Spousal Maintenance vs Universal Credit

[sallysm]

I'm confused about how courts balance an order for spousal maintenance (SM) against universal credit, given that receiving SM results in a £ for £ reduction in universal credit (UC).

For example, let's say someone without a job and 1 preschooler, says their reasonable needs are £1200 a month, and their husband is on 40k.

So the Ex has to pay about £400 child maintenance
That leaves a shortfall of £800

Does the court order the Ex to pay £800 SM? (leaving him to live on £1100) Or do they tell the person to claim the £800 (as possible) from UC instead?

I think the OP is winding you all up...

The questions about 'why should he have more money than her' and 'what would he do with the surplus of what he's earned after his basic needs are met' we're revealing.

On the off chance this is real, OP, you'd be better getting a job to support yourself and providing a better example to your child.

🤣🤣 nonway this is real. Surely not!

The entitlement in the OPs posts is honestly astonishing. I fail to truly believe that someone thinks this is a reasonable way to behave.

OP what you're struggling to understand (somehow) is that by divorcing you - HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO YOU CEASES TO EXIST. He has responsibility for his child, absolutely. But the courts to NOT expect someone on a modest £40k salary to get divorced and still have the same financial responsibility as if they were married. The financial climate at the time bears absolutely no significance to the situation. It may seem to you like "he has lots of extra money" but he is entitled to spend that in whichever way he chooses. And you know why? Because he's earned it. If there's assets that were earned whilst you were together, that's a different story altogether. But the suggestion that FUTURE earnings will be awarded to you on such a modest salary is so laughable it's almost making me cross the fact that there's an entire thread about it.

If you won the lottery in 10 years, you'd give half to him right? Because according to you, that's fair.

There's plenty of jobs if you look, you're just entitled and lazy. You will not get SM on a 40k salary. End of. A divorce means he ceases his responsibility to you. If he looks after the child a certain amount, I'm pretty sure CM payments are reduced too.

I know a lot of people who have been to the divorce courts.
No one has ever been awarded spousal maintenance.
You should also be warned that if your now ex husband decides not to pay Child Maintenance then you are very unlikely to be able to get it. Pursuing an ex husband to pay anything is a long and a mostly futile pursuit.
You have to take what you are reading with a punch of salt. The reality is completely different.

Forget spousal maintenance and look at the reality of your situation. You are going to have to cut back on your outgoings and go out to work.
There is a website to see if you are claiming everything you are entitled to but don’t expect spousal maintenance as that is only ever awarded in specific circumstances and just on the fact your ex is only on £40k means you wouldn’t get it

You also have to look at if he went out to work all month and was paying you spousal maintenance and not having anything left over then there would be no reason for him to go out to work as he could probably get his needs met on Universal Credit and doing some very small job a couple of days per week and then he wouldn’t be paying you Child Maintenance either.
I think you are living in a fantasy land that you expect because someone once put a ring on your finger then they were responsible for you forever more

You know, OP, I'm sort of with you. Not on the spousal maintenance and the "Why should he have more than me?" line of thought but on the ridiculousness of the "just get a job" and "you'll be expected to work when the child is 3".

Thousands of hard-working single mums all over the country have been fucked over by lockdown and school closures. Having told them they're expected to go out to work, the government now expects them to stay home and care for and educate their children. Consistent or what? So they're working double or triple shifts. The truth is we expect mums to work but also to always be there as 'default' carers.

There's only one way to ensure that your ex has as little disposable income as you're going to have - have the child live with him so he's resident parent and has to organise childcare and you're free to build up your career. It's very difficult to escape the motherhood penalty.

I wonder why he left you...

@MessAllOver

You know, OP, I'm sort of with you. Not on the spousal maintenance and the "Why should he have more than me?" line of thought but on the ridiculousness of the "just get a job" and "you'll be expected to work when the child is 3".

Thousands of hard-working single mums all over the country have been fucked over by lockdown and school closures. Having told them they're expected to go out to work, the government now expects them to stay home and care for and educate their children. Consistent or what? So they're working double or triple shifts. The truth is we expect mums to work but also to always be there as 'default' carers.

There's only one way to ensure that your ex has as little disposable income as you're going to have - have the child live with him so he's resident parent and has to organise childcare and you're free to build up your career. It's very difficult to escape the motherhood penalty.

From reading the OP's posts she should probably still want CM!

@MiddleClassMother. I agree... she does seem a bit "grabby".

I've always had an issue though with men (and it is mostly men) who are happy to take advantage of their partner's unpaid labour and leave all the chores and childcare to them while they build their careers. Then, when the marriage breaks down, the spouse is 'lazy" and should shut up and get a job. Fairest solution in those circumstances seems to me to be for the working parent (usually dad) to take the children and balance childcare and career while the former SAHP (usually mum) has a few years to focus on building up their career without having to worry about the children and the school run.

@MessAllOver

Nice in theory but I think you will find many SAHM’s struggle with the thought of being away from their children even every 2nd weekend, let alone 50/50 visitation.

So even if the male partner is willing to take the children, you may find that both courts & the mothers refuse this offer.

@sallysm

Wow. To be honest there's quite a lot of negative replies here. I do wander how many of you have been through the court process, and not just said fine, I'll accept UC and CM and deal with the rest myself.

When you read solicitor websites about SM, they always say, if there is a shortfall between your reasonable needs, and his ability to pay, then there is a case to argue for.

Now if he can get by I reckon, on £1300, and I'm short, then why shouldn't he pay more? Why should he be living with more surplus money than me? I read that marriage is supposed to enable some even split of things, including living standards, afterwards, if both can afford it. What else is he going to spend his extra money on each month, whilst I'm struggling? Sky Sports subscriptions and holidays? :/

And yes, I read that at age 3 I'm expected to work 16 hours a week, but how far does 'expectation' get you? You can't be forced to get a job, and you're def not finding one in this climate! My guess is a year or more before employment opportunities return to normal.

I’ve been to court. I’d do anything to avoid going again. It’s not as simple as those websites lead you to believe. I was compiling paper work while I worked a full time job and looked after my DS. I was ineligible for SM (not that I wanted it) and I did have a short fall between my earnings, rent, childcare, commuting cost and feeding us and I’m not in a poorly paid job. I know how tough it is but you need to think long and hard before you decide you are going the court route. Do you know how much it costs? (There are hidden costs unless you do it all yourself, I wouldn’t recommend it) Is what you want reasonable or are you being driven by emotions? SM is not reasonable on his salary. Do you both have assets? Are they being divided fairly? If the assets are being divided fairly and he is willing to pay CM and help out with unexpected costs for your DC I would accept it and try and make a go at life for yourself.

I only went to court as my ex was being utterly unreasonable. As in wouldn’t engage in any discussions about finances, decided he didn’t want to pay CM but he would buy things if I asked, which he often didn’t or would buy a cheaper version.

*Nice in theory but I think you will find many SAHM’s struggle with the thought of being away from their children even every 2nd weekend, let alone 50/50 visitation.

So even if the male partner is willing to take the children, you may find that both courts & the mothers refuse this offer*

This. My brother wanted RP, had a flexible, if lowish paid career, and had been a completely, if not more than 50:50 parent during marriage. She had a less flexible job with better career path.

Lots of “i’m not paying you to have my children taken off me” from the ex.

A solicitor said unless she voluntarily gave him care or was unfit, ie drink, drugs, neglect no court would take residency off a mother. They also said the bulk of the house and assets would go with the main carer of the children, which she was never going to give to him- she was “entitled” to it because of the kids.

Society still has a long way to go before we see parents as truly equal. Men paying CM is seen as them doing right by their kids, women it’s seen as a further insult asking her to pay for kids she’s had “taken off her”.

@MessAllOver I feel like that sometimes in the heat of the moment. In reality though I wouldn’t give DS to his dad. It’s not fair on the child is it?.

It could be worse OPs child is 3yrs not months. It’s a rubbish time but she can start to get herself organised and look for a job.

What's the situation with property? Do you own? It's more likely you could try to fight for more equity.

However from my experience of divorce unless both parties are signed up to be amicable it is very very expensive. The solicitors will end up richer than you or him.

@gutful. I completely agree it's impractical... It's just I don't hold with the "get to work, you lazy SAHP" argument.

For instance, case in point. My DH works 80+ hours a week. Often weekends as well. The only reason he can do that is because he has zero, literally zero, day-to-day responsibility for our DS or the house. I work around 30 hours a week including overtime and do almost everything around the house since DH is hardly ever here. Our DS is at nursery 2.5 days for a total of around 20 hours. I spend the rest of the time caring for him, although DH will take him to the playground at the weekend. I earn about 1/10 of what DH earns - what I earn barely covers DS's nursery since I'm currently retraining as well as working. I'd like to increase my hours and responsibility level but DH isn't keen on DS being in full-time nursery for five days a week and can't commit to doing any drop offs or pick ups if I have to work late since his hours are so long. And the stress for both of us doesn't currently seem worth it.

So this is a compromise cobbled together for the benefit of our family. It's a joint decision. If our marriage broke down and DH turned round and called me "lazy" for not working more, he'd get an earful.

@SnickersnotMArs. Yes, it wasn't a serious suggestion. I'm used to seeing a lot more of my DS than DH is so I would miss him more. The nursery run is a bitch in normal times, though, for making me late for work.

This is surely a joke?

OP, you get a job like everybody else. There are lots of jobs in my area. Supermarkets in particular have lots on offer. I’m assuming from your post that you are a princess and have never had to get your hands dirty.

I’m a single parent. I get £200 child maintenance, I work 20 hours and top up with UC (UC pay 85% of childcare) I also study 20 hours a week.

You pull your weight and crack on.

If this is real, no wonder you are being divorced!

*I'd like to increase my hours and responsibility level but DH isn't keen on DS being in full-time nursery for five days a week and can't commit to doing any drop offs or pick ups if I have to work late since his hours are so long.

So this is a compromise cobbled together for the benefit of our family. It's a joint decision*

It doesn’t sound like a joint decision. It sounds like your DH doesn’t want your son in FT care, but won’t make changes in his own life to facilitate that. Instead insisting you keep your career on hold. Sounds like his decision to me.

If you want to step up at work and are happy to put ds in FT care then that’s your decision. If he wants PT it’s his choice to figure out how he can make that happen.

[quote MessAllOver]@SnickersnotMArs. Yes, it wasn't a serious suggestion. I'm used to seeing a lot more of my DS than DH is so I would miss him more. The nursery run is a bitch in normal times, though, for making me late for work.[/quote]
Ohh I see my mistake. OP can just do 16 hours I know it’s a shitty time. Demanding what she wants though came across very bad from OP. Wanting to leave her ex with £1300 a month. I don’t know weather OP is stressed but as another poster said she is taking the P...

I mean, the OP is taking the piss a bit here. But, pre-divorce, men often say they're working hard "for the family" to avoid doing unpaid and unappreciated work at home. Post-divorce, their standard of living usually (although not always) improves while that of the RP and kids falls considerably. And the decision to have a SAHP is usually a family one, but the SAHP bears the entire cost of it in a relationship breakdown.

Though I think the OP in this case is a wind-up.

It's a joint decision. If our marriage broke down and DH turned round and called me "lazy" for not working more, he'd get an earful.

But, in all fairness, this is exactly how it happens... the joint decision which works really well for both parties (man enabled to earn well, woman happy with lower paid flexible job and spending more time with DC)... and then shafts the mother when the marriage breaks down.

I'm honestly not trying to rip your situation apart because it obviously works well for you and your family... but you've said in one post:

I've always had an issue though with men (and it is mostly men) who are happy to take advantage of their partner's unpaid labour and leave all the chores and childcare to them while they build their careers.

And then gone on to describe your set up as exactly that ^^

It works well but it's so precarious.

So you earn 1/10th of DH's salary... if I was you, I'd be pushing for HIM to take the step back from his career while you do everything possible to get your salary up to a level where you could theoretically support yourself if you had to (maybe you're already doing this, in which case fair play!). If that means putting DS in a nursery and making him foot the bill with his vastly higher salary then that's exactly what you need to be doing.

Then, when the marriage breaks down, the spouse is 'lazy" and should shut up and get a job.

Well yes, that is exactly what happens. And it just so happens that it's usually the mother because it was the mother who was happy to enable the high-earning DH when it suited her and she was benefiting from the arrangement.

It's not as if people don't understand the way the game works these days. People should know the rewards of enabling the high salary don't come without risks to the sahp / lower earner.

The low earner / sahp (wether that's the mother or the father) will have to get a job to support themselves in the event of a split. It doesn't really matter how much of earful the one who needs to get a job gives the higher earner... that's just the way the world works. No amount of earful will stop that person needing to support themselves.

The lower earner (and it is usually the woman) needs to accept that when they agree to these join decisions.

Why should he be living with more surplus money than me?

Because he is working for that money and you are not?

😂😂😂😂😂

A friend of mine was given spousal maintenance. However, she got it after her solicitor explained it was extremely unlikely to be awarded.

The circs were here on £30-35k. He in circa £180k. He gave her nearly all the capital in the house (400k).

The reason she got the spousal is that she effectively blackmailed him by refusing to let him see the children etc. He now pays her £2k a month but the bombshell is coming as it ends when they are 18 and she is living way way behind her means. Apparently the judge "raised her eyebrows" at the settlement and asked him if he was ok with it

I would personally have fought her through the courts but he didn't want to damage the children

If I'm honest @sallysm ...your expectations of what you can expect if you go to court are delusional even for being married

@luminar. This might be a bit outing, but the arrangement I have with my DH is that he transfers me a large sum of money every year for my personal savings (not the joint pot) to "compensate" for the unpaid labour I do. We have an understanding that, if our marriage breaks down, that money is not "marital assets" but belongs entirely to me. He's fine with that because he's not a complete tosser and he recognises that I carry him at home.

I think you need to read those websites more carefully if you have missed all the explanations about spousal maintenance only being granted in exceptional circumstances and that the goal of the courts is to move to a clean break and financial independence as quickly as possible.

It's about the financially dependent spouse transitioning to financial independence as swiftly as possible and potentially smoothing that transition for a short period. it's not about a divorced couple continuing to treat income as if it were joint.

If you can't afford to actually speak to a solicitor then at least talk to Citizens Advice.