Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Divorce/separation

Here you'll find divorce help and support from other Mners. For legal advice, you may find Advice Now guides useful.

Original poster

Spousal Maintenance

154 replies

NeedsAdvice2017 · 17/03/2017 20:19

Apologies in advance, but this is going to be a long one.

OP posts:
misssilverwings · 21/03/2017 10:16

Divorce means change in circumstance. Divorce doesnt mean remaining as you were. He sounds very reasonable to me. Many women who divorce end up in semi poverty ( my husbands exwife struggles and he gives her as much as he can). Your being greedy. You have a job. Don't you feel ashamed by your grabbiness? Your son will be fine financially. You earn more than i do and together with your monthly sum you will be very nicely off. Don't you just want a clean break? This means you have to fight about money for years to come. How awful. You might meet someone else and build a lovely new life .

Blinkyblink · 21/03/2017 12:59

Baby barrister...

MrsBB doesn't actually given the Op any advice at all. She just makes a barbed comment about enormous tiger.

And then you come on saying that as usual you agree with MrsBB. But she's not actually said anything other than about Enormous.

Dollyparton3 · 22/03/2017 13:16

Question for the OP - if you have the same fortune that your STBX has in the next few years and have an increase in Salary will you be negotiating down your payments from him?

I'm ashamed for the sisterhood when I read things like this, surely you should be taking pride in being able to provide for your child with an agreed maintenance payment, not remaining beholden to an ex for the next 15 years like some sort of weak limpit just because you're sulking that he's ended the marriage.

Brokenbiscuit · 22/03/2017 13:50

Honestly, I can't say that I sacrificed anything for his career.

So why do you feel that he owes you anything now? Yes, he should support his son, no question, but you should support yourself.

Underthemoonlight · 22/03/2017 14:09

If you had been a sahm sacrificed a career for 10plus years fair dos but you haven't, you actually earn a decent wage. Women thought for equal rights they died for it,they were penalised for it so when you are clearly capable of supporting yourself and with a contribution of maintenance for your DS you think that's not enough and you want more simply because you were married and that's your right to receive extra payments until your child is an adult. You are lowest of the low and you give those genuine cases a bad name who do deserve something extra for the sacrifices they made for their ex partners career.

MrsBertBibby · 22/03/2017 19:19

You're actually usingvthe Women's Suffrage Movement to justify calling a woman who is merely seeking to assert her legal rights (for which the WSM also fought, including the right to divorce, and the right to own property) "the lowest of the low"? Wow. Just, wow.

Really, lower than rapists? Paedophiles? Murderers? Terrorists?

Centuries of struggle, and still women consider ourselves less.

EnormousTiger · 22/03/2017 19:57

We are all free to post and people can ignore my views if they want. It's neither here nor there for me.

Underthemoonlight · 23/03/2017 09:48

No I'm not lowest of the low woman fought to have EQUAL rights not rights above men. Op works earns a decent wage she is of course entitled to costs of CHILDCARE and MAINTENANCE costs and split any assests but to go after bonus he's obtained post separation and expect spousal maintenance until her DS is an adult just simply because she was married and wants to maintain her lifestyle is adhorert,grabby and gives woman a bad name. Woman wanted to be treated equal and fairly, ops is clearly trying to take advantage of her ex.

DayToDayGlobalShit · 23/03/2017 17:00

I think the OP did not like what she was hearing and fucked orf!

katronfon · 23/03/2017 17:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

babybarrister · 27/03/2017 10:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AmyMum2mumStoke · 27/03/2017 23:54

The courts will look at what you and your child need to live on and if you are comfortable on your own salary then you won't get it.

CreamTeaTotty · 28/03/2017 11:32

Flippin' eck!

My STBXH has just told me £400 a month maintenance for two children is too much.

He earns £57K and I earn £6K plus my tax credits.... I have NO savings.

That's the real world.

Sorry.

Blinkyblink · 28/03/2017 12:33

But it's not creamtea. It's actually not. Go on the online calculator and it will tell you precisely how much he owes a month. It will be more than £400 and he doesn't get to decide.

AmyMum2mumStoke · 28/03/2017 12:36

He can complain all he likes creamtea but there's nothing he can do about it so he needs to just accept that's what he pays and it's the minimum amount he's legally obligated to pay. The money is for his kids not you so he just needs to get over it

DPotter · 28/03/2017 12:40

I thought spousal maintenance was only for spouses who couldn't work, eg looking after a disabled child.
I think the best thing for you to do is to get yourself some good legal advice

heidiwine · 28/03/2017 14:23

@babybarrister... the link you posted said:
"...Apparently a new study confirms that, notwithstanding the existing powers of the court, husbands tend to make a far stronger economic recovery from divorce than wives."

I don't doubt that it's true BUT I would expect any study to use a fair comparison group. Do you have a link to the study? Without seeing it I cannot be sure that divorce is the causal factor. Personally, I suspect it could be gender and for me that's a much bigger issue as it extends to all areas of life. England is unusual in its approach to spousal maintenance. The nordics - famous for gender equality (esp when it comes to parenting) do not award spousal maintenance at all BUT the also expect both parents to provide financially and emotionally for children...

babybarrister · 28/03/2017 15:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

reallyanotherone · 28/03/2017 16:33

@babybarrister... the link you posted said:
"...Apparently a new study confirms that, notwithstanding the existing powers of the court, husbands tend to make a far stronger economic recovery from divorce than wives.

I don't doubt it's true either, but is it at the expense of time with the children?

This was the reason dh was given for only getting less than 5% of the marital assets, apparently it's easy for a man to get back on their feet.

Well technically it might be, but dh had to work all hours to pay CM, plus save and find a rental property, pay rent and bills, save for a car etc. When he was married to his ex they both had similar incomes, worked the same hours, did 50:50 with the kids in fact dh did more, as she needed time away to conduct her affair

Which all came at the price of seeing his children. At first he couldn't afford a place suitable for overnights, a car to get to contact, plus he was working overtime to pay for it all.

10 years on he is back on his feet financially, just. But the kids are teenagers. Meanwhile his ex got remarried 3 months after their divorce finalised, so has had a mortgage free house, paid for car, and two incomes, and free childcare of dh's parents.

I really don't see how it can be made fair though, as every case is different and comes with two sides.

EnormousTiger · 28/03/2017 21:59

Yes do check, cream. Your husband's net pay assuming no pension contributions or student loans is about £40,500 a year net and your income is £6000 (plus tax credits- £10k a year?) - I do not nkow how much they are and probably you also get the child benefit - £1800 a year. So your income might be £17,800 from those 3 sources - am just guessing and not sure what tax you pay, and his £40,500. So he has about double your income unless you can up your income from £6k by taking a full time job.

heidiwine · 29/03/2017 12:15

@babybarrister - thanks for the link - that is a great report. The bit about divorce didn't say that divorce was the cause of the financial discrepancies as it compared divorced women to divorced men (not to single or married women). Personally I think that women are financially worse off than men across the board because they're paid less (often but not always) because they have disproportionate caring responsibilities and that's the real reason.
It is my strongly held view that both parents have responsibilities for their children - financial and non-financial.
In my view spousal maintenance can be counter-feminist (especially joint lives orders after short marriages). Of course the parent who has given up a career to care for young children should have their medium-term needs met but giving up work was a choice made in a marriage and when the marriage ends the choices made during it shouldn't endure.

babybarrister · 29/03/2017 12:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

heidiwine · 29/03/2017 12:49

That's not been my experience of joint lives maintenance.
DP has a general joint lives order (50% net income plus school fees, medical insurance and various employee benefits).
10 yr marriage (11yr relationship).
2 kids
Ex wife worked and earned about the same as DP until youngest was born (6 yrs into marriage).
She has never worked since and why would she!
I know you've got a whole lot more experience than me but my experience of spousal maintenance somewhat colours my view on it!

Blinkyblink · 29/03/2017 13:09

Heidi you don't make any reference to property or assets, just cut of salary. That might be why so high

heidiwine · 29/03/2017 13:23

Assets split 70:30 in favour of wife and I have no issue at all with this as it was all related to the housing needs of the children.