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?

Luckily the courts do not only look at the financial contribution. Giving up work to raise a family and enable the other partner to advance his career is seen as equally valuable. You can dislike that as much as you want. there is a lot of information online about the splitting of assets and what counts as contribution but your ideas are certainly flawed and far removed from reality.

Surely it’s more fair that they are supported by the children’s other parent rather than the taxpayer?

I have friends who divorced recently- he's a high earner (seven figures), she gave up her career to be a SAHM (by mutual agreement and to the benefit of his career in PE with lots of travel etc). 20 year marriage. He pays lots in spousal maintenance and quite rightly.

It's hardly entitled to recognise that in a long marriage, couples support one another, and it's not fair for one party to go swanning off with huge earning power which he or she gained in part through the sacrifices of the other.

Christ what an assumption! I'm happily married. I have a relative who is currently going through divorce and this has come up. I'm interested in opinions on it, isn't that the whole point of MN?!

yeah, right 🤣

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.

It's not tricky at all. If the SAHP has taken on the majority of the childcare, housework, school runs, appointments etc, you cannot say they haven't contributed financially, even if it's not as much as the working parent. Would the working parent have progressed in their career if they had to leave at 5pm 50% of the time to collect their DCs from after school club? Taking time off regularly to take them to the dentist/GP/hospital and doing their share of the sick days?

But you've obviously made your mind up that whatever situation you're involved in is unfair, so I can't imagine anything anybody says is going to change your mind.

I’m not sure. I think if I was earning enough to pay spousal maintenance and the loss of that money would have zero impact on my own quality of life, I would probably agree for a period of time , say up to 2 years. But I would expect it to cease if the ex then moved in with a new partner. Because then it would feel like I was subsidising two adults. Where no children are involved, absolutely not.

Because I would assume the decision to become a SAHP was a joint one OP. Decisions have consequences- why should the long term consequences of this one only be felt by the one parent (and the children)

My dhs ex had a substantial amount paid to her each month as spousal maintenance. Whilst their child was young it seemed fair but paying it when the only child with no disabilities or sen was absurd when she reached the end of primary school.
I ignored it as it wasn't my battle to fight but I didn't agree with it and felt she should've worked. Didn't do the child any favours either as she has zero work ethic and has no concept of personal responsibility at 20 as her mum was always home doing everything for her. Tbh it's ruined them both.
It was stopped as soon as my dh legally could.
As a gradual lead into leaving a separate life and for a few years yes I can see why it's paid, but not for 16 years

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

Because the richer person has only been able to get rich because they had the support of the other person. And spousal arrangements aren't for life so not sure you're talking about an indefinite period of time.

You could make that argument. However, in a 50/50 custody arrangement where no maintenance is due it would effectively mean a person is working to subside an ex. I don't think a person should be financially tied to another after divorce, surely that is the whole point of divorce, to become separate.

Do you mind me asking for how long was the spousal maintenance was paid?

SM is often awarded as a result of a joint decision that one person be a SAHP and thus sacrifice future earning potential to allow the other party to push forward their career without even a thought towards whose turn it is to pick up tonight. That freedom in the work place is often hugely influential in terms of progression. So, absolutely the other party should benefit from a salary progression that they've paid a big part in.

I take your point and don't disagree with you about one partner making sacrifices to aid the other in their career. I think this should be reflected in the divorce settlement. It's the expected ongoing payment after divorce that I think is questionable.

• 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.*

Marriage IS the safety net.

Nobody can unilaterally decide to be a SAHM anyway because they need access to funds. It's a choice made by both parties so why should only 1 be penalised for it?

Also, SAHPs contribute financially in all the savings on childcare.

Would you argue that the non-SAHP shouldn't be allowed to see their kids going forward because they didn't contribute to parenting them?

Woah. OP, up to this point you were coming across as asking genuine questions but with this statement you've just tipped it over into bitterness.

The person who takes on STAH duties does so as part of a partnership that agrees that for the benefit of the family unit being at home is better than out with a wage. The outside of home working partner therefore has a duty to the STAHP that continues in the immediacy post divorce.

The STAHP is still working. They're working for the family unit. If monetary contribution was calculated (and compensation for pension, sick pay, holiday pay, and lack of career progression) is taken into account it would be reasonable for the outside working partner to pay a HUGE amount to the STAHP.

sorry i messed up the quoting, I'm on the app.

Solicitor has told me I would likely get spousal although wouldn't count as such as we get bonuses 4 times a year - I would effectively get those bonuses- as we are in the position of Highish earners £120k a year approx ) but very little actual assets ( don't ask, it relates to past business issues- and we don't own a house) effectively my job would cease if we split and I'm 63 as itsall based on his knowledge/ contacts. Been married 29 years

Solicitor told me spousal is quite specific circumstances these days but I fit them.

You just articulated that far better than I did!

You can get spousal maintenance capitalised. I think in Scotland 3 years would be the norm. So that can get factored into the settlement if a clean break is desired.

Question for others though, what happens when the higher earning supporting spouse chooses redundancy to, in part, stop payment of this maintenance? Has anyone experienced that?

Well it depends if one partner took family leave to care for the child / ren, or worked part time to care for then while the other person worked 60 hours a week.

Or are you saying that the person who worked 60 hours a week cared for the children single handedly for the other 108 hours a week so that the children other parent has an equal opportunity to earn a simiar 6 figure sum ?

and that they did 50% of the housework and wifework as well? and took half the sick days/ INSET days / school holidays off?

Did both parents spilt the family leave 50:50?

I’m not sure. I can genuinely see both sides.

I don’t think it’s always mandatory to sacrifice your career to bring up children though. I didn’t. I could have been a SAHM but I didn’t want to sacrifice my career. It’s mine and I’ve earned it and I want to set a good example to my daughters and I don’t want to be in the shite if my husband decides to fuck off one day. I know that it’s a very personal choice but I do think that sometimes choices come with consequences.

If there is a disparity because one career was sacrificed to support another, then spousal maintenance is perfectly reasonable. If there is a disparity because one person was simply lazy and refused to work, then it is not. The problem is that it is hard to prove in court which situation applies to a particular marriage.

we can look at statistics, but individual couples don’t always follow trends.

I’m inclined to say that if there are children, we should believe that the career sacrifice likely took place.

I also think in many cases all this “he wouldn’t be able to work if I didn’t stay at home” is a bit of a fallacy. He either wouldn’t have bothered having children or he’d pay a nursery or nanny to do it.

I do get SM. I found out the other day, just out of interest sake, that if I didn't, I would get almost the exact same amount of UC if I didn't. I won't be claiming it. It's morally wrong to me when we (as in my ex and I) make enough money to look after our children ourselves. I see us as still a family in some ways - he is the breadwinner, I do the vast majority of the care plus work part time - a standard family sharing of work load. That is still the same even though we've split. I don't see that the tax payer should be liable to make up the shortfall because we made the decision to split. He would feel the same, he'd prefer that I'm here for our girls after school than go out to work full time.