Divorcee forced to pay half of ex-husband's trans surgery in legal first

Telegraph

10 hours ago

A divorcee has been forced by a judge to pay half for her ex-husband's trans surgery.
The mother argued that it was unfair that she had to stump up £80,000 for the procedure when the decision to transition had led to the breakdown of her marriage.
But in what is believed to be the first case of its kind, the judge said that the surgery was a 'need', not a 'whim', and therefore it was 'reasonable' for the cost to be met out of their joint funds.
The husband, 58, had said that the argument was 'like saying someone who had cancer should not have the surgery' during the hearing at Brighton Family Court.
The couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, met while working in the financial sector in London in the late 1990s and married in 2002, when the husband was living as a man.
They had a 'very international lifestyle living in several countries in different continents and purchasing properties in various countries' and accumulating £3 million in joint assets.
They have two children who were privately educated and are now at university.
In 2022 the husband informed his wife he was 'intending to 'transition to a woman' and 'commenced hormone therapy at that stage', the judge said.
Two months later the wife, 60, issued divorce proceedings.
The husband had surgery in 2024 after they had been separated for almost two years and the £160,000 bill was paid out of their joint cash.
During their separation, the husband, who has retrained as a massage therapist and Reiki practitioner, claimed he could not afford to pay the court-ordered maintenance to his wife and children but splashed £14,000 on an Amex card in one month 'mainly on clothing, nails, jewellery and restaurants', got £13,000 worth of tattoos in six months and racked up a £1,000 Milan restaurant bill.
Bitter legal dispute
Whether they should split the surgery cost was at the centre of the bitter legal dispute which cost the couple almost £1 million in legal fees.
Judge Stuart Farquhar said: 'It is not surprising that this issue has generated significant emotions from both of the parties.
'It is the applicant's position that it is as a result of the respondent's decision to transition to a woman and undergo the surgery that the marriage has broken down and that in the words of counsel's opening note 'it cannot be right that the applicant should have to pay half the costs from her share of the matrimonial funds'.'
But the husband, who says his wife always knew he was trans, said that it should be 'treated in the way of any other medical costs which would ordinarily be met from the joint assets'.
In his ruling the judge noted that the husband had provided medical evidence of gender dysphoria which had caused 'significant anxiety, depression and distress' and for which 'the vaginoplasty surgery was considered the next appropriate step'.
In her evidence the wife 'was adamant that she was not aware that the respondent wished to transition until the end of the marriage' and said it was 'devastating and a big surprise' when she discovered her husband wanted to take cross-sex hormones.
She was 'deeply shocked' when her husband 'stated that she intended to live her new life as a lesbian woman' and that is when she began divorce proceedings.
She argued that it was the husband's choice to have the surgery but it should be paid out of his personal assets, saying it was unfair for her to foot half the bill as the 'decision to transition that caused the end of the marriage'.
The husband responded: 'You marry a trans person. You live with a trans person. You benefit from a trans person. They are suicidal and you support them.'
He argued that 'it would be like saying someone who had cancer should not have the surgery and that accordingly the cost of that surgery should be met from joint funds'.
'Genuine psychological need'
The judge agreed with the wife's legal team that the husband had 'shown no understanding whatsoever that her decision to transition to a woman has had an impact on anyone else, and particularly' the ex-wife.
Judge Farquhar said that while 'there is no doubt that this has been a hugely difficult and emotionally draining experience' for the trans woman, 'the lack of empathy' for the ex-wife 'is striking'.
However, he said that could not be considered when dividing up the assets and the court 'will not consider the reasons that a marriage broke down within financial remedy proceedings'.
He said he was satisfied the 'surgery was meeting a genuine and deep-felt medical/psychological need'.
'This cannot be, and has not been, said to have been carried out as a whim when all of the effort and time that the respondent has invested in the process is considered,' the judge noted.
Therefore, it was 'reasonable' for the money to be spent 'out of joint resources', he ruled.