On Monday I led a debate in the Lords about the reform of financial provision on divorce. I called for change, as I have done for 30 years, of a law which is widely regarded as unfair, uncertain and expensive. Couples ought to know with some certainty what are the principles that will govern the division of their assets and income when they divorce. We have statutory law on this – s.25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 – but over the years the interpretation of it by the judges has moved the outcome far away from what was intended. There was a time when a wife could expect one-third of the joint assets; then it became 50:50; more recently the Supreme Court has introduced considerations of need, sharing and compensation, and none of this gives lawyers the guidelines they need. The concept of the clean break seems to have vanished. Moreover, the awards to wives of very rich men, especially wives who have no children or have never worked outside the home, are not in keeping with the independence and equality of women, but amount to a signal to young women that they are better off marrying a footballer than pursuing a career. And prenuptial contracts were not held to be binding. I suggested that this country move to the European nations’ system of “community of property”, which amounts to an equal split of the assets – but only those acquired after marriage – on divorce. (Some American states also have this system, and Scotland has something similar.) The Supreme Court must have been listening for on Wednesday they upheld the validity of prenuptial contracts, under certain conditions, in the Radmacher case, albeit that this will not put an end to litigation about them, for that will require legislation. I gathered quite a bit of support in the debate. I disagreed with the Bishop of Blackburn who said that the act of signing prenuptial agreements would indicate a diminished commitment to marriage and a commercial attitude. Many strongly Catholic nations, with far lower divorce rates than we have, adopt prenuptials and it does not seem to have harmed their marriages at all. On the contrary, the uncertainty and bitterness of our English law may make relationships even worse, certainly when the marriage ends, and this is not good for children. Let us hope that the government is brave enough to tackle the topic.
See here for the debate – http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101018-0001.htm#1010186000230
You should widen the factor field, focally for the best possible biological-procreation of babies and the best possible social-fathering for the all the ensuing childhood years; proliferate public-discussion of evefry possible and imaginable factor; and thereafter take all of that into the Debate and Legislation preparation chambers.
Consider on one hand humankind’s Natural Intelligence and on the other our Civilisational Experience towards
1. The dual duty of the prospective mother to ensure
(a) firstly the best biologically-genetic sperm for the (essentially ‘collective’) ovum she plans to have fertilised;
(b) secondly, maybe more vitally than (a), the best lifesupportive and socially-capable ‘father’, for the hands-on rearing of the ensuing infant and child.
(Vice versa, the best biological-father needs to ensure he mates with the best-possible biological female.
And thereafter the best social-father needsw to ensure the infant has the best-possible social-mother.
As Baroness Deech has strongly included, pre-nuptial-agreement should be positively “on”; and I’m suggesting here that so should the written-covenant, or the signed-contract.
Already somewhere in the World there is a covenant and contract Community where the above pre-selection processes are being ‘married’ to a shared-community-parentage constitution and moral-practice.
A child may have a different social-mother and social-father from its purely biological-parents; and does have a plentifully adequate array of uncles, aunts, and god-parents.
Isn’t it written clearly “Marriage was ordained for the procreation of children” ?
In which case, so are most of the family assets.
It is a prostitution of Holy Matrimony to turn it dominantly into an Economic-Partnership Contract and Adversarial Competition
“The winner takes it all;
The loser standing small …”.
A truly life-efficient adult can live healthily, citizenlike, and affordably cost-effective, on £200 per week.
The greater balance of income and assets should go to the childrens’ present and future global, national, local, household, and individual needs, in that order.
==============
JSDM0418F22Oct10
I would say to the Bishop that the presence of agreements enhances the commitment to marriage because it stops the gold-diggers from getting married with the intention of obtaining a divorce two or three years later and getting a large payoff.
Time for the state to get out of marriage.
Let people agree to whatever contracts they want to agree to.
“Radmacher case, albeit that this will not put an end to litigation about them, for that will require legislation.”
Really? The SC seems to be perfectly content to make them law in all but name. While I’m very much in favour of PN agreements it should be a matter for parliament to decide to make them legally binding not the courts
Still in these financially tight times perhaps the courts are trying to hint at a new cost saving involving them taking over 2 of the 3 branches of government. 🙂
Long may you continue my Lady, at least until Government see sense and legislate.
Of course the Bishop of Blackburn disagrees, he`s probably of the mind that a man must receive a dowry to take this burden from another family.
English law causes too much bitterness even without finances in divorce, too often Fathers suffer in this age of equality. Only to find later he gets the children back but not the house.
What is surprising is the Bishop doesn`t see the following as a pre-nuptial agreement:
” Declarations
You will be asked to promise before God, your friends and your families, that you will love, comfort, honour and protect your partner and be faithful to them as long as you both shall live.
The minister will also ask the congregation to declare that they will support and uphold your marriage.
Vows
Turning to each other, the bride and groom take each other’s right hand and make vows:
‘to have and to hold
from this day forward;
for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish,
till death us do part’
Rings
The couple then exchange a ring or rings as a ‘sign of their marriage’ and a reminder of the vows:
‘With my body I honour you,
all that I am I give to you,
and all that I have I share with you,
within the love of God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.'”
The specific part maybe “all that I have I share with you” now obviously in the Bishops mind there is some degree of haggling to do about the percentage of sharing.
😉
Since we have all lined up to remark about the Bishop:
Bishop of Blackburn who said that the act of signing prenuptial agreements would indicate a diminished commitment to marriage and a commercial attitude.
Is the Bishop suggesting that the Cleric in holy orders does NOT have a commercial attitude? Well! Would you believe it!?
BD: Having dug out your wiki profile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Deech,_Baroness_Deech
There can be no doubt whatsoever that you know what you are talking about. However, like many others you are left to endure the intense emotional pressure of something very personal and to pick up the pieces legally as a lawyer.
But I wonder whether the Wisdom of Solomon was flawed? Because this is the position that the courts are placed in every time; perhaps the baby should actually have been cut in two to spite each ‘mother’.
The culprit here is money or the pursuit of it. If it were down to me I would be quite draconian about the settlement. Under the Royal Prerogative of Bona Vacantia the Crown would take 80% of the estate leaving the rest to be divided; the death here, being the marriage itself.
Should the state incentivise marriage or discourage it? There is no third way.