You can't claim for this?

[Hop27]

That you can't make a claim for spousal support and half of someone's pension if you were never married, and split up over 10 years ago?
CM paid in full, above legal obligation, plus additional expenses, private school, holidays, clothes, holiday & birthdays etc.

Of course you can't. Spousal maintenance is rare anyway with married women Pension is for marriage too

CMS payments take disabilities into account, and may go on longer in this case.

Doesn’t sound like the case here for the OP. Exw knew this was coming and should have not left herself in such a precarious position of relying on an ex forever.

Ah, where were you when I needed you 😁 I could really have done with this very logical advice being shoved down my throat before I had my children. 👏🏻👏🏻

This is a common scenario for women dependent on child support to run their home. Not the ex’s fault though

I could do without this regressive crap now and in the past and future. I was the higher earner and am much better off because I didn’t marry my ex. Women don’t need to marry for financial security

It won't be.

Not married.

Spousal support is rarely awarded even when married.

Some women do.

If SS is still in education your OH needs to continue to pay CM to his ex u till he’s 20.

Yes not saying was case here just it isn’t as simple as don’t give up job.
I was 30 yr old fit healthy professional intending to work after.
I developed a life threatening condition as a result of pregnancy which impacted ability to work/pension all my 30s.
I also had the double whammy of a physically disabled child (undetected on all scans)
I did work pt but my earning power was restricted. Only women suffer birth injuries/health complications.
I was married and we are still together but if we had split (I think stats are 90% of couples with a disabled child split) I’d have been grateful for the protection of marriage.

Not university though

Only until 20 if in non-advanced education - A levels or similar. Includes pre-Uni stuff but not University itself.

I mean, it's certainly true that if a person gets a lot of child maintenance, it must be a bit of a shock when kids turn 18! But, oh no, couldn't possibly have predicted that happening!!

So selfish. YOU didn't need to marry for security, so WOMEN don't? Jog on. Most women are not the higher earner in a relationship, and even when they are, they are still the ones generally hampered by children and responsibilities.

Don't advise other women based on your needs.

OP, as pp have said if they weren’t married and it all happened in the UK then your DH’s ex won’t be able to make this claim, but if you read this forum you will see every day that women have children with partners where they don’t fully realise what the legal position is, and every day they share experiences of having believed and even been assured that they would be more protected than they are. Every day on this forum such women find themselves in a really difficult position and it’s really common that the ExDP said one thing and did another. So it’s all very well saying she’s throwing a tantrum and being bitter - are you sure you know what promises were made explicitly or implicitly or what facts were shared?

Ahh ok, fair enough. CM is supposed to be for cost for the child, if the child is away at uni and presumably living on loans and/or grants then the ex has no costs for them.

On the point of whether it should stop at 18/ uni..I do think it's worth thinking about who will be hosting the student during the significant chunk of uni holidays. Every situation is different but if they are home with one parent for well on a third of the year, it isn't unreasonable to suggest that the other parent might contribute to that ...or, pay direct to the young adult but then the expectation would be that some would go to the RP for board and food. And yes, I know, many on here were independent financial entities at 18, never got a penny etc but if the reality is that an over 18 is still requiring parental support, that should not fall to only one of the parents.

NO, NO, NO!

Why should women have to get married to gain proper legal protection? That’s such old fashioned misogynist thinking. 🤦🏻‍♀️

Surely once you have a child together, there’s a degree of responsibility on both parties to provide a stable upbringing for the child?

In many cases the women loses out considerably in financial terms because she usually ends up prioritising looking after a child and taking a lower paid job in a career that supports more family friendly options, meanwhile the man carries on pursuing his career at any cost and gets to keep all the spoils.

It’s about time the law closed this loophole that allows men to get away with having their cake and eating it all by themselves!

It’s not a loophole though.
Parents have responsibilities towards their child - so child maintenance is payable.
If couple want legal obligations between themselves then enter into a contract - marriage or civil partnership. It’s approx £150.
Lots of couples don’t want legal obligations between them for valid reasons, second families, inheritances.

The law is not there to babysit you. The law has created several mechanisms through which you can access legal protection if you want it. It's on you to make that choice. You are an adult and you get to decide if marriage/civil partnership is beneficial to you or not. End of.

CM law is there to insure innocent babies get adequate financial protection. Grown women can and should look out for themselves and make smart educated choices.

It's not very feminist to say well the law must step in to protect silly helpless cluess women who can't possibly do it themselves.

Exactly!

Too many women think that when a man agrees to have a baby with them, they are committing to them. They aren't. Having a baby is commitment to the baby, not to the woman. Commitment to the baby mamma is marriage or civil partnership.

If the mum is on low wage and teen lives mainly with her then uni age dc will get full maintenance loan even if dad on high wage. So teen is potentially able to borrow £5000 a year more than if dad still lived there.
If dad is giving sums of money to uni age dc in place of maintenance that dc could be much better off than their peers.
The dc may contribute in hols if mum is struggling eg buy own food or choose to stay with dad.

He can't

Child maintenance is payable to 20 not 18 if in full time education.

That’s a very good way of putting it. He’s committing to baby not you.

I do wish there was more done in schools. My dc had half a phse lesson in yr10 briefly touching on it.

I’m not saying marry, lots of people have reasons not to. Just be aware of legal implications. CAB has a decent guide.

What your essentially asking is for the so called "Commin Law Marriage" or "Common Law Partner" to be legally recognised.

This doesn't exist in the UK. Its not a loophole.

Its an interesting debate to have, but at this moment today, it doesn't have any legal protection.
So, posters are quite rightly pointing out to women what the current laws are, so they can be smart about thier choices, under current law. Whatever those choices are.

I'm so sorry Op, I wish I hadn't asked you for the details now . I should have kept my nosey beak out 😁