Child maintenance after pay rise

[Treezylover]

Hi everyone, happy new year! I’m going round in circles with a situation and think i might benefit from the wisdom of the hive mind. I left my husband 3 years ago, at the time I was in a part time admin role earning less than 20k, and was the primary carer for our kids- in fact I’d only been in the world of work for 3 years after being a SAHM for 7 years since soon after uni. When I left I focused on increasing my salary as quickly as possible, took significant risks and obtained a job with a 40% pay rise. My ex has the kids 3 nights every two weeks, and has earned almost double what I have earned. He pays me CM of £900 a month, and remortgaged to provide me with a deposit for a house which was a clean break- I don’t want anything else from our divorce which has been amicable. We remain friends. Problem is he is older than me so his mortgage payments increased significantly, whereas mine are half his. I’ve just accepted a new job with a 50% salary increase which puts my salary on par with his. He keeps complaining about how ‘poor’ he is (this undeserved self pity is part of my reason for leaving).

He’s slightly outraged by my new salary as with his contributions I will have a higher income than him, but also I did initially intend to offer to reduce his CM payments. Now I’m having doubts about this gesture though. He doesn’t put anything away in savings for the kids, doesn’t treat them, and wouldn’t save the extra if I accepted reduced payments. If I kept his payments the same I could save considerably for them. Part of me also feels that I have earned my salary increases through risk, blood, sweat and tears, and he had no concerns about me earning less than him when he provided me with an allowance for years whilst I raised his kids. Is that bitter? I want to be kind but I’m also tired of being a mug. Wwyd?

I was in a similar position. Worked hard to get myself re-established and now earn three times the amount that exDH does. Housing situation slightly different though as I bought him out of our house.

My standpoint has been that his CM is based on his wage, not mine. It should be a percentage of his wage, taking into account how many overnights he has with the children. Not once (despite him earning more over the years) has he offered to up his contribution in line with his increasing income. He doesn't know how much I earn. Also, as my boys have got older they don't want overnights at his house so 95% of costs and responsibility is on my shoulders. There have been times when he has been struggling financially that I've suggested he dropped child maintenance for a few months (which, to be fair, he has never taken me up on but knows he has that choice). However, I then have conversations with him where he's paid off his mortgage and is thinking of buying a million pound house so I keep my mouth tightly shut and channel my resources (and his relatively piddling contribution) into funding my boys. If your ex isn't having the children 50:50 at the moment, is it likely that he is likely to increase contact? Looks like he'd rather go to the pub. So I'd take the money and make sure you're saving/investing it for yours (and his) children. Seems there's money to fund a pint.

I think this thread does raise a very interesting point though. Being the "weaker financial party" really should be looked upon as a temporary rather than permanent status by the law unless the divorcing parties are within 10 years of retirement and asset splits should always be 50/50 for younger people who are divorcing (in the event that one party needs more assets in the short term e.g. to have residence of children, those assets should be borrowed from the other party with a fixed charge). Pension sharing should also only be possible for people over the age of 45 on the amounts saved over the age of 45. Also, spousal maintenance should be in the form of a loan repayable if the recipient eventually earns the same or more as the payee (taking into account inflation).

The current snapshot in time settlements can lead to some very unfair outcomes which the courts ought to do better to avoid.

I'm not sure the courts do necessarily look at a snapshot though. They also look at who has sacrificed previous income and career prospects to take care of the children. At the end of the day, child maintenance is only paid until the children are 18, or later if in education or with certain SEN. So it is considered a temporary status, which protects the child whilst they require financial support. I think they look at the child's best interest and attempt to provide an equal opportunity for both parties to be able to house the child. Spousal maintenance is also barely a thing any more.

I think it’s interesting too. If we’d have needed to reach a financial settlement with lawyers 3 years ago it would be very different, based on my needs, to what it is now, as my earning capacity is no way related any more to my previous status as a SAHM. I maybe feel like he’s been penalised unfairly by our agreement?

If he gave you higher share of joint assets based on much lower earning capacity then arguably he got a raw deal - however if you don’t have a final
Consent order on split of assets he could come back and argue a fair(er) ( in his view) split and settlement

The money you earn is your money. The money he gives on CM is not 'your' money, it the children's. If you don't need to spend it all on their keep, you can save some. Don't reduce this payments, just because you earn more doesn't make the kids less his responsibility nor does it reduce his financial obligations.

How old are your children?

As others have suggested, it's maintenance for upkeep of your kids, not a payment to you as such - so if you don't feel you need it (or all of it) why not save what you don't need.

Once they're out of full time education he won't be required to pay, so if you squirrel away now what you don't need, it will be there to help them through university/college. You will likely be expected to contribute to their costs so it can help with that.

Is he genuinely struggling though, yes it might be for the children for example if you ex husband earned 1500 and 300 for CM then the mortgage he now pays is 900 quid leaving him with 300 pounds per month, do you have a similar disposable income or are you talking 1000 disposable plus CM ? I don't take as much from my ex as I technically could because he would be so much worse off. The children don't go without with either of us. It's not me going to Disney land while he goes to Butlins. We'd both be able to do a mid range thing each.

@TeeBee

I'm not sure the courts do necessarily look at a snapshot though. They also look at who has sacrificed previous income and career prospects to take care of the children. At the end of the day, child maintenance is only paid until the children are 18, or later if in education or with certain SEN. So it is considered a temporary status, which protects the child whilst they require financial support. I think they look at the child's best interest and attempt to provide an equal opportunity for both parties to be able to house the child. Spousal maintenance is also barely a thing any more.

All true but I'm solely looking at the asset split now. The compensatory principle hardly ever applies in awards of assets or ongoing maintenance. Most of the time, cases are on a needs basis and there simply isn't the money to compensate one partner for not working (or the non-working spouse simply never had a well paid job to be compensated for losing, which is even more common).

I think as the courts are more than willing to consider the future earnings of the higher earning spouse then they ought to do the same for the lower earning spouse. Perhaps 50/50 should be more normal even with large income discrepancies with a preference for short term maintenance because that is easier to correct in the future?

Or maybe "use of assets" orders would be more appropriate where property such as the FMH are held in trust and the asset split is decided at a later date based on need, such as when the children reach 18?

This has made me quite angry.

So, he released some capital at the end of your marriage to allow you to buy a new home ie you took some of the capital from the marital home as part of your settlement. Today, he has an asset in the form of the marital home and theoretically, the amount that he would have in cash should he choose to sell it is slowly but surely going up as he a) pays down the mortgage and b) the property price goes up.

So unless the marital home was worth £200k and he released £150k to you so that you could buy a £300k house, I'm struggling to see how he feels hard done by here, no matter what his mortgage payments are.

You are also paying for the children for 11 days out of 14 and I'm guessing 100% for clubs, activities, clothing, school uniform etc.

Now, having worked really hard you may be financially better off than him. And you are feeling guilty because apparently, even though he only has the kids 3 days a week, it is not okay for you to be financially better off?

Sod that.

Oh, and of course, I have no idea what other assets he has, most notably, one assumes that he has been putting towards his pension for all those years that you were a SAHM and then only working part time? So any extra you have right now I'd have thought that you would need that to pump up your pension a bit?

So you both work hard, your salary has gradually gone up & approaches his.
You have bought up the dc with minimum cms, & have housed & clothed & fed & cleaned them 11/14 of the time. & presumably struggled.
& now you think he is possibly paying too much ?
Is there a reason why he shouldn't participate in their upbringing with a minimum cms payment ?
(How much does he spend in the pub each week ??)
I would stay at the same level & if possible put money aside for their university costs, or first car.
If he wants to dispute this he can ask cms if the minimum amount is still correct
FFS

You’re being a mug. Stop it. Funny how he didn’t care about getting together or how low your income was when you were earning less. But now you’re earning more he wants both. This man is a user.

@Ozanj

You’re being a mug. Stop it. Funny how he didn’t care about getting together or how low your income was when you were earning less. But now you’re earning more he wants both. This man is a user.

Yes, this. So it's okay for him to have more money and fewer childcare responsibilities, but not for you to have more money. Bollocks to that. I'd be questioning your supposedly close friendship and definitely not even considering getting back together with him.