Just wondering - divorce in the uk ?

Yes 3 and 5

Any by a previous marriage

No - just those two

are you living in the filis now ? if so--why not stay there a while longer and see how it goes?

Interesting topic.

If you are having doubts then don't progress if you do and still have the concerns I would sell up and put the cash in some form of bonding for your kids say till they reach a certain age then you and your wife start all over again.

But if in doubt then spare the long term heartache

The gamesmanship and deceit that occurs during divorce cases is often surprising. Any savvy Filipina wishing to divorce her western husband would be likely to claim domestic violence. If she successfully initiates a domestic violence claim, she could then make an application to remain in the UK. It is worth remembering that the burden of proof in domestic violence is of a lower standard than that required in a criminal case. The accuser often does not have show evidence of physical abuse. Emotional abuse is often claimed and is very difficult to disprove.

Whilst all assets accumulated since the marriage are presumed to be joint - and that includes pension contributions, for assets held before marriage, the UK law is less clear. Whilst technically, all property owned by both parties before the marriage may be considered to be subject to redistribution after marriage, there is also the presumption that for short duration marriages of less than five years, property owned by either party before the marriage is more likely to remain the property of the original owner - and is less likely to be considered to be jointly owned. In the case of Miller v MacFarlane(2006), Lord Nicholls stated,

“In the case of a short marriage, fairness may well require that the claimant should not be entitled to a share of the other’s non-matrimonial property. The source of the asset may be a good reason for departure from equality. This reflects the instinctive feeling that the parties will generally have less call upon each other on the breakdown of a short marriage”.

It is worth mentioning, however, that the marital home, even if acquired by one party before the marriage, may be considered to be joint marital property during any divorce, particularly if there are children involved.

As a starting point, the courts will consider splitting all property and assets equally between the divorcing couple. This is known as the ‘yardstick of equality’ and the principle should only be departed from if, when considering the couples individual circumstances, the court finds good reason for doing so.

When considering a departure from the ‘yardstick of equality’ the courts are guided by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, in particular, section 25 (2) which states that the court should have regard to the following factors when deciding how to divide marital property and assets:

(a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future, including in the case of earning capacity any increase in that capacity which it would in the opinion of the court be reasonable to expect a party to the marriage to take steps to acquire;

(b )the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

(c) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;

(d )the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;

(e) any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;

(f) the contributions which each of the parties has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family;

(g) the conduct of each of the parties, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it;

(h) in the case of proceedings for divorce or nullity of marriage, the value to each of the parties to the marriage of any benefit F4. . . which, by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the marriage, that party will lose the chance of acquiring.

On the plus side, there is now the expectation that both sides will usually cover their own legal costs - the law was changed in 2006 in a bid to prevent the less monied spouse running up a huge legal bill in the expectation that the other side would pay for it. However, again, this is subject to the discretion of the court. If the respondent in the case is the more monied spouse and is the subject of a domestic violence claim, or where one party has been the victim of litigation misconduct, the court may well take the unusual step of ordering the more monied respondent to pay a portion of, or all of, the petitioners legal costs.

In summary, if in doubt, stay out!

I'm running out of time if I don't do it soon I'd have to sell the property in the UK in order to generate the savings required to meet the Financial Requirement and I'd like to get the children settled there for schools etc.

Thanks - Not good reading - Don't forget alongside domestic/emotional abuse, sexual abuse of the children.

Scotland's matrimonial laws are much more sensible.

not meaning to pry--but just confused---are you now married to her---and are they your kids--or hers ?

No we've been married over 5 years now and they're ours

then i think if you do bring them over--and you do split up--say goodbye to your house till the kids are over 18.
time for a massive re-mortgage i think!

Grab the kids and get on a plane

have your kids got UK passports ?

Yes

well--all i can suggest is you remortgage the house for as much as you can--spend or hide the money. then if it does all go tits up your kids have a home--most important--provided the mortgage interest is paid. who knows--maybe if you do split up your wife will bugger off and leave you with the kids anyway.

There have been cases where, in a divorce situation, the absent father has been compelled by the court to maintain mortgage payments on the marital home whilst the ex-wife and child remained in residence. Any money from a remortgage would have to be declared in a divorce - and it would not be difficult to locate since the records of the remortgage exist with the bank. Spending the proceeds would not be a wise move.

I would suggest a contract forming a post-nuptial agreement would be a more financially efficient way to go if the OP is sufficiently in doubt although I have to question why he would bother bringing her to the UK at all given the tone of the discussion.

If it's gone it's gone! I agree with your point regards questioning this situation at this point tbh.

You can't outsmart the law!

Not quite. Let's suppose that a man is already married and owns a house that might be considered to be marital property, remortgages it, and then spends the money. In a divorce situation the court would examine the assets that the money had purchased and potentially divide those. If the money had been frivolously spent, he would be open to the charge of wastefully dissipating marital assets and could be ordered to pay the wife a proportionate sum. Discovery and investigation of assets and bank accounts typically goes back three to five years. It would also not be an option to place the money in a trust for example. The court could take the view that he had intentionally placed the assets out of his reach and again order a proportionate sum be paid. It's not quite as easy to hide money as you might think.