If you ever needed an example of the heavy bias towards women in the courts, this is a good one [or a bad one, depending on which side of the fence you are on].
Let’s look at the logic of this, beginning with the divorce. In this, I agree with the wife 100%:
Mrs Malialis levelled accusations that her husband had been ‘having relations with a call girl called Nicky’ and ‘wasted money by gambling in casinos’.
If that was so and she had given him ample notice to get his act together, then it was obvious why she wanted to divorce him and it would be hard not to feel sympathy for that. When any partner invests him or herself in the other and the other just goes off and does that, it is a disgrace and shows weak character on the part of the miscreant. It’s a betrayal of trust.
Mr Malialis countered by alleging that his wife had had an affair.
Equally as bad and all sympathy for her flies out the window if it’s true. However, the court did two things wrong itself:
1. Mrs Justice Parker said [Mr Malialis] had a 31-year-old Ukrainian girlfriend;
2. Mrs Justice Parker declined to investigate those disputed allegations.
Now hang on a minute. This woman judge herself speaks of Mr. Malialis’s infidelity, thereby making it a factor in her prejudice one way or the other but when he alleges the wife’s infidelity, then “Mrs Justice Parker declined to investigate those disputed allegations.”
Interesting, isn’t it? Which is why women judges shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near family law courts or if they are, there should be an equal number of male judges presiding.
The court heard how the husband and wife had lived all their married lives in north London, having been wed for more than 34 years, and had three grown up children when Mrs Malialis began divorce proceedings in 2007.
That family was based on him being the primary breadwinner and it can be argued that in any such situation, she is abrogating her right and chance of making money in her own right in the interests of the family. It’s a happy situation until one of the parties goes outside the marriage.
He did that and everything else followed on from that. However, there is the quite possible point that she’d become so impossible, she drove him to look for affection elsewhere and thereafter, she looked elsewhere as well. This is the point women rely on being almost impossible to quantify – their own contribution to discord and their reasons for doing it. According to men, it’s a huge factor.
My mate in Russia speaks of just such a thing. Her demands, her scathing comments, day in day out, became impossible to handle any more. Yet on the surface, he was 100% at fault.
And then there are the greedy eyes of women these days inside marriages, having parented and increasingly seeing the advantageous bias of courts. They sue for divorce, get hefty payouts like this by biased female or leftist judges and she’s on clover for the rest of her days, based on his efforts in making that money in the first place. She can bring in her toyboy as and when she wants.
Judges at London’s Appeal Court, pictured, ruled that Justice Judith Parker’s original divorce ruling was ‘unsupportable and not fair’
Lord Justice Thorpe, delivering the court’s main judgement, said: ‘The history is unfortunate. The husband has described these proceedings as a disaster and I have some sympathy with that view.
I have no sympathy for his infidelity. If he wanted this Nicky, then either it was his dalliance or she drove him to it. He should at least have warned his wife that she was entering dangerous territory in their marriage and demanded she understood this. There had to have been some discussion of the matter and the nature of that discussion should be quite admissible in court.
If it was his dalliance and nothing else, I have little sympathy for him. If, however, it was in the back of her mind for some time to ditch him and she was creating the preconditions for it – women are not innocents in this respect – then susbstantially alters the equation. It needs investigation as it is a mitigating factor. Just what was the state of relations and why?
We, the public, will never know in Mrs M’s specific case. It is possible she was a dutiful wife for 34 years and then his infidelity turned her into a “hell hath no fury” type. We’ll never know that – the comments above were about what is increasingly happening in society, not specifically about her.
As for settlements, there is no reason, as far as I can see, for lifetime alimony. It’s a ridiculous concept, especially in this day and age.
Let’s leave child support out of this for now – I’m looking only at lifetime alimony. Any father who loves his children and has a say in how they are brought up would wish to contribute financially to them and if he is a loving father, it would go well beyond 18 years. Always assuming he makes the decisions on them jointly. No decision-making power – no child support payout.
As one anti-alimony site said:
It is our contention that if you procreate a child, you are responsible for its support. This support requirement goes for both spouses as well. It is the responsibility for both of you to equally take care of and raise the child you brought into this world.
But as for her – not a penny, not even a farthing in lifetime alimony:
As a mother in today’s society, how would you feel if your son were to get married and then divorced only to face a lifetime of servitude in an ongoing “lifetime alimony marriage” where there would be no closure to his life and little likelihood of his ever being able to remarry again?
To me, the critical factors are:
1. Who was unfaithful or otherwise at fault;
2. Who sued;
3. What the respective incomes were.
He sues for divorce but she was happy in the marriage and had done nothing wrong. IMHO, he has at least some responsibility for her over a reasonable time, maybe five years, to get herself back on her feet. Plus the children covered of course, as a separate matter.
If he was unfaithful in this, then his commitment increases accordingly, maybe doubles.
If he sues for divorce, however, on grounds of her infidelity, it is morally right for the income to now be considered. If he is earning £50 000 and she is earning £15 000 at that point, then there is clearly a short term discrepancy in her ability to meet bills and ongoing overheads.
In that situation, the reasonable thing regarding her [let's leave the children out of it for now], is that he covers his part of their current commitments for one year and a reducing amount after that for say three years.
And no alimony to her whatever beyond that.
Let’s say she earns more than him, then she has that diminishing commitment over three years to him, in the same proportion as their respective incomes. That is – she pays time-capped alimony.
If she sues though on no substantive grounds, e.g. incompatibility, then she gets nothing but their children under 18 do. Incompatibility is no grounds, given that they were officially compatible when they married. If he changes over time and is not what she took on at the beginning, and provided she kept records of her concerns about that and how they impacted the family, e.g. his drunkenness, and if it cuts both ways in that her changing and drunkenness is a factor, then whoever sues on that basis is entitled to at least some payback.
As for the feminazi CSA or whatever it calls itself now should be dismantled henceforth, with no further ado. It has no place in these matters – the family court is the only arbiter and only with equal representation male and female, left and right.
This factor of the changing spouse is quite critical in the process and should not be ignored. If he gave no promises to change and they marry on that basis, then his failure to change to her satisfaction is no grounds. If she was on at him before marriage and he agrees to change, and he then doesn’t, then she has grounds.
If his or her increasing “natural attrition”, e.g. age and diminished capacity due to that over some decades is cited, then that is no grounds. If however, one of them lets himself or herself go, then this was not the reasonable expectation and the other has grounds with a caveat.
Example – wife goes to fat and becomes a slipper slob, which was most certainly what the husband thought he was getting. Or husband becomes physically abusive and/or goes to drink – then these are grounds with a caveat.
That caveat is that it was deliberately done, i.e. they had second thoughts after marriage and tried to rid themselves of the other by doing this. Everything has to come into it. For example, her nagging is a huge factor, not to condone physical violence but in his mindset towards her. If she has another in the wings, if he has – this counts.
No-fault divorce played right into women’s hands because of alimony provisions and the feminist dominated CSA. It’s iniquitous.
Fault, relative financial position and who sued are very much factors and should be the criteria.
Filed under: Politics & economics