To think DB shouldn't have to fund his cheating wife?

[ButterBeanSoup]

My DB is in a bit of a tricky situation. He will get legal advice, of course, but posting for opinions.

He has been with his partner for 20 years (married 11). They have 4 children 19,17, 15 and 13. Partner has not worked for 15 years. He tells me that the arrangement was always for her to go back to work once the youngest was at school, but this did not happen. He has had to work two jobs to support the family, and they accrued debt over this period, which he has only recently managed to clear.

Last April, he found out that his wife was having an affair. She is refusing mediation, and saying that she will only communicate via solicitors.

They are both still living in the family home. She refuses to move out, or to get a job to contribute financially. He wants to sell the home and cut ties with her (but not the children, obviously).

He knows he can apply to the court to force the sale, however, we also know it is possible the court will delay until the youngest is 18.

The question is, if the court delay the sale, does this mean that he has to pay for her to live in the house for free for another 6 years, whilst she continues to cheat on him?!

The affair is irrelevant to financial arrangements. The courts would do what is best for the children. She has been the primary carer, so unless the kids said they wanted to live with him, then of course the kids should stay with her.
I also understand in a divorce situation wanting to keep things as much the same as possible for the kids. So if they had a smaller home would that mean the kids would have to move from having their own room to sharing a room?Would it mean they could still go to the same school?
The emphasis has to be on the kids, and you OP don't seem to be thinking this way.

I did not mean good reason for cheating FFS. She may have good reason for staying in the house. We don't know what's going on other than second hand info. Every time we get a sibling, friend, whatever of one of the separated couple, it's generally more about trashing the other partner than actual advice. OP even states he is getting legal advice, she just wants "opinions." Sorry, but my ex's family did not hear of any of the rubbish he put us through from him. He was the wronged party according to them. But the truth was somewhat different.

He's a grown up, getting his own legal advice. If the OP wants a "isn't she a bitch" thread, at least be honest while you sharpen your claws.

She would definitely be expected to pay her way and if there is enough equity in the property to purchase an appropriate home for her and the children it would be unlikely a court would insist she remain in the current property.
Your DB would be expected to pay child support and possible spousal maintenance if he has enough disposable income after his living costs.
Your SIL is in for a shock if she thinks your DB will be expected to continue to fund her life style

I don't think he can force the sale, he's legally obliged to keep a home for his kids whilst they are still dependant and two are

Sigh. This is really not helpful. It is not just the father's responsibility to keep a roof over his children's heads. You surely must be aware of the sheer numbers of men who are able to walk away. They are not doing anything illegal.

OP. - may I recommend wikivorce.com for advice which is current and not from the well meaning who don't really understand the system. It is complex and at very individual, depending on circumstances. If he gets himself clued up on how things work, what to expect etc then he can save himself a fortune in legal fees. Remaining flexible is key, but he needs to be clear what his bottom line is. Many will recommend moving out to force the mortgage situation but if she has no means to pay, it will end up in arrears and will impact your brother's ability to move on. He should also be aware that his children are of an age where the courts would likely support them living with him if they are all agreeable to that.

*Two sides to every story. Perhaps she has a good reason for her actions.

Fucking hell, if the cheater was a man this would never be said *

Sadly it is regularly said to me on MN when I mention on posts about cheats that my XH was a cheat. A surprising number of people think cheating is OK and justifiable.

Anyway back to the OP - when I got my divorce (no young children involved) I was told essentially it is no blame - the fact that I had been treated very badly was irrelevant and I was entitled to basically half of our shared assets.
He really needs to get legal advice and decide how he wants to proceed. I found it nigh on impossible to get my X out of the house - despite solicitors letters and the police being involved he couldn't actually be forced out.
The more info your DB has the more he will be armed against whatever she decides to throw at him. And he needs to find out all about how to go for custody.

One thing to remember is that although he doesn't call all the shots here and basically equality or equity will be aimed at by the court, she certainly doesn't get to call the shots either. So what she says she 'will or won't allow or do' may not be up to her.

You DB is in shock at the moment (I sympathise enormously - it is a hideous experience to go through)so he needs to be wary of making decisions and to have advice on board. Get him to write down everything he wants to discuss with lawyers, every question he wants answered. He needs to keep all info together in an organised manner so it is to hand. He needs to keep records of anything she says or does (i.e. texts, e-mails any unreasonable behaviour on her behalf) And to make sure that any communication form him only goes via lawyers (i.e. no angry or emotional emails texts etc)

I wish him well it is a ghastly thing to be cheated on and IME the cheater will show their true colours and become very cold and clincal and unpleasant as if there has never been a relationship there - that's how they distance themselves and deal with the guilt - by compartmentalising, and she will probably accuse him of all sorts, and that is very hard to suddenly be treated like a complete stranger by the person you loved.
So he needs to just keep reiterating that all discussion goes through lawyers and not be drawn into any emotional games.

Divorce is a very messy affair.
Solicitors cost a Fortune and she will not be entitled to legal aid.

Of course it would end better to sell the house and both parties live in smaller houses.
The dc are old enough to decide who they live with .

If they live with your db then he will not have to pay maintenance to them.

His wife is being totally unreasonable expecting him to still love heir as if nothing had happened. In my experience, adulterers often behave like this , expecting everyone just to get along as if nothing has happened.
I would advise your brother to seek legal advice and try and keep his costs down to a minimum as it's very easy for solicitors fees to soar sky high.

Should be still live there not love her.

More to this than meets the eye.

I'd like to hear her side of the tale.

And if she's being a SAHM for 15 years, I'd consider that a full probably two time job.

Been a SAHM

She sounds vile & this scenario is all too common

Good post Kurri. Lots of sensible advice. Your brother is lucky to have you Butterbean. Divorce is very isolating, particularly if you are the innocent party.

Is the mortgage in DB's name or joint?

We dont know she wouldnt be entitled yo legal aid....we dont know her side of the story..there are certain situations we legal aid is still available.

Also to posters that mentioned rented accommodation - if she has no job snd greatly reduced earning potential from staying at home for years its likely her credit may be affected.

The courts look to.whats best for the children and if she is there primary carer but would struggle to find alternative accommodation because of her position then no they wont make her leave.

They aren't going to put the op brothers needs before her AND the children.

If a woman posted that her husband hadn't worked in 15 years and had cheated, he would instantly be branded a cocklodging cunt. Nobody would dare suggest that the op may have been at fault or that there was more to the story.

If he had been a SAHD to four kids he'd be cut a lot more slack, sure but as he's not, it's incomparable

Well, I'm going to suggest that he gets himself a shit hot lawyer because that is what a woman would be advised. The SHL will still have to make the same allowances for loss of career and primary care of children when they are not at school, but there needs to be an end to this situation and neither party can get it there at the moment.

Nobody has suggested the OP is at fault because the OP isn't even in the marriage! She is the DHs sister, is she not? She's basically just going on what info he has given her by her brother. She's already stated he is going to get legal advice. She just came on here for "opinions" to trash her brother's partner and the mother of her nieces/nephews. Classy.

I thoroughly disagree that SIL needs to be a SAHM, she doesn't. All of those children are of an age where they're at school full time.

"Going on what info her brother has given her." Clearly I am not multitasking well today. 😕

Ginger, I agree. Nobody needs to pander to that though.

The courts look to.whats best for the children and if she is there primary carer but would struggle to find alternative accommodation because of her position then no they wont make her leave

So who's going to pay the mortgage? Believe it or not, despite popular belief to the contrary, women are expected to support themselves. Once she gets her head around that idea, she may well have a different approach to the one she has now.

Of course, there is so much unknown that it's impossible to say what may or may not happen. But she can't live in a house she can't afford. There will be NO expectation that ex pays the mortgage, although he may well have to pay spousal and/or child maintenance.

Sadly shit hot lawyers are very spenny, and given the system is so rigged to the "dependent" (usually female) party may not add that much. To quote Tom Cruise, the bottom line is the brother is "gonna lose and he's gonna lose huge". I'd get a decent solicitor but save the really big bucks for the QC because they really can make a difference when talking to the judge.

So let me get this right, she's never contributed financially. She's shacked up with another bloke, and Your poor brother, who is the innocent party has been left to subsidise her ridiculously easy life. You're right it isn't bloody fair, but. If he stops. It'll be the children who'll suffer. Still doesn't make it any less maddening, though.