[px200]

why does the law always favour the woman? a wife decideds to stray after 25 years of a Supposedly happy marriage,husband finds out marriage ends wife decides to take innocent hubby to the cleaners law says she can? surly she made the choice to break up the family so in my book she walks away with bugger all. am i right?

[ricgem2002]

no remember lifes a bitch then you marry one

[hellabobby]

Uncle Albert told me. While you,re still a lad find a woman that you do,nt like an buy her a house, Saves you the trouble later.

[ANGELFIRE1]

Originally Posted by px200

why does the law always favour the woman? a wife decideds to stray after 25 years of a Supposedly happy marriage,husband finds out marriage ends wife decides to take innocent hubby to the cleaners law says she can? surly she made the choice to break up the family so in my book she walks away with bugger all. am i right?

Sadly no, you are not right in the eyes of the law, in most other folk's opinion, yes I would assume.

Angel.

[scoop]

Originally Posted by px200

why does the law always favour the woman? a wife decideds to stray after 25 years of a Supposedly happy marriage,husband finds out marriage ends wife decides to take innocent hubby to the cleaners law says she can? surly she made the choice to break up the family so in my book she walks away with bugger all. am i right?

No, you're wrong.

In rhe event of a breakdown of a marriagewithout children both parties are legally entitled to 50% of the assets.

If the couple have school age children a the assets will usually be devided 60/40 in favour of the party with whom the children reside. In addition, the non resident parent will pay child maintenance 15% of their net salary for the first child, plus 5% for additional children.

If you know somone who had a different experience and their ex wife was favoured, tell them to sack their solicitor.

The resident parent is entitled to remain in the family home until the children leave full time education, or until they marry or cohabit with someone else.

[CXC3000]

Originally Posted by scoop

No, you're wrong.

In rhe event of a breakdown of a marriagewithout children both parties are legally entitled to 50% of the assets.

If the couple have school age children a the assets will usually be devided 60/40 in favour of the party with whom the children reside. In addition, the non resident parent will pay child maintenance 15% of their net salary for the first child, plus 5% for additional children.

What if the woman marries or lives with someone after the divorce ? - is the new father not responsible for the finances for the children ?

[scoop]

Originally Posted by CXC3000

What if the woman marries or lives with someone after the divorce ? - is the new father not responsible for the finances for the children ?

Unless he adopts the children he will not become their "new father".

They remain the financial responsibility of their parents.

[MrMoran]

Originally Posted by px200

why does the law always favour the woman? a wife decideds to stray after 25 years of a Supposedly happy marriage,husband finds out marriage ends wife decides to take innocent hubby to the cleaners law says she can? surly she made the choice to break up the family so in my book she walks away with bugger all. am i right?

Life sucks.
Courts usually side with women but what youve put is such a fairy story even JK Rowling would be embarrsed to put her name to it.

[nexusdee]

Originally Posted by CXC3000

What if the woman marries or lives with someone after the divorce ? - is the new father not responsible for the finances for the children ?

I think that has just set back all of the hard work that's the fathers rights guys have been fighting for.

[Ellybum]

The breakdown of a marriage is rarely one persons fault. That being so, in this case, (even though the OP states that the marriage was supposedly happy, meaning I assume that he didnt think otherwise until the wife strayed) why should she not go for half of everything?? A canny lass IMO!

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by px200

why does the law always favour the woman? a wife decideds to stray after 25 years of a Supposedly happy marriage,husband finds out marriage ends wife decides to take innocent hubby to the cleaners law says she can? surly she made the choice to break up the family so in my book she walks away with bugger all. am i right?

No, you're wrong on both counts. She doesn't take anyone to the cleaners, neither does she walk away with nothing.

[cressida]

If the house is left to the husband by his parents and he then lives with or marries a woman can she still legally oust him from what was his parents' home even if there are children?

If she can then I don't think my son will live with a woman

[cgksheff]

Originally Posted by scoop

........

If the couple have school age children a the assets will usually be devided 60/40 in favour of the party with whom the children reside...........

This is not a "given" and will depend upon the relative needs of each party.

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by cressida

If the house is left to the husband by his parents and he then lives with or marries a woman can she still legally oust him from what was his parents' home even if there are children?

If she can then I don't think my son will live with a woman

It depends on who gets custody as already explained. There is an unfair presumption that a mother should get custody unless there's a good reason otherwise though.

[Carruthers]

Proves the old adage - stay single and thin.

[foxforcefive]

Originally Posted by scoop

Unless he adopts the children he will not become their "new father".

They remain the financial responsibility of their parents.

Not strictly true.

My kids dad pays sweet f.a. even though he is working.

My partner as a result of my tax credits being reduced to virtually nothing is now financially responsible (as well as me) for my children.

Partners ex (who is on a great wage, as is her new partner) gets a lovely sum from my partner for the child they had together.

So in short my partner is responsible for his own child as well as my 2 children - which leaves us skint every month, yet my ex and his ex are laughing all the way to the bank. It's such an unfair system.

[scoop]

Originally Posted by foxforcefive

Not strictly true.

My kids dad pays sweet f.a. even though he is working.

My partner as a result of my tax credits being reduced to virtually nothing is now financially responsible (as well as me) for my children.

Partners ex (who is on a great wage, as is her new partner) gets a lovely sum from my partner for the child they had together.

So in short my partner is responsible for his own child as well as my 2 children - which leaves us skint every month, yet my ex and his ex are laughing all the way to the bank. It's such an unfair system.

Your partner has no legal financial responsibility for your children - not saying that he doesn't take responsibility, but he isn't obliged to.

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by foxforcefive

Not strictly true.

My kids dad pays sweet f.a. even though he is working.

How did the CSA work that out?

[kittenta]

Originally Posted by foxforcefive

Not strictly true.

My kids dad pays sweet f.a. even though he is working.

My partner as a result of my tax credits being reduced to virtually nothing is now financially responsible (as well as me) for my children.

Partners ex (who is on a great wage, as is her new partner) gets a lovely sum from my partner for the child they had together.

So in short my partner is responsible for his own child as well as my 2 children - which leaves us skint every month, yet my ex and his ex are laughing all the way to the bank. It's such an unfair system.

The only way your ex would not be made to pay is if he wasn't truthful about his wages, wage slips have to be provided by him. If you know the company he works for, they'll find the information useful.
His partners wages are not taken into account and neither should they be, I'd phone the CSA and ask them why he doesn't have to pay anything. Even those on JSA have to pay.

The system is easily defied however, my ex refuses to look for a job because he can't be bothered and he doesn't want to have to pay for the kids. He's forced to pay £20 a month for the two of them, I just put it on their phones or in the bank for them. I'm not interested in his cash, he can keep it. My kids know he's had nothing to do with their upbringing financially or otherwise and they only look badly on him for it. (And before anyone says anything, I didn't tell them his reasons for not working, he did).

[foxforcefive]

Originally Posted by scoop

Your partner has no legal financial responsibility for your children - not saying that he doesn't take responsibility, but he isn't obliged to.

I work part time and because he moved in my tax credits has gone down dramatically which means I cannot afford to be financially responsible for them by my wage alone, so the law says because he lives with me he is partly financially responsible, which he hasn't a problem with, but it is a problem because he is also responsible for his own child (rightly so) when my children's father manages to move jobs frequently (he works in construction) and therefore never pays maintenance (the csa are useless in my situation).