Originally Posted by Stuart C

I always remember when she first got married to Sir Paul. Channel 4 showed a documentary that showed a less than favourable picture of her (it showed her to be a money grabber). IIRC, She sued them. Now, however, it seems they have been proved right.

As for fading into obscurity, she can do that easily enough. Stop courting the media.

So, while she got a lot less than she intended, what do you guys think would be an adequate payoff? Not specifically for Heather Mills, but generally.

I personally think that the parent who gets custody should get enough money that the children can live comfortably. They should also be offered a fair payout for any property/businesses or joint projects they were involved in (so, if a husband and wife set up a company that makes massive profits, then they split, one partner should give a fair payout to the other).

If the parent without custody wants to offer more, they should be able to, but it should not be expected.

Sorry if all this seems a little harsh, but I don't see why one parent should automatically be entitled to a percentage of what the other owned before they were married.

Also (although this doesn't apply in the McCartney/Mills case as Paul is hardly on his uppers even after the settlement), people should remember that if they get too much money from their estranged partner, that partner may not have enough money to support any future families he/she might have. A friend of mine earns a very nice wage, as does her fiance, but they pay so much in child support for his child that they have to cut a lot of corners.