Judges are labouring under antiquated notions of chivalry in awarding women maintenance payments which extend years into the future, despite the fact that many divorcees go on to earn good salaries on their own, says a leading female peer.
A Bill tabled by Baroness Deech calling for a three year cap to be placed on most maintenance payments is to go to the Committee stage after passing its second reading in the House of Lords.
The cross bench peer says this would reflect the situation in Scotland, the rest of Europe and North America, where a short time limit is set on maintenance payments in divorce cases. Baroness Deech says that far from doing women a favour, the law as it stands in England is both patronising and stops them being treated seriously in the workplace.
The former chair of the Bar Standards Board told The Telegraph: "Our judges are being very old fashioned I’m afraid. They are over-chivalrous and the way they were in the 19th century. People wonder why, 15 years after a marriage has ended, one person has to keep paying money to another
“If there is one thing that stops women getting back on their feet and being treated seriously and equally at work, it is the assumption throughout the legal system that once a woman is married she is somehow disabled and incapable ever of managing on her own for the rest of her life. It is a very serious impediment to equality."
Baroness Deech’s Bill follows intense debate over a series of divorce cases which have seen ex-wives awarded large sums in maintenance, despite their ability to return to work and earn an independent living.
She says the law in England needs to be brought into line with Scotland and the rest of Europe in limiting the period over which maintenance payments should be made from one divorced partner to another.
"The Scottish law is really very good. It has worked for 30 years now and a recent academic review found it to be working very well.
“The position of women is very different today from what it was 50 years ago. My Bill, which is very closely modeled on it, would bring England and Wales into line, not only with Scotland but with most of western Europe and most of the American states in splitting matrimonial assets and curbing life-long maintenance.”
Baroness Deech, a lawyer and bioethicist who chaired the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), added: “We need to stop women being supplicants who have to beg the court to meet their needs. My bill would give them half the matrimonial assets required after marriage and would extend the period of maintenance if there was hardship.”
The Bill, which has just received its second reading in the Lords, would also extend the payment of maintenance for children to the age of 21, in order to help cover the cost of higher education.
It comes after a wife who lost the bulk of her divorce settlement by making "poor financial decisions" was awarded larger monthly payments from her ex-husband, despite calls from his lawyer for maintenance limits to reflect "social change".
Maria Mills, 51, a former estate agent, received a £230,000 lump sum in 2002, plus monthly personal maintenance payments of £1,100, when she split from her "reliable and truthful" 50-year-old husband, Graham Mills, after 13 years of marriage.
But the court heard she lost it all and fell heavily into debt, after investing "unwisely" in a series of ever more "upmarket" London properties in an effort to climb the housing ladder.
She now works two days a week as a beauty therapist. Judges at the Appeal Court ordered that Ms Mills's monthly payments be increased to £1,441 and told her ex-husband that he must support her for life, because she is "unable to meet her basic needs".
But Mr Mills is now considering taking the case to the Supreme Court to end what he calls the injustice of “meal ticket for life” maintenance.
Referring to Ms Mills’s award, Baroness Deech said: “Why is she only working two days a week and what has she done with the lump sum settlement her husband gave her?”
The peer added that the courts were also awarding “ludicrously extravagant” maintenance settlements to the divorced wives of wealthy men in order to fund a lifestyle to which they had become accustomed.
She said: “It’s an insult to every woman who works for a court to say that if you've bagged a rich man you should carry on getting that sort of money to fund a luxury lifestyle.”
READ MORE ABOUT:
- Divorce,
- Law and order
License this content
