So basically my ex who is publicly funded just keeps dragging this out until I have to roll over and give her everything despite me being the resident parent.
Hey everybody keeps telling me that the kids come first in a divorce.
She cares so much for her kids that having driven the 150 miles to attend the initial hearing last Friday that afterwards she went to see her friends to discuss the court hearing. Did she pop in for 5 minutes to say hello to the kids, did she hell.

If she goes to a full hearing (without settlement) then NO - she will NOT be publicly funded. It will become a loan (please someone correct me if I'm wrong) and the legal fees will need to be paid from any possible settlement. (She may not yet be aware of this)

If YOU are the parent with care; then you should retain the larger share of the assets to house the kids. It can be argued that since she's moved out; her 'needs' are met elsewhere...although she may still retain a share of ownership (read up on Mesher Orders) however, regardless of who retains what; there's still the question of where the money is coming from to legally fight this??

Kevin
Think you are the wrong sex!!!!
My husband had the same with his ex. Had he been a woman, looking after two children, the ex would have had to cough up to assist in paying for mortgage, children, etc. He had no help, had to even fight to have the child benefit put in his name!!!! what a scene.

Instead she popped another baby out,whooops could not work then!!!! And another bloke looking after her, and more child benefit. Cake and eat it. And she still puts her claw stained mitt out for her half of everything!!!!!


The more I read here on wiki concerning the PWC being the father the more I am convinced that there is something totally totally twisted about the divorce law. Best for the children. mmmmmm

zara

Forgot to mention too, my husband had taken retirement very early due to ill health, she managed to find some dosh to put towards getting his health investigated, he had to find a job, only 16 hours a week, plus a pension to pay all the mortgage endowments elec gas food clothes holidays, school trips, mobile phones bla blah. I do find it strange that she was not ordered to pay for something towards all of this. If it has been her left with the children and only able to work 16 hours a week I am sure that he would have had to contribute. I really do not see why a woman should not be made to contribute in those circumstances, same as yours.

zara

... a few weeks ago someone commented here about the Courts working to the 1973 marriage act. We pretty much agree it needs dragging up-to-date, it is draconian, and a lot rests on what is 'expected' to happen etc. In 1973 women rarely had their own careers, income, mortgages etc.

To be honest I don't think that my realises that she will have to pay all her legal expenses out of her settlement. I think that she thinks that they will be paid by the state or by me.
I think that she has a big shock coming her way.

If a court rules a Costs order in her favour; then that may well be coming from you.

If she wins her case; and you are seen as having made her go through court for a fair share; then yes; that is something you risk.

Although many say that 'usually' each party pays it's own Costs; the reality is that Costs orders are still issued.