McCartney divorce and the reason for men hiding assets.

Well, the McCartney divorce circus returns to court this week. The "one legged wonder" is representing herself having fallen out with her legal team, apparently after appearing on TV and comparing herself to Princess Diana and others and owing them in the region of two million in fees!

I am puzzled. The justification in the divorce courts for the looting a husbands wealth in favour of an ex-wife is usually based on the premise that the ex-wife contributed indirectly to the family fortune by being a housewife, a support, perhaps a mother and generally a major part of the family team, while hubby went and built the bank balances. In Sir Paul's case he was already very wealthy BEFORE he met the one legged wonder, and from my perspective she has had nothing but a negative impact on him; think of her damaging appearances and the leaked allegations in the press. He was worth over £800 million before he married her and is worth approximatley the same now. Why should she get a share of this fortune when she contributed Zilch?

Of course there is the question of children. If I were Sir Paul I would be arguing that the mother is unfit, using her press appearances and confessions against her, but even where this is not the case a simple financial solution should - and indeed has been established by the Child Support Agency. Their monetary formula having been established the amount of child support should not be an issue in the courts. If Sir Paul wanted to establish a more generous Family Trust for the benefit of his daughter with the one legged wonder then he could, but of course these funds should be independently administered by trustees, not by the grasping ex-wife.

The other justification for looting a husbands money is the "lifestyle" argument; namely that a wife is entitled to be kept in as similar a lifestyle after divorce as before it. This however has some logical weaknesses.

First, why should a wife of only a few years marriage be entitled to be kept in the same lifestyle as when married to a husband independently wealthy before the marriage? To me this is really a legal sanctioning of prostitution. After all we are compensating the ex-wife who contributed nothing to the husbands wealth for what? Sleeping with him is about it.

Second, this argument is totally unfair in a system of "no-fault" divorce. We say it is a system of no blame divorce but in reality husbands are penalised as if they were guilty! If neither party is being blamed then the only basis for redistribution of wealth is contribution, which in the McCartney case and other similar short lived marriages is virtually nothing and should be compensated in that light.

If fault were taken into account then the guilty party should not be compensated and the guilty one should be penalised, whether husband or wife. This would be fair and vastly different to now where, only by virtue of being married, a wife receives an unfair redistribution of wealth! If a husband is guilty in the demise of the marriage then I can see the argument as to why a wife be compensated from his fortune to live a similar lifestyle as when the marriage was ongoing, but if he did not then why should he be penalised? It is illogical and more, it gives rise to a great sense of injustice and grievence.

In our sophistication we have tried to sanitise divorce from acrimony by deleting reference to guilt and blame, but instead we have left men with a sense of injustice that is a festering wound. No wonder more and more men seek to hide and protect their assets.

Good luck Sir Paul, don't give away too much- she doesn't deserve it.

http://www.doctorditcher.com/
mailto:doctorditcher@hushmail.com