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?

Usually the courts do prefer a clean break. They award spousal maintenance when it is not possible to level the playing field solely using the marital assets. It is only awarded when there is a very high earner.

I have a good job, in which I work PT because of childcare. If my DH was a SAHP I could earn five times what I do now because of the ability to work every hour god sends and to change plans at a moment’s notice. If we split in 10 years with me earning £300k and him trying to resurrect a career aged 45, it seems fair to me that his contribution to my 300k be recognised.

I think it depends on how old the DC(s) are.

Plenty of parents (normally but not always the female parent) decide that they want to be a SAHM when the DCs are young (it's not always forced upon them due to the other persons' career but i appreciate this can happen).. but once the DCs are at school then many couples find a way to make both parents having a career / job , even if one partner travels a lot.

No in some cases it's not ideal and it can get a bit messy along the way but there is pretty much always a way round these things.

I needed to find solutions as a single parent once the DCs started school pretty much every school year as I worked full time and things always worked out.

Plus why would you willingly become reliant on one person's salary and miss out on years of NI contributions unless there really is no other option?

Of course if you have DCs with SEN needs (as I do too) then things need to be thought about more carefully but if things are straightforward then I think it's a vulnerable position for anyone to put themselves in.

However I don't agree that benefits which are being paid for by people who have nothing to do with the couples' family should be responsible if there is enough money to go around for a period of time. Not forever but giving the person who has not worked a chance to get themselves to a position where they can support themselves better.

The reality is (as I have experienced first hand as have many others ) that both parties are normally worse off when they have a family and they separate. That's what happens in most cases as 2 households have to be supported. Not all but most. That's just logic, maths, life. It's not easy and it's a bit shit sometimes but there's is always a risk when you have a family or get married.

50/50 custody is quite scandalous when 1 parent has sacrificed their career for a decade or more for the whims of a spouse too important to do school/nursery runs, sick days, appointments, school events.

I've never been a SAHM (apart from MLs), but I'm the default parent due to DH just not being here and I earn much less than half. That has been very much DH's choice, despite my requests for him to change job, reduce his hours.

If he trades me in fur a younger model and goes for 50/50 custody with no maintenance, that would be grossly unfair and would be taking huge financial advantage of me, even with a higher asset share (from a small pot).

You really dislike that someone, don't you?

I sort of agree with that in many cases, but ultimately the SAHP still makes a career sacrifice. Even if the other parent would have been successful regardless, it's the detrimental impact on the SAHP's career that is being compensating for.

I never understand why this is so difficult for people. In many cases, yes, spousal maintenance is not appropriate or necessary. But in some cases, it absolutel yis.

if through the marriage one partner specificaly was a SAHP and/or was limited career wise in order to support the other, facilitating a high income, then either the assets need to be split to recognise this - eg the SAHP gets a much higher percentage of the assets because the working parent has the ability to continue to accumlate new assets - or it might be that spousal maintenance needs to be paid.

I also think, frankly, that in the case of very high earners, it's also probably perfectly valid for the exspouse to expect to be able to maintain a certain lifestyle while they have children because it's not just them who benefit, it's the DC too. Huge disparity between the home of their mother vs their father is not terribly helpful and I've seen this in real life.

I also think we have to be realistic, quite a few marriages where one is extremely welathy (and/or high profile) have an element of a transaction. "I will be the trophy wife, look good, entertain, look after the children, facilitate your life etc, but in exchange, i will be looked after" and then when it all falls apart, well, the transactional version was still there. Although I think a large pay out is a better solution than long term spousal maintenance myself.

Where I think it IS ridiculous is in the situation where my perfectly normal middle class friend and his wife split - they had no children and had been married for just 10 years. He had earned much more than her and had accomodated her working part time and taking time off to explore new (very badly paid) career options. He had no problem splitting all their assets 50/50 even though he had "earned" the money, but he did take it badly when she wanted him to pay spousal support in addition for five years.

Agree. In this situation they did have children and they didn’t employ a nanny and the spouse is worse off as a result.

I do think though that people should think more carefully about relationships and marriage. They shouldn’t sign the contract if they don’t like the terms. If they have signed the contract they should fulfil the terms with good grace.

When my husband and I separated, I was earning about $90,000 annually. He was earning about $35,000.

The reason his income was so much lower than mine was because he's lazy and unreliable. He was never a SAHP. Even though I worked full-time, I did most of the childcare.

He asked for $1800/month in spousal support, which was denied. If he had given up work to care for the kids, I'd think he was entitled to spousal support. But his lack of income was solely due to his own lack of ambition/reliability. I don't know why I should have to pay him for being a useless human being.

Spousal maintenance is only one option used to address the impact of a marriage and family life on divorcing parties. It is generally a last resort as it is always preferable to achieve a clean break. That is to fund parties needs via a bigger share of the marital assets. This is better for everyone.

But this is not always achievable and appropriate to the parties circumstances. For example if one party cannot work due to age, health and dependents. Or if the assets are insufficient.

One big reason why few average folk in the UK ask for spousal maintenance is that it impacts on means tested benefits. And if you don’t qualify for benefits you probably don’t need spousal maintenance.

In high value divorces spousal maintenance may be agreed because lifestyle factors are considered. But again parties usually prefer to capitalise payments into a single lump sum.

It will be discussed as an option in some divorces. But it is rarely the best option if it can be avoided.

Yeah. I also think that people - women, particularly - should think more carefully about the ramifications of giving up a good career to raise their children full time, if it’s avoidable.

Have never understood why ex spouses think they are entitled to spousal payments, even when there are children involved. Child maintenance yes, spouse maintenance no

It would depend.

How long were they out of work? Is it for a temporary period while they repivot? Spousal maintenance is not related to children so I would need more context.

Lol of course the SAHP contributed how much do you think childcare / domestic coaching etc costs.
You're being goady and you come across as tragic.

That’s why context is key. If the party asking for it took a hit to their career and income during to reducing paid work to focus on unpaid work then it’s only fair that they are supported for a period of time by the partner whose career benefitted from the unpaid labour of the other spouse.

Why did your husband not pay into your pension for that decade?

Yes. This sounds like a situation where spousal support would be justified even if just temporarily.

Both me and H work full time but when I started earning more money - he went part-time for a bit to 'get some me time' and then took a less demanding FT job 'because of mental health'. Now, I'm faced with prospect of wanting to leave but I stand out to lose financially, a lot. He also doesn't pay mortgage any more or contribute to bills. But still it's 5050. It's v unfair but it's also my naivety for not thinking things through when we go married and he decided he didn't need a 'career' anymore.

Ok it was not just me who got this vibe! 😂

It does not say she decided to be a SAHM. It says they mutually agreed she would be a SAHM. A decision they took collectively as a family. So why should she be penalised for a joint decision?

How much does your partner’s ex want as spousal support?

The instance I am aware of where spousal maintenance has been granted the couple were together for over 25 years, there was still a primary age child but also a child at university & another still in education but with SEN.
Properties worth multiple millions let alone pensions & other financial investments. Mum has stayed in the marital home & finances needed to run the house are high.
The mum works part-time in a role that pays by grades, OH was earning nearly 7 figures - spousal maintenance was deemed due as he wouldn't have been able to achieve this without her support, whereas her career had to be in an area that worked around their children & bearing in mind their ages when they divorced there is no scope for her to achieve anywhere near the salary he can achieve no matter how much training she does.
And the decision to be the parttimer responsible for the children wasn't made by her it was made by both of them in the best interests of their family

I know plenty of cases where the more highly educated spouse is the one who forfeited a career to bring up children. Many high earning couples have a real issue when they have children because both their jobs require a level of commitment and international mobility that is incompatible with a serene family life. So one has to give. If the couple then divorce, it would be grossly unjust for the spouse who gave up earning to raise children to be left in poverty. Two jobs and parenting are not always possible.

Yes I was awarded it by the court. My estranged husband immediately went off work sick, claiming that he has long covid and had no income ( despite having sick pay ).

He then quit his job and went “ self employed “. So he stopped paying all child support and all spousal maintenance for a nearly two years.

Then after 21 months, when his company accounts were in, he claimed that he was paid £25,000 / year from his company , while his new partner ( as a shareholder ) was paid over £150,000 in dividends.

So he doesn’t have to pay spousal maintenance as he’s on a low income. And he’s paying his arrears of child maintenance at £7 / week. I’ve worked out my kids will be in their mid 20s before it’s paid off.

So he’s paying nothing for his kids and he and his affair partner are taking nearly £200,000 out of his company each year.

And it’s all perfectly legal folks. That’s what the tax payer is paying for - men like him to avoid paying for their own kids.

They have contributed though. Their unpaid labour enabled the earnings of the breadwinning partner.

Do you really think they could work the way they do of they had to do half the pick/ups / drop-offs, childcare, domestic labour etc?

Why on earth should this be the responsibility of the tax payer.

Not even temporarily while they retrain to make up for years out of paid work to support their family?

Why is it “greedy” to want that support to come from the partner whose career you supported and whose children you raised but not “greedy” to want that support to come from the state?

You acknowledge they will need support but think it should be from the taxpayer not the ex?