Dick Allen, Campaign For Justice in Divorce, 'You the Jury', Radio Four , 4.2.84.
2.
Smart, C.The Ties that Bind, RKP, London , 1984.
3.
In practice of course this objective was rarely possible. However, as an aim this principle did recognise that marriage is a joint economic venture from which it is unjust for one party to remove himself without consideration of the real economic losses to the already economically more vulnerable partner of the relationship (ROW 1983).
4.
Maclean, M. and Eekalaar, Children and Divorce: Economic Factors, Centre of Socio-legal studies, Woolfsen College, Oxford, 1983.
5.
Davis, G.Macleod, A. and Murch, M. 'Divorce: Who Supports the Family?' Family Law, 7, 1983, Maclean and Eeekalaar, op cit.
6.
New Earnings Survey, 1979, quoted in Equal Opportunities Commission, Fourth Annual Report, 19791980 pp.79-80.
7.
Ibid, table 4(3).
8.
Also of course evidenced by Finer 1974 and Marsden 1969 Mothers Alone: Poverty and the Fatherless Family.
9.
See, Gibson, C.'Maintenance of the Magistrates Courts in the 1980s', Family Law, 5; Davis et al, op cit; Maclean and Eekalaar, op cit; Smart, op cit.
10.
See Law Com No. 103, The Financial Consequences of Divorce: The Basic Policy-a Discussion Paper; and Law Com No. 112, The Financial Consequences of Divorce Response to the Law Commission's Discussion Paper and the recommendations on the policy of the Law.
11.
Maclean and Eeekalar, op cit.
12.
Ruth Deech, Barrister, 'You the Jury', Radio Four, 5.2.84.
13.
Finer, M.'Report of the committee on one parent families', Vol 1, Cmnd S629, HMSO.
14.
Maclean and Eekalar, op cit.
15.
The consequences of the poverty trap are especially important, many women who rely on a combination of maintenance payments and supplementary benefit plus part-time earnings are caught in this trap. This is because any increase in their incomes which they can achieve (either through maintenance payments or wages) is subject to a corresponding reduction in their benefit entitlement. For the purposes of assessing any entitlement to supplementary benefit the Department of Health and Social Security aggregate all incomes. This principles applies regardless of whether a maintenance payment is technically an award to a child. So that, in these circumstances any increase in awards to children will simply benefit the state.
16.
This is of course an invidious 'solution' not only does it detract from the needs of a wife by symbolically elevating the needs of children (even though in practice this already happens [Smart 1984] but in addition it further marginalises women who find that they have to argue their own case through their children (as mother rather than wife, ROW 1983).
17.
See for example Occupational Pensions Board Report 1976, also Law Com No 112 recognised the need for legislation to allow the courts when dealing with separation and divorce to make provisions in relation to occupational pensions. Currently an ex-wife loses the right to any benefit from such schemes and this also applies to any lump sum settlement an ex-husband may receive on retirement.
