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 amount is irrevelant ... The fact that it's in place means it can always be returned to and increased. Always worth including in a settlement in case circumstances change for the worse.

Hth

Newbrummie
A) she doesn't work so she's not able to put a roof over anyone's head
B) she's been the primary carer since birth so I'd say the kids will want that to continue and how is he going to work and manage childcare ?

She has had 8 years to rectify the work issue, but yes she is likely to remain primary carer.

And if he refuses to leave unless the court orders him to do so there is nothing that the wife can do.

Cheapest thing to do is to come to an agreement that is fair and both agree on, or go for the option of a bitter, expensive and drawn out divorce

Plan was for her to return to work after youngest it did not happen. This must have been a decision decided by both.

Not necessarily though, that is the point. If she refused to work what is he supposed to do, drag her to the job centre?

Boney of course that's true. And how pleasant for all concerned.

Newbrummie

It stopped being pleasant when she cheated on him and the children.

The fact that it's in place means it can always be returned to and increased

There would need to be a significant grounds for recalculation. Not just she can't be arsed to get a job.

If she tried under those circumstances she would rightly fail.

Newbrummie, why would he need to be concerned about childcare? His youngest is 13 and surely doesn't need babysitting.

She has had 8 years to rectify the work issue, but yes she is likely to remain primary carer

You assume. We have no idea whatsoever what may have been discussed and agreed.

Given the age of the children, primary carer is up for grabs by either parent. Given how black and white many teens are, I wouldn't presume they will stick by mum once they are aware of the affair.

The fact that it's in place means it can always be returned to and increase

You can't get blood from a stone. I have this clause in my divorce settlement but the likelihood of being able to use it are small - ex simply no longer earns enough. The courts won't see him with nothing just to give me something - if life goes tits up, I'll need to fall back on savings and then benefits.,

After 15 years out of the work force ? Unless the mortgage is buttons she's got a long road a head of her

Which is why there are women on here who shout about maintaining independence because the shit does hit the fan. Way too many ostriches who just assume it can't happen to them.

The fact that it's in place means it can always be returned to and increase

Its good to know that even when she has cheated, and (in your eyes) got the kids, house and probably pension, you feel that she is still entitled to come back for more money, just because she can't be arsed to work.

OP, ignore all the "burn the witch" posts, the most important thing here are the children. It must be very hard for your brother at this time, but even worse for the children.

Many women work and bring up children. She needs to get off her arse. Your db should not subsidise her. I would have thought that if the house is in both names, sell it and both get their own places. So what if she has to get back to work? The youngest is 13. That's why people with sense never let their career slide.

How are your nieces/nephews coping at the moment?

MN is so contrary, if the husband had cheated it would have been a thread full of how sahm have been working for the last 15 years and screw anyone who says they should just go and get a magic grows on a tree job for someone who hasn't worked out of home and is probably not readily employable.

No I would not. Who cheated is irrelevant. What matters here is what is best for the children. Followed by what is a reasonable financial settlement. Who cheated should not be part of that.

This is why it's:

(A) so important for women to maintain some kind of employment and involvement In the world of work to keep their skills and remain employable, and

(b) to not have a huge family if only because of the burden it places on the sole breadwinner. As my mom said to me - Never have more children than you can afford to look after yourself.

TwoGunslingers

I am sure that she could find some sort of work. but I suspect that it isn't one that she would want to do.

Read any one of the ten million threads on here where single parents are better off on benefits than working a low income low hours contract in a non "skilled" job.

TwoGunslingers

But that is a much different point to 'can't find a job'.

I doubt the lady in question would be elegible for anything other than JSA.