Spousal Maintenance?

[Unknown83]

I've begun discussing a financial settlement with my STBXW and we've come to a sticking point on spousal maintenance. Fairly normal disagreement I guess, she thinks she should get 62% of the assets (around £170k) and spousal maintenance for life whereas I think after the 62/38 split we should have an immediate clean break. I'd be grateful for other people's experiences and what a likely settlement would look like:

Me: Husband, age 40, earn £90k approx
Her: Wife, age 39, SAHM retraining, earning capacity of around £20k and potential to earn more over time (with the right incentive!)
Marriage: 11 years
Assets: Equity £100k, Pensions £150k. Other than mortgage, only outstanding debts on cars with net asset value of around +£24k.
Children: 3 (all boys aged 6, 8 and 12). Split will be 8 nights her and 6 me.

We're generally agreed on an asset split. She'll get £80k equity, her car and loan with net £15k value and £75k pension and I'll get £20k equity, my car worth £9k net and £75k pension.

The sticking point is on spousal maintenance. I'm of the opinion that once she's got her income (around £1,400 net), universal credit (around £500 net) and child maintenance from me (around £750 a month) then the total of £2,650 should be more than enough to live on without "undue hardship." I'd also have to pay her well over £500 a month for spousal maintenance to be worthwhile because universal credit drops £ for £.

I should also explain that to get my good salary I have to spend around £6k a year commuting to London. So after taxes, commuting, continuing to pay for things like private medical insurance for the children and child maintenance my monthly income is only going to be £800 more than hers a month and as she's getting something like £70k more in assets from me and my mortgage interest is going to be a lot higher than hers for years I think that is fair enough. I've worked out it will be at least 9 years before I catch her up and that's assuming she doesn't progress in her career (she did not have a career to compensate prior to children either, she was doing a minimum wage job before the children were born).

Her opinion though is that she shouldn't have to work until DCs are in secondary school, that she should have a higher income than me to be "fair" and that when child maintenance stops I should carry on paying her to make it "fair" because she's had to "stay at home to look after the children and sacrifice her career." My counter argument is that I want the children 6 nights in every 14 including week nights so she can go and get a job like everyone else.

One other thing to add is that I won't see much of the last £15k of my salary already. £6.5k will be tax, £6k will be commuting costs and about £2.25k will be child maintenance so I'll get about £250 of it! Not a lot for the 4 hours of commuting on office days (and I'm not sure where I'll find the time to run a household on my own even though I can WFH for my days with the kids). I've warned my wife that if she pursues the spousal maintenance issue then the logical thing for me to do will be to quit my London job and take something locally where my earning capacity would be closer to £60k per annum and her child maintenance would drop substantially. Presumably a court would consider that a reasonable adjustment so that I can spend more time with the children rather than slaving away to fund a lazy ex who refuses to get a job?

And are you also 39 like the OP’s wife or older? That’s the more relevant info

@summertimerolls

Firstly I think you’re not being unreasonable in pushing back against what she’s seeking. She definitely needs to work and earn for herself. I think you’re probably winding yourself up over nothing because I can’t believe she would be awarded SM on your salary. 90k is not high earning territory.

Secondly though, your poor kids. You say you’re only venting anonymously but I doubt this, the level of bile in your many posts is off the chart so it seems unlikely to be contained to only this one thread on MN. Once this toxicity starts leaking out it doesn’t stop and before you know it you’re slagging off their mother to them because you’re so far down the rabbit hole of hate that you don’t even realise you’re doing it.

Wind it back, and approach it without emotion which is what the courts will do. They don’t care whether she’s had an affair, no affairs or several affairs when it comes to the financial settlement. Like a PP said, even once you’re divorced you’ll still be joint parents for the rest of your lives and you’ll have a whole series of events to deal with as co parents. The only people who will be repeatedly, negatively affected by you both not getting this right are your children. Put them first, like you keep saying you are.

Well, you can doubt what you like but you would be wrong.

Also, the level of bile is not "off the chart" at all compared to most of the threads on just the first page of this part of the forum (not to mention the comments of other people on this thread who even I think have gone too far)! Quite clearly, my comments are within a normal range on this forum.

On your "affairs" comment, I understand financial settlements don't take this into account but on a personal level I hope it's understandable why I don't still want this person to feature in my life after the children are grown up. I want to move a very long way from her and only hear from her again if my children have a wedding or such like. The idea of having to fund her lifestyle forever in a way that involves me continuing to do a high stress job that I hate well into my 60s whilst she takes 'retirement' the minute our youngest leaves home and 'lunches with the girls' is an outcome I hope you think me reasonable in wanting to avoid.

@summertimerolls
Till 14. And yes I recognise my case is different to the op, it was a response to th many posters who've implied that it's the ops salary which means she won't get it as opposed to his salary plus his particular set of circumstances.

On your "affairs" comment, I understand financial settlements don't take this into account but on a personal level I hope it's understandable why I don't still want this person to feature in my life after the children are grown up. I want to move a very long way from her and only hear from her again if my children have a wedding or such like. The idea of having to fund her lifestyle forever in a way that involves me continuing to do a high stress job that I hate well into my 60s whilst she takes 'retirement' the minute our youngest leaves home and 'lunches with the girls' is an outcome I hope you think me reasonable in wanting to avoid

I said right at the top of my post I didn’t think you were unreasonable in pushing back against her pursuing spousal maintenance. Much better all round to have a clean break.

Your youngest has got another 12 years before nominal adulthood - that’s a long 12 years of co-parenting. You can make it as hard or easy as you want it to be. You’ll be almost 50/50 parenting which requires a lot of communication and being on the same page if you don’t want your kids to be pulled in two different directions. I simply suggested you take the emotion out for their sakes. I don’t think that’s a particularly outlandish suggestion. Good luck.

@summertimerolls

And are you also 39 like the OP’s wife or older? That’s the more relevant info

I'm 40, so very close in age.

@arethereanyleftatall I actually think you getting SM has more to do with going through mediation and agreeing a 50/50 split of assets. From what I'm reading the way things go in court and the way things are settled in mediation can vary widely. I've also been told by some people that some mediators are clueless on the law and their only mandate is to get people to agree (provided what comes out is fair enough then it passes, they're not under the same obligation to aim for a clean break that the courts are etc).

@summertimerolls The hardest thing about co-parenting will be her mood swings when things aren't done her way. I've been a bit of a pushover for the past 11 years but I've started standing my ground where I think the way things are being done are more for her convenience than the children's best interests. If she wants to give them dinner in front of the TV and I want to have dinner around the table, then I'm not going to dump them in front of the TV at my place for her benefit.

@RandomMess

CMS is the legal minimum you can choose to pay more.

You can offer a flat rate that is above CMS and state after 2 years it will be at the CMS rate (which could be higher or lower tbh)

I strongly suggest not to negotiate anything with variations of child maintenance. Court orders do not hold when it comes to it.

And also, she may be entitled to a higher amount of universal credit the first year she claims, especially if she had lower or no earnings in the previous tax year but it will go down a lot once she is earning. I advise not to try that in court, the judge will see through it so it is a waste of money in solicitor fees/time.

Honestly OP, you vilify her as much as you can and can reconstruct your memories as much as your bad feelings allow for it but… courts don’t have time for that when it comes to the separation of assets, none whatsoever. They see that everyday, so they just go down to crunching numbers with no much allowance for emotion.

Courts won’t see a woman sitting on her arse while you worked yourself to success. They will see a woman keeping the kids out of your hair so you could progress your career without much hindrances.

@GrandmasCat

Honestly OP, you vilify her as much as you can and can reconstruct your memories as much as your bad feelings allow for it but… courts don’t have time for that when it comes to the separation of assets, none whatsoever. They see that everyday, so they just go down to crunching numbers with no much allowance for emotion.

Courts won’t see a woman sitting on her arse while you worked yourself to success. They will see a woman keeping the kids out of your hair so you could progress your career without much hindrances.

Even though that's not what actually happened

@GrandmasCat

Honestly OP, you vilify her as much as you can and can reconstruct your memories as much as your bad feelings allow for it but… courts don’t have time for that when it comes to the separation of assets, none whatsoever. They see that everyday, so they just go down to crunching numbers with no much allowance for emotion.

Courts won’t see a woman sitting on her arse while you worked yourself to success. They will see a woman keeping the kids out of your hair so you could progress your career without much hindrances.

I've resigned myself to the fact that the courts will make a lazy assumption that the spouse who doesn't work is the "stay at home parent" even though that stretches the truth to breaking point. It will reflect in the division of assets in her favour.

What I won't resign myself to is a form of slavery where I'm expected to be out the door from 6am to 8pm not for my own benefit but in order to provide her with an income because she doesn't want to work. I'm prepared to do everything up to and including taking a job I'd actually enjoy that pays half as much to stop her doing that. There's actually some precedent in Waggott for that - one of the factors the courts considered was Mr Waggott's freedom to choose a different career in the future.

What I won't resign myself to is a form of slavery where I'm expected to be out the door from 6am to 8pm not for my own benefit but in order to provide her with an income because she doesn't want to work. I'm prepared to do everything up to and including taking a job I'd actually enjoy that pays half as much to stop her doing that.

I don’t blame you!

If you do do that (take the lower paid job) you should recognise to yourself that it's purely out of spite, possibly justified if your side of the story is entirely true, but nevertheless out of spite. And a decision which will leave your children with less.

Bottom line has to be, however much it pains you, is what is best for the children.

With regards to mediation, that's interesting and you may well be right. My ex and I knew nothing at all about the process, we simply wanted what was fair and what was best for our girls. It seemed mediation was cheapest, then solicitors with battling it out in court being the most expensive. So we went with mediation.

It's interesting - the mediators do everything and nothing. Mostly just sat there whilst we talked it out, guided us through what to consider, - but it allows you to talk without fighting, it meant that we got an amicable agreement which only cost £500.

I did not have a good experience with mediator and would not recommend it. Their job is to make sure you communicate properly with your spouse. They may not be very knowledgeable in family law and will not give proper advice. Ours suggested I give my ex SM and said this would be for life, so he used this against me. I ended up getting a lawyer and felt much better after I did as she definitely clarified some things for me. She explained to me that I do not have to give him SM for ever and might now have done it at all actually. I now wish we did not get the mediator at all. She was completely useless for us.

@arethereanyleftatall why do you say it’s out of spite? Op has given lots of good reasons for taking a lower paid local job- less commute time, shorter hours more time with kids. Why is it better for his kids if he works in London and gives his ex wife slightly more money? He is going to be caring for the kids 40% of the time. Do you think you may be projecting?

Op I don’t blame you, you are entitled to some quality of life. You are understandably annoyed with your ex. Focus on doing what’s best for your kids which isn’t necessarily what’s best for your ex.

@carol
More the tone with which the op has written it really.
And, forgive me, I have only skim read- but as I got it, the ops current job allows him to wfh with no commute on his days with his dc anyway? So, no extra time with them, but less money in the 'family pot' to spend on their activities etc

@arethereanyleftatall - I think you might be projecting. He mentioned lots of good reasons for working locally. Also if he has to pay the funds to his exwife who then doesn’t work or works less, there will be less money in the “family pot” not more despite ops increased stress and working hours. So not as simple as all that.

My ex is not great with money. For a while I was tempted to give him money so that dds could stay with him and so he could be a better dad. In the end I decided that as it could be a bottomless pit (often was unfortunately) I was better just to focus on dealing with me and dds although I still do what I can within reason to facilitate the relationship. Luckily he’s now found another woman to sort him out financially and he now has a decent place dds now can go and visit.

I think when you have been the one financially responsible in a relationship it can be hard to leave that behind. But they are an ex for a reason and you have to leave them to stand on their own two feet.

@arethereanyleftatall

If you do do that (take the lower paid job) you should recognise to yourself that it's purely out of spite, possibly justified if your side of the story is entirely true, but nevertheless out of spite. And a decision which will leave your children with less.

Bottom line has to be, however much it pains you, is what is best for the children.

With regards to mediation, that's interesting and you may well be right. My ex and I knew nothing at all about the process, we simply wanted what was fair and what was best for our girls. It seemed mediation was cheapest, then solicitors with battling it out in court being the most expensive. So we went with mediation.

It's interesting - the mediators do everything and nothing. Mostly just sat there whilst we talked it out, guided us through what to consider, - but it allows you to talk without fighting, it meant that we got an amicable agreement which only cost £500.

Sadly there are a breed of SAHPs out there (and by the way, I'm not talking about every SAHP before people get the knives out) whose lives have followed a path of doing the bare minimum at school, bumped along in low paid work and then found themselves a spouse who is harder working than they are. The couple happily go about their lives until the children come along and that's when everything changes.

The trouble is that childcare is hard work that's equivalent to doing a stressful and demanding job. It is at that point that things go wrong because that is the point at which the higher earning spouse makes a dangerous assumption that the SAHP is going to be happy pulling their weight. The trouble though is that people like us grossly underestimate the shock that our lower earning spouses are in for. These spouses have no concept or preparation for this hard work because they've never done anything like it before. They're only at home because they command less income than a nursery would charge.

Over time, SAHPs become resentful of their new role. They have no idea what it's like being the higher earning spouse because they've never done a demanding job, so they assume everything is on them. To them, work is the easier gig because they compare it to the stress free kind of work you can leave at the door at 5pm. They have no concept of bosses texting at 8pm, four different people demanding complex output in a 15 minute window or having to manage other people. Nor do they tend to have any concept of how grim commuting is. They just begin to assume having to sort some laundry, vacuuming a house or answering the same question from their child for the umpteenth time is somehow worse when really it's actually a similar kind of mental and physical torture!

Us higher earning spouses have a better concept of that because unlike our spouses we can empathise. Often we're doing the bulk of the childcare on weekends for example, so we experience both roles. I know which job I find less stressful and that's spending time with the children. That was as true when they were toddlers as it is now. As a result, we're more likely to think everything is fine.

Now, to your point. You say it is "spite." Spite would imply that I would do something that would be a negative for me just to "get one over" on her. You ignore the many tangible benefits I could enjoy from an easier, lower paid job:

1. Instead of being out the door from 6am to 8pm three days a week commuting, I could leave at 8:30am and be home by 5:30pm working locally. That's 15 hours a week of time when I can either get my chores done or be available for the kids;

2. My job would be less stressful and more enjoyable so the time I am at work would be a healthier experience;

3. I would not have to pay commuting costs (or have to commute). I've mentioned above that once I pay child maintenance, I will already get absolutely none of the last £15k of my salary anyway;

4. I would be able to sever all financial ties with a person who repeatedly cheated on me;

5. Living close by, I could quickly respond to calls from the DC's school when they're sick etc. I could get to their school plays easily and watch them on sports day.

All of these things are more important to me than money. It would not be spite, it would be taking action to improve my life and my children's lives. My objection to spousal maintenance is not the money itself but the expectation that I will prostitute myself in a job I hate well into my 60s and in a way damaging to my health and my relationship with my children for no other reason than to provide an income to someone else who refuses to work. The only reason I am prepared to carry on doing my job is to provide for my kids and if instead a court decided that the money I make to take them on outings, holidays, meals out, buy books and toys etc, save up to help them buy their first place etc should be handed to my ex-wife so she can sit and play on her phone all day then I'm not going to do it anymore.

@freeatlast2021

I did not have a good experience with mediator and would not recommend it. Their job is to make sure you communicate properly with your spouse. They may not be very knowledgeable in family law and will not give proper advice. Ours suggested I give my ex SM and said this would be for life, so he used this against me. I ended up getting a lawyer and felt much better after I did as she definitely clarified some things for me. She explained to me that I do not have to give him SM for ever and might now have done it at all actually. I now wish we did not get the mediator at all. She was completely useless for us.

This. I've heard it a million times before. Mediators don't necessarily understand the law, they are only there to make you communicate and agree.

If we do mediation, we will be careful to pick a solicitor who does mediation and not just someone whose done a counselling course (and just because I'm enjoying myself venting, let's be honest mediators don't earn much. They probably empathise a lot more with the lower earning spouse than the higher earning one!).

[quote arethereanyleftatall]@carol
More the tone with which the op has written it really.
And, forgive me, I have only skim read- but as I got it, the ops current job allows him to wfh with no commute on his days with his dc anyway? So, no extra time with them, but less money in the 'family pot' to spend on their activities etc[/quote]
When am I meant to do my admin and my housework if I'm out from 6:30am to 8pm on all the days I don't have the children? This is another one of those classic examples of unfairness in divorce. I'm expected to go without sleep to do my ironing or vacuuming or to do it when the children are with me, whereas the same people will argue I should be ecstatic if my STBXW only works for 20 hours a week.

@CayrolBaaaskin

My ex is not great with money. For a while I was tempted to give him money so that dds could stay with him and so he could be a better dad. In the end I decided that as it could be a bottomless pit (often was unfortunately) I was better just to focus on dealing with me and dds although I still do what I can within reason to facilitate the relationship. Luckily he’s now found another woman to sort him out financially and he now has a decent place dds now can go and visit.

I think when you have been the one financially responsible in a relationship it can be hard to leave that behind. But they are an ex for a reason and you have to leave them to stand on their own two feet.

I saw someone else on the forum who said when divorce happens both roles should change. The homemaker should get a job and the rainmaker should be able to scale back their work commitments and do a fair share of the childcare to facilitate this. That's real equality, that's what I'm aiming for.

@Unknown83 - I think generally kids benefit from seeing parents with more equal roles. Both from seeing that both mothers and fathers can work in demanding jobs and from actually spending time with both parents. I think that’s true for separated and together families.

Longer term I would get a local job tbh. Older kids and teens still need you around and taxiing every bloody where. That's when they chat to you about stuff.

Actually too, for all I can be critical of my ex in private, my dds do love to see him and he gives them things I can’t. My own dad wasn’t around much so I’m glad he is an active and interested parent.

Great response @Unknown83

All totally fair enough.

Good luck!

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@Unknown83 - I think generally kids benefit from seeing parents with more equal roles. Both from seeing that both mothers and fathers can work in demanding jobs and from actually spending time with both parents. I think that’s true for separated and together families.[/quote]
I agree. I think my STBXW will set a terrible example if she doesn't get a job. In fact, I think she would also set a terrible example if she just scraped along instead of trying to have some kind of career that would make the kids proud.