A man has to pay part of his civil service pension over a period of 14 years to his ex-wife under orders made by the High Court in divorce proceedings.
Judge John Jordan accepted the wife’s argument that appropriate pension adjustment orders – ranging from 46% to 70% – should be made with respect to the husband’s public sector retirement in order to create a âDegree of equityâ between the couple’s pension rights.
He noted that the wife has a “modest” pension of â¬ 20,000 to which she stopped contributing a few years ago “probably because it was a luxury she could not afford”.
The husband, for his part, receives a “valuable” civil service pension which “must be an important element in the examination of the provision to be made for the wife and dependent children,” he said. he declares.
The husband is affiliated with a pension plan with a plan for spouses and children.
Family law legislation does not confer any rights on the pension plan as such, but does allow the court to make orders against them, the judge said.
A retirement expert for the husband had pointed out a preference for other assets, if any, on which to rely rather than protracted and complex retirement orders where the benefits can only be realized long after a divorce from a couple.
Judge Jordan concluded that not providing a pension for the woman would leave her “at a considerable financial disadvantage due to her dedication and commitment to marriage and child rearing.”
He ordered the husband to pay part of his pension over 14 years, equivalent to the duration of their marriage until divorce.
Both spouses, the judge said, are hard working parents who do not have lavish lifestyles. He was convinced that the husband’s job as a civil servant with a salary of â¬ 42,000 was secure and that he could hope for promotion, while the wife’s income – just under â¬ 35,000 a year. the latter coming from independent and salaried work, could also improve over time. She receives family allowances, he also noted.
The case went to the High Court after the husband appealed some orders made earlier this year by the Circuit Court. The case revolved around financial matters.
Judge Jordan said the wife’s energy to care for their young children was noticeable and she did not seek child support despite being the primary caregiver.
The man “seems to have little appreciation for these facts,” he noted, concluding that most of the financial responsibility “cannot be attributed to the mother.”
It is “likely” that she would have improved her skills and career options if she had not had the couple’s children and cared for them throughout, albeit with some childcare assistance. ‘children, he said.
The judge noted that the husband was living with a new partner and her children in rented accommodation and said his financial situation was such that she had to help him buy new work clothes.
Judge Jordan ordered the husband to pay â¬ 45 per week per child for child support, compared to â¬ 35 per week.
He also ordered her to pay arrears in alimony of around â¬ 528 and to contribute to the children’s extracurricular activities, to pay half of their school fees, health insurance, critical illness cover and life insurance.
He upheld an order for equal mortgage payments on the family home, where the wife lives with their children. The judge also ordered that the house be put on the market when the youngest child turns 20, or earlier if agreed otherwise, with the cost of the sale being divided equally.