Woman given right to claim against ex-husband after he became a multi-millionaire

[Deleted]

Can we please wait with getting outraged...

No.

This is a war of ideas. The feminists and cultural Marxists who support these laws need to be completely destroyed in the arena of ideas before they do any more damage.

[Deleted]

Calm down. The Supreme justices are entirely right in this. However she will not see any money whatsoever out of this unless the ex husband chooses to settle out of the goodness of his heart.

[Wewlad]

My faith in humanity has lowered, and will plummet if this actually manages to go through.

[procne]

It's ridiculous... it's not as if he divorced her to prevent her getting access to his wealth after starting the business.

She left him, and now regrets it because he's loaded... sorry love, that's your loss.

I must have missed it but where does it say she left him? I strongly doubt as she had 2 small children at that point with no work.

You aren't entitled to any of his money after the divorce and a settlement was already made. Move along, he owes you nothing.

The point is we don't really know what settlement they had.

[User789]

Can we please wait with getting outraged till she actually got anything because I really don't see that happening. It would be absurd to the extreme.

The thread will not be alive that long I guess so better rake in the post counts while one can!

[Themius]

Initially I was like "what the fuck" because I misread the title to be women given right to claim against husband after she became millionaire" that would be utter bullshit.

[Uko]

This guy was right to divorce this lady she is crazy. Its 22 years after the divorce and you see your ex has money now better lawsuit him up to be spiteful. She should be laughed out of the court and told to stop wasting the courts time.

[Notchris]

I must have missed it but where does it say she left him? I strongly doubt as she had 2 small children at that point with no work.

Strongly doubt she left a man who ended up having to live out of an old ambulance?

Hmm......

[procne]

Strongly doubt she left a man who ended up having to live out of an old ambulance?

Hmm......

He ended up travelling (for example to Spain) in an old ambulance converted into a camper van.

[Deleted]

#privilegechecked

Apparently, having a vagina means you're entitled to free money. This woman has lived all her life on alimony and benefits, she never had to work a day and now she gets to be a millionaire just because her ex-husband is a successful businessman?
Sounds fair since after all, he is male.
Imagine if the genders were swapped and it was a man asking his millionaire ex-wife for money... not only would his request get laughed at but feminists around the world would go berserk!
It sucks being a man in the 21st century.

#vaginaprivilege

[Deleted]

Undead, we had a case of a wife leaving her husband and the five children to live with another woman. In the first two instances SHE was granted alimony, despite him taking care of the remaining underage children. Another higher instance had to step in and dissolve the whole thing eventually. It was both hilarious and sad at the same time, especially since if she had gone and lived with another man she would've lost her right to alimony instantly.

So absurd things do happen, most get resolved (eventually) tho. So I wouldn't expect her to actually get a dime on the long run.

[procne]

This woman has lived all her life on alimony and benefits, she never had to work a day and now she gets to be a millionaire just because her ex-husband is a successful businessman?

Now, wait a minute. She was taking care of 2 (later 4) children. Huge part of alimony and divorce law is centered around recognizing this as a work and contributing to the common wealth. And that's why usually women receive alimony - because they give up their careers to take care of the household. After divorce they usually end up in bad situation because:
1. They have no work
2. They have no work experience because they had been taking care of the home
3. They have children to take care of which increases the costs of living
4. They have children to take care of, and kids get sick, which means they would probably be taking sick-leaves if they find a job
5. They have kids, so it is harder for them to find someone else to be with

Because of #2 and #4 it will be hard for them to find a job, and if they do their salaries would probably be still low. And it does not (or at least shouldn't) depend on the sex - if a man decides to give up his career and take care of the house / kids then in case of divorce his ex-spouse should guarantee adequate level of life. But usually it's women who stay home with kids.

[Reeve]

Probably justified based on them having a kid together, and it's for the kid's wellbeing rather than hers, but it still leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Their kid would be 31 years old now, so his money isn't necessary to support it. They were together for a sum total of 2 years.

Seems a bit absurd, honestly.

- - - Updated - - -

Now, wait a minute. She was taking care of 2 (later 4) children. Huge part of alimony and divorce law is centered around recognizing this as a work and contributing to the common wealth. And that's why usually women receive alimony - because they give up their careers to take care of the household. After divorce they usually end up in bad situation because:
1. They have no work
2. They have no work experience because they had been taking care of the home
3. They have children to take care of which increases the costs of living
4. They have children to take care of, and kids get sick, which means they would probably be taking sick-leaves if they find a job
5. They have kids, so it is harder for them to find someone else to be with

Because of #2 and #4 it will be hard for them to find a job, and if they do their salaries would probably be still low. And it does not (or at least shouldn't) depend on the sex - if a man decides to give up his career and take care of the house / kids then in case of divorce his ex-spouse should guarantee adequate level of life. But usually it's women who stay home with kids.

1. She was 23 when they broke up. Plenty of good career years ahead of her if she'd chosen to work.
2. If she needed money to help caring for the kids, she should have asked for it while the kids were growing up, not 32 years later once he's become a millionaire.
3. If he didn't want to help raise the child, he should pay her alimony, but if he wanted custody and she wouldn't allow it, as far as I'm concerned, she should be fully financially liable for raising the child.

[MatadorMedia]

I imagine the courts would have to base the financial award off how much money this man had at the time of the divorce and child support if he wasn't paying. The fact that he became rich later is irrelevant to this case and would be outrageous if his current finances were even part of the consideration.

[procne]

1. She was 23 when they broke up. Plenty of good career years ahead of her if she'd chosen to work.

And I'll repeat - Because of #2 and #4 it will be hard for them to find a job, and if they do their salaries would probably be still low.

2. If she needed money to help caring for the kids, she should have asked for it while the kids were growing up, not 32 years later once he's become a millionaire.

How do you know she did not? How do you know that she even knew his financial status earlier? Maybe he did not pay alimony, maybe they had no contact for years, maybe he was hiding his profits to avoid paying?

3. If he didn't want to help raise the child, he should pay her alimony, but if he wanted custody and she wouldn't allow it, as far as I'm concerned, she should be fully financially liable for raising the child.

How do you know she didn't allow it? I haven't seen it in any of the articles.

Besides you missed my point. After the divorce she was clearly in disadvantegous situation because of the 5 points I listed. His only problem would be alimony. While she was raising her children he was free to work on his company. The case we have here is whether her taking care of the children allowed him to make succesful company. And that's what she will have to prove if she wants to get any money. What we know from the articles is not enough to rule this out.

Responsibility doesn't end with divorce.

[khalltusk]

Did he stop her from working while they were married? I thought I heard of cases where a spouse will recieve support because they gave up a career while married (for whatever reason).

They were new age hippies or at least lived in mobile homes according most news articles I read on it. He was pretty much poor until his company got off the ground. Question would be if he paid child maintenance (which some articles are not saying anything on while a few others I saw mentioned he did). If he did pay child support and did his fatherly duties i'm unsure why should should get anything. It is a lesson for anyone having a divorce ensure all this is fully settled on the financial side otherwise silly things like this can happen.

[Deleted]

Now, wait a minute. She was taking care of 2 (later 4) children. Huge part of alimony and divorce law is centered around recognizing this as a work and contributing to the common wealth. And that's why usually women receive alimony - because they give up their careers to take care of the household. After divorce they usually end up in bad situation because:

Only one of these children was his, so I'm not certain how the other 3 matter in any kind of way. Also back then they were still extremly young and she would've had a lot of opportunities, she passed on those and had some more children and only now decades later remembers that he owes her money?

[procne]

She had one child before they married. He accepted it. Then they had a second child. She was with 2 small children when he left her. A lone mother with 2 children does not have a lot of opportunities. Remember she was not in the same situation as him. He could freely travel and look for work while she was tied to her children.

I'll repeat (and it was stated in one of the articles) - if she can prove that the fact she took the burden of raising their children off his shoulders is what allowed him to create a prosperous company (afair it was created when their child was 13) then imo she might deserve some money. Ofc not as much as she claims, and I doubt she can prove that (95% it's just a money grab). But we can't rule it out with the little info we have.

[Reeve]

And I'll repeat - Because of #2 and #4 it will be hard for them to find a job, and if they do their salaries would probably be still low.

#2 would make sense if she'd spent considerable time doing this, but they were a couple for two years. That's it. You don't get to claim "I was responsible for the home and didn't work on my career like he did" when you're only 23 years old. You can still go on to have a successful career. This is especially true if you're receiving alimony to help with childcare, but true even without the alimony.

How do you know she did not? How do you know that she even knew his financial status earlier? Maybe he did not pay alimony, maybe they had no contact for years, maybe he was hiding his profits to avoid paying?

The OP stated that "It is unprecedented to hear of a claim being made after 22 years but the court has ruled that because there was no financial order and no time limit in family law for making a financial order..." There was no financial order. She didn't seek that claim when they divorced, but waited until he was a successful businessman.

How do you know she didn't allow it? I haven't seen it in any of the articles.

I don't know it. That's why I used the word "if" and presented both alternatives. There's perhaps a third alternative wherein he requested equal custody and was granted it partially, in which case, he's providing equal

support during the time he's spending with his kid.

Besides you missed my point. After the divorce she was clearly in disadvantegous situation because of the 5 points I listed. His only problem would be alimony. While she was raising her children he was free to work on his company. The case we have here is whether her taking care of the children allowed him to make succesful company. And that's what she will have to prove if she wants to get any money. What we know from the articles is not enough to rule this out.

Responsibility doesn't end with divorce.

If they'd been married 10 years while he was building his career and she was tending the house, I might agree with you. But their marriage fizzled within 2 years, she was 23, and her marriage to him and subsequent childbirth shouldn't have prevented her from having a career. Certainly not to the tune of 1.9 million pounds sterling.