The law is an ass. Well, in this case, the law is inadequate and the judge is an ass.
How is it in any way fair or reasonable that a couple separates, agrees on a property and custody settlement, then seven years later, one of them is allowed to claim money from the other because they have since made a mess of their life?
That’s what has happened to a woman who separated from her husband who, according to the evidence presented was violent, smoked dope and drank to excess almost every day during their marriage. By mutual agreement, she kept the mortgaged home and the kids, he kept an investment property, a car and his super.
In the ensuing seven years, the husband not only drank and smoked more, but developed a gambling problem, lost his job and eventually was declared bankrupt. He’s now an “invalid pensioner”.
Incapable of working are you? Really? Too fucking lazy and busy feeling sorry for yourself to clean up your act and get a job, more like it. The pension is for people who can’t hold down a job because they genuinely cannot work. This is either because they are disabled or chronically ill, not because they won’t stop drinking. Excessive drinking and drug abuse are not such chronic maladies that people cannot stop.
Now this grub thinks that he has some right to ask his former wife to give him more money because his life is such a mess … and the judge agreed with him, despite offering the opinion that he had perjured himself as to their initial agreement.
How was this absurd piece of judicial activism able to occur? Because she never got around to actually divorcing him. The 12 month time limit on challenging settlements did not apply because they were still technically married.
The biggest problem with this ridiculous ruling is that it sets a precedent which is clearly at odds with the views of the majority of the community. It is the community who should decide what is right and just in areas like family law, yet Justice Philip Burchardt seems to believe that the law should or in fact does require one spouse to continue to support the other, years after separation, because they did not formally divorce.
No, they shouldn’t. If a marriage breaks up and one person hasn’t been working, they will obviously need some support while they get back into the workforce. But there is clearly a time limit beyond which each person’s circumstances are their own responsibility and not a consequence of the marital arrangements. That time is far less than seven years.
The judge should have thrown this case out. The husband is a loser who has brought his own life to this point. His wife is not responsible for his maintenance. Instead of grifting, how about some mature self examination, cleaning up his act, getting a job (any job to start with) and being a man his children can respect?
With such a precedent set, other bludgers may well use it to try to make claims for undeserved support long after a de facto relationship ends. Since there was no formal marriage and hence no formal divorce, would the 12 month time limit on claims also not apply here? Why not bring a claim, then settle beforehand, effectively using the threat of costs as blackmail?
Did you think of that, Justice Burchardt? I’ll bet you didn’t.
How is it that a couple who do not formally marry can be considered de facto married in law, yet a couple who are clearly de facto divorced are not considered so when it comes to maintenance claims?
One might also ask how this claim ever reached court. It could only be because the husband was receiving legal aid or some speculative solicitor took the case on a no win, no fee basis.
If the former, whoever approved legal aid for this case should be severely censured. This loser is already bludging off the taxpayer and scarce legal aid budget is allocated to funding his undeserving claim, when people facing excessive and often false charges are unable to adequately defend themselves because they are poor?
If the latter, the case should have been thrown out and the wife’s costs awarded against the husband’s solicitors as a warning to other scumbags.
It will be interesting to see how many women need to be stiffed in divorce settlements for them to join the fight to make divorce law more equitable. Since the 1970’s, there hasn’t been much incentive for women to support such changes, as they tend to end up with the house and kids and / or be the beneficiaries of undeserved and excessively lengthy maintenance awards. Now more women are coming into marriages with significant assets and are working and earning more than their husbands, how will the feminist lobby react?
A final lesson from this case: If you separate from your spouse and don’t want to get back together, divorce them as quickly as possible, lest they drink and gamble everything away, then come slithering before Justice Burchardt.
No comments:
Post a Comment