The judgement in London could have dangerous implications for future marriages ending in years to come, thanks to a court ruling over "relationship-generated disadvantage."
Comment: And if the husband hadn't gotten married in the first place, he would've been able to keep all the money spent on his family. This ruling is ridiculous, as is the very concept of a "relationship-generated disadvantage". Every choice you make is a sacrifice of all the other choices you could have made. If you make the choice, you live with the consequences.
A judge used the term to explain why a woman was being awarded a payout from her husband of 10 years for sacrificing her career as a solicitor. The couple share two children, both of whom the woman cared for full-time.
"The husband's career took precedence. I accept that it is unusual to find significant relationship-generated disadvantage that may lead to a claim for compensation but I am clear that this is one such case," the judge said about his ruling.
What makes the decision especially egregious is that the divorcing woman was not only awarded £400,000 for her supposedly stymied career, but also half of the £10 million she and her husband had in assets. The husband is also a solicitor. One would assume the splitting of assets would prove suitable compensation for one person's career 'taking precedence' over their partner's in a relationship, but now that is not enough.















Comment: #FREEAUSTINTICE Vanished: The Story of U.S. Journalist Austin Tice who went missing in Syria in 2012