why he has to give something to her and she doesn't have to give anything to him, and she said "because they didn't have a prenup."

We've disagreed on a lot of stuff on this nature before, but she firmly believes that men, as a rule, don't help women unless they have to, and that exceptions are rare, and that's why courts help women more often.

She also thinks that women are getting a raw deal a lot of the time from the courts now too, where they have to pay more alimony than they should. I will start trying to find where she comes up with these ideas, because I don't hear about women having to pay an unfair amount of alimony ever, but I was speechless after she said that.

hardwarequestions · 2011-07-29T14:09:18+00:00

This shit makes me want to murder someone, plain and simple.

Gothiks · 2011-07-29T16:03:30+00:00

Way to go UK

wolfsktaag · 2011-07-29T17:08:20+00:00

so many stereotypes in this story. gold digging bitch. old crusty womb that needs IVF to conceive. she divorces him and takes his kids, but apparently cant support them financially. piece of advice to men: if she isnt married by ~26, there is a damn good reason no one wanted that

McFurious · 2011-07-29T16:35:44+00:00

Sugar and spice and everything nice...

Dax420 · 2011-07-29T17:56:24+00:00

Disgusting.

itemforty · 2011-07-29T18:15:01+00:00

Ridiculous.

bravado · 2011-07-29T15:59:31+00:00

Judges really wear those ridiculous wigs over there? I always thought it was just a joke.

Emorich · 2011-07-30T03:35:32+00:00

I wonder if the decision may have had something to do with the children? It's possible (though really, not probable) that had the genders been reversed the husband would have won the case because he had childcare expenses.

VirSaturnA · 2011-07-30T07:19:04+00:00

Man has the look of someone who is nearly in disbelief at the injustice of the world that has screwed him. Woman has appearance of smug victor.

I believe the children, whose welfare is pretended to be the crux of this, would receive much better care from the father than from a woman who is an entitled rotten scumbag. Just by nature that she would pursue this disgusting act suggests to me that she is selfish and will not use that money for the betterment of the children but on herself, whatever material possessions and luxuries she lusts after, and her new lover(s).

2011-07-30T08:02:15+00:00

It's like a conspiracy to scare men away from marriage.

werak · 2011-08-01T14:52:34+00:00

Hey...you got married in a country that grants half of assets to each spouse in a divorce. Once you get married, your assets become marital assets. They are no longer just yours, unless you signed something to that affect when you got married.

You can argue whether he should have been given custody or not, but otherwise this seems a pretty straightforward division of assets, and the rich one got screwed. Post this to MillionairesRights if you want sympathy. If the guy didn't want to lose his assets in divorce he should have signed a pre-nup. Or he should have not married her. Love and family do not require marriage.

2011-07-29T17:36:04+00:00

It's like they're tempting guys to go on killing sprees. I don't understand the blatant injustice.

karmasutur3 · 2011-07-29T18:16:52+00:00

What really gets me is how you could ever rule for more than half. That's a huge logical fail.

Henghast · 2011-07-29T18:27:32+00:00

Now normally I'd be up in arms. Dont get me wrong the amount of injustice is scary and I've no intention of legally tying myself down like this for such reasons.

However you have to read it all. There's missing information we need to make an informed opinion.

ignoring the gender roles and heart string bollocks about the kids they had together: He was awarded £500,000.00 in 1998. 13 years ago now. He bought a Flat AND a specially modified bungalow. They are living in the South of England, Chelmsford Essex. England has very high property prices compared to other nations due to the population density (62million people and most crammed into England as opposed to Scotland, Wales & NI. Most again are in the SE where this couple live). House Prices for the area

alternate site for pricing guides

Considering the length of time passed he could well have paid I've seen prices increase by two times the price in that length of time so we could assume both the previous properties were equal to the current average for their type. As an assumption I dont have more information on the 1998 values or the specific date of purchase so it'll have to do.

Now we have what £250,000-300,000 estimated left over after his purchase which potentially makes this all the worse.

Then the fact she has a job (unknown if full time or party time, or what salary she is on).

The things I would like to know are:

A) How much is the wife making? B) What else was granted in the divorce settlement (e.g. the husband may be in a position to rent the property (see Flat) for funding along side whatever income the state is presumably supplying. Said property is rarely mentioned more than once)? C) How old are the children? D) Did the wife enter the marriage with assets and if so what happend to them? E) How does this actually leave both parties financially?

I'm not defending either party and considering this appears to have travelled all the way through the civil county courts to the High Court of Appeal with the same judgement it is either indictment of the system or a just ruling. I would rather make judgement from fact.

BatmensBegins · 2011-07-30T06:08:37+00:00

This is why the world needs a new breed of law enforcement. The world needs the masculine righteousness of Batman.

Na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na BATMAN!!

ch4os1337 · 2011-07-30T02:49:49+00:00

[permanently deleted]

RogueEagle · 2011-07-29T17:41:19+00:00

When confronted with competing needs, the court is required to give first consideration to the needs of the children.

If you want to be upset about something, be upset that it's not normal for a father to want to spend time with his kids.

What is it that makes you sick?

Do you think that all women who receive child support payments are evil harpies who spend it on themselves? (All men are rapists after all)

If you are upset about something, it should be that women are presumed to be better equipped to care for children, that men AREN'T as trusted to do so and because of that distrust they are forced to. But that is what this ruling is about. Forcing a man to take care of his kids, not being able to have kids and then say 'oh wait, no thanks' and bail from all responsibility.

lasertits69 · 2011-07-29T19:13:38+00:00

Legally, the judgment was justified. Morally, it is disgusting. That huge disconnect is what is so sick.

carchamp1 · 2011-07-29T17:53:38+00:00

This is really not surprising. The whole point of marriage is the welfare of women. To that purpose this ruling makes perfect sense. If you're one of many, including some in the MRA ranks, who believe marriage is anything other than this you are badly mistaken.

Title	This one is really sick.......
Author	Revorob
Upvotes	214
Comments	241
Date	July 29, 2011 1:32 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/j36us/this_one_is_really_sick/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/this-one-is-really-sick.1036552 https://theredarchive.com/post/1036552

Comments