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?!

Atenco I wouldn't consider well someone who is choosing NOT to work and stay at home whilst her DH has to work two jobs to make needs end.

What should have happened is her working (evenings, weekends, whatever shifts her own DH managed to find himself for his second job) whilst her DH could look after the house and the dcs, not Miss of ever seeing his own children and build a relationship with them. (Which is BIG loos both for the dcs and him btw, so really she ought to have wanted to facilitate that too, just as he should have wanted to facilitate her working).

It's a very different situation than someone working all hours with a very high salary where the dw IS facilitating him working and getting promotions etc..
In this case, the family needed her to work too. And she didn't....

Marjorie -we don't know that. We barely know any of the facts. We have no idea what they actually agreed or what happened to change that. We do know based on the children's ages that she would have spent 4 out of 7 years pregnant, and that childcare would probably have been a massive struggle to pay for up until the youngest was in full time school. We have no idea what things may have changed.

MozzchopsThirty - school holidays, kids being sick, inset days, your DP is going to cover his share of those is he so she can work ? It's not impossible to work with school aged children but it's damn hard if there's one person shouldering all the responsibility for multiple kids and that's aside of their quality of life being compromised

The youngest is 13yo so he has been in full time school for at least 8years, if not 9 years.

She would have been to work when her DH wasn't during all these 8 years.
From the OP, that was their agreement. Which she decided not to follow.

U less there is something else going on (let's say some MH issues, health problems etc...), there was no reasons, not even financial for her not to do that.

Yes he does actually as he works shifts
Although that's pretty irrelevant, I have to take carers leave, or annual leave or swap days if mine are sick

DP does the same and often has them when exw is sick so she doesn't have the children to care for too

I don't get the drama?

And their 'quality of life' is compromised by their mother at home claiming benefits and wanting spousal maintenance when she is perfectly able to work

Do we live in a world now where we feel hard done by if we have kids AND work? god forbid

From the OP, that was their agreement. OP is neither DH or DW. As the DH continued in that situation for 8-9 more years, I'd say there a good possibility there's more to it.

MozzchopsThirty - I'm about £15 a month better off earning £40,000 a year v's benefits. Three sandwiches and it's hassle for nothing. I work because I wanted to buy a house and not have a cv gap but I can totally understand why others wouldn't want to

This sounds very much like my parents divorce. 4 kids, dm never contributed financially. Assets worth 2 million, mostly coming from property that had been in my dad's family for over 100 years. she got just under a million. She could have got half, but she settled for that. She was the one who had been unfaithful. By then only 1 of the 4 kids still at home.

Oh, and she got his pensions too instead of spousal maintenance

My husband's first wife was unfaithful. He has
paid spousal maintenance so that she did not have to work and gave her a house to live in. When we first started dating and it was clear that we were going to get married I was very resentful. We struggled for money in our early days and I considered leaving my would be husband many times.

However over years I have come to see that is was the right thing, my stepson has grown into a lovely well adjusted and successful young man because his parents put their mistakes to one side. My husband also recognised that in his case he had a part to play in the failure of his marriage and therefore he had a role to play in making their relationship work afterwards.

My husband's ex wife has been an amazing mother and in part that has been because she has been able to devote herself to her son. Over time I realised that I loved my husband because of the way he treated his ex wife - rather than resenting them both for it.

DPs ex on the other hand gave up her well paid career and did not return to work
Both children are now in school and she wants spousal maintenance which I think is an utter joke

She sacrified a well paid career to bring up their children and you think it's a joke that she wants maintenance?

Sounds like you and 'd'p deserve each other.

My husband and his ex wife made an agreement that they both wanted their son to benefit from having a parent at home full time as long as they could afford it. I respect the fact that my husband didn't pretend to change his mind or break his word just because their marriage failed.

ButterBeanSoup

Tell your brother not to leave the FMH(former marital home) THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT

If he leaves voluntarily he will be in a MUCH MUCH worse negotiating position. He will in law be deemed to have abandoned his family and so will be in very poor bargaining position.
SHE WILL HAVE TAKEN ADVICE AND NOW KNOWS THIS, that's why she came back!

He needs to sit tight, stay absolutely calm, don't rise to any provocation (never give her an excuse to call the police, they would take him cells in a heartbeat) and get legal advice really quickly.

Hope that helps.

If he is strapped for cash he needs to contact Families need fathers a charity that can help!

Yes I do

I chose to continue working and have still managed to bring up children
They're not mutually exclusive you know

Well bully for you Mozzchops, doesn't mean everyone has to or wants to.

His concern is that if they don't sell, he will have to continue living there with her (who refuses to move out or contribute financially) for another 6 years because he couldn't cover two mortgages

Nope, he'd be put out of the house by the court during the divorce.

My husband's first wife was unfaithful. He has paid spousal maintenance so that she did not have to work and gave her a house to live in.

All very well if you can afford to do so. Usually this is only a likely scenario when one is a high earner.

Given that the OPs DBro is already working 2 jobs it is extremely unlikely that it would be feasible in this case. Unless you advocate him being completely homeless

Nope, he'd be put out of the house by the court during the divorce

Errrrr not necessarily. The house could be sold.

I chose to continue working and have still managed to bring up children
They're not mutually exclusive you know

They are not mutually exclusive, I have worked with my children. However if a couple for whatever reason have agreed that they think it is best for their children to have one parent at home full time - or to share care -it seems a good idea to maintain that when all else is changing .

it seems a good idea to maintain that when all else is changing

If the situation is feasible. Highly unlikely in this situation.

Errrrr not necessarily. The house could be sold

Yes, obviously it would be one or the other. But what it would not be would be as OP seems to think; that they divorce and he stays in the house with her whether she wants him there or not.
That isn't how it works.

I agree if it is feasible although our definitions of feasible may differ. My husband was living in a bed sit and in our early years I supported him so that he could keep the promise he and his wife made. At the time I resented it, I can now see that made him a great father and husband.

Not entirely certain why "who will do drop offs/pick ups/inset days/sick days" is such a challenging question.

Those of you that ask this do know that plenty of households have two working parents, don't you? We use out of school clubs, annual leave, parental leave, beg favours off friends and relatives. Children are not required to have an at-home parent.

Also, I get damn tired of seeing working mums who get sick of their partners being a SAHD get told to make the cocklodger get a job but if it's reversed the SAHM is advised to present her husband with a bill for her nannying duties???? We are never going to see anything resembling equality of the sexes until we stop banging this fucking drum that women, and only women, are necessary in a SAHP/housewife role in order for the home to function!

They will destroy each other AND the kids if they stay in the house together, that is beyond ridiculous. He will have to move out and pay the mortgage until the house is sold or youngest goes to uni which ever comes first