The process of financial remedy in divorce demands change
post separation abuse and sustained non-disclosure blocked early resolution
Over three years, my family law financial remedy case was dominated by sustained refusal to disclose the finances and instead fuelled the process with deliberate disorder. Bank statements in formats no one had seen before were provided over the course of two years in drips and drabs – certain months were missing and presented differently. I was unable to hire a forensic accountant. Despite this, my former partner’s legal team later asserted that the matter was my delay at the final hearing because I was unable to have them properly assessed (within 4 weeks) and with no means for a financial forensic team. That claim ignored the reality that full and frank disclosure was repeatedly withheld, making early resolution impossible. My ex had never disclosed the true picture of our finances in the marriage – why would he now? I now recognise this as financial abuse. And I know I was far too exhausted and overwhelmed to present the evidence, just after an operation in court with no representation.
overseas accounts and fragmented financial disclosure
Undisclosed overseas accounts, multiple currencies and incomplete financial statements emerged only incrementally, often following specific court orders. Each disclosure revealed further expenditure and access to previously hidden business and personal accounts. Had complete disclosure been provided at the outset, I could have instructed a forensic accountant promptly. Instead, prolonged non-disclosure left me financially exposed, overwhelmed by fragmented information and forced to respond to statements released in calculated stages.
discretionary spending alongside financial hardship
Credit card records were missing or incomplete. Spending patterns showed extensive discretionary expenditure, including luxury clothing, hospitality, food delivery services and expensive gifts, while I struggled to meet basic living costs for myself and the children. When a significantly higher salary was finally exposed during proceedings, it confirmed that earlier claims of limited means were inaccurate. Once found out he would in the words of my barrister ‘throw his toys out the pram” and remove the limited support to the children and me. I was left struggling until the next hearing 3-6 months later. While he hid more accounts and salary to demonstrate poverty.
delay used to rewrite financial reality
Following that exposure, the case was delayed for a further year. During this time, my former partner relied on the delay itself to present a narrative of unemployment and “sofa surfing”, despite previously established income and access to resources. The absence of immediate enforcement or meaningful consequences for non-disclosure enabled this shift.
impact on children and the primary caregiver
Even after the higher income was identified in court, I received an email from his solicitor the following day asserting that he could not afford spousal maintenance. My direct access barrister described this conduct as obstructive, but the consequences were borne by the children and me. Repeated delays prolonged financial uncertainty, leaving us in limbo while instability, pressure and harm continued.
a system that enables post-separation abuse
This was not administrative oversight or poor record-keeping. It was a sustained pattern of behaviour that weaponised non-disclosure, delay and procedural gaps, enabling post-separation abuse and causing significant financial and psychological harm to the family.