Payrise and maintenance

[Lillo7]

Keen to hear people's opinions about this.

Two DC, father is married with more children. Mother is single.

Father is not on a great wage however his wife has received several payrises in the years they've been together and works in a professional career which means as a whole their household is quite well off and can afford quite a lot of luxuries.

Maintenance is paid by the father based on his low wage. Mother is struggling a little as also on a lower wage.

Mother argues that they should pay more as a household instead due to wife's higher pay, obviously not officially through CMS as they don't take new partners into account, but morally. Wife disagrees and says what she earns is nothing to do with the mother and is for her household/children/ stepchildren when there, not at their mums.

Father stuck in the middle a bit.

Random poll options

YABU - wife should subsidise higher maintenance.

YANBU - Mother and father should care for their children on their own respective wages and what wife earns is nothing to do with the mother.

I could hand over half my wage to DH ex and DSD would still live what I would consider a "lesser life" on account of the fact that her mum makes stupid financial decisions (in my opinion, she obviously disagrees).
I don't get a say as I'm not the parent. So why would I deprive my own children when I'd rightly have no control over the outcome?

Very good point

My BIL's ex has told him I should contribute to her maintenance as its not fair I buy my niblings nice things and not her children. I have only met these children once, about 10 years ago. Bit still, in her mind, his partners family income should be taken into account. I'm not sure where the line is drawn, whether long lost Auntie Mildred is included.

This lady explains the Law.
If your ExHz. Has installed a new floozy. SHE s gotta contribute to YOUR finances. = FACT.

Bollocks. And stop with the shitty offensive language FFS.

Sorry. Factually incorrect. If your ex husband has been living with a partner for more than 6 months at the time of financial settlement for divorce then the partners income will be considered insofar as reducing his monthly expenses and allowing more disposable income to provide for the ex spouse in the settlement. It is not used for child maintenance.

And the term 'floozy' is vulgar.

Oh the irony of someone coming on here quoting something that originated on tiktok as fact

Watch it again before you come on here reporting "factual legal advice" and offending the OP who is clearly NOT in the situation you've harped on about. Post divorce when a woman comes along the "floozy"'s finances are nothing to do with the ex.

Back to Facebook and TikTosh you go

Such a accurate predictor of level of intelligence when people use TikTok as source.

Especially when it refers to something totally different.

Even if it were true, which it isn't, IMAGINE even wanting or accepting contributions to YOUR finances from your exes new partner 🤮🤮🤮 I'd be ashamed of myself personally.

@Vonesk don't be ridiculous. I don't hear about this in real life! Other people don't have to pay your children! No matter the circumstances of how a relationship ended. It's only the child's parents that have a moral obligation!

Imagine actually taking money from your ex’s partner, and not feeling like a grubby, grabby freeloader.

Parents support their DC, no one else has to

Thankfully @Vonesk is talking rubbish. My DH's ex tried this route, and found out (via a PROPER solicitor) that my money had nothing to do with her.

@Dweetfidilove

He also needs to ensure he’s not reducing maintenance payments to his children, so he can subsidise someone else’s.

Aren't they all his children though- but with both his Ex and current wife? Also it seems the stepchildren benefit additionally from OP's funds also when they are in her house "I do contribute toward DSC. At our house." and also holidays etc when they're with OP and their father - including the additional car when they're with their father.

Additionally the Ex could take the husband up on the offer for 50/50 custody and also increase her own income on the days the children aren't with her? 🌹

Exactly. I'd be embarrassed.

I think that the solicitors who are on TikTok and other SM need to ask themselves more searching questions about whether they should be putting their videos out.

The thing is that what that solicitor is saying is correct, but only in very limited and particular circumstances. As we can clearly see (and do every time that video pops up in a thread), people who aren’t solicitors aren’t very good at understanding whether the information actually applies in particular situations. They just generalise wildly and insist that it must be true because a solicitor said so.

There’s a reason people instruct solicitors to advise on their specific circumstances.

In this case, so many people positing that video get entirely the wrong end of the stick because they simply do not understand that it only applies for situations where:

• A financial settlement is being agreed during the divorce process (or afterwards if the couple were foolish enough to complete the divorce process without one).
• The divorcing (or divorced) partner has been cohabiting with the new partner for at least 6 months.

And it only applies to division of the marital assets (which don’t include the new partner’s assets unless she has been daft enough to buy a house with a man who hasn’t got a financial order from his previous divorce). It doesn’t have anything to do with child maintenance.

Similarly, it’s not really about the new partner’s income. It’s really just contextual information to determine the needs of the two parties involved in the financial order.

Personally, I think the law is an arse in so many ways in divorce. And this is one of them. I actually think it is ridiculous that the new partner is expected to just take on a disproportionate share of everything - including housing, feeding and clothing the SC - so the court can award the children’s mother a greater share of the marital assets. It’s the law expecting one woman to subsidise the other and I think that is not a good principle.

That said, the best advice for everyone is simply not to cohabit with someone who hasn’t sorted out their financial order as part of their divorce. People should know that the English courts will think that means they are just going to pay for everything so their partner can give more to his exW and protect themselves accordingly.

But, if there’s a financial order, then the new partner’s income is completely irrelevant to child maintenance or anything of that sort. And it simply should not be relevant.

Jeez. We can tell who has self respect on here and who doesn’t. 😬