Heather Mills didn't get enough money

Yes, she's a "less than candid witness", yes, she has living needs that total £600,000 a year and finally, she actually owns a suit that looks like a harlequin's outfit, but the former model-campaigner-ex-McCartney muse was awarded £35,000 a year for her daughter Beatrice, with Sir Paul agreeing to pay up to £30,000 for a nanny. And while I know many will scoff, in the scheme of things this is just not that much money.

We used to have a nanny share for my daughter with another child and because we felt strongly that we should pay a fair wage (we kinda like our daughter and figured it would be good to have someone well remunerated for looking after her all day), we were able to hire an amazing woman. She cooked healthy quinoa dishes, she organised endless playdates, she corrected them when they tried to sit on each other's heads. And as a result she earned the equivalent of around £32K a year. That is to say, a living wage in London.

I know Sir Paul has the admirable desire to live as normally as possible. But £30,000 for a nanny is just scraping by. Chuck in the fact that the nanny will need to be discreet, security-minded and immune to tabloid payouts and that number looks to breed resentment.

Why is it that the people who are the most important to our children's development outside of family - the nannies, the childminders, the teachers - are paid so little? Do we really still think that these are low-skilled jobs or as a society are we just looking to get as much as possible out of the people who provide services for as little as possible? We stop ourselves from thinking about the children of our nannies who themselves go into childcare so mummy can get paid to look after someone else's progeny.

Of course Heather can perhaps find some spare cash in her £24.3 million award to augment the nanny's fees. And she could always use that age-old nanny budgeting trick used in our neighbourhood: Give the nanny a generous weekly food shopping budget and let her keep the change.

Comments

[James Molyneux]

30k is the father contribution to a nanny.

It is up to the mother to contribute
her 30k as well.

60k should be enough to bring up a baby in britain shouldn't it?

Shes a young woman, and should be concentrating on getting a job now.

[supermother]

It will be an interesting debate if they divorce within 5 years when she gets bored or he loses office (and if I were him I'm try to get her pregnant to keep her) her career will have been enhanced by being his first lady or diminished. I imagine at present she is turning down new underwear adverts but that sales of her music will go up. I've no idea what his business interests are other than his state salary.

[J]

has anyone worked out yet who earns the most- Sarko or Carla Bruni?

[Delilah]

My m-i-l tried to swing a religious marriage without a civil one in order to avoid losing a widows' pension (her squeeze-to-be was insolvent), but the Church of Scotland minister wouldn't cooperate. So I think they must have jumped over a broom with a hedge priest elsewhere, rings appeared and everything was tickety-boo but unofficial. She had to change churches though.

[supermother]

Indeed, Edward. Also if you've lived off your spouse's earnings in a marriage you have had years of extra benefit. In a sense you should be paying that back on divorce not getting more of the same.

But the consequence if clear - there really is little advantage to people like me, higher earners, whatever their gender in marrying at all. Particularly now the Government has recently rightly decided not to give cohabitants divorce type rights on a parting. 43% of marriages fail and that's up to 65% for second marriages where they are children already. It's just too risky for virtually no gain - the only gain is a saving in inheritance tax on death.

Can you have a religious marriage without the civil marriage bit I wonder? You can in some religions but I suspect not in any Christian one. That might be one way around it.

[Edward]

On the contrary. Mills has had her earning power hugely boosted by her marriage to McCartney. If anything, she should be giving him money.

[HG]

I actually wish she'd just top herself.

[supermother]

Well the average wasge is £24k. So let's take Mr Average on that and wife at home. Yes the value of her services is about that and a 50/50 split is fine. In fact he wont' get his share until the children are 18 as they need to be housed in the meantime and a bit of equity in the house is all they have.

BUT as soon as Mrs Charman, Mrs Sorrel or Mrs McFarlane say no I don't want the equivalent of the average wage on divorvce and my need for food and a modst home satisfied, I'm entitled to 50% of £800m or whatever, that's when I just don't agree. No wife in 2008 makes a man's career. Going to a few cocktail parties and tolerating a few dull guests at dinner at home is not how the husband (or in my own case the wife) got on and made their money. SO then I would say the lower earner after the 20 years plus marriage should get a house and an income of say the average wage. C'est tout. Now Mrs Mcfarlane in one case got a compensatory element - had she worked she might have by now been a partner at Freshfields on £1m, Presumably if instead he's married someone from the typing pool the sums might have been different. Anyway it's all a bit of a mess so no one really has much idea at all what any entitled is.

Most people have hardly any money so 50% probably is an okay starting point for them.

[mumoftwo]

'When a couple splits, everything the woman has benefitted from, that is, the man's earnings and lifestyle, suddenly to her is thought of as "mine" and not to be taken away. In fact, it was often just a lifestyle she partook of while the going was good. She was fortunate in this, but never created it.'

I disagree with this reasoning where the lower/non-earning woman/man has contributed significantly to the lifestyle by having children, bring them up or supporting the husband/wife to building up their own business or career over the long-term. When you enter a partnership, and that is indeed what a marriage is, there is not an equal level playing field for both parties to make the same amount of money if you want children and to have them cared for by their parents. Many people's high-flying careers and late nights are build on their other half putting the children to bed, cooking the dinner and running the household in a myriad of very important ways. The question is, how do you then split the assets of the marriage which are not, in my eyes, the sole possession of the person who went out to work very long hours if indeed they couldn't have done so and had the shared lifestyle and children without the help of their partner who was happy not to do so. The lifestyle is therefore not 'leant' to the wife, as your statement implies, but created together through the divison of labour, which is renumerated differently in our society. Healther Mills shouldn't receive much on this basis as it was a short marriage in which he didn't increase his earnings/or hers substantially and I agree with SM that there is no basis for entitlement of a certain standard of living.

[supermother]

Yes, and it's gender neutral. My ex husband was advised that legally he was entitled to maintain the safe lifestyle at my expense after divorce. The rules leave many men working very hard living with parents or renting a room whilst their wife and family (a family they often are not allowed often to see) continue much as before. In our case it feels like he has all the cash and doesn't need to work again (although he does) and I have 100% responsibility practically and financially for 5 children, a kind of triple whammy - to support the children, to lose his help with them on a day to day basis which means big childcare costs for me (you cannot force an absent parent to help or even see a child) and less earnings for me because of the time I spend with them plus the huge debts to service which in effect feels like a maintenance payment for life. Still better than what went before and better than never seeing the children of course but feels unfair.

[iain carstairs]

This writer shows why women sometimes are not taken seriously when they talk about their needs: the concept of sharing, of shared contributions, is so alien to some women that absurd and completely unreasonable thinking is pretty well automatic. Small wonder men need law courts!

When a couple splits, everything the woman has benefitted from, that is, the man's earnings and lifestyle, suddenly to her is thought of as "mine" and not to be taken away. In fact, it was often just a lifestyle she partook of while the going was good. She was fortunate in this, but never created it.

Mills has been given £25m, am I right? So suddenly, this is now "all hers" and not to be taken away, and the man is expected to pay for everything else! Why doesn't Mills put in HER share of the 4 year old's airfares, nanny, food, housing and so on? The child is not going to live with Mills 24x7, you can count on that! And yet McCartney is supposed to shell out for Mills' share, while "her" £24m is clutched meanly to her bosom.

[Udo]

The court never said that Paul has to pay for everything concerning his daughter, just his fair share. If she put her share in without moaning about how hard done by she is then they should be able to hire Mary Poppins.

[Steve]

"As long as the male ego seems to require they marry women who earn less they will have this problem." - Posted by: supermother | 20 Mar 2008 16:09:26

Don't be daft, I've never met a bloke who didn't wish his wife earned more or could earn more. Maybe this is because I'm working class and for us earning power is a matter of survival rather than one of status and lifestyle.

[James]

Hasn't this bitch been arrested yet for tax evasion, contempt of court and perjury?

[Simon]

And why on earth are you only counting Sir Paul's contribution?? He pays 30k TOWARDS a nanny...surely you accept that Heather should pay too!! In your case im sure you split the cost with your partner?? So if she paid her equal share to her child, then they would have 60k for a nanny..still scraping by?!

[Laura Roberts]

The basic premise of this article is wrong.
He's paying 30k for a nanny. Then the writer says 30k isn't enough for a nanny.

The child belongs to BOTH of them. His 30k + HER 30k, if the lazy, gutter, vile parasite can be bothered to actually pay for anything herself = 60k.

60k is more than enough for a nanny. Which is perplexing in the first case, since she claimed that her career was in tatters and would need compensation for not being able to work again. If she's not working, then shouldn't she be at home bringing up this future Priory Clinic patient?

[Ron]

Both Paul and Heather have grown accustomed to the trappings of wealth, so they now think of things in purely financial terms. It's a shame that by doing so, they are passing on thier thinking to thier children. Wht will this teach them about the real world? It is quite likely that at the end of the day, the child of thier union will inherit a vast fortune and be unable to cope with the responsibility it brings, all because of the greed of one calculating woman.

[Gregory]

...and why is this so important?

[Peter Wheeler]

Although I much preferred Harrison and Lennon I still admired the Beatles throughout my somewhat mispsent youth. Sorry Paul but you fell into the same trap as I did, a younger woman marrying you and the getting in the club. I did'nt know that she did and I wonder if you did? O K we live at life's differant ends of the spectrum your rich and I am struggling daily (in France)to make ends meet. But the nice guys suffer by being taken for a c??? by a money grabbing bitch. Remember the old bit about Churchill when he offered Braddock a million to shag him she said yes he then said how about 10 shillings she said what do you take me for? Winnie replied -we know what you are we are discussing price. A word of advice if you don't mind here in France who ever can provide the better upbring for the child gets custady, seen in with my own 2 eyes with my ex's older sister? The Dad got custody. Think on tramps of England

[Meeeeee Tooooo]

Sorry - I must be missing something - why does the child need a Nanny in the first place?

Surely a nursery would do wonders - teach the kid how to get on with others, play fairly and keeps its feet on the ground...

[C]

I'm sure that McCartney wanted his daughter for all of the right reasons, but I doubt very much that she did.
He is now forever tied to the woman who in all likelihood knew that her payout from their inevitable divorce would be inflated if she had a child.
She pleaded that she was financially successful before she married McCartney, so she can go out and find the cash (not by lying on her back again one hopes) to supplement her nanny requirements if she feels that she hasn't got deep enough pockets to cover it from her £20m+ windfall. Please.

[paula]

the £35,000 is ON TOP OF PAUL MCCARTNEY PAYING FOR THE NANNY/SCHOOLFEES

[James]

Just because most blogs are comprised of gibberish, it doesn't mean you have to follow suit.

I mean, heaven forfend people might dispense with their nanny and *gasp* raise their children themselves.

[Ed]

Paul and Heather are sharing custody 50% each, so the nanny is only needed part time, not to mention that Heather has no job to spend her time on.

[Blewyn]

30K is nowhere near a living wage in London.....not if you think (as I do) that a living wage means you can buy your own place. I guess 30K will just about cover the rent and bills, but who one earth wants to settle for that ?

[Toby]

Why is this rubbish posted in the Times?

[Anthony]

What a saga! I only wish that the Supermum in this world told me how they can raise children on a full time carreer and and High revenue of 750k. My wife and our two small children would be very interested, in how much attention Supermum gives to her children. HM has made her money and, hwowever many contributors to this blog say she has the money, and if the judge awrded her an extra 35k a year for a nunny, well, may be is because that the poor child needs someone to be with her as the mum, doesn' t obviously.

I wish that the Times gave better coverage to more pressing issues on how young people can live today in the UK, marrying or living together and getting their first home. Instead of revolving around some money chasers like HM.

Who cares anyway about how much she got? We should think about what her child will have, in terms of time, care and parentship.

Obviously supermum, does not bother about that subject as she is the breadwinner and caring about her image of woman high earner.

Because, after all it is just image isn't it?

[Cash]

Men don't have a problem marrying women who earn many multiples more than they do.

It's actually the other way round. It is women usually desire to marry someone wealthier then themselves. Why? Because they have a problem with someone considerably less wealthy than they are.

[Ringo]

Why doesn't Sir P (daddy) McCartney stay at home and look after his latest offspring and save the planet from listening to his turgid crappy music?

[j]

and what is quinoa anyway?

[Frank H. Madigan]

Who is Heather Mills?

[supermother]

I would have thought the sensible thing would be that the child has one nanny who moves between the parents depending on who she stays with so she has that continuity.

[Suki]

Goodness me £30k for a part time nanny?? The average experienced teacher (with post graduate qualifications) earns less than this! £30K is an extremely generous salary for a nanny who doesn't have to have graduate training...

[Rhiannon]

As yet not one person has suggested that Sir Paul has enough money to 'do the decent thing' and stay at home to look after his daughter, yet many posters expect Heather to do just that. Why? Because she is a woman, and the rules seems to be different. Unfair.

[Rhiannon]

As yet not one person has suggested that Sir Paul has enough money to 'do the decent thing' and stay at home to look after his daughter, yet many posters expect Heather to do just that. Why? Because she is a woman, and the rules seems to be different. Unfair.

[Jenny]

For goodness sake - Tax the woman

[steve]

ha.ha..ha what a fabulously witty article....hopefully the writer was not paid any money.

Lame.

[Martin]

No, Miss Mills did not get enough money.

But no amount of money would be enough to shut this woman up.

[Rob Skinner]

What a load of rubbish.

The typical family live on less than sir paul is giving the witch - very nice if you can afford the extras - but she is a free loading prozy...she didn't contribute anything towards his wealth so why should she take a penny? if she cant live on what she earns/has then maybe paul should have custody of the child....she really ent all with it is she!? :)

[ageofaquarius]

Nice point Mary about the flowers, I guess they will cheer her up when she is down without the happy chap Paul around, maybe she should get together with Elton John and have flower arranging afternoons, would save a fortune, or better still, grow her own, I'm sure her garden(s) are bit enough

[ageofaquarius]

I cannot believe that one woman can cause so many words of hatred, she ain't that bad, all we know about her is what the papers write, doesn't mean its true. I'm a Paul fan from way back, but she has a right to some of his wealth, maybe he aint' the perfect person we see him as, I'm sure he was stuck in his ways and she just couldn't live with it, so they have to move on, like people do after a failed marriage, Lets be honest, if you divorced a man worth £400m. wouldn't you hope to get at least £50m?, cause you would. Now lets leave her the hell alone to bring her daugher up, with or without a £30K nanny

[Mike Sacramento]

Heather Mills gets paid EIGHTY MILLION dollars!! Ashley Dupre got paid TWO THOUSAND dollars. Mills looks like a prostitute and Dupre looks like a housewife. Prostitutes take note: Sell a marriage certificate as part of the transaction, improves your profits, avoid prosecution, and gain public sympathy. Mills, youre a bloody disgrace.

[yvonne]

Maybe she should try being a mother instead of handing this child over for someone else to look after.

[Jim]

Have you tried living on £58 a week JobSeakers Allowance ? And you`re saying she can`t live on 1/2 million a year . What planet are you living on ?

[Hywel]

Quinoa? You lot really need to leave Islington from time to time. There is a real world outside the M25 - join us escapees and live a better life!

[KARMA]

The title should dread....

Heather Mills didn't get enough money because she is not a man.

[KARMA]

hmm while people all over the world don't even have enough water...

[KARMA]

http://www.thegreatfemalecon.com/

all I can say is thank god the web is not as narrow as this "newspaper"

[Kev]

This might be a quite revolutionary concept but couldn't Heather Mills bring up her daughter without the need for a nanny? With all that money there is no need for her to ever seek employment. She can just enjoy the cash and spend quality time with her daughter.

Or is that something only an old codger would say? I'm 36 and my son has become a well adjusted young man without any nannies. He just has a couple of adoring parents who work hard and enjoy his company. Is that a bit too old fashioned for these people?

Save your £30k a year, bring up your own children and enjoy the benefits.

[Suzanne]

some feel that 30K is not alot of money .. yes, it is> Paul is payin school fees etc ABOVE that 30K and he will have her 1/2 the time so probably will buy her clothing, toys, pay for any holidays he takes her on, a car&expenses when she is older ...it's not as if that 30K ALSo has to cover Beatrice's housing expenses or medical ... come on people .. news report show that already Heather has little Beatrice and nanny flying off in economy class. SHe is a classless TART and nothing more. Paul should have a paternity test done ASAP.

[gbj]

Nice try, Ms. Howze.

I suppose the most appropriate response would be, "Please don't encourage her."

But I refuse to take the bait.

[paul rogg]

Please, Please, Please

Why don't you silly alpha mummies get on the next space shuttle and do the decent thing and bugger off to another planet, you obviously can't get it together here.

[j]

Sydney ROTFL!

But if we start to nominate any non-dead alpha mums for the Heather Mills slot then this site is going to stay moderated for a very very long time ;)

[cathy hansen]

Golly, and to think Mills only wanted 39 thousand pounds p.a. for wine when she doesn't even drink!
A true piker.

The Mills woman lies repeatedly to the court, she makes fraudulent claims for cash, and the judge rewards her with 48 million dollars of McCarthy's hard earned?!!
In the states if you assault your opposition's council during proceedings you will be held in contempt and heavily fined. Does Britain have NO control over it's courts? What is the explanation for England's WIMPY, WIMPY judges?

[sydney]

This column is for ALPHA MUMS, not common-or-garden mums. We are not at all interested in reading about tedious mums who weave their clothes from recycled plastic bags and live with their huge brood in a shoebox in the middle of the road and feed them on bread and water and make them lick the tarmac for its mineral content and survive without nannies. We log on for tips on the wisdom of allowing the filipino nanny to eat the leftover caviar omelette - might this encourage ideas above her station? Is Polish better? Nannies, that is, not caviar. Should a third language be introduced before age five? Are those new supersonic Norman Foster-designed buggies ecologically sound? And of course, the all important financial aspect of things: make no mistake, while we might do a bit of tongue-in-cheek self-mocking, ALPHA mummying is a serious project.

So, Bravo to Heather for giving all ALPHA mums something to think about and for increasing the joy of the nation and the circulation of the dailies; Bravo to Sir Paul for making all this fun possible; Bravo to the author of this stimulating article for causing so much of a ruckus, making so many people irate and so many more laugh; and Bravo to all those earnest men out there blogging along with the their tips on how ALPHA mummy women should behave.

Step forward please, next ALPHA mum in need of advice and willing to provide us with some entertainment. No, not you Anna-Nicole Smith, you're dead..........

[Paul Murray]

It is obvious that writing this column was with the intent to arouse peoples emotions and recieve so many responses...many rude and abusive.
What did The Times expect from this heading, the first thought i had was that this thread will be full of anger & resentment.
If you dont want people to write such comments dont lead with such an inflammatory & ridiculos topic.£30K not enough!! probably not but added to £24million it surely is.

[nathan]

supermother.

although we lead different lifestyles i always appreciate your well informed comments.

keep them coming....

[Singapore Slinger...]

Maybe Heather needs to think more creatively - in other parts of the world there are a multitude of capable women to look after your child, do your washing and ironing, cooking and cleaning for a fraction of the cost. I know she likes to do "good works" well for £30K a year she could employ a whole village in some parts of the world and really make a difference.

[Angilion]

The easiest way to reform divorce law is to have more women paying their ex-husbands. That's far too rare at the moment to be anything other than an oddity. Make it a "women's issue" and it becomes a political issue because there are votes in it. When it's a "men's issue"...has anyone even heard a politician use that term? Politics is largely gynocentric nowadays, because politics in a democracy follows the votes.

[diane]

i raised my now 17 1/2 yr old daughter without benefit of child support, someone to co parent her, or grandparents to help, much less a high priced nanny. if i remember correctly Linda raised Pauls other kids-what makes MUCCA so damned special?

[Ethan Smyth]

Ms Howze,
30k, that's what the father is paying, near enough according to your estimates. Hasn't the mother a contribution to make also ?

[Helen]

I think I need to remind the author that Sir Paul actually shares equal custody of Beatrice with Heather Mills. So the £25,000 (not £30,000) he is going to pay her for a nanny is actually for a part-time nanny!

So I think you will agree it is, in fact, quite a bit of money to pay to someone who is going to do half the work of a 'normal' nanny.

[Si]

I think Private Eye's Polly Filler has mislaid one of her articles and the Times has posted it by mistake.
The real thing is funnier and loonier than the send-up!

[Angilion]

Heather Mills has been given over £6M per year of marriage. She also gained whatever Paul McCartney paid for while they were married, plus the publicity of being married to him (and she obviously values publicity very highly), plus whatever money she made from that publicity, plus whatever money she made from selling her story.

Why?

Why is it misogyny to ask such a question? That word is used almost exclusively as a weapon against men, usually by misandrists.

On a a tangent - why don't nannies get some sort of residency in divorce cases? They often spend as much (or more) time with the child as the child's parents do. A nanny might well be the primary caregiver for a child.

[bushra]

seriously supermother, when are you going to get a blog? i'd read it!

[Delilah]

I suppose SM's example is useful, we do hear so much about men feeling ripped off after divorce and assume always that it is the woman who recieves and the man who pays. It's also worth remembering that there are probably more women now than ever before entering marriage with more money than their husbands, either because they inherited more or earn more or carry less debt (perhaps because the husband is divorced and supporting a first family). It's a big concern for parents of girls when they marry a poor man, my parents wanted a prenup to protect me (or in particular my inheritance) when I got married to one but they are not enforceable in Britain for the very sensible reason that marriage is a partnership and if you don't want the risk don't marry.

On the other hand I have a few high-earning female college friends who are now supporting low- or no-earning ex-husbands two of whom have custody of their children and have been amused (well saddened, actually) to hear them spitting the same meanspirited things that men are credited with saying about their abandoned 40plus wives. They marry a sensitive slightly neurotic goodlooking bimbo precisely for all those qualities and then feel aggrieved because he stays in the same income bracket they both were in on marriage, never did manage to do his own tax return or remember to pay the gas bill, loses his hair and gets a bit whiny; and then on divorce refuses to retrain out of his low-paid job because he likes what he does, feels too old to retrain, wants to be at home when the kids get back from school and anyway didn't want to divorce in the first place. There isn't much publicity of these situations either.

[supermother]

I'm not a particularly high earner, just earned more than my ex and paid out on divorce to him and I suspect there is not enough publicity given to women who do. Too many press articles about men paying out on divorce rather than using sexually neutral terms like higher earning spouses paying out; so you get to feel people don't even realise you exist or that it's always men paying to women. That's the only reason I mention it. And I'm interested in divorce law.

[FOARP]

32K PA a living wage in London? That's funny, as a trainee patent attorney I'm not even making that much - I think the author needs a quick reality check as to how much it actually cost to employ a nanny.

[Heloise]

Is anyone else sick of "supermother" banging on about what a big earner she is? 5 posts or something.... get a life.

[muhammed]

Heather Mills negotiated the best deal for herself. hence the unreasonable £20 million plus pay-out for a few years of marriage.

Beatrice's childhood came secondary to her personal greed. Sir Paul has done the right thing by contributing £30K a year for childcare.

A marriage is a partnership. Both sides should shoulder financial responsibility. Heather Mills should pay her share as well.....she's got enough money know!!!

[zooarchaeologist]

Well, after 5 years of university and 10 years in my profession and sometimes upto 70 hour weeks, I earn at least 10K less than a nanny. Nevermind Miss Mills, Im tempted to re-train...
Bah Humbug (from the world of archaeology)

[raj]

Wow - I gladly took off 7 months to care for my grandson and did not get one cent for that. His mother works full time and cares for him with all she has. His father has paid a total of about $2,000 for his 2.5 years of life. (And thinks he has over paid).
And we are considered "middle class citizens".
Reality check!

[Star]

I agree J re Heather should now have time with her daughter. I am an educated professional woman, but if I couldn't work and had that money, I would want to be with my children. Beatrice is also at an age where she is in school, so Heather will get breaks without needing a nanny. I have no problem with working mums (I am one!) I do have a problem with women who are at home and still have someone else spending more time with their children then they do!
On top of that Heather has money now, so why should Paul pay for a nanny!

[Bluedog]

I'm a divorced bloke; I don't hate women in the slightest. But I'm now feeling inadequate as I have no idea what Quinoa is.

[marilin]

Are you kidding me? Perhaps she can spare some of the money from her divorce and use it for the nanny. Better yet, stay home and take care of Beatrice.

[Huw Morrison]

What a ridiculous article. 35k a year is more than enough, if it isn't, I am sure she can dig into her 600,000k yearly living costs. Heather Mills is a disgrace and sets an appaling example. How on earth could she be demanding 125 million?

[Ismael Klata]

You've missed the point. It's £60k for the nanny - Heather will (or at least should) be paying half.

[Julian Sweet]

She got 24 Million to take care of her child. I do not understand any other reason why she should get a cent.

Surely she has some responsibility to contribute to the childs upbringing.

The 35K was 'additional' and the father's contribution.

She was independently wealthy before marriage and her wealth only increased by using the surname.

She has only gained so why should she be compensated?

If she can only grudgingly contribute to her childs care (and expect the father to do everything) maybe she is not the best person to bring up the child?

[supermother]

The villification of women is appalling. I hope all alpha mothers are against it. We have often discussed on here how it is women criticised for returning to work full time when their children are babies (as I did) when their husbands never are.

What is at fault here is the law, rather than Ms Mills although there was nothing stop her and my ex husband being like Billy Piper and saying I did not earn that money, I won't take it. We don't all have to take what the law offers us.

Even the judgment uses terms taht men use against women which in men are seen as virtues - the assertive woman at work who is call the ball breaker but if she were male would be patted on the back and promoted syndrome.

The idea that adults support other adults after divorce stems from days when men supported women all their lives, they were given away by their fathers to become the property of their husbands and didn't work. It all needs a radical over haul.

[Jon Underwood]

You're assuming that only Paul should be paying towards the upkeey of their child, surely HMM should have to contribute towards nanny costs etc. also. Still obviously not enough money to travel more than 2nd class according to HMM, my heart bleeds...

[Ezra Mayo]

she got in excess of £20 m. What are you on about?
Nannies? Again, ....what?

[Cool 22]

Heather got a good deal considering her web deceit in the court of law where everyone has to take an oath to tell the truth and "nothing but the truth".

She is a mother, a socialite, a celebrity and a charity contributor. Already she has an income more than the usual divorcee. She has a luxurious home when compared to others. She has a nanny and Paul has one for their daughter when she is staying with him. So to the writer of the article, didn't both of them get what they wanted? Think about it? One thing for sure, She is making a lot more money that YOU AND I and has the power to make even more than most divorced women. Power to her and to Sir Paul! LEAVE BOTH IN PAEACE.

[david webb]

Sydney @ 0826...... sounds like you are working on the final solution for men.
With people like you and that awful heather creature around why would any young man in control of his senses ever consider marriage.

[Roy - live and let live]

Good luck on you Heather and I wish you well.

[anthony harrisson]

Am I missing something here. What a ridiculous point of view from the times "journalist". First off Miss Mills has barely worked a day in her life, certainly does no modelling (or very little) now, and as the judge has said claims chrity where there is none. She also has £600,000 P/a. The judge has offered £35,000 for the child plus nanny costs (you say £30,000) well lets look at this.

£35,000 is £10,000 more than would be needed to pay for the very best education money can buy so thats fine. £30,000 is only £2,000 below what you say the best nannies earn. But through all this you miss the point..... Miss Mills does not work.. she is the childs mother.. It is she who should be looking after the child night and day... in that respect £30,000 would be for baby sitting which then looks more than generous.

Why is it that people see nannies as a natural adjunct to life... Miss Mills does not need to be a working mum.. so she should be a mum. Children need their mothers as much as possible, if mothers don't want to give their time then they shouldn't be mothers. Miss Mills has all the time in the world to be a mother and so she should be just that, anything else is selfish.

[Deb]

The mystery is this...how did he ever fall for this truly appalling woman in the first place!

[sydney]

There has been much comment in the past few weeks on the depth of loathing felt in our society towards women generally and mothers in particular: Fiona McKeown, Shannon Matthews' mother, Kate McCann, and of course Heather Mills, to name a few recent cases. We as a society need to ask ourselves why women are so detested by so many men - backed up by a fair number of other women - that vast numbers of them would wish to blog about this subject, vast numbers of them assault and rape women each week, vast numbers of them kill their partners each week. Of course the article which inspired all this vitriol was a wind-up - and look how successful it has been at flushing out mysogynist hatred!

[supermother]

I don't think I have assumed the child should be with her father. In fact I pointed out below they have her 50% of the time. I believe that should be the default position. I would love my ex husband to have the children half the time. 1% would be pretty good too but a lot of men sadly choose (rather than are forced) to abandon their children after divorce. It presumably is very convenient for them. Thankfully not all men are like that but that's been my experience and of many other women too.

Given more and more women work full time they would quite like the help of their ex with the children. In some ways that is the aspect which annoys me most about my divorce - not the fact I had to pay him so much money but that the law entitles him to choose not to see his children. First it's upsetting that anyone who supposedly loves them doesn't want to see them and secondly it has a huge economic cost to me in terms of payments for child care whilst I work to support us. But although a father has a technical right to apply to see his children (often that is hard to achieve but it exists as a right) the children have no right to force their father to see them. In other words there is a parent's right but not a child's right and yet in divorce children are supposed to come first. In some countries 50% contact is forced on men whether they like it or not.

On the question of why some people are paid more than others it's just market forces. Few people can play football like Beckham or perhaps even do my work but teachers and childcarers and dustbin men etc are ten a penny for obvious reasons.

[Wolfie]

“We used to have a nanny share for my daughter….we felt strongly that we should pay a fair wage….and as a result she earned the equivalent of around £32K a year….we were able to hire an amazing woman. She cooked healthy quinoa dishes, she organised endless playdates..”
Hello, plant earth to author, no wonder you think Heather Mills received an inadequate payout. Was the point of your article to demonstrate how wealthy & right-on you are?
Heather Mills should have received no more than a mortgaged three bed semi in Basingstoke, a four year old Ford Focus and £10k in the bank and told to go and find a proper job.

[Chris]

With apologies to everyone else's opinions on this thread it is obscene to suggest that GBP24,000,000 is not enough for anyone anywhere in the World, tosh and nonsense but I suppose that was the point of the post in the first place

[lyn, santa barbara, california]

Having read various articles and several comments from around the world, suffice to say, no-one sits in Heather's shoes, thus no-one can comment on her circumstances.

That said, it is apparent that Heather is a better mother than Paul a father. At least, she does not demonstrate on camera her personal feelings with the opposite sex as Paul has, with East Coast socialites and Hollywood actresses.

As to dousing Fiona Shakleton. Attorneys will dig up any dirt they can find or perpetrate issues that are not there to begin with. Obviously, the drenching was in retaliation to "closed-door" inaccuracies by McCartney's highly paid attorney.

Finally, it was quoted that Diana sent Shakleton "flowers". Shakleton is not going to distress the mother of the future king of England in the same way as she would an entertainer's spouse.

[Oliver Chettle]

She got far too much. She didn't deserve anything for herself.

Children should be provided for in these cases by putting money in trust for the child, and allowing the trustees to draw the income within agreed parameters to fund the mother's living expenses while the child is living with the mother.

As has been pointed out, there is no need for a nanny at all. If Heather Mills is a competent mother, she can care for her daughter herself. If she isn't, she shouldn't have been given custody.

[Martina]

Marc said "This article was only written to be read. If it had said, "Heather Mills was paid far too much" would you have read it?"
Yes! Because I think she WAS paid far too much!!

[Pyric Victory]

Surely we are forgetting the child in all of this. Wouldn't Beatrice (almost sounds like Beatle) be better off living with St Paul than this one legged (I only mention that because HM does at every opportunity), hard faced, money grabbing haridan? What future does the child have and how will she turn out in the end?
Remember HM's former partner saying she is not what she seems. Time is truths greatest ally. Did she really think she could turn the great Britsh public against a great British icon and national treasure like PM. Who will her next victim be, surely an overseas millionaire who knows little about her or is she too well known now? Or maybe she'll become a shaven headed geordie version of B Spears. This story has no end. Watch this space.

[MDS]

This is the most pointless and weakly argued article I have ever read on this site, bar none.

[David Gwilliam]

It may surprise you to know that most mothers do not employ nannies.

[poormanson]

Interesting that in the discussions of "wimmins equality" above no thought is given to Beatrice remaining with her father and in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed while Heather forges a new independant life whilst only having to take care of her childs emotional needs

[Happy mum]

Ignoring all the fuss about the court case....

I think the article from Jennifer Howze does raise a really interesting point - why are our teachers, child-minders, nursery workers paid relatively low wages? I know some people have been griping that £30k is not a low wage but it is if you compare it with the salaries of other jobs that we consider professional occupations. Also, many teachers and childcare workers are paid less than £30k. This does have implications for the quality of the workforce in our schools and nurseries and the wider childcare sector. I know quality is hard to define but generally the labour market rewards qualification levels, intellect and specialised skills with higher wages. If we pay low wages to the people who educate and care for our children then we don't get the best people doing those jobs. I don't know what the answer is because childcare is expensive enough as it is and taxes are high enough as they are but I suppose we have to be honest with ourselves and realise that we get what we pay for. So.. if you can afford to pay privately for a nanny, child minder, teacher or nursery assistant and you can afford to spend £30k (or £40k or £50k) then you will get a more professional ,educated, intelligent, qualified, mature member of staff. If you want to employ someone and you can afford it then who wouldn't make that choice?

[supermother]

As long as people just quote from the judgment I can't see how that can be libellous and the judge was quite careful not to say there was mortgage fraud etc.

I don't see why people who have chosen to be in the public domain can complain if people write about them. It's the price they pay when choosing to a model/pop singer rather than a behind the scenes investor.

The fault is with the law in allowing large claims once basic needs are met not really those who claim their due, although I would have preferred my ex husband had been not quite so assiduous in getting his pounds of flesh from me/the children. If the law said you get back what you put in, got rid of this 50% thing it would all be a lot fairer.

[Delilah]

Who is Michael Moran? Any relation to Caitlin?

I seem to remember an almost as vitrolic thread recently pointing out how stupid it was for one spouse to make financial and career sacrifices for the good of the family because she would lose everything on divorce. In other words, you should continue to manage your life after marriage as though your marriage might end at any minute, because you should not expect any consideration for your non-financial contribution to it.

In which case, why bother getting married? I would suggest that this attitude actually makes divorce almost inevitable.

Marriage is a situation where the parties expressly plan to pool personal resources - themselves, their trust, their personal dreams, hangups and ideals (including whether or not they believe children do better with a parent at home) - as well as their financial resources - for the rest of their lives, usually for the rather uncertain return of home and family. It's not a purely financial joint venture. On the finance side, it's more in the nature of a roulette game (is poker too cynical?) where the size of the initial stake bears little relationship to the return. Some spouses achieve financial success as a direct result of having a low-earning spouse who frees them up to jet around the world and work late. Conversely, many a poorly-paid academic or artist has brought interest and colour into the life of their boring breadwinning spouse.

Imagine if HM had made a fortune in investments during her marriage while PMC lost his lot in the credit crunch. Should she then have restored his fortunes out of her own and so they could both leave the marriage as they entered it? What a ridiculous notion.

The real assets of marriage are the giving of self - of hopes and dreams and intimacy. That's why a low-earning spouse deserves more on divorce than the shirt they came to the marriage in.

If you ignore the non-financial assets of marriage, then indeed you are left with legalised prostitution - and who in their right mind would enter into it?

[Marc]

Hey you guys, you are taking this all too seriously. This article was only written to be read. If it had said, "Heather Mills was paid far too much" would you have read it? It is a rather obvious piece of, attention grabbing, journalism.

The official judgement on Heather Mills seems interestingly accurate. She has to live with what people think of her and, therefore, to moderately intelligent people, this article did her no favours, whatsoever.

[Kim]

Bobbythebadgeroo - how ridiculous. The comment you are referring to said "some of those opinions have spilled over into a few comments that are rather offensive and potentially actionable." See the key words there? "A few". The Times has to be extremely careful not to put itself in a position where it could be sued for libel.

Bagofbones - well said.

[Evergreen Colorado Real Estate]

are you kidding me? you obviously just want people to read your column with this nonesense. $50M - let Heather use some of that money for their "nanny" expenses.

[BobbyTheBadgeroo]

the response comment darly referring to "actionable" comments is frankly offensive itself. You have every right to vet comments on this website and I hope you do. There are always a few nutters who get overexcited and post things they wouldnt say face to face. That is your situation to deal with not imply that if lots of people disagree with you that somehow they are ALL being a bit OTT.

[BobbyTheBadgeroo]

the award to generate £600k p.a. of about £14m is based on investing in long term government bonds (gilts) which are currently earning 4.5% p.a. In reality her financial advisers should be able to generate, even acting prudently, double that or at very least £1m p.a.

Dont cry for her!

[Baggofbones]

Shame on all the people who have posted such personal and unpleasant comments. They show themselves to be far more unpleasant than any of the people on whom they are passing judgement. All these people are presumably parents themselves if they're reading and posting on Alpha Mummy? If so, I can only hope they are bringing up their children with more humanity and charity than they themselves demonstrate.

(PS I'm not interested in Mills/McC either!)

[D]

HAS YOUR "ESTEEMED" BLOGGER READ THE ENTIRE JUDGEMENT?..........I MIGHT BE MISTAKEN BUT I THINK THE JUDGE UPPED THE MONEY TO BE MADE AVAILABLE BY SIR PAUL FOR A NANNY , TO £35,000 PER ANNUM? BUT AS I SAY I MIGHT BE MISTAKEN !

[Digger]

Fred Blogs earns £25k a year. He spends half on living and saves the other half. How many years does he have to work to save £25 million ?
That's right children, since Jesus was born.

Different planet.

[Marco De Pellegrin]

"And as a result she earned the equivalent of around £32K a year"

Nonsense. Many well qualified professional engineers earn that.

[Guy Cavendish]

"Of course Heather can perhaps find some spare cash in her £24.3 million award to augment the nanny's fees".
So the point of this ludicrous article is?

[Adrian]

The purpose of a nanny is to provide childcare IF and WHEN parents are not available (i.e. at work). If BOTH are working or otherwise occupied in some form of profitable activity, BOTH should contribute. I do not see, why ONLY the father's income (or contribution) should be available to pay for a nanny.... If the mother contributes only HALF of what the father pays, more than 45 k would be available. (if the 26 mill are invested in even the most conservative way, there would be MORE than enough money...)

[Derwyn]

I want to marry Heather Mills. Thankyou Paul for letting her go. She seems like such a nice girl AND fertile. I do have a couple of Pre-Nup conditions though. I need to get 50% of the GBP24M after our first night out (I promise it'll be good). The kid.......well it's sorted - we gotta nanny and daft Paul will take care of her half or all the time. Heather, if you're out there, please give me a call. Weather in Cape Town right now is great and we can do a bunch of travelling and just getting away from it all.

Loadza luv

Derwyn

[supermother]

"marriage is fast becoming a poor bargain from a man's point of view, it's simply not worth the risk."
As long as the male ego seems to require they marry men who earn less they will have this problem.

Most men still are not very happy with a woman who earns several multiples of what they earn. I don't know how that is resolvable without tinkering with testosterone and various other internal bits in the brain of men however. You even get women pretending to be nurses when asked in a bar, you know, given male reaction if they disclosed what they really did.

Hopefully it will change. For the first time even women up to age 25 in the UK earn more than men. However those women tend to seek men who are a bit older and who earn a bit more even if they don't feel they consciously do it and more women than men choose to stay home when they have children.

As to the calculations they are all in the judgment. The lump sum she got on top of the house etc is enough to generate £600k a year. That should be enough to pay for a nanny really. I would have been happier were the lump sum much smaller - for example enough to buy a suitable house for the child no bigger than the father's main home, some maintenance for the child's food, school trips at a private school etc in the 50% of the week she lives with her mother but no payment to the mother. Indeed arguably her earning capacity was enhanced by the marriage so on that basis she owes him.

[Catherine]

Quote: It's very sad that men marry for love and more and more women are marrying for money.

Oh please! You'll have me weeping into my super-size glass of Chardonnay next. So men only marry for love, and not at all for any other reason? That'll be why all those balding hedge fund traders around Chelsea are still with their homely first wives who had their families and supported them on the way up.

[clare]

Shes being given 600k a year to live on, so doesn't need a job. She has expressed a desire to get out of the public eye and live in privacy. So.. i knopw this is terribly old fashioned of me, but why the hell does she need a nanny? Can she not look after he daughter herself?

[kate30]

The amount awarded to Heather is pathetic compared to Pauls wealth. I can't believe how the public get on his side.

[Caddy]

Oh my heart bleeds for her. What a load of twaddle. As the daughter will likely be spending half the year with her father anyway, and he certainly won't see her suffer financially, I think Heather has scooped more than enough dosh to scrape by on. Oh that my ex were that generous. He gave me £10 each for our 2 children and told me to take him to court and fight for the rest. I didn't. I wouldn't give him the satisfaction, I brought them up by having 3 jobs & NO nanny.

[George Goring]

If you really want to be good to your child then spend some time with her and fire your nanny. If you weren't so interested in skiing holidays and Prada handbags you could afford to stay at home and care for her you stupid cow.

[CLIVE BURGHARD]

It's very sad that men marry for love and more and more women are marrying for money.
This is being made worse by big payouts to women like Miss Mills,
marriage is fast becoming a poor bargain from a man's point of view, it's simply not worth the risk.

[rob]

They both have joint custody - therefore a nanny is required for only 1/2 the week? Surely £30K is sufficent for 3.5 days a week then?

What world are we living in?

[Hein Maassen]

Hahahaaa! If you want to be sure of your nanny to be immune against tabloid bribes you will have to pay her at least 100K a year, and pay her handsomely when she quits to keep her mouth shut. Something like a million after twenty years of silence. You simply do not realize how much money can be made from scandal-mongering.

[lynn]

you know what... i have to get off my bum and work really hard to find the fees for good quality childcare...if Heather does the same with a £30k head start - i think that child will be just fine...

[Amy Aisha Brown]

Why on earth do other people care about this? It isn't ground breaking. No, not at all. It is just a normal divorce. It just happens that you know a little more about the people involved than you do about Fred and Linda from down the road.

And if the reason for this article is about childcare, think about it a little more logically. If he put 30, 000 towards childcare, and so does she (surely she has some money) that makes 60, 000. I don't know, but I imagine that is plenty.

[mumoftwo]

Regarding the HM statement yesterday, personally I think having your child go 'B' class when you have one 'A' class parent is no bad thing if you want your child to grow up rounded and appreciative of what they do have.

[Alan]

I searched in vain for any evidence of tongue in cheek. Couldn't find any.

HM has over £24 million to play with. Any Asset Manager worth his salt would be able to find her a SAFE deposit rate of 5.77% (today's LIBOR) or better. That's nearly £1.4 million per year. Less tax at 40% and she would still getting £840,000. As her declared living costs are £600,000 she will have £240,000 to spare on her child - in addition to the £65,000 coming from Sir Paul.

Come off it! How much more ought she to be getting.

I am starting to wonder if The Times is positioning itself as the newspaper of the conspicuously super-wealthy; maybe it's just its editors' aspirations.

This blog is just so outrageous as to justify the many vilifications it has received.

[mumoftwo]

Not a comment about Heather Mills, but about the Luxx magazine that one of the commentators mentioned. I actually thought you were joking, as I was sure that the Times would know there is a pretty cheap brand of soap called Lux, the joke being that there is nothing luxury about it. However, I see it is at the top of the banner. What a sensitive time to launch a new 'luxury' online magazine featuring a £30,000 watch on the first page when we are all worrying about how to pay the mortgage/if we spent too much on credit cards last year/why the council tax eats up most of our 'disposable' income. Like the other poster, I really disliked it(as I also dislike the Style section of the Sunday Times), not because I resent money, but because I resent the lack of imagination that it shows in presenting an interesting view of the world and who occupies it (although obviously it is an advertising piece and they need to make their money out of us lot blathering on for free). This 'provocative' piece is a bit along the same lines given that it is highly unlikely that even Jennifer Howze really thinks £30,000 is a paltry budget for half a nanny.

[bushra]

the only thing wrong with this blog post is the headline 'Heather Mills didn't get enough money', when the post is more about just how much should we pay for childcare. not a clever idea as rather than bring more readers to an otherwise great blog it's brought a bunch of Heather-bashers instead. and before anyone starts, i couldn't care less about the whole McCartney-Mills saga.

[JC]

I remember when the Times used to be a sensible newspaper. This article has clearly been written to offend readers of this publication. It is exactly this sort of tripe that undermines the claims of normal women pursuing compensation for their children following divorces. I shall be lobbying parliament to ban all alimony payments on the back of reading this - as if the original facts of the case weren't inflammatory enough!

[Michael Moran]

Hi there

This piece appears to have excited some strong opinions, and regrettably some of those opinions have spilled over into a few comments that are rather offensive and potentially actionable.

Until things calm down we are going to have to vet the comments on the way in, so that your comments will appear rather more slowly on the blog than regular readers are used to.

Sorry about this, but this is a public forum and we are obliged to uphold certain standards of politeness and decency in our comment sections.

[GateGipsy]

I wasn't going to join in this discussion until I read this:

>>Shes the evil step-mom. I love how she goes out of her way to say, stepmother. Mother of two would have been the appropriate line if she cared about both kids.

Excuse me! Obviously you are neither a step parent or a step child. I am the VERY proud step mother of two children, and mother of one. I couldn't love my step kids more if they were my own biological children, and they know this. I would never dream of telling people I was their mother though. They already have a mother. I am an additional parent in their life, I do not replace their mother. My role in their life is a parenting one, and my title is step mother. Saying that you are someone's step mother does not in any way indicate that you care about them any less than you do a biological child.

[e skelton]

Its not much money. So would you like my account details to make a similar donation?

[Pete]

"but by the ad hominem attacks on Jennifer Howze. This isn't a newspaper article, it's a blog post - a pretty major distinction." Although I don't attacks on the author, this article appears with a big Times banner on the top, is advertised on the front page of the site and carries a range of ads the newspaper benefits from, the author probably recieves some payment for her contributions. In every respect it is a newspaper article, being a article published by a newspaper.

[JC]

Perhaps she could do without a nanny as 99% of us "ordinary people" do?

Let's remember that the average couple in the UK take home a combined income of £36k.

The Times is certainly paying too much on the evidence of this guff.

[D]

You aren't really living in the real world are you? It must be nice to live such a sheltered and spoilt life that you can look at an obvious gold-digger, whose only real claim to anything whatsoever is the child she shares with her ex, and think she deserves more than the fortune she got? Utterly deluded.

[Colin]

The small sums mentioned are just that, the small sums. They are irrelevant in the context of the large amount of the main settlement. It's up to HM to spend that larger amount however she likes.

[Fred]

And you American and Brit woman wonder why we men want no part of you!!! I outsourced my marriage to Brazil. They are not only better looking ( by an extremely long margin ) but have more down to Earth genuine feelings.

[Kim]

I'm appalled, not just at the level of nastiness displayed towards Heather Mills (who must be getting used to it by now) but by the ad hominem attacks on Jennifer Howze. This isn't a newspaper article, it's a blog post - a pretty major distinction. Blog posts are more like a conversation between friends - just a way of thinking aloud.

And nobody here has the right to lecture Howze on the childcare arrangements she makes for her children, let alone accuse her of bad parenting. Would you say those things to her face if you met her? No, I thought not. Internet forums make a fine resort for cowards, unfortunately.

[Emma]

I thought the point of a nanny was to take care of the child while the parents work outside the home. If she's working she can afford to add to the £30K herself. If she's not working (and with that amount of money she doesn't need to) she should take care of her daughter herself!

I don't see why everyone is assuming Paul should be paying all the childcare himself.

[Mel_ennna]

Just out of interest alpha mummy, does your child have stronger feelings/ bonding for your nanny or you???...mmmmm

[tim walton]

I totally agree about the salaries not being great but it is £30k more than my wife got and she looked after two children but then again she was a normal housewife and mother, get real not enough what planet are you from?

[supermother]

Therock - not all women see themselves like that. I am sure many of us know our flaws. I have loads. We are no more perfect nor imperfect than men. Some men too think they are God's gift to the planet. I don't think we can generalise but what everyone needs when they're choosing a partner is the skills to sort out the wheat from the chaff, the ability to do some sensible due diligence however much in love we are, tests to check if you have a money grubbing leech or someone who will love you for who you are. So things like suggest a wedding that costs £100 in church and see what she/he says. Or suggest she/he will need to work full time throughout the marriage and see what reaction you get. Root around. Check if they have in the past been able to form lasting loving long term relationships or whether everyone has ditched them within a short time. Hard to do when you're ruled by lust early on in a relationship but essential.

I like this - below:
"There has only ever been, and can only ever be one fair basis for these cases and that is that the lower paid goes back to what they used to have. It is not so strange that those who now espouse this principle seem to be high earning women. It is not I think that suddenly they do not like to be treated as badly as men have been routinely treated. It is more that these arrangements were ordained by the patronising "men in charge" for the benefit of "the ladies". A view of marriage that makes fools of all men and prostitutes of all women. Men on the whole are still fools who think they should "Take care of the little woman". Happily there are beginning to be women who do not wish to be regarded as legalised prostitutes by accident of birth as a woman and of marriage."

We do not have a hope in Hell of getting that changed in the UK I suspect. We may be the divorce country of choice for lower earners where there is a jurisdictional choice at all, but there is no movement for departing from not only 50/50 but also if that is not a clean break then more than 50% plus maintenance sometimes for life.

One problem is there are so many different cases -
(a) Mccarthy mills - short marriage but also a child
(b) Miller - short marriage no child but she apparently gave up a £75k a year career to devote herself to him
(c) McCFarlane - long marriage with children, wife gave up career at Freshfields early on where she might have earned £1m a year - so a compensation element/career sacrifice thing was relevant.
(d) cases like mine - ex never gave up work, always did and always would earn lowish teaching/nursing etc level salary - so no career sacrifice but got used to living at this standard.
(e) Charman - children's trusts broken to give long standing wife a fortune
(f) Sorrel - very long marriage with children, wife gets lots - more than needs.

This is the thing - what are needs? I would have thought the average wage of £20k a year meets your needs with a richer father (or mother in my case ) paying other expenses direct to the private school and other providers. It is much more emotionally palatable to pay direct children expenses than give money to a spouse who then spends it on shoes and you have no recourse.
etc etc

All this is pretty irrelevant in most cases as in the average divorce there is only a house with a bit of equity which is needed for the children, there is no question of a clean break as there is not enough cash for that so the parent with the children gets the house until the youngest turns 18 and then the proceeds are split with more going to the lower earner.

Men can help too by never letting their wives give up work and choosing women to marry who earn more if their egos can cope with that. if their egos can't or they find it convenient when it suits them during marriage but not on divorce to have a housewife then they pay the price, currently.

We could have guidelines in a new statute which could deal with all the various options, which could have a default position that on divorce both parents have to have the children 50% of the time where they both work full time even if one can't be bothered, doesn't want the hassle expense of that, etc

On the other hand perhaps it's all so bad it rightly deters people from divorcing and therefore that is for the good of society?

[Chris]

What a pointless and ridiculous article! With £16m in cash netting £1m a year in interest to add to the £35K contribution from her ex-husband, Ms Mills has more than enough to pay for her daughter's upkeep. Has it occured to Alpha Mummy that having now achieved financial security, Ms Mills doesn't actually have to work any more and should perhaps be thinking of devoting herself to the most important career of all - mothering?

[Mike Power]

"Tulip' says: Can the hysterical men please stop generalising about women and not use that rude intonation when addressing women and their right? (sic)

and continues: "Men are like slobbering robots, too dumb and guillible for their own good..."

Ah yes, no generalisations please.

[alanis]

Why does she need a nanny if she has been awarded all that money - it is about time the papers stop reporting such rubbish about rich self centred people and start talking about the real unsung heroes of this world - they are both self serving publicists - money does not bring happiness and it is about time people realised this

[Michael Peevey]

It is incorrect to imply that there is a direct relationship between the quality of a child carer and the salary that they are paid. I have had three seperate maids employed to primarily look after my child. The latest is by far the best and she is paid the same as the other ones. Money is but one of many motivations that someone would take on such a job. To make this implication says something about your own view on motivation, I feel. In addition, if Mills feels strongly on this point she can top up Mccartney's allowance with a few thousand from the 16M she has been given.

[dardar]

Heather Mills now has the means and the opportunity to live quietly and independently away from the glare of publicity, bringing up her daughter herself, should she choose to do so. If she gives up her celebrity lifestyle then the media will lose interest in her as her major claim to fame was her association with Mr McCartney. She could also afford to give substantial donations to the charities she claims to support without feeling any financial hardship whatsoever or the need to embarass them with her continued involvement.

On the other hand she also has the opportunity to capitalise and to substantially increase her wealth by milking her infamy for all its worth. A skilled publicist could make her a great deal of money. The cost of course would be that she would be a bit too busy to do much parenting and risk becoming even further reviled.

I wonder which course she and her ever present entourage of financial advisors, support staff and others will choose? A quiet lower profile existence or greed

[luke]

"Less than a candid witness," is a euphemism for ,"she's a untruthful person, willing to lie in court for personal gain."

Alpha Mummy needs to enter the real world where 36K is a lot of money. i know a fair few working couples who do not earn that together. I bet alpha mummy spends well over two grand on each childs birthday party.

[Philip]

The 35,000 is an allowance directly for the daughter. I would imagine that there will be some shared custody and usual family relations which will I am sure involve more spending by the father. The 35K is (as I understand it) the only money for the child that will pass through Heather's hands.

[Neil Hughes]

This article is nearly as offensive as Ms Mills. I hope The Times isn't resorting to deliberate inflammatory articles like the red tops.

[eliot]

Who even knew Heather Mills' name before she married Paul McCartney? I only hope she uses the money she has stolen from Sir Paul to do good. If she lavishes it on herself, then she will be judged for her actions by God one day. Perhaps this is a divine test for her.

[tulip]

Also, I just had a quick scan through the posts, and gosh,,, a lot of men sitting around on their computers today, eager for some female bashing, aren't there?
Can some of these angry men go bakc to the men's section, their contribution is not necessary in the Women's section. Thankyou.

[tulip]

Can the hysterical men please stop generalising about women and not use that rude intonation when addressing women and their right? Heather Mills is one woman- with a colorful past which may have given signals to men out there on what she was really like- so please don't go around assuming we are all like her. If men are going to fall upside down and head over heels in love with a pop-tart, then deal with the consequences. The real women do not walk around in mini skirts or pull up their skirts to reveal half their arses or have seductive lines prepared to 'pull' men or flutter their eyeballs at the men to get attention.... Attention to ALL Men: only TARTS do this! Stay AWAY.
But who am I kidding? Men are like slobbering robots, too dumb and guillible for their own good, and flap around like helpless fish out of water around these 'sharks'.
Just don't blame the rest of us for your selfish mistakes, because the rest of us are lovely, honest, kind and deserve to be treated ... like princesses?- actually Queens!

[TheRockofAges]

Women rarely see themselves as they really are or how others view them; they seem to have an inflated, self absorbed view of themselves that is as far from reality as one could possibly get. I am convinced based on my own unscientific study of women's habits, they really believe they are perfect, angelic, without flaw, never wrong, and experts on all things. Why else would any species on the planet spend so much time pampering themselves and exhaust so much energy trying to convince others to do the same for them, as if they really were regal princesses? That mentality is for four year old little girls, not grown, mature women. When a litigant in a divorce action screws up and opens their mouth out of turn; or exhibits bad attitude to the court and judge, why in God's green Earth would one expect the money fairy to wave a magic wand and provide the sun, moon, and stars? That might be because of all things irritating, it is many women's self proclaimed issues of entitlement that makes most men see red. Women's rights in no way impacts men's inherent right to his own happiness, his own opinion, his own self respect, his own masculinity, and his own personal views; yet women feel free to bash and attack men relentlessly. Men are not on this planet to serve women, in spite of what some may believe. Seems women are seriously threatened and intimidated by men that won't role over and cry "Mary". Mucca probably received more than she deserved; she is another materialistic pop-tart, in my opinion and probably spent her days manipulating Sir Paul; making his life a living hell, knowing full well she would get a pretty good payday on divorce day. She should thank her lucky stars for what she received after a few shorts years of marriage. Instead of complaining about how Mucca was shortchanged, where is the debate about what SHE brought and contributed to the marriage? She is woman, hear her roar, and that is sufficient contribution, I'll bet. Why are women NEVER happy unless they are making men miserable or complaining about how tough they have it in this life? We all have it tough. Nobody said 'equal rights' was going to be fun and games and 'every round' would go to the ladies from now on. The days of having one's cake and eating it, too, are long, long, long gone. Women must earn respect the same way men must earn respect. For too long it has been assumed and taken for granted.

[N Patrick]

Some of us manage to support 2 children on £14,000 a year. There's a mortgage in there too.

Oh, sorry, what am I thinking? £25m is mere pennies!

[David]

to Ted,

The reason men are posting on this subject is because we have an opinion on the subject, not because as you suggest we were somehow misled to this page. i brought my children up and am slightly iriated that the page is referred to as "mummy" and not "parents" though :(.