I am sure that any fathers reading this will know exactly what I mean and that I am, in effect, preaching to the converted.
Let me examine the family law system from my perspective
Most, if not all of the judges are women and it comes down to just her decision as to how a husband’s and his children’s lives play out.
No matter how impartial they intend to be, a female judge will always come down on the side of the woman.
Where custody is contested, the judge should question as to why there is never joint custody, giving responsibility to both parents. Surely this should be the DEFAULT position, as joint custody is far better for the children than sole custody. The courts are always saying that the interests of the child must be taken first but is it not in the child’s interest to have REGULAR contact with both parents.
The judiciary in family law are just not interested in fairness; they just want it done and dusted quickly.
Why do they not ask a wife to justify the level of maintenance? In a criminal court, where fines will be levied, the accused has to submit a statement showing his or hers income and outgoings but maintenance is still set at an arbitrary rate; effectively a wet finger in the air
Let’s face it, the woman always gets the house or bundles of cash to buy one. It was said in court that my daughter should expect the same lifestyle as she was having before. For fucks sake, she was 1. How is she going to know any difference? That is a con as the so called lifestyle issue is all to do with the mother.
Stronger penalties should be issued when the courts have been deceived. Samantha said that she had no real funds but she lied, as was illustrated by all of the building work that took place on her house, not long after she moved in. It was very clear to me that she had not declared all of her assets but women (and some men) are allowed to lie on divorce papers with impunity
The trouble with divorces is that once they are finalised, that is it, no going back. The courts are no longer interested in what then happens. But, they should be and the father (or mother) should be able to go back to court if money starts appearing in the form of new cars etc. But that does not happen.
The courts should also be interested in the welfare of the father when agreeing a settlement. I was left with so little money that I could not afford to buy a house and had to move back in with my parents. Only through my parents generosity did I then manage to get a tiny home through a loan from my Dad as the mortgage could not be so high because of the high levels of maintenance that I was paying. It was only through another loan from my parents was I able to afford a bigger house. But, I should not have had to rely on the generosity of my parents; the settlement should have been far fairer.
Generally, the father is left in a worse position than before he even met his wife. I had a lovely three bed ex council house in Guildford, which I had financed from all of the money that I had saved up from holiday work and a mortgage. After the divorce, my ultimate home was even smaller than my Guildford home whereas my wife had a house three times the size of what I finally moved into; plus of course, all of the massive amount of building work that was done on it shortly after she moved in. “HE” basically moved into a house for free and had more time with Verity than I did. How can that be right?
It should not be the case and must not be the case but successive governments and the judiciary are simply not interested.
And to cap it all, answer me this:
How come after embezzling a company for in excess of £1 million, losing EVERYTHING and having to move into the parents house for 18 months and uproot Verity, are they now living in a substantial house in Guildford, whereas I, who has a very healthy income, only afford to live on the Isle of Wight in a house a fraction of the size. The answer? Yet again did she not disclose all of her assets and bank accounts to the courts and got away with it yet again.
That is why I call her Teflon Sam
As to the second divorce, that was much as a debacle as the first, probably more so. Here are the facts
- We were married for just one year
- She walked out on Christmas Eve, taking the children and most of the Christmas food with her
- Her exit was planned as she then went straight up to her mother’s for Christmas
- She had debts when we first met. I paid all of those debts off
- She had three children, one 19
- It was deemed that ALL THREE were “children of the marriage”
- I had to pay £180,000 to her for one year of marriage
- I had to pay her legal fees, equating to approx £45,000
- I had to pay her maintenance for three years
Please, someone, tell me; where is the justice in all of that?