Government Launches Divorce Calculator to Assist Vindictive Women in Impoverishing Husbands

Divorce calculator puts price on your marriage: Government body's online gadget that undermines commitment

An online divorce calculator has been set up by a government body to help people work out how much they would gain by leaving their spouse.

It uses information about income, outgoings, assets and children to establish the financial benefit to each party.

Critics say the tool goes against the sanctity of marriage and will encourage couples to split up rather than try to resolve their differences.

It will also embarrass David Cameron, who has repeatedly voiced his support for marriage.

Supporters claim the calculator will help couples in loveless marriages reduce the cost of hiring lawyers while deciding their futures.

The calculator, which is used anonymously, is also aimed at cohabiting couples or those in civil partnerships.

It can be accessed on the website of the Consumer Financial Education Body, which was established earlier this year by the Financial Services Authority.

Users do not have to include their partner’s financial details but are warned failure to do so means the calculator will ‘not be able to compare your situations or consider how you might split all that you have’. Recommended information on income includes pay, benefits, pension details and bank interest.

Details on outgoings include mortgage payments, utility bills, credit card payments, life assurance premiums, children’s pocket money and their hobbies.

Once all the details have been declared, the user can operate a sliding scale to see how much they would receive depending on the proportion of assets they demand. There is also an option to recommend the service to a friend by emailing them the website address.

Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, said: ‘It disregards the sanctity of marriage. To reduce it to monetary consequences, as if that is the predominant concern, is pretty deadly to any civilisation.

‘If you draw up a list of things that are important when weighing up whether or not to get divorced, you wouldn’t start with the financial consequences – you would start with your children.’ Stephen Green, of the pressure group Christian Voice, said: ‘I am worried that schemes like this reinforce the idea that divorce is just a natural progression from marriage.

‘It suggests that divorce is socially acceptable and that’s worrying because financial calculations don’t take into account the emotional cost to children and parents.’

Pre-Nups Apply ... when Women Stand to Gain

From October 2010:

German heiress wins legal battle over pre-nuptial agreement

Katrin Radmacher, a German heiress, has won a Supreme Court case over her divorce which gives new status to pre-nuptial agreements.

For years, men have tried to enforce pre-nuptial agreements in the event of divorce, to no avail. We all eventually concluded that pre-nups are useless. But then - as soon as a divorcing woman wanted one to be enforced, it was.

The ruling means that her ex-husband, Nicolas Granatino, receives less money than he wanted after the court ruled that an agreement he signed in Germany before they married should stand in this country.

It is also a major step towards pre-nuptial contracts, including those signed abroad, becoming legally enforceable in England and Wales. Pre-nuptial agreements do not currently have a place in English family law.

English courts had previously considered prenuptial agreements not binding when deciding who gets what when a marriage fails.

This is because, previously, women stood to gain and men stood to lose from pre-nuptials being ignored.

But in this case, a woman stood to gain and a man stood to lose from it being enforced.

So they decided to enforce it.

By a majority of eight to one, the justices dismissed the ex-husband's appeal, saying that following their ruling "it will be natural to infer that parties entering into agreements will intend that effect be given to them".

Sure - makes perfect sense.

So why did it not apply in all those hundreds of thousands of previous cases?

And why does this suddenly make sense now?

Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, said the courts would still have the discretion to waive any pre-nup or post-nup agreement, especially when it was unfair to any children of the marriage.

And here's the get-out clause, to ensure that no man shall ever gain from a pre-nuptial agreement. What it should really say, is that the courts will still waive any pre-nup agreement when a woman might lose out.

Separation of Church and State?

A divorced father from Indiana has had his child custody and visitation time slashed - because of his religion.

Divorced father loses custody of his three children 'because he's agnostic'

Craig Scarberry, of Indianapolis, Indiana, had shared equal custody of his three young children with his former wife, a practising Christian, for four years.

Then last month a judge ruled the Navy veteran's visitation time be limited to four hours each week and custody reduced to once every other weekend.

Mr Scarberry said the only possible reason he can find in the ruling for the judge's decision is his comment that 'the father did not participate in the same religious training as the mother... father was agnostic.'

The ruling also stated: 'When the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.'

Mr Scarberry's agnosticism did not effect his relationship with his children, as was proved in court:

'We were able to show that in no way, shape, or form do my personal beliefs and decisions reflect onto the children at all.'

Of all the ridiculous justifications given for marginalising fathers, this is surely one of the most chilling. The message sent out is that men are not permitted to change or question their own opinions, and will be penalised for doing so.

He has now successfully applied for a permit to stage an equal rights protest outside the government office in Madison County, Indianapolis, on December 16.

If anyone is in this part of the world, please consider joining this protest.