Divorced wife told to get a job and stop living off her ex-husband - Polidicks

[QUOTE] [B]In a decision which signals an end to leisurely living for ex partners of wealthy spouses, Lord Justice Pitchford says divorcees with children aged over seven should work[/B] A judge has told the ex-wife of a millionaire racehorse surgeon to get a job and stop thinking she has the right to be "supported for life" at his expense. Lord Justice Pitchford said divorcees with children aged over seven should work for a living in a decision which signals an end to leisurely living for ex partners of wealthy spouses. Former riding instructor and mother-of-two Tracey Wright, 51, chose not to be a working mother when she split up with top equine surgeon Ian Malcolm Wright in 2008. After 11 years of marriage, the couple's £1.3 million, seven-bedroom home, set in 16 acres of Suffolk countryside, was ordered to be sold and the proceeds split. Mrs Wright came away with a £450,000 mortgage-free house in the heart of riding country, in Newmarket, Suffolk, plus stabling for her horse and her daughters' ponies [t]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03209/Ian_Malcolm_Wright_3209313b.jpg[/t] [url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11429864/Divorced-wife-told-to-get-a-job-and-stop-living-off-her-ex.html"]Telegraph[/url] [/QUOTE] [quote]As part of the divorce order, Mrs Wright, who lives with the couple's youngest daughter, aged 10, was handed £75,000 yearly payments,[B] of which £33,200 was spousal maintenance for her personal upkeep.[/B][/quote]

I think it's fair. Unless the woman has been abused and the husband has been a jerk or she is disabled I don't see why he should pay and basically maintain her.

I think it's a step in the right direction. Looks like he was the only source of income of the relationship, why the fuck does he have to give so much?

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;47197485]I think it's a step in the right direction. Looks like he was the only source of income of the relationship, why the fuck does he have to give so much?[/QUOTE] The longer the marriage and depending on if you have kids is a big factor. And especially the attorneys you have to represent you if there are disagreements between parties being divorced.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;47197485]I think it's a step in the right direction. Looks like he was the only source of income of the relationship, why the fuck does he have to give so much?[/QUOTE] Probably something to do with her having the kids living with here I guess, even so she get's an aweful lot of his money

If only this were the case in the US. My dad's ex-wife got 'spousal maintenance' on top of child support from 2004-2008 and once she wasn't getting free dosh she went straight to unemployment. she currently works part time at a thrift store

Getting divorced shouldn't let you live the rest of your life without working a single day.

having to pay your ex-spouse yearly after a divorce is fucking stupid.

Haha, equality.

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;47197800]Haha, equality.[/QUOTE] Stop

Meanwhile, my dad, who makes $100,000+ a year, has made my mother pay child support and alimony, when she only makes about 40k a year, and has custody of 2 out of their 3 children. It's not quite right.

[QUOTE=Quark:;47197783]having to pay your ex-spouse yearly after a divorce is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] Not always. Basically if the wife is a homemaker and gave up (or elected not to) develop marketable skills so that they could raise kids, then the husband is at a big economic advantage, but the wife still had an important part in the relationship. But it shouldn't be a license to live off someone else forever and obviously if you didn't sacrifice the ability to find a decent job to live in the marriage you really shouldn't get much. [editline]23rd February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Lyokanthrope;47197812]Meanwhile, my dad, who makes $100,000+ a year has had my mother, which makes less than half that and has custody of 2 out of 3 children, pay him alimony and child support...[/QUOTE] yeah see this is where it stops making sense

And the wife is always a gold digger when it comes to rich tycoons/doctors divorce case. A huge sum of money always goes to the wife, which is really ridiculous.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47197809]Stop[/QUOTE] He's right though. They're no longer together, why should he have to pay for anything of hers? He should support his children, but not her.

[QUOTE=TreasoN.avi;47197847]He's right though. They're no longer together, why should he have to pay for anything of hers? He should support his children, but not her.[/QUOTE] No shit, but he's making it sound like a feminist thing

Men's Rights - 1 The Matriarchy - 0 [Sp]joking of course[/sp]

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47197864]No shit, but he's making it sound like a feminist thing[/QUOTE] Lol no I wasn't, simmer down Beavis.

Sorry, but if I don't get to fuck you anymore, you don't get to have my money.

I disagree with this line of thinking. Marriage is a partnership. If a man or woman accepts, during the marriage, that their partner isn't working for a living then I don't see why when the marriage is over that must change. You willingly accepted that this person wasn't working and so it's no one's fault but your own. Also, by having children with your spouse you commit to sharing the cost of upbringing until those kids are adults. This means an upbringing consistent with your financial status. If you live in a mansion you can't expect that your kids(and therefore you ex) is going to live in anything less. Don't like? Don't get married, problem solved. Or get married but only to someone who is also working.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47197979]I disagree with this line of thinking. Marriage is a partnership. If a man or woman accepts, during the marriage, that their partner isn't working for a living then I don't see why when the marriage is over that must change. You willingly accepted that this person wasn't working and so it's no one's fault but your own. Also, by having children with your spouse you commit to sharing the cost of upbringing until those kids are adults. This means an upbringing consistent with your financial status. If you live in a mansion you can't expect that your kids(and therefore you ex) is going to live in anything less. Don't like? Don't get married, problem solved. Or get married but only to someone who is also working.[/QUOTE] [quote] Former riding instructor and mother-of-two Tracey Wright, 51, chose not to be a working mother when she split up with top equine surgeon Ian Malcolm Wright in 2008. [/quote] Yeah except she gave up her job after getting divorced

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47197979]I disagree with this line of thinking. Marriage is a partnership. If a man or woman accepts, during the marriage, that their partner isn't working for a living then I don't see why when the marriage is over that must change. You willingly accepted that this person wasn't working and so it's no one's fault but your own. [/QUOTE] Did you seriously think before you wrote that down? Seriously man, that logic is fucked.

Wish I could be a rich parasite and spend the rest of my life never having to work again.

[QUOTE=zeroXSBK;47198096]Wish I could be a rich parasite and spend the rest of my life never having to work again.[/QUOTE] Marry a rich guy and divorce him then. You can still do that in the U.S.

[QUOTE=Quark:;47197783]having to pay your ex-spouse yearly after a divorce is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] not really. having any law or legal system that isn't circumstantial is what's stupid. until the last like 8 years we've lived in a society where women almost universally planned on finding a husband and having kids. if a woman plans for that future and something happens that changes it why should she be left to live in poverty? getting married is a legally binding action and no one is forcing you to do it, so if you don't want to be responsible for your spouse should something happen that separates you then you can go ahead and not marry them. in situations where the man has proof that the woman caused the separation (evidence she cheated/was abusive etc.) courts have generally ruled against the man being required to pay anything.

Why do some people think giving their Ex-Wife or Ex-Husband Money okay? I mean seriously, I don't care if you commit to it when you get married. That is for your MARRIAGE. Once your marriage is over, bam, it's over. Don't have to pay either person except for little stuff like child support. Why the hell should you get a divorce when you will still be paying for them despite not being in a relationship? I hope that made sense. [QUOTE=Bruhmis;47198178]not really. having any law or legal system that isn't circumstantial is what's stupid. until the last like 8 years we've lived in a society where women almost universally planned on finding a husband and having kids. if a woman plans for that future and something happens that changes it why should she be left to live in poverty? getting married is a legally binding action and no one is forcing you to do it, so if you don't want to be responsible for your spouse should something happen that separates you then you can go ahead and not marry them. in situations where the man has proof that the woman caused the separation (evidence she cheated/was abusive etc.) courts have generally ruled against the man being required to pay anything.[/QUOTE] She shouldn't, she should get a job, like she would of had to do before marriage. If I marry someone and get a divorce, I won't be paying my ex-partner shit unless it is for Child Support. You leave the relationship, you leave the commitment except for Child related stuff. [QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47197979]I disagree with this line of thinking. Marriage is a partnership. If a man or woman accepts, during the marriage, that their partner isn't working for a living then I don't see why when the marriage is over that must change. You willingly accepted that this person wasn't working and so it's no one's fault but your own. Also, by having children with your spouse you commit to sharing the cost of upbringing until those kids are adults. This means an upbringing consistent with your financial status. If you live in a mansion you can't expect that your kids(and therefore you ex) is going to live in anything less. Don't like? Don't get married, problem solved. Or get married but only to someone who is also working.[/QUOTE] It's a commitment for Marriage, once the marriage is over, it's over, all commitments are gone. For example. Cheating is not allowed with Marriage, but you can cheat if the marriage is over since you aren't partners. Having their last name as your last name is allowed with Marriage, but you can get rid of it once you aren't partners. Why should paying for your Ex-Spouse be allowed? What happens if you end up with multiple Ex-Spouses? What happens to you? You gotta pay for each spouse, and you will end up on the road due to it.

Alimony is bullshit. It's good to see we're starting to move in the right direction and doing something about this issue.

Also I just want to add, what is the point of Divorce if I am going to end up paying for that person every year? Heck, what is the point of Marriage then? I don't want to have to pay for my ex-spouse every year.

[QUOTE=Xonax;47198469]Also I just want to add, what is the point of Divorce if I am going to end up paying for that person every year? Heck, what is the point of Marriage then? I don't want to have to pay for my ex-spouse every year.[/QUOTE] This is exactly why you sign a prenuptial agreement before getting married if you care about this possibly happening (but you'd probably be screwed if you did something that will sway legal sides against you during the marriage)

These are things i'm afraid of when i'm older. One side of my family is blue collar, which I grew up in since my family is divorced, and the other is white collar. The financial divide is a love-hate relationship with me.

[QUOTE=Buck.;47197973]Sorry, but if I don't get to fuck you anymore, you don't get to have my money.[/QUOTE] you sound more likely to end up with a restraining order than a marriage certificate to tear up