Paywalled, from The Times:
"Proposals for a five-year limit on maintenance awards in divorce were published yesterday to end huge payouts and massive court costs.
Baroness Deech, a crossbencher, called for a system more like that in Scotland, to end open-ended awards that have made London the divorce capital of the world.
Instead of indefinite maintenance awards, which critics have called a meal ticket for life, her Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill would give guidelines on maintenance and dividing assets. It proposes awarding maintenance for five years, with longer terms only if needed to prevent hardship.
The framework would avoid the need for “judge-made law”, which leads to uncertainty and militates against mediation and out-of-court settlements, she said. “Judges are having to intervene, which is not their task, and brings delay,” she said. “There are many accounts of cases where nearly all the assets are wasted on the costs of litigation: in one, a husband was awarded £50,000 but was left with a bill of £490,000 in cost.
“It is more sensible to load the separation of assets in favour of property, pensions and lump sums rather than ongoing periodical payments.”
The bill would also make prenuptial agreements binding if legal advice had been taken, because “there is no evidence that marriage breakdown is encouraged by prenuptial or postnuptial agreement,” she said.
“The result [of the bill] should be better opportunities for mediation, less need to go to court, reduced trauma for children, lower costs, an easier time for litigants in person and a fairer outcome recognising partnership in marriage,” she added.
In its Family Matters campaign, The Times and Marriage Foundation are urging an overhaul of the divorce laws to make them fairer and reduce damage to children.
The bill has its second reading on May 11."
Will be interesting to see what strategy is used to attack and defeat this. In the meantime, we can but hope this is part of a sea-change.
Edit: posting from mobile and can't flair, but I guess men's rights is best.

conflagratorX 8y ago
So this law is proposed only because women exercises their privileges in excess which leads to massive court costs. Not because men life are ruined and destroyed underway. I guess it must suffice for now.
Troll_Name 8y ago
Fun fact: the dopey prince faction (@Alwaleed_Talal) of Saudi Arabia was laying groundwork to scale back beheadings because capable swordsmen were too hard to find in a nation that glorifies them.
Whose interests will the government serve? Their own.
Heavily_Implied 8y ago
Perfect doesn't always have to be the enemy of good.
Zelthia 8y ago
Which means we are moving from monthly meal tickets to gross upfront payment.
No indication that this new framework is any better for men. The only ones to benefit will be those with close to no assets that can be awarded to the woman.
Get ready for an avalanche of “she keeps the house and the car but I still make the payments for all”.
MattyAnon Admin 8y ago
Don't worry, she'll create this hardship if it gets her a mealticket.
I'd argue divorce is encouraged by the absence of a prenup: she's more likely to divorce if she has a larger payout.
And there we have it. "Recognising partnership in marriage" is code for "women should be paid for sitting on their ass and pretending they are helping their husbands".
All this law will mean is that women get a larger lump sum in exchange for less payouts, and they'll still get the payouts if they can't be bothered to get a job.
Entropy-7 8y ago
There was a case where the ex-wife kept coming back for another feeding from the alimony trough by claiming that she was still too traumatized by how abused she was in the relationship such that she couldn't work. I can't remember the outcome (I think she got another extension) but people were making some uncomfortable comments about how, in a no-fault jurisdiction, that looked an awful lot like fault.
I recall another case where the bitch tried to kill her husband but once she got out of jail and he was out of the hospital and working again, she came after him for alimony.
JJ3314 8y ago
Yeah unless there is a reliable way of short-circuiting this “hardship” clause to prevent these broads from acting just like the welfare queens, I can see the law not accomplishing much.
MattyAnon Admin 8y ago
Right. They'll judge her on her job situation, which will be found to be lacking. And then make him pay so that the government doesn't have to.
We've seen how society and how women operate, we know the outcome here.
Rian_Stone 8y ago
Vetting a girl, making sure she has a career should be the #1 priority.
TheTrenTrannyTrain 8y ago
How do you balance that with wanting children and having a stay at home mother?
Rian_Stone 8y ago
Thats a question for the dads at MRP.
BewareTheOldMan 8y ago
It's fine if a man wants his wife to take time away from career for childbirth/raising children, etc.
The key in the modern era is to ensure the wife has demonstrable/proven, marketable skills/skill set prior to marriage by virtue of an actual career.
Women can always return to the workforce after a bit of time away, but if the wife never attended college or lacks a useful vocational skill, a future divorce will be very expensive by virtue of alimony, child support, and attorney fees.
I worked with guy who ensured his wife attended college while raising 3 x boys, earning a Master's in Education. She never worked during the early to mid-years of marriage, but secured employment once the youngest child reached pre-teen age. It worked out fine for them as their marriage was based in more of a "team effort," but with today's women it's better to ensure a proven skill set.
For u/tteabag2591 if this is a point of consideration, I offer this observation and advice as a possible solution.
tteabag2591 8y ago
Meh. It's not for me honestly. I think mothers should be attending to the children. The time spent pursuing a career could be better spent raising their children. There is a multitude of emotional needs you just can't satisfy as a working mom. I say that from experience being raised by a working mom. I understand some women just don't have that luxury. It's a shame but it doesn't change what the optimal setup is.
tteabag2591 8y ago
You can't be optimally both. At least in a way that doesn't seriously risk fucking up your children in the process.
TheTrenTrannyTrain 8y ago
That's what I worry. I don't want my children to be raised by nannies, but also reduce the chance of divorce rape.
[deleted]
tteabag2591 8y ago
So just have children but don't marry. Just establish paternity.
TheTrenTrannyTrain 8y ago
Hard to do, government just calls you common law due to living together with a child, which is the same as being married.
Troll_Name 8y ago
If one wants easy sex: your concerns are guano-insanity, the virus minefield, potential serial killers orbiting around her, and what state you're in. I always say this but leave California as soon as you're successful enough.
If one wants a steady dating partner: your concerns are guano-insanity, dependence on men, hostility towards men, other historical baggage, and your partner's lifetime standards (the lower you dive, the lower SHE has dove.)
If one wants a tradcon nuclear family: your concerns are guano-insanity, prior partner count, harmful obsession with procreation or theological characters, Disney Princess merchandise, and "boy stuff" aka valuing the making of statement over the making of results.
Docbear64 8y ago
I mean if nothing else at least this is progress, at least it begins the conversation for making divorce and alimony less rewarding. 5 years is still far too long . Is there a limited period of time for receiving unemployment benefits after being removed from your job? If so I feel like alimony honestly shouldn't exceed a limit like that. When you lose a job your standard of living tends to change , when you divorce it should be perfectly acceptable for that to happen too . The breadwinner in the relationship shouldn't be punished for their partners incompetence at earning a living . The only reason a partner should get a payout is for kids involved... and I think the spending of those funds should be accounted for .
Like I said much improvement to be expected but if nothing else this is a start.
Entropy-7 8y ago
Well ya, but the stay-at-home-spouse shouldn't be punished for removing themselves from the workforce to take care of the family while the other wasn't around.
If a guy is silly enough to keep a stay-at-home wife, not mother but wife, for any significant time without a pre-nup, then you are orchestrating your own downfall. Hire a maid and get the bitch out working.
You would just end up spending more in legal fees arguing over whether the accounting was accurate and justified. That's part of the reason why they changed it to a guideline amount based on income.
The problem still comes where you have you have a pair of DINKs where the guy made twice as much when they got together and twice as much when she walks out and then she still wants half the difference for life.
As-You-Were 8y ago
Ahhhh Scotland how I miss you so. Moving to London was easily one of the worst mistakes in my life, is a cesspit; New York wannabe, with the most entitled females I’ve ever come across/on.
[deleted]
Reformed65 8y ago
Hey I'm a Londoner and I'm nearly done with Sixth Form and I'm thinking of going to a Scottish Uni because due to unique circumstances, I probably am eligible for free Uni and I really wouldn't want to have nearly £28k to my name. Do you know how Scottish Unis are compared to London Unis?
party_dragon 8y ago
How about Germany? Free university (as long as you stay in the EU...)
Reformed65 8y ago
I'm a German national myself actually. I do want to stay in the UK though, going to a Russel Group Uni and such.
[deleted] 8y ago
Not Scottish, but by all means study in Glasgow - some of the finest people in the world, and Strathclyde and Glasgow unis are very highly rated.
Reformed65 8y ago
Ah thanks, I'll have Glasgow and Edinburgh on my list, if I have any space left on my UCAS list.
ApexmanRP 8y ago
Just some thoughts for you, as someone who employs some graduates..
Unless you are going to do STEM or Business/Finance, I would seriously consider whether Uni is the right thing.
The graduates I have are in their 20s and 30's and still have student debt. You can get on in life without a degree (especially in the UK), and not be saddled with a mountain of debt before you even start earning.
ebam123 7y ago
Hi Apex man are you able to employ me?
ApexmanRP 7y ago
If you just want a job, get a job.. You will probably be better off financially, than going to Uni.
ebam123 7y ago
But employers tend to prerequiste degrees for the higher paying roles...
Reformed65 8y ago
Yikes, I'm thinking of doing History & International Relations, though I want to be an actor.
circlingldn 7y ago
get a degree in something employable as a backup
history will be hard to be employable unless you gun for a open-to-all grad scheme(which will take 4 years in itself)
ApexmanRP 8y ago
So, you are going to university to do a degree irrelevant to your chosen profession (which you don't need a degree for).
You will have a 3 year party followed by a 10/15 year hangover. Not only that, your chosen profession is one of the least well paying and stable professions you could go into..
I would have a think about this..
As-You-Were 8y ago
I honestly don’t know but I’m pretty sure you’d have to pay even if you went to uni here.
Reformed65 8y ago
That's for British citizens, I'm German so I'm therefore protected by EU law to have the same benifits as Scottish students in Scottish universities which is free Uni.
As-You-Were 8y ago
You said you’re a Londoner?
Reformed65 8y ago
Yeah born and raised here in London. But I have a German passport.
merkucjo 8y ago
It’s still Londonistan, just look what happens there, not a good place to live even with good so called marriage laws
SirAttackHelicopter 8y ago
You all know the only reason why this is a thing now, is because the roles have switched. Double-standards are a thing to behold.
Many more wives are working class, and many more husbands are stay-at-home-moms. We are seeing women being forced to pay the alimony, and all of a sudden alimony is a bad thing, despite it being a good thing for decades.
Go figure.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=women+paying+alimony+to+men
crowscountingspades 8y ago
I was ordered to pay my wife $2,000 per month for life maintenance starting in 1999.
But another story first.
At that time, my sons had had enough of their mother and petitioned the courts to live with me (they had their own representation). So I had full physical custody of two of my sons, ages 13 and 11, and HALF physical custody of the third, age 8.
And YET, the courts were still forcing ME to pay, in addition to maintenance, FULL CHILD SUPPORT! $1,400 per month! In spite of me having 5/6ths custody.
Well, after 18 months of my attorney failing to get anything fixed, I fired him, took over, and within another 6 months I got the tables reversed -- now she had to pay me! (Only a fraction of what I was paying her, about $400 a month.)
As for "back" child support? All that I had overpaid? The judge laughed.
As for maintenance? Well, I got full custody of all three boys a year or so later...about 1998...which made my wife go literally crazy. So from there, the more my wife petitioned the courts about what a monster I was and what a victim she was, the more they realized she was...like I said...
It took a lot. But when I lost my full time job in 2002 -- due to the tech crash's impact on the economy and it was the devil's business finding a new job -- the judge said "okay, so, let's end maintenance."
This was 1997 to 2002 in New York.
I eventually got a modicum of justice. I was never compensated for all that overpaid child support nor did anyone ever acknowledge that the maintenance amount was nuts.
Bottom line, even when you win, the divorce courts treat men like you know what!!!
FeelTheBernieSanderz 8y ago
Did you ever write about how you managed to marry a crazy bitch like this?
I'm genuinely curious if we are oblivious to red flags, or is your average western woman hiding their crazy.
crowscountingspades 8y ago
It would take volumes to describe this woman...
...but my own stupidity is also in play.
Yes, there were signs, but young and dumb me was brought up to believe in this mystical thing called love and I figured love conquers all.
It doesn't.
Read the Red Pill! Live it!!!
BewareTheOldMan 8y ago
Your unfortunate situation is how society gets all the "Where Are All the Good Men?" and "Men are Afraid to Commit" caterwauling and complaining...an unfaithful wife who can't be bothered to take care of her own children, yet still receives alimony as a "reward" for her adulterous behavior.
When the gender situation is reversed, alimony and child support is "unfair." When a female celebrity or wealthy woman divorces a lesser-earning spouse, there's always a litany of complaints of unfairness.
Most women don't even comprehend their own hypocrisy.
okuli 8y ago
Your situation is brutal.
My divorce is not finalized, there's temporary order to pay $900 per month in child support, plus 60% of childcare, medical and all other expenses. I still think it's not fair because we have income difference less than 20%, and after taking into account taxes her total compensation will be more than mine despite her earning a little less money than me. The most depressing thing is that we're divorcing because she cheated multiple times on me, and now I have to pay that slut for 15 more years. Disgusting.
crowscountingspades 8y ago
The courts favor women...it's horrible.
Entropy-7 8y ago
Several years ago Canada introduced Spousal Support [ie "alimony"] Guidelines, but they are advisory only and non-binding so a judge is free to ignore them (subject to reversal because they didn't follow precedent).
The basics were simple: 1.5% to 2% of the difference in income [Edit: per year of the relationship] for a period of 1/2 to 1x the length of the relationship (cohabitation+marriage). There are some exceptions for longer marriages, shorter marriages and older couples. There is also a "with children" formula that is hideously complex and basically equalizes living standards while child support is in effect.
Plus, it doesn't interfere with prenups and you still have to establish entitlement to getting paid anything.
It still doesn't solve the more basic problem of losing custody and getting taken to the cleaners in that scenario, but if you were silly to get married without a prenup and then get divorced 10 years later with your income being $100k and her's being $50k then BOOM: $7500 to $10,000 a year for 5 to 10 years. It vastly cuts down on the costs of litigation. Even at the outside you will get sunk for $100k in total support which is barely above the entry fee to have a trial on anything substantial.
MattyAnon Admin 8y ago
So if I earn 100k and she earns nothing, I only pay out 2k per year? That seems insanely small.
And paying both sides legal costs and losing your house and car.
This is 15 to 20%.
You've got your maths wrong somewhere.
Entropy-7 8y ago
That should be 1.5% to 2% per year of the relationship (marriage or cohabitation to divorce) as well. I didn't write that very clearly. I'll go back and fix it.
The point is there is very little to fight about anyways. At least in Canada, if there is a division of property and the ex is not otherwise jobless and impecunious, they typically have to pay their own lawyer fees.
_penseroso_ 8y ago
Correct his math is wrong. This article explains it well and also has an example. http://www.canadiandivorcelaws.com/spousal-support/
TLDR; The guy with two kids who makes 100K a year, and she gets custody of the kids, pays about half his monthly salary to her.
Rian_Stone 8y ago
Enforcement. it's always about enforcement
Entropy-7 8y ago
The child support situation can still suck if you lose custody, have multiple kids, and they have any special expenses (child care, medical or education generally).
That's where the litigation seems to be shifting to because it isn't necessarily ruinous if you can get shared or split custody.
kick6 8y ago
All it took was a few black knights to get alimony from their rich wives, and BAM...reform.
BadMoles 8y ago
"It proposes awarding maintenance for five years, with longer terms only if needed to prevent hardship."
So the game then switches to Lawyers coming up with new and imaginative ways to invent "hardship" in order to increase the payout duration.....
Reformed65 8y ago
Whatever the case may be, I do wonder what's the catch going to be if this does get passed. I refuse to believe that the politicians of the UK had a change of heart.
kick6 8y ago
Rich women were having to pay alimony.
[deleted] 8y ago
I believe this is the true cause of the change.
furiouszeno 8y ago
Or just don't get married and keep ALL of your shit! Being legally married gives little to no real benefits anyway.
[deleted]
cuggwy 8y ago
Hmm maybe one day I actually will get married, talk of prenup being recognised is the real win here
[deleted]