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?

Exactly @arethereanyleftatall - it’s suits op and her brother to bandy about “six figure settlement” as though that’s 900k.
£170k is eff all to walk away with from a long marriage to a high earner. And it’s not anboyy taking “his” money. And it’s irrelevant who paid the initial house deposit and mortgage. It’s an asset of the marriage. Really praying the op’s ex sis in law is getting decent advice esp re pensions and doesn’t get shafted by this bloke who is happy to leave his kids in a crappier situation half the time.

Decisions have consequences. Unless he forced you to give up work I'd say you are an adult who made a decision.

She might not work full days so 3 half days for example.

@TheignT

This on the surface is a harsh statement but (ok I'm just going to say it)

Certainly not all (and obviously I can't comment on the poster you just referred to) but there are absolutely some instances where

'I really don't want to go back to work after mat leave as I can't bear to leave my baby and have to go back to work so I'm going to stay at home with my babies, including when they go to school'

Changes to 'I gave up my career to support my husband's and missed out on years of earning potential and national insurance contributions' when the marriage ends.

Before I get flamed of course this is far from every situation where one parent stays at home. If there are SEN needs or if the working parent is away for weeks / months at a time. But if it's just a case of the other parent working long hours then it's perfectly possible for both parents to work.

So I agree. Unless you were forced into a position where you had to be at home then it was a choice. It's obviously very sad and disruptive to all when a marriage breaks down, but no marriage is absolutely watertight.

She might not work full days so 3 half days for example.

I'm not sure if you've read all the ops posts but she's keen to make out that the exwife did no more childcare than her brother and that he only worked 2 days more than her.

@IfYouLook I really hope so. Even if she can't afford it, which I guess is what the brother is aiming for to completely fuck her over, luckily consent orders have to be signed off by a court who will check that it's fair first. So if the brother is paying for a SHL in the hope of shafting his ex to not having at least half of assets accrued during relationship, it won't get through court.

If Children are involved then you are always’ tied ‘ to the other person even after divorce. I was the lower earner before divorce, my ex offered considerable spousal support in order for me to be a divorced SAHM .
He felt that he would have financially supported this if we were still married. He had divorced me not the DC .
Our wish for DC to have a SAHM has not changed just because we are divorced. His dc have had a better life as a result.
Obviously this is dependent on available income and I appreciate it may not be possible for everyone. But surely if they can afford it, all fathers want the best possible life for their kids!
The dc are the priority and we still see their upbringing as a joint financial effort.

Surely all mothers want best for their children as well so would increase their hours if they need more money? Different if they need more money but are working full-time or can't work but to decide to work part time and someone else has to subsidise that even if they don't want to isn't reasonable to me.

I was divorced with two young children and my experience was solicitor encouraged me to fight for more maybe so he could earn more. I refused. It meant things were friendlier which was better for the children in my book.

Could depend what the hours are.

Surely all mothers want best for their children as well so would increase their hours if they need more money?

Of course they want the best. But this particular 'family' don't need more money, they don't need it from tax payers and they don't need to get it by both working full time.

Often the best, if the parents can afford it, which these two can, is for one of them to be around all the time the children aren't in school to help with homework/problems/extra curricular. Its a privilege for this age children, sure, but they can afford it.

My ex, luckily, along with many others on this thread, knew that what was best for our children (for various reasons irrelevant to this thread) was for me to continue working school only hours only. As he wants the best for his children, he is totally happy to fund that via SM.

Like someone below said, their father isn't divorcing the children and shouldn't want their quality of life to decrease simply because he is not with their mother any more.

Just to add to this, before someone says this is somewhat convenient for me, yup it is. And the other 3 members of my 'family' too.

I am happy because I only work part time and spend a lot of time with my children. My dc are happy because I am always here for them if they need me, which is often.
And my ex husband is happy because he gets to carry on with complete freedom in a job he loves, a surgeon, knowing that he doesn't have to worry at all about picking his dc up from anywhere or whether they're being looked after well (they are).

I'm fairly sure any children would take friendly mutually beneficial co parenting, over bitterness and bickering about money from their parents.

Well we don't actually know all the details of their finances. The father is taking on a bigger mortgage. Hes paying for all the children's activities, he might be paying for some wraparound care on his days with the children, there might be debts he'd paying off. The mother can't just abdicate all responsibility for the finances and going forward progressing her career and improving her pension is a positive for her.

Yes but that is dependant on both parents agreeing it going forward.

If he has been earning ~180k since before his teenagers were born, there's no way 1/2 the whole estate is ~170k, my pension is more than that and I never hit 6 figures.

So no, i dont think she should be asking for spousal, she should get a better lawyer and get a fairer settlement and clean break which is much more reliable and better for all involved.

what you haven't explained is what percentage of the joint assets this £170 settlement is? Because frankly, on a salary like his, I think £170k is pretty shite after however many years they've been together (which I assume is at least 10 or more). Me and DH's combined income is significantly less and if we got divorced tomorrow, our combined assets, split 50:50 would be less than £170k each, but not that much less (together 17 years)

But then you also think she can buy a house for that 170k so I assume you live somewhere a lot cheaper... so what the devil has happened tot all this money. If the lifestyle of the family was facilitated by this in disposable spending, it's not weird for her to want spousal support. As otherwise I guess he'll continue spending huge amonts of glorious holidays away etc, while she's living a much smaller life and her DC are wondering why there's such a huge disparity between mum's house and dad's house and activities at both, especially if as it's 50:50 he's not paying maintenance so how do clubs, clothes, activities get paid?

Personally, I'd suggest your brother offer her a much higher once off settlement figure and perhaps a small amont of child maintenance (even though he's doing 50:50) to facilitate a closer similarity between lifestyles between his house and hers going forward.

As the significantly higher earner in our relationship, I am so tired of men bleating about how they "earned the money why should I give it to her". It's such a bollocks. when I worked for an investment bank, I can assure you, I could not have got promoted and received the salary and bonuses I did if DH hadn't been a SAHD. Since i left banking, my income, while still much higher than DH's, has definitely been impacted by the fact that I don't WANT to be available for work 24/7, which I was when DC were small.

That's true @TheignT, we don't actually know.

But what we do know is that when these 2 parents were together, they made a decision, presumably jointly, of what was best for their dc. The decision they made was one full time, one part time. Because they could afford that. For the dc, that doesn't change from being the best for them if the parents split up.

One of the things that makes divorce a hard decision is finances, as for most the quality of life will invariably decrease for all involved due to 2x living costs. But that isn't the case for super high earners like we have here. When you've had a household income of £200k for at least 14 years, the dcs quality of life should not be decreasing as there is plenty of money in the joint pot.

This. I am also the higher earner (but not at anywhere near your brothers level). Dh and I have been together 20 years. We are not great at saving and have struggled to put enough in our pension. And yet our combined assets at this point, after mortgage etc paid off, would still be around £400k. What the hell.has he been doing with this huge salary and why is he being so stingy on the settlement?

But you would you say the same to him, or is it suddenly unfair when that choice has consequences for him? How strange...

He is available for 50/50 care now that he's divorced and having to do it all alone, but he was happy to leave it all to her before? Also the children are already undergoing a huge upheaval due to the divorce. If possible I think it'll be to their benefit if their sahp continues to be able to sah at least for the short term in order to provide them with some semblance of stability.

She has contributed financially, the amount a housekeeper and nanny would cost

My husband and I have a large disparity in earnings - I earn 5-6x more than him and this gap will widen as I become more senior.

We have children. Our family life (and in turn me being able to do my high pressure but well paid career) is facilitated by my husband taking a step back in his own. He has given up opportunities that would benefit his career but negatively impact our family life to ensure that my own career progression can continue unhindered.

If we split (bloody hope not), I would assume we’d have 50/50 custody. And while I might not like it, it would be right for me to give him spousal support at least for a good number of years as reparations for the opportunities he turned down to support me.

And personally, if it were me, my children would come first. And I’d want to ensure they had comfortable homes with both parents and didn’t see a notable change in lifestyle when moving between homes.

Marriages and the dissolving of them should be equitable. It’s not as clean cut as saying “because one person bothered to get a degree”. Life and family isn’t so black and white.

Actually it’s two Nannies and a housekeeper. You can’t get one nanny who will work 168 hours a week for 52 weeks a year. You’d need two Nannies working 45 hours a week each to cover the 90 hours a week that a SAHP works ( let’s say 8am - 10pm minus and hour for meal breaks ) .

But that still gives you no “ on call “ cover from 10pm - 8am each day, so you’d need the non SAHP to work all of these hours ( including with a new born ).

And you would need agency staff ( of a third nanny part time ) to cover the Nannies annual leave - the legal min of 25 days each , but I’m sure most will expect 8 public holidays as well. So that’s 33 days x 2 staff = 66 days. So another two months worth of wages at agency rates.

Its the same for the house keeper - who cover for her job for that 33 days a year when she’s on leave? I assume that’s more agency staff.

Plus cover for any sickness, staff training , maternity leave , special leave etc . It’s not cheap or simple to employ staff.

And there’s still the issue of wifework , which won’t be on the job description of the Nannies or the housekeeper . A household with 3 full time staff plus agency workers is like a small business - who is going to run it ?

( Edited for spelling)

I think it's interesting that as OP adds details about the situation with her brother and exSIL, more and more people are PRO spousal support. The reality is that a lot of people, mostly women, are absolutely penalised in a divorce and shouldn't be. I also love @Octavia's calculation of the SAHP financial contribution. It's so true. Separate to the issue of spousal support, something that annoys me intensely is when I hear men or women referring to the SAHP as "getting to stay home" with the sort of suggestion that it's this huge benefit. Don't get me wrong, for many, it absolutely is their prerence and they enjoy it, but no one thinks that if you are a doctor and you absolutely love being a doctor that means you shouldn't be paid or treated correctly. I have a client at the momeny who I am genuinely loving working for. It barely feels like work when I'm doing their work... but part of that is that they pay me well, and on time, and appreciate and value the work I'm doing for them.

I think when you have children in 99.9% of cases one of the parents ends up taking a big hit to their career (and in most cases it is the woman). I look at my earning potential when I first had children and now if I went back to work and the discrepancy is huge. I would tell my daughters to not have children with a man unless he agrees to marry them and that they need to agree how they divide assets etc.. if they were to divorce given that 40 % of marriages end in divorce.

I agree it's an insult. Thank god laws are changing. For god knows how many years supporting an adult, why? The relationship is finished, and I'm not responsible; marriage is a contract between two adults; when it ends, that should be it. How can I owe you money because we had a child together? Why do I still owe you when we separate? To OP, tell your relative to instruct his solicitor to make clear his contributions to the marriage and his ex's ability to support himself. Tell him 50/50 and that she will get a short shrift in court. I'm not responsible for another adult; you stayed home, and I provided. How could I possibly still owe you? What do you owe me for bringing in 6 figures and doing my bit at home? I can't tell you how empowered I felt, not losing everything I worked for.

No more then 10k a year in england that is the cost of a DAILY cleaner and a full time housekeeper who lives in tbe house on average 23k. The housekeper points is a terrible example it gets ripped apart in court. Can you imagine if a judge said okay you want to be compensated for that, wouldnt be 170k. It devalues women they even if at home can and do more then housekeeping. Very very weak argument