Law now encourages sham marriages, and British legal expert says it’s time for reform
By Jonathan Eyal 21 September 2009
Baroness Ruth Deech, the head of Britain’s Bar Standards Board - the body which safeguards good practice in the legal profession - is no stranger to controversy. The feisty 66-year-old former lecturer in family law at Oxford University has often spoken up on tricky issues.
But Ms. Deech has recently stepped into a bigger legal minefield. In a series of lectures launched last week, she called for the total reform of Britain’s divorce laws.
London, she claims, is now the ‘divorce capital of Europe’, the city where women walk away from marriage with ‘many, many millions’ in divorce settlements.
According to Ms. Deech, this practice is demeaning to females and encourages sham marriages.
‘The message that is going out is ‘marry a footballer, marry a banker, stick it out for a few years, and your lifestyle will always be on that level: A woman is a kept woman,” she said.
Ms. Deech was reacting to the recent high-profile divorce settlement reached in London between Paul McCartney, the Beatles legend, and Ms. Heather Mills, his wife for four years: She gained a cool £24.3 million (S$56.9 million) payout.
Unusual, but hardly unique.
British courts previously ordered an insurance tycoon to pay S$111 million to his former wife, while a hedge fund manager had to pay S$12 million, despite the fact that his marriage lasted just three years and remained childless.
Britain has the highest rate of broken marriages in Europe: 2.8 divorces per 1,000 people, compared with an average of only 1.8 for the rest of the continent. So, whatever purpose British family law serves, the protection of the family is certainly not one of them.
The vast majority of the divorce settlements are not disputed, either because the parties agree on splitting their goods, or have no assets.
But for those wealthy or greedy enough, the courts offer an entertaining lottery game.
Until the late 1960s, the spouses’ personal behaviour affected the settlement.
A woman who had affairs outside marriage could end up with nothing, while a man who cheated could expect a heavier financial penalty.
Now, however, morality is not part of the equation.
In dividing assets, judges are required to take into account the welfare of children, the financial needs and responsibilities of the parties and the ‘contributions’ they made.
All are broad concepts, and judges stretch them much further.
A constant refrain in the courts is that a woman gave up her professional life to raise a family, so she is entitled to compensation.
Another common argument is that the woman contributed to her husband’s prosperity by freeing him of domestic chores, so she should get at least half of his wealth.
Sometimes, that is true. Still, the legislation has not kept up with today’s lifestyles. Many women continue to work throughout their marriage.
And it is silly to suggest that the wife of a millionaire woke up every morning to operate the vacuum cleaner. It is far more likely that she spent most of her married life grappling with difficult choices such as what necklace to wear or which hairstyle to adopt. If house chores are the criteria, then the maid and the nanny should share the payout.
Women’s rights supporters such as Professor Susan Himmelweit, a member of the International Association for Feminist Economics, deny ‘that the law is unfair to men’.
Perhaps, but nobody can explain why there should be an almost automatic presumption that a woman is entitled to half of the family assets or why men rarely benefit from large payouts.
But the explanation may be obvious: The courts still consider divorced women as fragile individuals, unable to fend for themselves without a man.
The fact that judges’ prejudices are a contributing factor is illustrated by a survey by Pannone, a British firm of lawyers.
It discovered that courts in the southern part of England - which includes London - are far more generous to wives than those in the country’s north. Mr. Andrew Newbury, a partner in the firm, claimed this reflected ‘more of a paternalistic approach. In the north, they expect women to stand on their own feet’.
Either way, the outcome is unedifying. Wives employ investigators to identify their former husbands’ assets. Lawyers make big money by advising clients which particular courts are more generous.
And, if one partner is a foreign national, the husband rushes to file for divorce outside Britain, where judges are more stingy towards women.
Ms. Charlotte Butruille-Cardew, a lawyer who specialises in French-English divorces, admitted that this forces couples to ‘become sneaky’.
The obvious solution - as Ms. Deech, who started the debate, now argues - is to restrict the leeway given to judges. But not one of Britain’s politicians is prepared to take up the challenge; all are frightened of unleashing an emotive dispute about the equality of sexes.
So, for the moment, the conclusion remains evident. If you are wealthy and male, avoid marrying in Britain. Or, better still, avoid marrying a Brit.
Unless your heart still speaks louder than your pocket.
2 comments:
Marry rich, divorce and become a millionaire
Law now encourages sham marriages, and British legal expert says it’s time for reform
By Jonathan Eyal
21 September 2009
Baroness Ruth Deech, the head of Britain’s Bar Standards Board - the body which safeguards good practice in the legal profession - is no stranger to controversy. The feisty 66-year-old former lecturer in family law at Oxford University has often spoken up on tricky issues.
But Ms. Deech has recently stepped into a bigger legal minefield. In a series of lectures launched last week, she called for the total reform of Britain’s divorce laws.
London, she claims, is now the ‘divorce capital of Europe’, the city where women walk away from marriage with ‘many, many millions’ in divorce settlements.
According to Ms. Deech, this practice is demeaning to females and encourages sham marriages.
‘The message that is going out is ‘marry a footballer, marry a banker, stick it out for a few years, and your lifestyle will always be on that level: A woman is a kept woman,” she said.
Ms. Deech was reacting to the recent high-profile divorce settlement reached in London between Paul McCartney, the Beatles legend, and Ms. Heather Mills, his wife for four years: She gained a cool £24.3 million (S$56.9 million) payout.
Unusual, but hardly unique.
British courts previously ordered an insurance tycoon to pay S$111 million to his former wife, while a hedge fund manager had to pay S$12 million, despite the fact that his marriage lasted just three years and remained childless.
Britain has the highest rate of broken marriages in Europe: 2.8 divorces per 1,000 people, compared with an average of only 1.8 for the rest of the continent. So, whatever purpose British family law serves, the protection of the family is certainly not one of them.
The vast majority of the divorce settlements are not disputed, either because the parties agree on splitting their goods, or have no assets.
But for those wealthy or greedy enough, the courts offer an entertaining lottery game.
Until the late 1960s, the spouses’ personal behaviour affected the settlement.
A woman who had affairs outside marriage could end up with nothing, while a man who cheated could expect a heavier financial penalty.
Now, however, morality is not part of the equation.
In dividing assets, judges are required to take into account the welfare of children, the financial needs and responsibilities of the parties and the ‘contributions’ they made.
All are broad concepts, and judges stretch them much further.
A constant refrain in the courts is that a woman gave up her professional life to raise a family, so she is entitled to compensation.
Another common argument is that the woman contributed to her husband’s prosperity by freeing him of domestic chores, so she should get at least half of his wealth.
Sometimes, that is true. Still, the legislation has not kept up with today’s lifestyles. Many women continue to work throughout their marriage.
And it is silly to suggest that the wife of a millionaire woke up every morning to operate the vacuum cleaner. It is far more likely that she spent most of her married life grappling with difficult choices such as what necklace to wear or which hairstyle to adopt. If house chores are the criteria, then the maid and the nanny should share the payout.
Women’s rights supporters such as Professor Susan Himmelweit, a member of the International Association for Feminist Economics, deny ‘that the law is unfair to men’.
Perhaps, but nobody can explain why there should be an almost automatic presumption that a woman is entitled to half of the family assets or why men rarely benefit from large payouts.
But the explanation may be obvious: The courts still consider divorced women as fragile individuals, unable to fend for themselves without a man.
The fact that judges’ prejudices are a contributing factor is illustrated by a survey by Pannone, a British firm of lawyers.
It discovered that courts in the southern part of England - which includes London - are far more generous to wives than those in the country’s north. Mr. Andrew Newbury, a partner in the firm, claimed this reflected ‘more of a paternalistic approach. In the north, they expect women to stand on their own feet’.
Either way, the outcome is unedifying. Wives employ investigators to identify their former husbands’ assets. Lawyers make big money by advising clients which particular courts are more generous.
And, if one partner is a foreign national, the husband rushes to file for divorce outside Britain, where judges are more stingy towards women.
Ms. Charlotte Butruille-Cardew, a lawyer who specialises in French-English divorces, admitted that this forces couples to ‘become sneaky’.
The obvious solution - as Ms. Deech, who started the debate, now argues - is to restrict the leeway given to judges. But not one of Britain’s politicians is prepared to take up the challenge; all are frightened of unleashing an emotive dispute about the equality of sexes.
So, for the moment, the conclusion remains evident. If you are wealthy and male, avoid marrying in Britain. Or, better still, avoid marrying a Brit.
Unless your heart still speaks louder than your pocket.
Post a Comment