Disparity & Spousal maintenance.

50/50 custody is quite scandalous when 1 parent has sacrificed their career for a decade or more for the whims of a spouse too important to do school/nursery runs, sick days, appointments, school events.

I've never been a SAHM (apart from MLs), but I'm the default parent due to DH just not being here and I earn much less than half. That has been very much DH's choice, despite my requests for him to change job, reduce his hours.

If he trades me in fur a younger model and goes for 50/50 custody with no maintenance, that would be grossly unfair and would be taking huge financial advantage of me, even with a higher asset share (from a small pot).

I think it depends on how old the DC(s) are.

Plenty of parents (normally but not always the female parent) decide that they want to be a SAHM when the DCs are young (it's not always forced upon them due to the other persons' career but i appreciate this can happen).. but once the DCs are at school then many couples find a way to make both parents having a career / job , even if one partner travels a lot.

No in some cases it's not ideal and it can get a bit messy along the way but there is pretty much always a way round these things.

I needed to find solutions as a single parent once the DCs started school pretty much every school year as I worked full time and things always worked out.

Plus why would you willingly become reliant on one person's salary and miss out on years of NI contributions unless there really is no other option?

Of course if you have DCs with SEN needs (as I do too) then things need to be thought about more carefully but if things are straightforward then I think it's a vulnerable position for anyone to put themselves in.

However I don't agree that benefits which are being paid for by people who have nothing to do with the couples' family should be responsible if there is enough money to go around for a period of time. Not forever but giving the person who has not worked a chance to get themselves to a position where they can support themselves better.

The reality is (as I have experienced first hand as have many others ) that both parties are normally worse off when they have a family and they separate. That's what happens in most cases as 2 households have to be supported. Not all but most. That's just logic, maths, life. It's not easy and it's a bit shit sometimes but there's is always a risk when you have a family or get married.

Usually the courts do prefer a clean break. They award spousal maintenance when it is not possible to level the playing field solely using the marital assets. It is only awarded when there is a very high earner.

I have a good job, in which I work PT because of childcare. If my DH was a SAHP I could earn five times what I do now because of the ability to work every hour god sends and to change plans at a moment’s notice. If we split in 10 years with me earning £300k and him trying to resurrect a career aged 45, it seems fair to me that his contribution to my 300k be recognised.

I do get SM. I found out the other day, just out of interest sake, that if I didn't, I would get almost the exact same amount of UC if I didn't. I won't be claiming it. It's morally wrong to me when we (as in my ex and I) make enough money to look after our children ourselves. I see us as still a family in some ways - he is the breadwinner, I do the vast majority of the care plus work part time - a standard family sharing of work load. That is still the same even though we've split. I don't see that the tax payer should be liable to make up the shortfall because we made the decision to split. He would feel the same, he'd prefer that I'm here for our girls after school than go out to work full time.

I also think in many cases all this “he wouldn’t be able to work if I didn’t stay at home” is a bit of a fallacy. He either wouldn’t have bothered having children or he’d pay a nursery or nanny to do it.

If there is a disparity because one career was sacrificed to support another, then spousal maintenance is perfectly reasonable. If there is a disparity because one person was simply lazy and refused to work, then it is not. The problem is that it is hard to prove in court which situation applies to a particular marriage.

we can look at statistics, but individual couples don’t always follow trends.

I’m inclined to say that if there are children, we should believe that the career sacrifice likely took place.

I’m not sure. I can genuinely see both sides.

I don’t think it’s always mandatory to sacrifice your career to bring up children though. I didn’t. I could have been a SAHM but I didn’t want to sacrifice my career. It’s mine and I’ve earned it and I want to set a good example to my daughters and I don’t want to be in the shite if my husband decides to fuck off one day. I know that it’s a very personal choice but I do think that sometimes choices come with consequences.

Well it depends if one partner took family leave to care for the child / ren, or worked part time to care for then while the other person worked 60 hours a week.

Or are you saying that the person who worked 60 hours a week cared for the children single handedly for the other 108 hours a week so that the children other parent has an equal opportunity to earn a simiar 6 figure sum ?

and that they did 50% of the housework and wifework as well? and took half the sick days/ INSET days / school holidays off?

Did both parents spilt the family leave 50:50?

You can get spousal maintenance capitalised. I think in Scotland 3 years would be the norm. So that can get factored into the settlement if a clean break is desired.

Question for others though, what happens when the higher earning supporting spouse chooses redundancy to, in part, stop payment of this maintenance? Has anyone experienced that?

You just articulated that far better than I did!

Solicitor has told me I would likely get spousal although wouldn't count as such as we get bonuses 4 times a year - I would effectively get those bonuses- as we are in the position of Highish earners £120k a year approx ) but very little actual assets ( don't ask, it relates to past business issues- and we don't own a house) effectively my job would cease if we split and I'm 63 as itsall based on his knowledge/ contacts. Been married 29 years

Solicitor told me spousal is quite specific circumstances these days but I fit them.

sorry i messed up the quoting, I'm on the app.

Woah. OP, up to this point you were coming across as asking genuine questions but with this statement you've just tipped it over into bitterness.

The person who takes on STAH duties does so as part of a partnership that agrees that for the benefit of the family unit being at home is better than out with a wage. The outside of home working partner therefore has a duty to the STAHP that continues in the immediacy post divorce.

The STAHP is still working. They're working for the family unit. If monetary contribution was calculated (and compensation for pension, sick pay, holiday pay, and lack of career progression) is taken into account it would be reasonable for the outside working partner to pay a HUGE amount to the STAHP.

• you would be in a worse position but you admitted you decided to be a SAHM. I think if a person is to become a SAHP they should try to put a safety net in place through investments if at all possible.

The argument could be made that you have not contributed financially for a decade but will still receive half of the assets upon divorce. It is a tricky one.*

Marriage IS the safety net.

Nobody can unilaterally decide to be a SAHM anyway because they need access to funds. It's a choice made by both parties so why should only 1 be penalised for it?

Also, SAHPs contribute financially in all the savings on childcare.

Would you argue that the non-SAHP shouldn't be allowed to see their kids going forward because they didn't contribute to parenting them?

SM is often awarded as a result of a joint decision that one person be a SAHP and thus sacrifice future earning potential to allow the other party to push forward their career without even a thought towards whose turn it is to pick up tonight. That freedom in the work place is often hugely influential in terms of progression. So, absolutely the other party should benefit from a salary progression that they've paid a big part in.

I don't see why the richer person should subsidise the poorer person for an indefinite period of time in a 50/50 arrangement, especially after a settlement figure has been reached. It seems unfair

Because the richer person has only been able to get rich because they had the support of the other person. And spousal arrangements aren't for life so not sure you're talking about an indefinite period of time.

My dhs ex had a substantial amount paid to her each month as spousal maintenance. Whilst their child was young it seemed fair but paying it when the only child with no disabilities or sen was absurd when she reached the end of primary school.
I ignored it as it wasn't my battle to fight but I didn't agree with it and felt she should've worked. Didn't do the child any favours either as she has zero work ethic and has no concept of personal responsibility at 20 as her mum was always home doing everything for her. Tbh it's ruined them both.
It was stopped as soon as my dh legally could.
As a gradual lead into leaving a separate life and for a few years yes I can see why it's paid, but not for 16 years

I’m not sure. I think if I was earning enough to pay spousal maintenance and the loss of that money would have zero impact on my own quality of life, I would probably agree for a period of time , say up to 2 years. But I would expect it to cease if the ex then moved in with a new partner. Because then it would feel like I was subsidising two adults. Where no children are involved, absolutely not.

Because I would assume the decision to become a SAHP was a joint one OP. Decisions have consequences- why should the long term consequences of this one only be felt by the one parent (and the children)

The argument could be made that you have not contributed financially for a decade but will still receive half of the assets upon divorce. It is a tricky one.

It's not tricky at all. If the SAHP has taken on the majority of the childcare, housework, school runs, appointments etc, you cannot say they haven't contributed financially, even if it's not as much as the working parent. Would the working parent have progressed in their career if they had to leave at 5pm 50% of the time to collect their DCs from after school club? Taking time off regularly to take them to the dentist/GP/hospital and doing their share of the sick days?

But you've obviously made your mind up that whatever situation you're involved in is unfair, so I can't imagine anything anybody says is going to change your mind.

yeah, right 🤣