Divorce the HNWI Way
advertisment
Related Content
- Divorce the HNWI Way - Part Two (11/12/2007)
This is the first in a series of articles on divorce by one of our high net worth individual (HNWI) readers. Get ready.
These will be based on a variety of areas such as the mechanism of divorce, the family courts, CAFCASS, CSA, Social Services, splits where partners are not married, running your own case (easier than you might think), Families Need Fathers, Fathers 4 Justice.
But for now I would like to focus on the big topics - high value divorces and the consequences for those thinking of getting divorced.
High value divorces have attracted much press recently. What is a high value divorce? Where the reasonable needs of both parties can be met. It used to be the case that if a couple got divorced and one partner had bigger assets or income, then the other party would only have their needs met. This was changed in 2000 by a case know as White vs White. This overturned the benchmark. Since then the starting point is 50/50 of all assets. The Ray Parlour case showed that the future income can also be divided equally. London is striving and succeeding in two areas - financial services and divorce. A prenupital agreement will not help - these are still not legally enforcable. They only act as an agreement of assets bought into the marriage - for all the good that does.
If you are thinking of getting divorced, the consequences really depend on if there are children or not. If there are no children then its a 50/50 split as per high value divorces. If there are children the priority is to keep a roof over their head - preferably the FMH (Former Matrimonial Home). The aim is usually of two-thirds to the resident parent and remainder to the non-resident parent. The house can be kept in trust until the children reach 18 - the house then being sold to give all parties their share.
But this is all a side show relative to the most important assets of a marriage - the children. The money follows the children - so the resident parent will usually do everything in his or her power to keep hold of them. Often the children become weapons to get back at the other side.
Worse still, there are many groups who will advise married parties during divorce about the best way to wreck their partners' lives. False accusations of domestic violence (or worse) can be crippling.
The family courts appear to be notoriously sexist - only 4% of resident parents are men(another 4% where both parents have custody). As a man you have a 60% chance of losing contact with your children following divorce or seperation. According to a recent survey, however, 31% of child raising is now done by men. And more women work than look after children.
And it doesn't matter whose fault the divorce was - this is irrelevant.
Its hard to see any of this changing - family law is now BIG business. Until 1980, all contested divorces went to the high court. Now there is a family court in Holborn with 20 courtrooms - and that's just central London.
Divorce costs a fortune - basically divide your money into two - and give half to your lawyer!
In the interests of justice one might think that judges in the recent high profile cases are merely balancing the ledger by making sure that wives get their fair share of their families assets. But this would be to misread the situation. It does not matter whether you are a policeman, child minder, doctor, teacher, a rock star, or even a City slicker. In most contested child custody cases the mother will always get the children. The financial awards made to women in high value divorce cases are not bucking the trend they are only following the one already set in the family courts.
The law, as they say, is an ass!
- Anonymous
But for now I would like to focus on the big topics - high value divorces and the consequences for those thinking of getting divorced.
High value divorces have attracted much press recently. What is a high value divorce? Where the reasonable needs of both parties can be met. It used to be the case that if a couple got divorced and one partner had bigger assets or income, then the other party would only have their needs met. This was changed in 2000 by a case know as White vs White. This overturned the benchmark. Since then the starting point is 50/50 of all assets. The Ray Parlour case showed that the future income can also be divided equally. London is striving and succeeding in two areas - financial services and divorce. A prenupital agreement will not help - these are still not legally enforcable. They only act as an agreement of assets bought into the marriage - for all the good that does.
If you are thinking of getting divorced, the consequences really depend on if there are children or not. If there are no children then its a 50/50 split as per high value divorces. If there are children the priority is to keep a roof over their head - preferably the FMH (Former Matrimonial Home). The aim is usually of two-thirds to the resident parent and remainder to the non-resident parent. The house can be kept in trust until the children reach 18 - the house then being sold to give all parties their share.
But this is all a side show relative to the most important assets of a marriage - the children. The money follows the children - so the resident parent will usually do everything in his or her power to keep hold of them. Often the children become weapons to get back at the other side.
Worse still, there are many groups who will advise married parties during divorce about the best way to wreck their partners' lives. False accusations of domestic violence (or worse) can be crippling.
The family courts appear to be notoriously sexist - only 4% of resident parents are men(another 4% where both parents have custody). As a man you have a 60% chance of losing contact with your children following divorce or seperation. According to a recent survey, however, 31% of child raising is now done by men. And more women work than look after children.
And it doesn't matter whose fault the divorce was - this is irrelevant.
Its hard to see any of this changing - family law is now BIG business. Until 1980, all contested divorces went to the high court. Now there is a family court in Holborn with 20 courtrooms - and that's just central London.
Divorce costs a fortune - basically divide your money into two - and give half to your lawyer!
In the interests of justice one might think that judges in the recent high profile cases are merely balancing the ledger by making sure that wives get their fair share of their families assets. But this would be to misread the situation. It does not matter whether you are a policeman, child minder, doctor, teacher, a rock star, or even a City slicker. In most contested child custody cases the mother will always get the children. The financial awards made to women in high value divorce cases are not bucking the trend they are only following the one already set in the family courts.
The law, as they say, is an ass!
- Anonymous
