This past spring, the Netflix series Blue Therapy captured the UK’s attention as couples entered therapy to resolve longstanding issues within their relationships. Among them, Dami and Jermaine’s story generated the greatest traction on social media, largely due to its relatability and strong emotional resonance with viewers. Their journey also raised several interesting considerations from a family law perspective.
Dami had sacrificed her career to become a stay‑at‑home mother, while Jermaine’s demanding work schedule meant that he was rarely at home. This growing emotional and physical distance eventually led Dami to contemplate divorce. But what would the legal implications have been had they decided to divorce?
We know that the starting point for determining finances on divorce is an equal division of the matrimonial pot. However, the Court has discretion to depart from equality in accordance with Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Some of these key considerations, and how they might have applied to Dami and Jermaine, are explored below.
How family courts prioritise Child welfare
The Court’s primary concern is always the welfare of any children of the marriage. Dami and Jermaine had two young children, meaning their financial needs would have been considered first and foremost. The Court would ensure that appropriate financial provision was made to support them.
If the children were to live primarily with one parent, the Court would ensure that parent had adequate income and suitable accommodation. This could result in a greater share of equity in the former matrimonial home being awarded to that parent. In some cases, the Court may also order that the matrimonial home not be sold until the youngest child reaches the age of 18 or completes tertiary education.
Contributions made by each party
While Jermaine was the primary financial provider, this is not the only contribution the Court considers. Dami’s role as a stay‑at‑home mother and primary carer for the children would be treated as equal in value to Jermaine’s financial contribution.
Although Jermaine spoke at length about the long hours he worked to support the family, the same could equally be said of Dami. Her full‑time role involved caring for the children, managing the household, and ensuring their day‑to‑day wellbeing. The Court recognises that both forms of contribution are of equal importance to the marriage.
Earning capacity
During therapy, Dami explained that she previously had a rewarding corporate career before stepping away to care for the children full time. In the event of a divorce, the Court would consider her ability to re‑enter the workforce, how quickly this could reasonably occur, and the likely level of income she would earn.
If Dami were able to secure employment that allowed her to support herself and the children independently, it is unlikely that Jermaine would be required to pay ongoing spousal maintenance. However, the Court might order short‑term maintenance to assist Dami while she sought employment and rebuilt her earning capacity. Fortunately, Dami and Jermaine were able to resolve their issues, and their marriage appears to have been strengthened by the therapeutic process. Sadly, many couples cannot reach the same outcome.
Speak to our team
At Clarke Willmott, we understand that navigating a divorce can be challenging, and the volume of information surrounding family law can often feel overwhelming. Our aim is to simplify the process and provide clear, straightforward advice so that it is as stress‑free as possible.
If you are going through a divorce or would simply like an informal discussion about your options, please contact us. We would be happy to help.
