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's also worth saying that the only reason "domestic work" is not seen as proper work with monetary value to the economy is because of historical sexism towards women.

Actually it has a huge economic impact, more so than men's employment. See below:

"The ILO estimates the value of unpaid care and domestic work to be as much as 9 percent of global GDP (£11 trillion), with women's contribution at around 6.6 percent of GDP compared to men's at 2.4 percent of GDP."

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.

Firstly, it isn't remotely tricky to anyone who can understand simple things.

Secondly, the party without the future earning capacity should either receive more than half the assets or SM.

Thirdly, so by your reasoning there - your argument seems to be that if one half hasn't contributed financially, they shouldn't get half the finances - therefore it follows from that that the dc aren't half theirs then, but less since the party that worked ooh didn't contribute anywhere near as much to their care.

Why didn't your dh fight for custody then, if his child was being 'ruined' by his ex? Seems strange to knowingly allow your own child to fall.

Because two people decide if someone is going to be a stay at home parent. So if one of them makes the sacrifice to be a SAHP, they are significantly reducing their employment prospects, pension etc. It isn't just the monthly salary they don't have, it's the reducing employability.

So yes, spousal maintenance should be paid. And I say this as a woman who was always vehemently against having any degree of dependence on my husband financially because I saw what happened to my own mother when she and my father split, even though she had worked all of their marriage.

Woman takes off time to look after children because husband works very long hours, has a long commute and encourages her to stay at home / doesn’t offer to pay for childcare that will enable her to find a badly paid job. Woman puts in thousands of hours of childcare for his children for free without corresponding pension payments by him and without payment by him for her other household organisation and cooking / planning skills that enable him to progress up career ladder either. Plus washing, ironing, cleaning, diary management, adhoc A&E trips, buying presents for his family for free. She also performs homework supervision and takes children to sports and other activities which means they find subjects they succeed / excel in and that look good on their UCAS forms.

As a for example.

Having a wife who doesn’t work may not be the norm or the future but it doesn’t mean women who have should be penalised or made poor for making a choice that meant her husband progressed in his chosen career faster and further than he otherwise would and that worked for her husband all the while they were married. The benefits system in this country is the antithesis of generous.

Now add in a husband who had an affair under the guise of corporate entertainment, pulling a late one, stuck at work again etc.. Younger girlfriend who resents fact his ex exists / spent years carrying his personal life so that he didn’t have to. She never imagines herself in wife 1’s shoes, a few years later.

I think spousal maintenance is designed where there is a big disparity in income and not enough assets to make the settlement remotely fair.

So if the earning partner was earning £500k a year but assets were relatively small (because they were profligate spenders) it seems fair for him/her to pay some money for a few years to somewhat equalise things.

Each divorce is individual though.

From what I read on here, we are rowing back from what does seem unfair where a partner with low earning potentia, who never sacrificed much, gets 50% of everything after a ‘long’ marriage, maybe 10 years (not the same as a genuinely long marriage of half a lifetime). Marriage is a serious commitment with consequences, but it shouldn’t be a lottery ticket.

That's shocking, your ex is a total arse!

Depends how much the poorer spouse was expected to sacrifice for the furthering of the others career. For example a trailing spouse, or a spouse left behind to parent solo for weeks or months on end. Even a SAHM, or part time working mum compensating for a dad working all hours. These contributions should be recognised and compensated for imo.

Reading through this thread, 1 hour left, I've actually come to an opposite thought -

Should 50/50 even be awarded when one party has been an SAHP enabling the other to freely progress at their paid job? The decision was presumably jointly made for the WOH to not parent much before, why do they suddenly want to now?

But then why go for 50/50 if you weren't that bothered about having children?

There are plenty of folk who manage to hold down a responsible well paid job without some little house elf behind the scenes facilitating it all. Sorry but we need to get away from this mindset. It's depressing.

A stay at home parents facilitates the career of the worker and value should be attributed to that. Some high earners wouldn't be high earners if they didn't have a wife who smoothed their path.

"Little house elf"... how insulting.

But also with this, it isn't just about whether it's logistically possible to achieve the same level of career progression through nannies/juggling etc etc - it's the complete freedom in the work place to not even think about any of it.
'Can you stay for a meeting at 7pm Bob - need to discuss some big changes.'

Bob 'Yep'

Or Bob 'let me get back to you, I've just got to check if the nanny can hold on'

Thinking about future earning potential for the ex wife, depending upon the ages of the children, the exact details of the 50/50 split are relevant.
If he is expecting her to work around his high paying job and be emergency child care for illnesses/ crises at work, etc he certainly should be paying SM on an ongoing basis.
If it is a sensible, and fully reasonable split for both sides then just a stepping stone might be needed.
I don’t know though that I would trust a man who would be happy to see his children living in poor accommodation and on benefits for 50% of the time when he could easily prevent that.

@BustyLaRoux this is a horrendous story. I have spent a lot of time on the divorce forum and reading online and thought spousal only common when there are kids and/or one of the partners is earning a lot (e.g over £250k). Surely your friend should be getting a solicitor involved rather than mediation?

I have recently taken a career break to look after my 3 kids. Luckily, my career was lucrative so I have a good investment pot of my own, though I see it as all part of the same family pool. I was the default parent, so my career had to suffer for maternity leaves, pick ups and sick days etc, so I earned less than if I had been able to put my foot down but did well.

My husband's life and career has improved already for me taking a "break", in fact he has recently increased his earning potential significantly and might have struggled without the support to travel etc - I worked up to my third pregnancy so he really does understand what it is like to be a good partner in a two demanding jobs household and appreciates the cushion he has.

There are lots of joint decisions we have taken that are better or worse for quality of life and finances and it is hard to totally pick them apart and say that one person has freeloaded off the other financially - I could have worked more remotely than him and lived in a cheaper area for housing, childcare etc if not for his job. Sure, our combined wealth is greater as a result, but I could have lived in an area of the country where I could have had my lifestyle on just my income if it had just been me. If we did split up, the assumption would be that we would live close by in the same area to avoid uprooting the children and so that might require some form of transfer of wealth from him to me to be able to enable that now his earning potential is higher. Obviously, if our kids were grown, that might not be such a consideration, but it wouldn't necessarily be unreasonable to expect for both of us to be able to stay where our friends/family are and have a big enough place for our kids to stay. I don't feel in any way insecure about my contribution to the joint pool - I've done the vast majority of night wakes for my kids, for example. How to value financial or non financial contributions?

I ended up as a default SAHM as I was working a full-time job in part time hours (as many part timers do). I was also coming home by 7 for the nanny and then picking up the domestic load while my DH was at client events or working late. My job really needed me to increase my hours or for my DH to pick up some of the slack in terms of helping out with the kids. It was his decision for me to stay at home as it thought it would affect his promotion prospects. It made sense as he loved his job and my job was well-paid but I was miserable in it. My DH travels a lot and he would not be able to do without me picking up the slack. He can be gone for a few weeks and our parents are too old to cope with the demands of teenagers now. A good friend (who now works full-time but used to work part-time) is receiving 64% of the assets in her divorce to compensate for the loss of earnings and career potential while her kids were younger. She now earns more than her husband.

No, I do think she is coming across as entitled though.

The scenario is the STBX wife will receive a six figure settlement through my relative re mortgaging. He is keeping the family home and buying her out, which is what was agreed between them as he can afford to keep up with what will be high repayments and the running costs. She has never contributed financially towards the mortgage or bills and my relative put the deposit down. She is working PT earning around £20k pa. She has an earning capacity of £45k pa if she was FT. My relative earns £180k pa. Their children are 11 and 13, it is 50/50 custody so neither pay child maintenance. They have been separated for 3 years. My relative pays for all extra curricular things, school lunches and trips etc. The divorce is at the stage where it is going back and forth about assets and she has requested spousal maintenance. I don't think this is fair.

https://www.birketts.co.uk/legal-update/relationship-generated-disadvantage-can-you-be-compensated/

This is the case law on relationship generated disadvantage and is very much geared towards situations in which one party gave up a type of work with quite a quantifiable career path for eg a magic circle solictor or doctor - and now finds themselves 10/20 years on with low earning potential. Invariably in a case where the other party is a very high earner.

In most "average" divorces it doesn't come into play but in HNW cases where the pot is bigger - after "needs" are met - ie both parties housed via division of assets, child maintenance fixed (these won't be CMS cases) then this theory of compensation has now gained traction. Whereas "pure' spousal maintenance awards have fallen somewhat out of favour - particularly past the age of youngest child being at primary school. This case law was helpful to em in getting a slighly greater share of the proceeds of our marital home proceeds and a lump sum in lieu of spousal maintenance.

realistically when a couple has kids one partner always takes a step back career wise - normally the woman - whilst the other is able to prioritise and progress their career in a way they wouldn’t if they had to split everything 50/50. A partner should not be disadvantaged as a result of that.

Why should taxpayers fund their lifestyle if an ex spouse can contributex? Especially if there's children it's not fair on the child to live on the breadline in one house and luxury at other parents house.

Who’s breaking care of the kids for the last decade?

'Tragic' that is a bit dramatic 😂

Really how many do that and also do half of all childcare and domestic labour, half of taking time off to deal with sick kids etc. all without outsourcing any of that labour?