AIBU to wonder what one could afford as a non-resident parent?

[GlovedhandsCecilia]

To ask what you could afford if you had to split and you were the NRP.

I just worked out that if we were to split, I had to find a new place to live and pay CM, I'd only be able to afford a really bad studio or houseshare once I covered both their and my own necessities. That would mean I couldn't have them stay over.

To get a place I could have them stay over, I'd have to move a distance away that would make it hard to see them in the evenings given the distance, work and pure exhaustion on all sides.

I couldn't even see them every weekend because I have to work some weekends and I feel like at the moment, this job is the best paid job I could get. So if I did swap jobs to see them more, they'd get less CM and be worse off.

How would this situation look for you?

True. But it would eat away inheritance for the kids. If you really want to do the best by them, that doesn't seem like a feasible option.

I know and hugs op that I’m saying this but inheritance should be the least of your priorities at the moment x

But again this is the trade off that people have to make.

Is the relationship so bad that someone has to split up. If so living in that environment will be awful for the children, and thus splitting up is the best thing to do.

Not growing up in a bad environment is much more important than inheritance in their 50s/60s. ( most children today aren't going to inherit until they are in their 50/60s because parents statistically on average will live to their 80s)

You talk about ‘he’ not being able to buy you out but then wondering how you would be able to afford a rental plus pay the mortgage? Are you a male/male partnership? Why would the NRP only have the kids one night a week? Who decides which parent would get the family home and kids, and which would live in a bedsit handing all their wages over so the other didn’t have to move? Which are you?

CM doesn’t take outgoings into account, hasn’t done for many years. It’s based purely on income.

I seperated in 2020, divorced in 2024. My exh hasn’t paid towards the mortgage since a month after he moved out, despite being named on it until 2023 when I bought him out. We got a financial order which gave us both a “clean break”. Mesher orders, where one parent is able to stay in the marital home until the youngest child turns 18, are less popular nowadays and was not recommended by my solicitor.

With other divorced couples I know, they sold the house and split the equity rather than get a mesher order.

Why are you so disbelievingbthat a woman might want to be the nrp? I know its rarer but not impossible. If my ex had been interested in 50/50 id hsve jumped at it and now..if he wanted to be RP and they wanted that id be ok with it

Not disbelieving, just wanted to establish who the OP was in this situation. Are you the children’s mum and investigating how you could be the non resident parent, @GlovedhandsCecilia?

Most people only get inheritances when they are middle aged, in their 50’s or 60’s. This is usually when they are at their wealthiest.

This is also a very materialistic view of family life. The house or wealth doesn’t make the family and children family happy or content. That is achieved through function not form. A well researched and and established finding.

If material things matter to you, then you should be prioritising your income and building wealth throughout your life. This usually means not reducing hours or sacrificing careers when you have children. This aligns to having children later in life when careers are established and you usually get better support from your employer.

like another PP I don’t know what point you are making. Life is all about out choices and living with the consequences.

I felt like this when ex upped and left. I felt very keenly that hed put a bomb under all of our long term financial footings but it cant be helped. Depending on the issues in the marriage, it may just have to be that way.

I think you need legal advice but is your relationship civil enough to share both the family home and a rented place and have the kids 50:50 in the family home? I knew of a couple who did this ie rotated homes and the kids stayed put. I know it's rare but just throwing it in as an idea.

Of course you'd have to help maintain the family home for your kids.

Course you don't.
If I was splitting with DH, first thing I'd be doing is getting rid of our big house to buy something affordable, managable & create a fresh start for myself & my DC.

I've never got the 'forever home/family home' thing. The home is created by the people in it, not the bricks & mortar.

But the kids staying in the house and having a good inheritance arent more important than a NRP having an active parenting role in their life. If you're saying that in order to keep the children in the house, you'd have to contribute to the mortgage and then not be able to afford somewhere they could stay over, you're essentially forgoing the chance to actually parent your children properly because realistically when would you see them? You cant parent children who dont ever live with you, really. The disruption a child experiences from moving from a house does not compare to the impact that a parent not having an active role in a child's life has on everyone in this scenario. Child, RP and NRP.

Most couples sell the house, split the equity and buy/rent elsewhere.

If a NRP is paying half of the mortgage on the former marital home then it’s usually instead of child maintenance, very high earner or it’s temporary like paying for a couple of years so child can finish GCSEs sort of thing.

The ideal is one buying out the other so the other can afford their own home but considering the possible difficulty of affording a home in a specific area or needing help from family elsewhere, moving is very common.

OP, I know this situation is (fortunately) hypothetical for you, which might explain your delusion.

Firstly, in the vast majority of cases, adults don’t behave well, or in the best interests of their children, when it comes to divorce. This is a generalisation but I’ve found it to be true: the NRP is usually the man, and usually is unwilling to do more than what they absolutely must. And even not necessarily that.

The idea that a NRP is paying towards a mortgage on a property they aren’t living in, as a matter of course, is laughable.

I’m in Ireland, our system is different. No CMS which is both good, and bad. Bad, because there is no systematic way to enforce maintenance but good as the CMS rates seem appalling low in the UK, so generally, once formalised, maintenance is much better here. The problem is in the absence of parents being willing to agree, you must go to court, still usually needing a barrister, solicitor at the very least. It also takes ages, during which you are likely to be getting nothing.

That was my case, a 10 year battle to get divorced, and get maintenance. Before that I got varying and sporadic amounts, had to pay the mortgage on my own BUT in court, had to agree to pay him a very significant sum (just short of 6 figures) to buy out his interest. The house is legally mine, however, in the bank’s eyes, my ex remains on the deeds until they are willing to give me a mortgage in my own right (which they won’t yet)

I could go on & on. My ex doesn’t have the DC to stay, and sees them when it suits. He has a great life, and still resents having to pay maintenance - he sees it as supporting my lifestyle, being unaware how much it actually costs to raise 3 DC.

Also, this idea that you choose to be nice to your spouse to avoid divorce & what it entails, well, great. But don’t make it sound like divorcing was just a whim or easy decision for those of us who had to do it. Some of us went through hell, and had no choice either.

Would you though?

factor in rent for a family home because you have no equity, bills, buying a new car, furnishing your home so the kids can stay…

it costs a lot to start again with no savings and what little equity you leave a marriage with.

I don't really understand the point of your post... and unsure if you are purposely ignoring posts.

If separated you are only legally required to pay CMS which is worked out on your salary. Many NRP choose not to contribute to extra expenses like uniform/ clothes, school trips and extra-curriculars or nursery / wrap around child care costs. Some think eow is adequate parenting... the NRP is nearly always financially better off and their earning potential far greater as they are not constricted by school / nursery times.

Do “most” couples have the equity to split and afford a new home each?

not in my experience.

more usual for the rp to stay in the family home. Financial arrangements often take in affordability, the nrp won’t get much of the equity if it is needed to house the children.

Then the nrp uses their relative freedom to work more, train more and earn more so they can afford it.

The house is in my name only since I bought out my exh, and have a financial clean break order, so I wouldn’t have to sell it. I already pay the mortgage and bills on my own anyway. The kids live with me full time at the moment so I already have their rooms sorted. Why would I need to buy another car?

It’s my exh who would be worse off if he suddenly became the RP, as he’d suddenly need to buy everything, and he’d struggle to do that on his apparent non existent wage and maintenance from me of £480 a month.

If only my exh got this memo 😆

Well yes, im not saying they all do it but the point is that they can. My ex took a demotion when he pissed off with ow so cms is les than it would be. He earns enough for them to be comfortable so isn't interested in exerting himself for what he sees as 'my' benefit.

The thing is OP because you are not actually in this situation you are looking at it differently.

If you had genuinely split with your ex, the expectation would be that the 2 adults are no longer financially dependent on each other (outside of the payment of CMS for the children) - unless one parent is very wealthy, you couldn't expect the financial situation to stay the same in term of one supporting the other to work less.

The RP would be likely need to go back to working full-time, or close to, and the parents would need to work out the resulting additional childcare needs between them. Similar with housing, if there was no house sale, the person staying in the house would most likely need to up their income and use the CMS to cover the mortgage. If that was not possible then they would need to move.

I can't imagine there are many couples where they are able to maintain 2 family-sized properties in expensive areas after a split, regardless of their wishes not to disturb the children. People don't stay in stasis forever after a split, things will change - new jobs, new partners, even new children may arrive.

Also to bear in mind is that an NRP who doesn't have the children 50/50 doesn't necessarily need a big house to have the children stay - they could get a couple of z-beds in a one bedroom flat if it's just for every other weekend. They would likely spend most of the time out and about anyway as it's such limited time.

Yes, most people probably can’t afford to sell one home and buy two nice homes with that money, but I don’t actually know any situations where the RP has stayed in the house and the NRP has had to move out and only got a small amount of equity.

It seems to be far more usual round here to either

1. sell the house, split the equity and each party sorts themselves out either with a new mortgage or renting. Yes, these new living arrangements won’t be anywhere near as nice as the family home was.

2.keep the house and the children stay in it, and they also jointly rent a small place nearby where the parents take turns to live 50/50.

This is just me pondering what I would be able to afford if I was the NRP. Not for any reason other than wondering how I'd be able to stay locally in a home big enough to house my kids, without CB/UC top ups and while also providing for them. At best, I'd be able to see them once a week and EOW consistently.