Disparity & Spousal maintenance.

[Buuddyy]

AIBU to think asking for spousal maintenance in a 50/50 custody arrangement with no maintenance due from either party is just plain entitlement?

It depends on the disparity really ?, if someone isn't able to house themselves adequately without it etc.

It depends

If they earn 500k the other might need a buffer for a few years

Its not rocket science

Why should that be the responsibility of an ex though? Surely benefits are there to prevent a person not being able to house themself.

If their earning capacity is greatly reduced due to their career taking a hit due to childcare, so that the higher earner could progress I think it might be fair in the short term.
Also they need to be able to house the children for their 50% of the time.

lol. How much in benefits do you think people get?

marriage is a legally binding contract. On the agreed upon entry into that contract both parties agree to share all in law.
Upon the dissolution of that marriage contract both parties should then leave on an equal footing. If the best way to ensure there is no disparity is to award spousal maintenance then that is what’s needed.
The paying party could always agree to essentially buy their way out of the contract with a lump sum if they prefer to be done sooner.

It depends. I gave up a fairly well paid career after our second DC was born as we knew it would have a very detrimental impact on our family if both of us worked FT. It wasn't the type of job you could take a few years out of and go back at anywhere near the same level.

This was very much a joint decision, it affected my pension and future earning power massively. (BTW, I would have been perfectly happy if DH had sacrificed his career rather than me.) It would be massively unfair if we'd spilt a few years later and I'd have been stuck doing a NMW job. I would at least expect to be supported in some way for a few years while I retrained, just to make things fairer.

Say both parents need to be housed because they can’t afford rent alone and they have one child, only one of them can claim housing benefit, child benefit etc and it needs to be the same parent claiming it all.

There are situations where there should be a payment imo. Not all couples were married so income disparity wasn’t dealt with through the asset split during a divorce.

So, my husband and I agreed I would become a sahm. I did not work outside of the home for 10 years. This has greatly impacted my earning potential. We have gone from being on similar salary’s before children to me earning half of the amount he does.

I have also missed out on a decade of pension contributions.

If we divorced, don’t you think it should be acknowledged that I am in a far worse position than him because I am raising his children?

Are you the new partner who is bitter about your boyfriend paying spousal to his ex wife posting again?

I agree each party should leave on an equal footing in term of assets being split, and divorce settlements.

'If the best way to ensure there is no disparity is to award spousal maintenance then that is what’s needed.' This is what I don't agree with. Why should there be no ongoing disparity, for example, if one party obtained a degree and worked a 60hr week to earn a six figure salary and the other party did not. I don't see why the richer person should subsidise the poorer person for an indefinite period of time in a 50/50 arrangement, especially after a settlement figure has been reached. It seems unfair.

Surely where there’s a large difference in income some needs to be given to
the lower earner so that the children aren’t living in poverty.

i gave up a good career to look after kids who it subsequently turned out had special needs. Luckily my exh recognises my contribution and supports us so we have a good standard of living.

It really depends. If one party has e.g. a much lower income because they were the primary carer whilst the children were young whilst the other party advanced their career based on the fact that the partner too a step back career wise and enabled the career progression of the other, then spousal maintenance makes absolute sense. It really depends on the circumstances.

Yeah, you’re definitely the new girlfriend of a man who already has kids.

You would be in a worse position but you admitted you decided to be a SAHM. I think if a person is to become a SAHP they should try to put a safety net in place through investments if at all possible.

The argument could be made that you have not contributed financially for a decade but will still receive half of the assets upon divorce. It is a tricky one.

Are you the new partner OP?

I agree with you, and I’m not the new girlfriend of a rich man unfortunately.

We live in a country with opportunities and a benefit system. There is no need for someone who only has their children half of the time to be supported by anyone else and if they are it’s just greedy and entitled.

Spousal maintenance is very rare now in the UK and it’s really only in specific circumstances whereby the lower earner became that way as a result of the marriage.

For example I would only be able to work 60 hour weeks if my husband was prepared to work part time to look after our child, I would absolutely see it as fair for him to be entitled to some of that money if we separated because I couldn’t have put those hours in without him. We couldn’t both prioritise uni and working 60 hour weeks because we have a child, someone has to pick up that slack, if he did then he has contributed to the career I’d then have and so it’s fair he be compensated for that until he is able to progress his own career.

No, I'm a happily married woman.

I know someone who is currently going through divorce and this issue has come up. The solicitors are back and forth on it.

It's really not tricky

No, I didn’t decide, we did. We ended up with a disabled child with no real childcare options. What do you suggest we did with our child? And his career really took off which it wouldn’t have if I wasn’t look after his child full time.

OP, it doesn't frankly matter what you think of the law. Legislation works doesn't work with your logic, whether you agree with it or not.

You should have maybe stepped away from finding a guy with kids and an ex-wife. It doesn't sound like the whole set up will work for you. Run for the hills and find a childless bloke. Problem solved!

This is my point.

Sure Jan.

Marriage is a legal contract in which you agree to pool resources and it’s a huge commitment. Spousal maintenance is only rarely awarded, in situations where there is a very large disparity in earnings.

Where one spouse has sacrificed their career to raise children it is right that that is acknowledged during a divorce. The person who went out to work used their spouse’s unpaid labour to invest in their own future earning potential. There are situations in which that might not seem fair but it comes down to the nature of marriage, which is about becoming a financial unit. If you don’t want this it’s best not to marry.

Well that is a different situation altogether then.