Mr Bloom Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 It's 16 unless they go onto further education and then it's 18.....I think. Thanks. I wonder what the merits are of having a 'scale' of payments, if it doesn't exist already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minimo Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 It is often suggested that wealthy men should not marry to avoid later 'problems' How long will it be before one partner of an unmarried couple will demand the same rights as those accorded to a (ex) married partner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scentral Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 If the 'law' deems that contributing nothing to his business for 20 years and then emerging from under her stone with her hand out is OK, then her award should have the 20 years of benefits she's been claiming deducted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Singletons-would this deter you from getting married? (Would it deter you from trying to succeed and become successful)? Remember, the divorce laws can work both ways-rich woman/poor man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuttsie Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 Singletons-would this deter you from getting married? (Would it deter you from trying to succeed and become successful)? Remember, the divorce laws can work both ways-rich woman/poor man. Not many examples of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Not many examples of that. Should have got yourself a better lawyer then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janus Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Not many examples of that. Very true, and my rough guess would be say no more than 5% rich women paying to their ex? But the provision does exist, rare that it is required. In the case in question (re payment towards children in retrospect) say £200 every week for 18 years. That is less than 200K Tripple it maybe, to account for inflation to bring it up to today`s figures. That would be 600K. Why the 1.9 Million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now