Every marriage has an ending, whether it is with the death of one of the partners or through the common and popular mode of divorce. The
The wedding of Arsenal football star, Ray Parlour to childhood sweetheart, Karen, in 1994 was the perfect wedding. Karen used to work as an optician’s assistant when she began dating Ray. The live-in relationship lasted for seven years and ultimately culminated in marriage.
The wedding took Karen straight from humble dwellings of a terraced flat in
Reasons for
In their divorce application, Karen’s lawyers put the onus of the divorce on Ray blaming him for the divorce. In short, the reasons cited for the breakdown of the marriage were:
- Loud and socially aggressive behaviour: The application stated that it was becoming nerve- wracking for Karen to put up with Ray’s ‘loutish behaviour’ off the pitch. He once assaulted a taxi-driver in
- Substance Abuse and Gambling: It was further alleged that Ray’s behaviour was characterised by late-night drinking binges coupled with abusive and violent actions. He had to be admitted into a rehabilitation centre to kick his drinking and gambling habit. And instead of being thankful to his family who had supported him rock-solid throughout his time at the rehabilitation centre, he immediately walked away from the marriage once he was released from the centre.
- Cold and Ungrateful Behaviour: The divorce documents also claimed that Ray maintained a detached and impersonal relationship with his wife and three children. It was further stated that he did not even try to make the effort to get involved in familial life e.g. he was more interested in attending late-night parties alone rather than being with his family. He never accompanied them on outings. In addition, he felt that his family had made no contribution in helping him to get over his addiction habit.
The Divorce Process
In 2004, Justice Thorpe ruled in favour of Karen Parlour making her the sole caregiver of all three children. In addition, he also ruled that Ray Parlour had to pay annual child maintenance of £12,500. In a nutshell, the settlement terms were:
- Two mortgage-free houses worth more than one million pounds. In other words, the court’s financial settlement gave one million pounds worth property to Karen
- A lump sum amount of £250,000 to Karen. Initially, this amount was to be £120, 000 but the court raised the amount by a ruling in March 2004.
- An amount £444,000 annually which amounts to a 3.75% share in the future earnings of Ray Parlour
The court further claimed that since Karen had been awarded sole custody of the three children being the primary caregiver, she was to be entrusted with the family home. Ray Parlour, along with the annual child maintenance, had to assume all financial responsibility for the three minor children till they reached the age of 16. The court also stated that the financial settlement would be reviewed after four years enabling constant updating.
The Logic
The court’s landmark decision drew heavy response from British public. Fathers sympathised with Ray Parlour arguing that the court had dealt too harshly with him. Along the same lines, Ray’s legal team argued that the court had not taken into consideration the fact that it was Ray Parlour who actually played the game and earned the money – it was Ray Parlour who listened to the football coach’s criticism and underwent his rigourous fitness regime. On the other hand, wife Karen Parlour did no activity to earn the money. Hence, the court’s ruling about her share in Ray’s present and future income was totally biased.
In its defence, the court stated that Karen Parlour had played a major role in her husband’s career. She had contributed greatly to his fame and stardom. Hence, the money earned by Ray Parlour can be seen as ‘matrimonial property’. Hence, Karen Parlour is seriously entitled to Ray’s earnings. His fortune is not a product of genius or creative talent. Many people hold the keys to his stardom and stature – his football coach, his football colleagues and his wife. Thus, the court ruled that all criticism was invalid and further argued that the payment of the lump sum money at the outset of the divorce was a payment to Karen for all the hardships and difficulties caused during the marriage. In addition, it would enable her to ‘open a small business and become self-sufficient.’
The 2004 court case ruling paved the way for future wife-oriented divorce cases. In today’s modern society, people tend to protect their money and home by signing a prenuptial agreement. The existence of the agreement does indeed save time, energy and embarrassment. Further, no one has to go thorough the painful ordeal of divorce.
