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 maybe that he has to pay spousal maintenance for a few years, whilst the ex builds up her earnings. Equally, he might have to pay her a larger sum now to avoid maintenance.
With children of that age I think she'd struggle to defend working PT and getting spousal maintenance. Also the fact that they've been seperated for 3 years....

That is despicable.

Of course.

Spousal payments are only for a limited time to allow the other person time to retrain, up their hours, etc.

Equally, you can up the settlement to cover the costs allowing a clean break.

It is fair when one parent has been a SAHM, made sacrifices for the benefit of the family and allowed the other parent to develop and progress their careers.

A decent solicitor would have explained this.

I think this very much depends on individual circumstances, I know of two couples where the wife had a well paid career (one as a doctor and another as a lawyer) that they gave up to be a SAHP to enable their husband to do all hours possible:
/work away. One, the doctor, hasn’t been able to find a route back into medicine after 15-20 years out, the other hasn’t tried yet. Both these cases have been very career limiting - leaving women in their 40’s and 50’s very qualified but with massive career gaps, whilst the husbands have been able to focus on their careers, so in this case I could see the argument

What an absolute areshole your exhusband is @Octavia64 . Thank goodness he's out of your life.

In the scenario you describe she won't be getting a 6 figure settlement plucked from thin air - what is the division of assets? That could be 100k or 500k .... "6 figure sum" sounds very grandioise but depends on the value of their asset pot.

She can't afford to run the family home on either 20k or 45k per year. She's agreed to be bought out yes - but many women end up with a much much lower standard of living than their ex husbands because of relationship generated disadvantage. Bare in mind also that he will likely have a large pension pot and she clearly will not. What might be happening here is that the solicitors are trying to redress her mortgage capacity which will be low. It does seem on the face of it that she should be going full time - but even with that her earning capacity is a fraction of her ex's and the law recognises in marriage the other partners contribution to allow that to happen.

With respect you know only what you are being told by your male relative - all with an "aren't I generous" slant. You don't understand family law or the complexities of the division of assets in a divorce. She is right to try and rectify any imbalance to the best of her ability when her earning potential is dramatically lower than it might have been had her ex done the childcare / taken a step back when their kids were younger as so many women do.

Certainly my ex and I have 50/50 child "custody" - he doesn't do a single dental appt, dr appt, optician, school form, uniform purchase, exam prep, trip organising - not one iota of the mental and admin load that goes with running even teenagers - so its actually not 50/50 at all in reality. And he pays me £20k a year child maintenance per child plus school fees. Which is a drop in the ocean for him.

'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'

I suggest you read my previous comments, I haven't said anything of the sort!

50/50 for child maintenance purposes is a completely separate matter entirely to spousal maintenance payments. If you have to have that explained to you and it’s not your own personal circumstances involved then it’s really not your business to be having an opinion on it.

Child maintenance is money due to the resident parent to support a child with their day to day care. Spousal maintenance is to support the ex spouse because through marriage presumably caring long term for her husband’s children means that her career plummeted whilst his rocketed and she’s been left at a disadvantage financially because of it. We’re not going to be talking about two individuals earning national minimum wage.

If this weren’t the case then SM wouldn’t even be considered. The 50/50 care wouldn’t have been for the entirety of the marriage only since the split which you’re not even considering to begin with. He wouldn’t have been able to earn the wage he has if during the marriage he did 50/50 care of his children. It amazes me that people don’t understand this basic concept in a marriage or a relationship.

Marriage is a legally binding contract and isn’t to be undertaken lightly. Divorce comes with a financial settlement for a reason. The weaker party should be protected but this so often isn’t the case.

Your relative has clearly made considerable financial gains off the back off his ex or soon to be ex wife’s lack of career opportunity, experience and therefore earnings.

Your relative isn’t the victim here and you need to reframe your thoughts around this entire matter because you appear to be sympathising with the wrong person. He should be made to support the woman he decided to marry and have children with. Just because the marriage has broken down it doesn’t change the events that have occurred within the marriage. Why shouldn’t he pay her just because now that his career is fully fledged and doing the work for him that he can now afford time and financially to have his children 50% of the time? That doesn’t make him a saint, that makes him a parent. Bare minimum really. It’s refreshing to read that someone has this woman’s best interests as a priority even if she’s paying for it.

Probably because they love their kids and wish to see them as much as possible. I think going from seeing your children everyday to potentially only seeing them every other weekend would be awful. Why should the working parent be penalised for financially supporting the whole family for however many years?

Both of them plus grandparents.

It’s so awful isn’t it? The trouble is he was the instigator for ending the relationship and felt really guilty. He’s also a bit conflict avoidant so that doesn’t help. Plus his ex DH is quite aggro and self centred so BF was constantly being spun this narrative about how awful BF was. How he was selfish. How he never thought about anyone else but himself. Don’t get me wrong BF didn’t always behave well! He definitely wasn’t a great husband at times, but he also felt like he owed ex DH and by the end he actually couldn’t afford a solicitor anyway! And they force you down the mediation route unless there is abuse involved so I don’t think he had much choice. To be fair I think I’m more upset on his behalf than he is. He’s just glad his monthly outgoings to ex DH have come down by about 40% so at least he’s not now getting into any more debt to cover it. It’s 2 more years (so 4 years of spousal maintenance in total) but he does get to keep his pension which he’s pleased about. I’m spitting feathers for him, but he’s more zen than me!!!

@Buuddyy

The kids are now of an age where parenting is much easier and very compatible with getting home later or putting in more hours from home whilst they entertain themselves.

Who looked after them most when they were 1 and 4? Bet 50:50 wouldn't have been possible then...

Equally? Yeah right.

This genuinely isn't possible with young children. Both me and DH are high earners (six figures each), and have a nanny, and we've still both had to roll back/slow down our career progression in order to manage having a family and career. We've split everything 50/50 but had to turn down progression because we just can't manage any more hours...

To add to my comment - and point out the obvious - childcare isn't 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and you still have to be around when your kids are sick. Someone has to take the hit to their career and be less flexible with their work hours, it's not possible otherwise

lol is his name Dan? Sames happening with my brother at moment.

Then he could pay his soon to be ex, the price he would have paid a nanny for however many years. And chauffeur, cook, personal assistant, shopper, housekeeper, laundress. Approx. 80 hours a week for however many years...

Would be quite a tidy sum.

And the same "he wouldn't be able to work if I didn't stay at home fallacy" applies to the woman. If she knew he was such a deadbeat/lazy ass/cheater/drunk/man-boy or whatever, she wouldn't have had children with him, or not marry him and wait for a decent man to come along.

Arethereanyleftatall easy to say all these years later with hindsight.
At the time he thought it the right thing to do. As I said I didn't agree with it but kept out of it as not my problem nor my money. And 50/50 wasn't a thing then, he had to go to court to get school holidays and eow. Everyone can why didn't you do this 18 years later but it's only in recent years those decisions have showed their negative points

suggest you read my previous comments, I haven't said anything of the sort!

No, you haven't, but that's the follow on logic isn't it.

You keep asserting that she hasn't contributed financially, but haven't brought up once that he hasn't contributed (much) to childcare.

Why does he want 50/50 now?

From what you've said, your relative sounds like an arsehole to me. I would bet money that it was she who divorced him. He wants the family home that they both contributed to, and has got it. She has no house. He wants 50/50 and has got it, despite not contributing 50:50 childcare ever before. It is extremely unlikely that he would have got to £160k, a house to himself and 2 tweens without her. I am so so glad my exhusband is not like this. Our bottom line was 'what is best for our dc' on our divorce. That was them staying in their home with me, he could financially facilitate that so he did. He also wouldn't dream of expecting the tax payer to help fund me and his two children when he earns enough to do so.

Hmm, I'm just not sure how true this is at the levels of earnings we're talking about. Most people earning at this level will need someone (or more than one person in the case of paid staff) who is available at all times, because of the hours and in many cases requirement for travel.

I used to work at a firm where two of the most senior partners were married to one another and they had 3 nannies doing 8 hours each to ensure 24h cover, so of course it can be done, but it's hardly a lifestyle many people would choose.

"Some little house elf"- fuck off.

@Hyperbowl I'm aware of the difference between child maintenance and spousal maintenance, not sure why you thought I needed the explanation. I felt it relevant to mention as there could be a greater argument for SM if the children were living with their mother for more of the time.

'Your relative has clearly made considerable financial gains off the back off his ex or soon to be ex wife’s lack of career opportunity, experience and therefore earnings.'

Not really, he had a well established career long before she came on the scene. He put the hefty deposit down on the house and has paid the mortgage and bills solely ever since. Her wages have effectively been her own to spend how she wishes what has more often than not been on shopping. So it is quite the opposite in terms of financial gain actually.

Surely benefits are there to prevent a person not being able to house themself

So the tax payer should pay for dc rather than the ex partner/father? I don't think so

@bigboykitty

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.

I think that is a very weak argument, because being a SAHM is a pretty big financial contribution - nursery fees alone full time are probably around £1.5k per child, not to mention all the unpaid time off to care for nursery aged children who are inevitably too sick to attend - and then there's the difference between work hours and school hours.

And I say that as the 'new' wife and the mother of a five year old who has a job flexible enough to work around sickness and school (and be the main earner). Equal contribution is not just how much money your job brings in, you have to include how much money each party is 'saving' in costs.

Probably because they love their kids and wish to see them as much as possible. I think going from seeing your children everyday to potentially only seeing them every other weekend would be awful. Why should the working parent be penalised for financially supporting the whole family for however many years?

1. But he was never bothered about seeing them that much before? On £160k he probably barely saw them in the week?

1. Isn't it about what's best for the dc? I wouldn't have thought it was nice for the kids to see their mother who has single-handedly raised them (given you keep asserting he is solely responsible for the finances) much much less in a much worse living situation. I think if I was this dc I wouldn't think very much of my father.