Final Narrative Statement

The whole thing is mostly about squeezing the middle class/upper middle class even more:

the court simply overrides asset owernship to meet "needs" (which are ridiciolously generous interpreted and depend on the amount of money invovled which also makes no economic sense), while here in the EU in a case like 3 when there is not enough income the wife may be on benefits, while in England they rob the assets of the other person.

Prenups only work for the ultra rich as then at some point with many millions "needs" are met (absolutely ridicilous)

In general it really seems to me a great country to either be ultra rich or live off other people. It is very bad to be a normal working person there as the state just squeezes you but you can not use much off the state services. Also there is very little protection for the average working person, childcare etc compared to the EU.

a simple example quite nicely illustrates this:

say you are wealhy and have a job and the other party is a lazy bum:

The lazy bum has no job and no assets and lives off benefits. They are the states problem.
You get married and are married for a few years, now 5 years later you divorce. The lazy bum is still a problem but in England due to the fact that you were married they are now YOUR problem. You need to part with a big chunk of your assets and pay spousal maintance for a long time, because the lazy bum has all these "needs", they somehow need to live in a flat that they own, if you have more assets those "needs" go up. Although the lazy bum obviously has not contributed in any way to your assets and the amount of assets you have should be completely independent of those "needs"

The state is very happy because now they can extract wealth from you and let you pay the benefits effectively, lazy bum is happy cause they get to have all those "needs" and get it from you for free. In my EU country on the other hand the state doesnt feel to have the right to simply take away your assets that have nothing to do with the marriage and continue to pay benefits as it did before the marriage to that lazy bum. But obviously the needs of those lazy bum are quite limited, they get enough to survive.

This is an extreme example but just shows how affectively it is another way to extract wealth from hard working people.

No. The fact is your example says more about you than illustrating any fact. You see, you refer to the spouse as 'a lazy bum'. Now quite apart from the fact that if you choose to marry a lazy bum that is your choice and you are the one who has to live with the consequences there are other issues. For a start, I am not quite sure that I would accept your definition of 'a lazy bum' at face value.

For instance, a stay at home mother who chose to stay home to look after the children would probably be regarded as 'a lazy bum' by you ignoring the fact that spouses can make contributions by looking after the home and raising children as well as by purely financial contributions. No, what 'a lazy bum' seems to mean in this context is a spouse who behaves in a way which is not approved by you.

That is not to say that there are not lazy people. Obviously there are but ambitious highly motivated people who prize money rarely marry idle spouses who spend all day in their pyjamas watching day time tv. In general people marry people similar to themselves which is a very different thing from a spouse who simply does not do what the other spouse wants. The latter is probably your definition of 'a lazy bum'.

I haven't mentioned children or talked about my situation or what I want the spouse to do?

You have no argument. You just accuse me of things I have not actually said. I understand raising children is a contribution.

I have shown in a simple hypothetical example how the "needs" produce an unfair situation (i.e. you having to finance generously assessed needs of a lazy bum). Also I have shown how that responsibility is transfered from the state to you.
So while you pay taxes before to finance the lazy bums of society already and you still do after continuing to work after the marriage, in addition your hard earned assets are used to finance insane needs of that lazy bum you married. Why does this lazy bum now have higher needs than the ones financed by the state?

This example is a simplification and requires some abstract thinking. You seem incapable



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2023 10:10AM by Randomer4040.

David Terry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. The fact is your example says more about you
> than illustrating any fact. You see, you refer to
> the spouse as 'a lazy bum'. Now quite apart from
> the fact that if you choose to marry a lazy bum
> that is your choice and you are the one who has to
> live with the consequences there are other issues.
> For a start, I am not quite sure that I would
> accept your definition of 'a lazy bum' at face
> value.
>
> For instance, a stay at home mother who chose to
> stay home to look after the children would
> probably be regarded as 'a lazy bum' by you
> ignoring the fact that spouses can make
> contributions by looking after the home and
> raising children as well as by purely financial
> contributions. No, what 'a lazy bum' seems to mean
> in this context is a spouse who behaves in a way
> which is not approved by you.
>
> That is not to say that there are not lazy people.
> Obviously there are but ambitious highly motivated
> people who prize money rarely marry idle spouses
> who spend all day in their pyjamas watching day
> time tv. In general people marry people similar to
> themselves which is a very different thing from a
> spouse who simply does not do what the other
> spouse wants. The latter is probably your
> definition of 'a lazy bum'.

The trouble with this argument is that it assumes the stay at home parent actually performs their role. I was the sole earner but also had to do most of the housework whilst my ex-wife watched TV, shouted at the children for laughing during play and played games on her phone. This is becoming a very common problem now, especially with kidult men who pursue their hobbies whilst their wives do all the work.

This is why the law needs to get tough on people like this. Being a SAHP should be seen as an individual rather than joint choice and the individual should bear the consequences. I was never happy about my ex refusing to work because she did nothing around the house. Besides her multiple affairs and spending habits, this is why I divorced her.

Being told I had to carry her after divorce was disgraceful and I was prepared to move abroad (encouraging the children to follow) to avoid such an order if necessary.

Ah, so basically what you are saying is that your wife didn't do as you wanted her to do and for that reason she should be penalised.

David seems incapable of understanding fair points made by posters and usually comes back with some accusation.

The point is that it may not necessarily be a joint decision that someone chooses to not work anymore. You can not force someone to work. If they choose to be lazy after marriage (which the enlgish system incentives them to do) the earning party has to be the pay full cost for that and it is assumed that that party sort of wanted a situation like that. If that party has pre marital assets which are substantial it becomes even riskier.

Again incentives are totally misaligned. Probably hard for a lawyer to understand these concepts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2023 08:22PM by Randomer4040.

As for my original question, and primary reason for this thread;

Can someone please advise....

What is the actual point of the final FDR hearing?
What am I, as respondent, trying to prove? in my case, and in my S25 statement (which I guess is the same thing)?

My wife and her team appear to be making constant suggestion and direct accusations of a nature that I have squandered funds, and intentionally reduced my income during this process. Neither of these are true.

Am I therefore trying to prove the same? I do not believe my wife has "squandered" funds, although her use of litigation is grotesque. However, she has been directly responsible for severe financial losses, loss of employment, loss of a house sale, and continued damage to my future earning potential.

I am writing the document now. It is due by the end of tomorrow. Are these valid matters to address in the document?

The point of an FDR hearing is to try to reach agreement. It is a meeting held without prejudice so that proposals to settle can be made without those proposals being used against you later. At an FDR a judge will also express an opinion if asked to do so and/or the judge thinks it would be useful. Because of this most cases do settle at an FDR but they can only settle if both parties agree. A judge cannot impose a settlement at an FDR.

It is best to approach an FDR with an open mind and with the intention of trying to settle if at all possible. Sometimes it is not possible but in many cases it is and I have seen that happen in many cases where both parties were originally far apart.

Sorry.... maybe fdr is not right then. We've had several of those.


This is the final hearing.

And the statement is my "final narrative statement ".... which I am assuming is still an s25 statement. I am using the s25 statement submitted by my wife at our( last) final hearing as a guide and template.

I have also made multiple attempts to reach settlement. In my latest offer I even expressed that reaching settlement and ending this constant battle is becoming more vital as the bank is threatening imminent action to take possession of our home, and I am unable to work while I am dedicating so much time and energy to this fight. They ignored my offer and have not bothered to respond.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2023 05:34PM by spartacus.

Is there anyone who could review my section 25, Final Narrative Statement prior to submission. It is due to be submitted by 4pm, 15 Aug 2023....ie. this afternoon. While I appreciate I am cutting it fine, I have written this document 1000 times....its a soul destroying task.

PM me.

@David Following the pFDR will the judge at the Final Hearing have access to the judge's thoughts on the likely division of assets?

It sounds as though they will not have access to the multiple offers back and forth throughout the day but I presume a judge would want to see what a previous judge had communicated to both parties at FDR to fully understand what they spend the day negotiating around even if it did not settle?

Thanks

Absolutely not. If the judge at the final hearing were to have any knowledge of what passed at the FDR that judge would have to recuse him/herself and the hearing would be aborted. The person responsible - if one of the parties - would be ordered to pay the costs.

The whole point of an FDR is that the entire proceedings are 'without prejudice' (unless agreement is actually reached). If without prejudice communications are disclosed to the judge at the final hearing that hearing will be abortive. The judge at the final hearing must come to the proceedings completely unbiased.