I was delighted to be
asked by BBC Breakfast to comment on the emotive subject of Kathleen Wyatt’s
claim against her ex-husband, the ex-hippy, vegan, green energy tycoon (and multi-millionaire)
Dale Vince this morning. And what
a hot topic it seems to be.
Before I even start
writing this piece, I would like to point out that I do not know any of the
individuals concerned in the recent divorce rulings I am about to discuss. I do not believe that any of us will ever
know the complete details, so my views are based on the various (and numerous)
media reports that have been broadcast and published in the last couple of
days.
The Kathleen Wyatt
case comes at an interesting time, given the recent ruling against Tracey
Wright, (former wife of the Newmarket equine vet), where Lord Justice
Pritchford said that Mrs Wright should “just get on with it” and find a job
like “vast numbers of other women with children”.
It would seem to me,
and quite a number of people I have spoken to today, that these two cases seem
to be quite at odds with each other.
And not surprisingly some are finding it worrying and confusing.
In the case of
Kathleen Wyatt, it would appear that she has brought up Dale Vince’s son
without any financial support from him.
Ultimately, Mr Vince is the father of the child, and in moral terms at
least, he really should take financial responsibility – just like everyone else
does. And in fairness to Kathleen
Wyatt, it would seem that she is not asking for a percentage of his wealth, but
‘back payments’ of maintenance.
Maybe she’s asking for too much.
The court seems to indicate that she is aiming too high. But she has to
start somewhere.
I hear gasps of shock
and horror from the men in the crowd!!
The Vox Pops are full of outrage and protests that after such a long
time, given that his wealth was accrued post divorce, she should get nothing. Why not? IF his total lack of financial responsibility for
years and years is the cause of her having to claim benefits, maybe us
taxpayers should have a refund too? Hmmm….
Sadly, this leads me
straight back to the case of Tracey Wright – and for those of you who missed
that story, in brief, Mrs Wright has had a judge reverse a previous order for
maintenance. Her problem is quite
simple and I see and hear this time and time again. In order for Mrs Wright to work, she has to pay someone to
look after her child. She does not
have a highly paid job to return to, so in practical terms, she is unable to
earn more money that she would have to pay out in childcare.
Many women are in the
same situation as her. After
having more than one child, the economics of paying for two children to have
childcare is often unviable – unless there is a sharing of duties between the
parents, and possibly a support network of grandparents. In addition, the parents may have
mutually decided that they want one parent to stay at home to raise their
children. Sadly, this mutual
agreement seems to be very frequently and conveniently forgotten by some men
during a divorce.
And with all this
frenzied debate about money, who is entitled to what, whether ex-wives are just
after a ‘meal ticket for life’ (which I think suggests laziness!) and told to
‘get on with it’ and get a job – not ONCE has the welfare of children been
discussed. In Mrs Wright’s case,
the judge suggested that women with children over the age of seven should get
part time work. I am curious. What magically happens to a child when
they turn seven?
As a divorcee, I will
carry eternal guilt. Every time
one of my children does something they shouldn’t, I question whether it is a
result of their parents divorce.
It is therefore crucial to me that their lives are kept as stable as I
can possibly afford for them to be.
Like many women I speak to, I would and do forfeit a considerable amount
to ensure that their lives are kept as close as possible to the ones they had
before my divorce. Obviously there
have to be changes. But what I
will never fathom is why one judge can so badly undervalue motherhood, whilst
the Supreme Court is pilloried for suggesting that motherhood has value –
because that was the point of the ruling.
Everyone has a
standpoint on these matters. It is
normally the standpoint that best suits them (and I am sure I’m as guilty as
the next person on that) and arguing will never resolve it. The only solution is to stop these
situations from developing in the first place. Personally, I believe that the welfare of children should be
put first; no one should be granted a Decree Absolute unless they have a
financial agreement in place; and once in place, the agreement should not
easily be overturned.
No matter what your
standpoint is, I hope that you will agree that post divorce, everyone should be
allowed peace to get on with their lives.
