About these divorce proceedings

[atr79gb]

I'm in the process of separating and divorcing from my wife.

I currently provide everything for her financially. We have 2 children aged 5 and 8 and the family home has around £200K equity in it.

Since the split, she has been perfectly capable of working but has chosen not to.

-I've suggested a 50/50 custody split. I'm fortunate enough to have a flexible working schedule and would be able to commit this. Her view is that she wants to be the primary carer - there isn't a valid reason for this to be the case other than the fact that this is what she wants. It's worth noting that we currently both have an active role in their lives and I believe a 50/50 split would be in the children's best interests.

-She wants to stay in the current property until the kids are 18. This would mean that I would be locked into a mortgage for a place I'm not living in for the next 13 years. This would make it very difficult for me to buy my own property. It seems very disadvantageous to have equity tied up for the next 14 years AND to continue to have the mortgage in my name.

I'm going to see a mediator next week who I'm expecting to give her much more reasonable expectations of her obligations.

But it does feel as if she's trying to take me for a ride. Am I being unreasonable?

Hi OP

My own opinion is it makes a massive difference, morally, to what you both expected and agreed before the split

If she gave up work because you asked her to, or at the time you had fo work away a lot to build your career- meaning she had to stay at home, then it's tight you should pay more. Or if her career was one of those 0 or 100pc ones with no middle ground and you had to both make a choice.

If you always offered to do half of the shit bits of parenting- drop offs, pick ups, medical appointments, shoe measuring, taking days off when they were sick or if she was sick but that was knocked back, or if she had the opportunity for you both to do flexible hours but she decided she wanted to do it all, then its fair enough you dont want to continue to pay now you're separated

@WhiteRedRose - sure, it's a fair question!

I take my kids to school mornings, do all of their homework with them and am currently teaching them to swim.

My (ex) spouse doesn't drive so all of the ferrying around of the kids falls to me.

My (ex) spouse obviously plays her part too so I believe a 50/50 split is feasible.

There is increasing research that shows that 50/50 is not what's best for children. They benefit more from a main home. So ask yourself is it about what you want or what's best for them?

She is the primary carer and if she has sacrificed her career and will no doubt have lower earning potential then she will get the lion's share . Spousal maintenance is definitely still possible.

YANBU

50/50 is best for most children. It baffles me how some women see their right as parents to be greater than the father yet get upset when they behave like Disney dads or don’t know anything about their children’s schooling/interests etc

You may have to pay SM for a while but it won’t be for very long as she can work. The kids are at school.

You've said your ex won't be able to support a mortgage on her own, so the decent thing would be to let your kids remain in the family home until they are of age. It's about them. Always. Who cares if it's "disadvantageous to you"? You'll get the equity at some point and your kids will have stability. Put them first. That's the gig.

I think children benefit from a main home. It's usually with the person who was primary carer up until that point (with exceptions of course).

Yes that sucks for the non resident parent but the children's stability is the most important thing.

You have the car and drive the kids to school, presumably on your way to work. Seems fair.
You do homework with the kids and take them to the pool. That's nice.

So, the mother does everything else?

It’s about needs, not wants. Ok - so if the property was sold now, what would she need to rehouse herself and the kids. Yes, she’d need a job but how well paid would it be and what would her mortgage capacity be?

Youre putting yourself at a disadvantage in negotiations by starting froma a weak compromise position.

Go for full custody with you living in the family home. Then getting 50/50 and selling the house will appear much better to her

I think you need a top family lawyer to fight for the 50 /50 split

I think it might be reasonable to compromise here and there - particularly where it comes to sharing childcare if its in the children's best interests. But, 50:50 should be the guiding principle for both care of the children and sharing assets out. The house should be sold so that you can both have suitable housing for the children when they are with each of you. She will need to consider how she can pay for her share in future - you should not be impoverished paying rent and a mortgage on two properties, thats ludicrous.

See a solicitor ASAP. Forget mediation, especially if you've not had proper legal advice.

I genuinely don't see how a 50/50 split can be good for DC. Imagine having to move from home to home. There would only be a few people who would actually like that constant change.

I do think though that parents should be involved as much as they can be so I get why 50/50 seems best but the 2 families I know doing this, their DC are not 'coping well with the change' as their DP say.

£69k isn't a lot when talking spousal maintenance. There is a fair amount of equity.

I don't think a judge would be impressed that she doesn't work as she choses not to but in reality very few cases are determined at court. People like yourselves would just blow a huge amount of equity to pay the bills in reality.

Has she got a lawyer as they may be able to talk the reality through with her

Spousal does now (fortunately) seem a rare thing for the pretty affluent and even then time limited

What does your legal advice tell you?

Did she give up a career to look after the children?
Were you happy for her to stay at home whilst you were together?
Was she the primary carer before your split?
If the answer to any/all of these are yes, then you might be being a little unreasonable, because she is likely to have done these things in the expectation of you providing.
That doesn't mean that she is entitled to be provided for forever, but if she gave up work with your consent, or at your behest, then it is a little rich to expect to resume it now just because it suits you better.
It may be that a period of adjustment would be reasonable and if she has taken a career break to care for your children, then you should be prepared to support her financially whilst she tries to re-establish herself in the world of work.
However, it would not be reasonable for her to sit on her hands forever.
With regards the house, it would depend, I think, on whether the equity would allow you both to purchase a home and whether you get 50/50 custody. Otherwise, the kids would be entitled to stay in their home until they are adults and you would have to wait to get your share

It may be that a period of adjustment would be reasonable and if she has taken a career break to care for your children, then you should be prepared to support her financially whilst she tries to re-establish herself in the world of work.However, it would not be reasonable for her to sit on her hands forever.

I agree, however it maybe be seen that this period of separation where the OP is still paying for everything is part of that transition period. Her not attempting to be independent during this period, may go against her.

She has the opportunity now. And while ops wage is good. It's not large enough to support 2 households, for the kids. Even if he doesnt get 50:50, he will still need a house large enough to house them. Plus pay decent CMS.

It's impossible to tell what will happen. But on his wage I would say spousal maintenance is unlikely.

Just one word re the house.
Another way to look at it is that the house is for your dcs, not for her. If she is the RP and the dcs spend most of their life there, I can see the point of keeping the house FOR THEM.

Another comment, your dw has been a SAHM and therefore has enabled you to work and do pretty much whatever you wanted to do career wise, esp when they were little. I am sure she can work but I am also sure that, having spent so many years at home, her earning potential will be vastly different from yours now. I truly believe that during a divorce, the split should taken that into account (See for example, the fact that a lot - most, at least for the ones I know- of women who get divorced and ‘loose the house’ never manage to buy a house again. Unlike their exH)

Having said that

• you are totally right re the 50/50 split.
• there is no reason why she shouldn’t be working, assuming that the youngest is at school full time AND she can earn enough to cover childcare and keep a roof over her head. Sometimes easier said than done.
• there is no reason why she would keep that house such AS LONG AS the dcs still have a house to live in (see how hard it would be for her to get a mortgage for example....). I fully get why you want a clean break too.
• whatever pension you have is taken into account. Will you be happy to also split that pension in half?

Another comment re the house

• If you sell the house, are you happy for your dcs to have to move to a different area/school due to the cost of buying a house where you currently live?
• If your exW ends up moving due to the cost of housing, are you happy to become the NRP by default?
• Seeing that your dw is a SAHP, she IS the main carer for the dcs. No matter how much involvement you’ve had, she will always have spent many more hours with them, caring for them. I’m not denigrating how much input you have and whether you are or not an involved father. Its a number game iyswim. She will also be seen as the main carer by the Courts (who will think about the disruption for the dcs first).

My point is, don’t be tempted to think that it’s just about her and you moving to different houses but keeping the routine very much the same. With selling a house, there comes many more changes.....

So, the mother does everything else?

Obviously not seeing as she doesn't contribute a penny.

If we consider that children have an equal need to be both physically cared for and financially provided for, a parent that does a good amount of parenting while also doing 100% of the financial providing is doing more than their 50/50 share, and should no way be expected to provide spousal maintenance as well. The sooner spousal maintenance is done away with completely the better.

I take my kids to school mornings, do all of their homework with them and am currently teaching them to swim. My (ex) spouse doesn't drive so all of the ferrying around of the kids falls to me

Who cooks for them, keeps the house clean, does the washing and ironing, does the school run, keeps the kids calendar of activities, buys birthday presents for parties, ensures fancy dress days, bring a bar of chocolate event etc are dealt with at school, takes the kids for haircuts, keeps an eye on feet growth and the need to buy new clothes, knows the names of your children’s best friends and accommodates play dates, gets up at 3am when a child is throwing up.....and way more stuff that (usually mums) parents do.

If your ex doesn’t drive, realistically how difficult will working be when she has to manage public transport to get to work and back and do a school pick up or manage childcare? Are you reasonably close to an urban centre where there is work? This may be a good argument for selling up (or not). You may find she is struggling making work actually work for her which is why nothing is happening.

In your situation I think you should be keeping the house for you and your children. You become the resident parent she can see them every other weekend, possibly more when she gets herself sorted in a home.

Buy her out of the mortgage with 100k (plenty for her to rent somewhere) and its a clean break. The problem with you being reasonable about the split is your position might get watered down. She has to go get a job its not your fault she is to lazy to work.

Thanks for all your replies.

I completely understand that children having to move between 2 homes has its own challenges.

However, what I would say is that if I do the 'typical' dad thing and see the kids every other weekend, this would mean spending considerably less time with them than what they are currently used to. As I currently have a very active role in their lives, this can't be good for the children longer term.

However, I would be willing to be more flexible in terms of money and/or equity if it meant being able to spend more time with my kids.

Could you try nesting (where the children stay in the family home and the parents stay on their contact days/nights)? It’s far kinder to the children and can sometimes be much more affordable than having two family sized homes. You might feel a bit less resentful that way and it might make it easier for her to move on with her life.

With 200k equity in the property, you should be able to negotiate a clean break. However, unless you plan on living no more than 15 minutes apart for their entire childhoods, I think a 50:50 custody arrangement would be deeply unfair to the children. As she hasn't been working, she is beyond doubt the primary carer. The kids might be used to seeing you at home but they are not used to commuting long distances to school. Give some thought to potential future homes (for each of you) before you think about custody arrangements. And best wishes for your divorce. x

@lau888 - I agree. We have had some initial discussions about where each of us might live and we've both agreed that we should be relatively close to each other for the sake of the children (I think this should be the case regardless of the specific custody arrangements).

We're fortunate in that things are pretty amicable - I simply want to come to an agreement that is fair and doesn't screw me over.

If you are hoping the mediator will give her more reasonable expectations you may be disappointed - that's not really their role. The mediator will help you structure your discussions and explore whether various proposals are practical, but it's not for them to indicate whether they think a particular outcome is fair or (legally) right. You should both be getting some legal advice alongside the mediation.

I'm also not convinced that spousal maintenance is as rare as many people on this thread think, but maybe it's different in different parts of the country.