HISTORY

The Campaign for Justice in Divorce led the attack on life long maintenance imposed on husbands by the closed door family courts in the late 70s. Most of the husbands had been netted by the notorious "unreasonable behaviour" petition. 

The movement founded in 1978 had grown significantly as victims of this travesty flocked to it. Led by Peter Snow who went on to become the Honorary Legal Officer and who studied for and obtained a law degree the campaign energy was directed at Parliament and MPs. The intensity of the political campaign which had all the fervour of the on street activities of Fathers 4 Justice today gradually won over an increasing number of MPs who recognised the basic injustice of what was going on. 

Eventually with the passage of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill 1984 an early day motion signed by some 300 MPs forced legislative amendment into the Bill which would enable what became known as the Clean Break. This meant that the routine imposition of life long maintenance for it was this burden that had won the attention of MPs would become replaced by a one off payment in lieu of the former process. The Act received Royal Assent in 1984 and from that time on the new system would take over from the old. Unfortunately the wide ranging aspect of judicial discretion maintained part of the former system by imposing on occasions a time limited form of periodical payment that by definition would allow "time for the former spouse to reorder their lives". The only time this would occur was if there was sufficient money available to fund it and then perhaps for a maximum of no longer than 4 years or so.

It is worth mentioning that the Parlour appeal case of mid 2004 has brought the clean break into the news where the ex wife who having received a settlement at the time of divorce in 2002  of some 1 million pounds went to appeal to win more money. The amount awarded was considerable bearing in mind the marriage was of short duration a matter that is usually taken into consideration when ancillary relief is being dealt with. The Court of Appeal in July 2004 awarded an extra payment of some half a million pounds with a review as to the termination of this after some 4 years. The money is allegedly for the children despite Mr Parlour maintaining them in that they should share in his future income as a Premier league football player. 

The travesty of the Court of Appeal judgement is that his former wife is in effect the custodian of this added amount. Mr Parlour who no doubt would have made provision for his children should be the custodian of such an arrangement NOT his ex wife. Of course as usual with so many things in this field the judiciary hide behind the alleged needs of the children. 

The key element in the time limited imposition of periodical payments is that in drawing on the anticipated future salary of the husband it was to be for the ex spouse to reorder her life where a cash or material settlement figure was probably small. Mrs Parlour received 2 mortgage free houses (in 2002) that doubtless have increased in value plus periodical payments and a cash sum each of some quarter of a millions pounds. The total package being by now worth well over 1 million pounds. For the ex wife who one understands had a job with an average income and who would never have acquired the assets secured entirely by the husband then Christmas has come early. 

The usual explanations produced by the judiciary like his ex wife had contributed to the accumulation of the husbands wealth were heard to both try to justify as well as enable the asset stripping to take place. 

Doubtless those with means who are contemplating marriage will have cause to reconsider their intended path. Those with assets will probably wish to consider the future with some concern and reflection that divorce in this country is principally a  process that concentrates specifically in transferring wealth from one party to the other by the use of conveniently wide powers of discretion.