Payrise and maintenance

Jeez. We can tell who has self respect on here and who doesn’t. 😬

I think that the solicitors who are on TikTok and other SM need to ask themselves more searching questions about whether they should be putting their videos out.

The thing is that what that solicitor is saying is correct, but only in very limited and particular circumstances. As we can clearly see (and do every time that video pops up in a thread), people who aren’t solicitors aren’t very good at understanding whether the information actually applies in particular situations. They just generalise wildly and insist that it must be true because a solicitor said so.

There’s a reason people instruct solicitors to advise on their specific circumstances.

In this case, so many people positing that video get entirely the wrong end of the stick because they simply do not understand that it only applies for situations where:

• A financial settlement is being agreed during the divorce process (or afterwards if the couple were foolish enough to complete the divorce process without one).
• The divorcing (or divorced) partner has been cohabiting with the new partner for at least 6 months.

And it only applies to division of the marital assets (which don’t include the new partner’s assets unless she has been daft enough to buy a house with a man who hasn’t got a financial order from his previous divorce). It doesn’t have anything to do with child maintenance.

Similarly, it’s not really about the new partner’s income. It’s really just contextual information to determine the needs of the two parties involved in the financial order.

Personally, I think the law is an arse in so many ways in divorce. And this is one of them. I actually think it is ridiculous that the new partner is expected to just take on a disproportionate share of everything - including housing, feeding and clothing the SC - so the court can award the children’s mother a greater share of the marital assets. It’s the law expecting one woman to subsidise the other and I think that is not a good principle.

That said, the best advice for everyone is simply not to cohabit with someone who hasn’t sorted out their financial order as part of their divorce. People should know that the English courts will think that means they are just going to pay for everything so their partner can give more to his exW and protect themselves accordingly.

But, if there’s a financial order, then the new partner’s income is completely irrelevant to child maintenance or anything of that sort. And it simply should not be relevant.

@Dweetfidilove

He also needs to ensure he’s not reducing maintenance payments to his children, so he can subsidise someone else’s.

Aren't they all his children though- but with both his Ex and current wife? Also it seems the stepchildren benefit additionally from OP's funds also when they are in her house "I do contribute toward DSC. At our house." and also holidays etc when they're with OP and their father - including the additional car when they're with their father.

Additionally the Ex could take the husband up on the offer for 50/50 custody and also increase her own income on the days the children aren't with her? 🌹

Thankfully @Vonesk is talking rubbish. My DH's ex tried this route, and found out (via a PROPER solicitor) that my money had nothing to do with her.

Imagine actually taking money from your ex’s partner, and not feeling like a grubby, grabby freeloader.

Parents support their DC, no one else has to

@Vonesk don't be ridiculous. I don't hear about this in real life! Other people don't have to pay your children! No matter the circumstances of how a relationship ended. It's only the child's parents that have a moral obligation!

Such a accurate predictor of level of intelligence when people use TikTok as source.

Especially when it refers to something totally different.

Oh the irony of someone coming on here quoting something that originated on tiktok as fact

Watch it again before you come on here reporting "factual legal advice" and offending the OP who is clearly NOT in the situation you've harped on about. Post divorce when a woman comes along the "floozy"'s finances are nothing to do with the ex.

Back to Facebook and TikTosh you go

Sorry. Factually incorrect. If your ex husband has been living with a partner for more than 6 months at the time of financial settlement for divorce then the partners income will be considered insofar as reducing his monthly expenses and allowing more disposable income to provide for the ex spouse in the settlement. It is not used for child maintenance.

And the term 'floozy' is vulgar.

Bollocks. And stop with the shitty offensive language FFS.

This lady explains the Law.
If your ExHz. Has installed a new floozy. SHE s gotta contribute to YOUR finances. = FACT.

My BIL's ex has told him I should contribute to her maintenance as its not fair I buy my niblings nice things and not her children. I have only met these children once, about 10 years ago. Bit still, in her mind, his partners family income should be taken into account. I'm not sure where the line is drawn, whether long lost Auntie Mildred is included.

Very good point

I could hand over half my wage to DH ex and DSD would still live what I would consider a "lesser life" on account of the fact that her mum makes stupid financial decisions (in my opinion, she obviously disagrees).
I don't get a say as I'm not the parent. So why would I deprive my own children when I'd rightly have no control over the outcome?

People are shortsighted.

Another person avoiding answering a question

would you expect a resident parent to pay a non resident parent to equalise the standard
of living across the households?

or where there is 50:50?

So in my case my DSS Mum lives in HA home, works 7.5 hours per week and receives the rest in benefits. She has 1 school age child at home (My DSS).

My DH did earn 50k per annum but got made redundant during covid 4 times and now earns half this as couldn't find another job giving him the hours off to see his son. He has not reduced the child support he pays.

I work 60 hour weeks, earn roughly 80kpa but I have a mortgage to pay, most other household bills and my own 14 year old to pay for.

Do you then expect me to 'level up' DHs ex to ensure DSS has the same at his Mums? Are you telling me that I should leave him part of my share of the house my DH and I jointly own when I was the one that paid the entire deposit and worked hard for it before getting into a relationship with DH?

DSS already benefits from my earnings. His father gets to see him more because he can work in a job that suits his contact better, he still pays child support as if he earns 50k still.

Just so we're clear there is no chance I am paying for DSS Mums lifestyle choice anymore than I already do through my taxes, and neither should any other step mum.

And even if he does not supply ‘adequate’ (by MN terms) maintenance to his ex… it’s not his new partner’s responsibility to top that up.

He does still have bills to pay. He does still need to support his younger children. If that means less goes to his ex’s household, that is just life.

It’s like insisting that your partner is responsible for ensuring you pay your taxes properly. It’s his financial responsibility.

At most the discussion is about what he can afford to contribute to the shared household. And how much more his partner is willing to contribute to maintain her own lifestyle.

We so often see posters on MN who are bearing sole financial responsibility for their children while their husband or partner pays zero towards that. The justification that he has a first family to pay towards seems to be used to make it ok that he is basically a deadbeat dad in the household he lives in. And some posters on MN are vindictive in asserting that this is what she and her ‘sprogs’ deserve because they’re just a second family.

When a relationship breaks down, there is less money to go around for the children. Two households have to be maintained. If the parents are both low earners, then the children will experience the lifestyle their incomes allow. If one or both parents have a new partner who is more affluent, then the children get to benefit from the nicer lifestyle in that household. People should view that as a bonus for the children, rather than trying to divert the new partner‘s income or assets to the ex on the basis of ‘fairness’ for the children (if she’s a woman that is; no one actually thinks a mother’s new partner should be paying to maintain the lifestyle in her ex’s house)

The baseline is actually the lifestyle the parents provide.

Do keep up, it was never said that the dad doesn't supply adequate maintenance, he does +++

Also you seem time and time again on here, people saying that father's should stump up the cash regardless of whether it will leave them worse off - nobody seems to care about 'fair and equal' in those cases. They'd rather the mother has everything.

• DH’s ex does fuck all