Anthony L. Hall is a descendant of the Turks & Caicos Islands, international lawyer and political consultant - headquartered in Washington DC - who publishes his own Internet Weblog at www.theipinionsjournal.com offering commentaries on current events from a Caribbean perspective

Taken together, these rulings have established a paradigm for attributing real monetary value to the contributions stay-at-home wives make to marriage and family life.  And no longer will a wealthy husband – giving way to the whims of his mid-life crisis – be allowed to trade-in his faithful wife (often the mother of his children) for a trophy wife by merely awarding her child support and living expenses.  Instead, the Law Lords have decreed that, henceforth, Judges in divorce cases must weigh three main considerations:  financial needs, compensation and equal sharing of assets – “no matter how short the marriage.”

Indeed, in the first of these precedent-setting cases, Miller vs. Miller – whose childless marriage lasted only two years and nine months – the Law Lords ruled that Mrs Melissa Miller was:

“…entitled to a substantial settlement because she married with reasonable expectation of a future wealthy lifestyle.”

Therefore, they awarded her £5m of her husband’s £17.5m fortune.  And, as if to reinforce their evolved state of social consciousness, the Law Lords declared that adultery (in this case, Mr Alan Miller’s) would no longer be a factor in deciding divorce settlements.  (They implied, however, that if Mrs Miller were a stay-at-home Mum her award would have amounted to half or more of Mr Miller’s fortune, depending on the number and ages of their children.)

In the second case, McFarlane vs. McFarlane, the Law Lords ruled that there was substantial merit to Mrs Julia McFarlane’s claim that she should be compensated commensurate with the fact that:

“…she gave up a high-earning career when she married 18 years earlier.”

Therefore, they ruled that ordering her ex-husband Mr Kenneth McFarlane to pay £250,000-a-year in alimony was not only fair but should not be time limited.

I welcome these rulings because they codify the value almost all women (and a few of us evolved men) have always placed on the contributions stay-at-home wives make to all marriages.

NOTE:  Apropos the idiom: a fool and his money are soon parted, I implied in this recent article that Sir Paul McCartney was an old fool for thinking he could tame that self-righteous shrew, Heather Mills. Now, since they were married double the length of time that the Millers were and have a child to consider, these landmark rulings will oblige Sir Paul to part with at least half of his reported £825m fortune.