What is seen as fair

[Nitotoo]

Just that really what is deemed fair in the eyes of a judge. XH and I are heading to court soon for FDR he had previously made me an offer which he deemed fair but my solicitor said starting point of 50%.

To give brief details met in 2014 after my first marriage ended and I had been made redundant. My daughter from my first marriage and I were living in rented accommodation and in receipt of full benefits. XH was in the process of buying a home to renovate and get on the housing ladder. I stayed in rental accommodation. I fell pregnant with our DS in 2015 and XH then sold his first property and bought a family home for us all to live in in his name. We moved in in Jan 2016. I was still not working due to having a baby and had struggled to find anything since being made redundant. We married in 2017 after XH took a loan to fund a wedding and a new car for me. This loan is like the house in his name only. I was able to find a part time job around this time around XH working commitments working 16 to 20 hours a week to bring in a small income. In 2018 we seperated and I left with the children to private rented accommodation with benefit top up from UC. XH stayed in his house.

Were struggling to reach an agreement as he offered 16k I keep the car and have no liability to the loan. My solicitor said 50 50 which is more like 80k with the equity and current house prices.

XH has moved his new partner into this house. Due to financial disclosure they both have a healthy salary and seem to have a good life whilst me and the children have been served section 21 and forced to move and struggle on UC as I can only work 24hrs a week when children are in school. I don't feel very secure in rented accommodation and feel I should have stayed in the house.

Would I be likely to gain an order to get back in the house? Would I be likely to get 50% I realise at a 14 month marriage and whole cohabiting relationship of 34 months it could be deemed a short marriage but there is a huge difference in our circumstances which cannot be seen as fair. If I'm forced to work more hours who picks up the childcare bills, XH? I could possibly work more hours but I doubt I could get a mortgage more than enough to buy a place I would need. My solicitor is saying to hold out for the FDR and my XH is saying the original offer he made is now off the table. My mum could potentially gift me a 6 figure sum towards a house but I would need at least 50% of the equity to top this up to what is needed. Would I then get spousal maintenance to top up the loss of UC to live off he is quite a high earner on about 70k a year (I already get cms payments however the min cms amount) would I really be liable for half of the loan that XH took in his name only? His claiming I should be however I would think he has nearly paid this off by now.

If what the OP is wanting and Unknown is staying categorically she is entitled to, is correct then I will be advising both my kids to never marry someone who has kids from a previous marriage. It’s crazy that the responsibility for providing stable housing is passed to a 3rd party whilst neither biological parent needs to provide. Talk about treating this guy like a meal ticket. He must be deeply regretting marrying the OP

@Marchmount

If what the OP is wanting and Unknown is staying categorically she is entitled to, is correct then I will be advising both my kids to never marry someone who has kids from a previous marriage. It’s crazy that the responsibility for providing stable housing is passed to a 3rd party whilst neither biological parent needs to provide. Talk about treating this guy like a meal ticket. He must be deeply regretting marrying the OP

That's not what the law says at all. All the law is saying is if needs are created by the marriage then they should be met post marriage. The legislation is quite clear that the roles of the biological parents will be taken into account.

The reality is £80k isn't enough to house the OP and the child with the ex-husband anyway, so actually he has nothing to complain about.

@AlDanvers

I have paralegal equivalent qualifications. What are your legal credentials?

Of course you.

Despite the fact that uiu qre ignoring cases that have already happened, where the exact opposite of what you said has happened.

If you had any sort of professional training, at all. You would be advised to never suggest an a definite outcome. Never suggest 'this is definitely how this law/rule/guidance will be applied.

If you weren't taught that, you were let down. You should also be aware of precedent.

BTW I am an accountant, who has dealt with many people going through divorce/ post divorce. Also been recently divorced myself. As, has my partner.....which was a blended family. Also, I was a child of blended family and divorce.

No one can tell the op what will happen. You arguments don't actually make sense, given the 4 year gap. Which is why I advised from the beginning to get a second opinion.

By all means name those cases and highlight the ratio decidendi in the judgement that supports your argument.

Also, you might have picked up that I haven't given a definite outcome. I've outlined why the OP might have a case and put forth cases that support the OP's position. My argument is to trust her solicitor whereas yours is to believe moralising strangers online.

And being an accountant (a real one or AAT?) does not qualify you in law. It barely touches the sides on company law let alone anything else!

@Jossbow

Crazy! There are NOT 'children of the marriage', there is Child- one. This is surely borne out by the fact that the first ex pays for the first child- rightly so- why woud you expect yoursecond husband t do so a well?

She's asking for receipt or use of assets to house her children. When she had a child with a second husband it created a need for a bigger home as the children are different genders. That's material.

Any claim for maintenance for the first child will go nowhere but on the assets OP has a case.

@TrufflesAndToast

Really shocked at your brass neck to be honest. You sound horribly grabby and entitled and only interested in what you can get from your ex, your parents and the state. Did it ever occur to you to provide for yourself and half of each of your children yourself?! Or is sponging off other people your life plan?

This sounds like one where only the lawyers will profit and you’ll walk away with a bit but nothing like you seem to think you’re entitled to. Your belief that you’re entitled to your exes assets after such a brief marriage stinks and while he should of course support his own child the idea that he is any way responsible for your other child is laughable and honestly its embarrassing to women everywhere that you’re pursuing that line. As for your ex and his new partner living the high life…they have more money than you because they earn it Just watch out because your ex might decide to push for 50/50 custody of your shared child and then you won’t even get CM out of him. This could backfire for you and honestly after reading your posts it’s hard to hope that it doesn’t.

I'm not really sure why this is such a difficult concept for some people on a moral level?

If someone made a living as a dog walker and a drunk millionaire ran them over and left them in a wheelchair then I think most people would agree that the millionaire should compensate the dog walker for lost earning capacity.

For some reason though people seem to have a blind spot when that earning capacity is reduced by having children. Everyone is telling the OP to maximise her earning capacity which I don't disagree with but that earning capacity is still going to be less than her ex because she is doing the majority of the childcare for his child. That will restrict her ability to work for the next 5-7 years and impact her earning potential possibly forever.

It is fair and reasonable that this ex-husband pays his share of the loss of this earning potential by joint decisions in the marriage with an appropriate asset split. You call the OP grabby but what is the ex-husband if he just uses his ex to provide the bulk of childcare? He's a freeloader, that's what.

It sounds as though he’s sticking to his guns on principle rather than financial necessity
Just as OP seem to stick to financial greed rather than principles.

The fact that they had a child together limits the OP's earning capacity for around another 5-7 years until their youngest is in secondary school or age 13 (the age at which UC claimants are expected to pursue full time work) and this has to be taken into consideration by the court
This is so retrograded. Why should the judge assume that being on benefits is the benchmark for deciding when mothers should or shouldn't work at the detriment of their soon to be ex spouse?

OP earnings capacity is reduced solely because she won't work ft unless she can get significantly more doing so than claiming benefits. Not because age can't do so. A10 year old can stay with a 15yo for a couple of hours, so where does the 5-7 comes into it?

This whole 'poor me, I'm so vulnerable and helpless because I'm a resident parent' is wearing thin. OP is probably getting close to £3000 a month all together. She is doing just fine. The only reason she can't get a house is because if her choice not to work FT. Why should he be penalised financially because of what is purely her choice.

I rely hope the judge rise up to this entitled and greedy behaviour and does the right thing.

I'm curious about one point here and have skimmed the thread and haven't seen it be mentioned, so hoping someone can answer.
As they split in 2018, would the equity in the house be calculated from then rather that what it's worth now. House prices have bumped in the past 4 years and OP is calculating on today's figures rather than 2018.

If someone made a living as a dog walker and a drunk millionaire ran them over and left them in a wheelchair then I think most people would agree that the millionaire should compensate the dog walker for lost earning capacity
What a complete immoral and insulting analogy.

OP CAN work FT. This would allow her to be a home owner if that is what she believes she is entitled to. OP admits herself that she won't because she wouldn't be better off financially. She would be better off because she'd be a home owner, but OP would rather get her ex to pay for it than work more hours.

The way women use being a resident parent (often fighting nail and tooth to be so) to justify being in a weak incontrollable position is so manipulative. If they really were so vulnerable purely due to the fact that they are resident parents, how do so many single mums, some with no support at all, manage to do so without issues?

@vivainsomnia

If someone made a living as a dog walker and a drunk millionaire ran them over and left them in a wheelchair then I think most people would agree that the millionaire should compensate the dog walker for lost earning capacity What a complete immoral and insulting analogy.

OP CAN work FT. This would allow her to be a home owner if that is what she believes she is entitled to. OP admits herself that she won't because she wouldn't be better off financially. She would be better off because she'd be a home owner, but OP would rather get her ex to pay for it than work more hours.

The way women use being a resident parent (often fighting nail and tooth to be so) to justify being in a weak incontrollable position is so manipulative. If they really were so vulnerable purely due to the fact that they are resident parents, how do so many single mums, some with no support at all, manage to do so without issues?

I never said she couldn't work. I said her earning capacity had been reduced.

And I'm sorry if you don't like the analogy but it's you getting huffy about the logic of the law.

Also, if children maintenance is not to help towards the cost of housing, why is it so high in some cases? £1000 for two children, which would mean a total of £2000 if OP contributes her half is one heck of a spend a month when you excludes housing!

I never said she couldn't work. I said her earning capacity had been reduced
Why?

@DropYourSword

I'm curious about one point here and have skimmed the thread and haven't seen it be mentioned, so hoping someone can answer. As they split in 2018, would the equity in the house be calculated from then rather that what it's worth now. House prices have bumped in the past 4 years and OP is calculating on today's figures rather than 2018.

Check with a solicitor but I would assume the equity split would be expressed as a percentage. If house prices have risen whilst this case has dragged on, then so have the needs.

And I'm sorry if you don't like the analogy but it's you getting huffy about the logic of the law
The law that says that the moment you have a child growing in your stomach, you automatically reduce your earning power? I don't think such thing exists.

@vivainsomnia

I never said she couldn't work. I said her earning capacity had been reduced Why?

You seriously can't figure that out for yourself?

I'm a high earner. To earn a salary like mine I'm expected to do overtime without warning sometimes for no extra pay. That's the price you pay to be a high earner.

The OP can't be a high earner like me because she can't offer an employer the kind of flexibility and long hours that they demand. She has to pick her children up from school and provide care for them.

She could use childcare to build such a career but that will not happen overnight. For a start, you would need to explain how at the beginning of her career when the pay is not so great she could afford that childcare and afford to live.

There are also a lot of more modest careers she can't do until her children are older because the hours don't work. She can't work shifts for the NHS or the police. She can't work as a teacher. She can probably get office admin work but her horizons will probably be limited whilst she is part time.

By all means explain what you would do in her situation to make enough money to buy a £220k flat.

@vivainsomnia

It sounds as though he’s sticking to his guns on principle rather than financial necessity Just as OP seem to stick to financial greed rather than principles.

The fact that they had a child together limits the OP's earning capacity for around another 5-7 years until their youngest is in secondary school or age 13 (the age at which UC claimants are expected to pursue full time work) and this has to be taken into consideration by the court
This is so retrograded. Why should the judge assume that being on benefits is the benchmark for deciding when mothers should or shouldn't work at the detriment of their soon to be ex spouse?

OP earnings capacity is reduced solely because she won't work ft unless she can get significantly more doing so than claiming benefits. Not because age can't do so. A10 year old can stay with a 15yo for a couple of hours, so where does the 5-7 comes into it?

This whole 'poor me, I'm so vulnerable and helpless because I'm a resident parent' is wearing thin. OP is probably getting close to £3000 a month all together. She is doing just fine. The only reason she can't get a house is because if her choice not to work FT. Why should he be penalised financially because of what is purely her choice.

I rely hope the judge rise up to this entitled and greedy behaviour and does the right thing.

Because it's a useful benchmark of what society expects! If society expects people to work full time when their kids are 13, then judges will use this as a useful indicator of when SAHPs should be in full time employment too.

The OP can't be a high earner like me because she can't offer an employer the kind of flexibility and long hours that they demand

With respect to the op, I’m pretty sure this is not the reason why she cannot be a high earner like you.

I'm a high earner. To earn a salary like mine I'm expected to do overtime without warning sometimes for no extra pay. That's the price you pay to be a high earner
Oh so your projecting! I became a single mum of 2 under 4 yo, no family or other help, ex only had them a few hours a week on Saturday and I managed to work ft and earn over £40k, 15 years ago.

I definitely wasn't the only single mum in this situation. So again, why assuming that all single mums become vulnerable and unable to work FT just because they have divorced?

@velvetpeach

I have reported your disgraceful remarks.

Because it's a useful benchmark of what society expects!
Is this written in the law or just your assumption?

There are any 9to5 jobs working for the NHS, the council, the police and other organisations!

Of course it would be easier if OP was already on the career path before she had children but she wasn't. How is that her ex's fault and for him to remediate to for many years?

Her eldest had to cope with growing up in a rental home before OP got married, because her first ex didn't own a property. Are that child needs lower because it happened that her dad didn't own a home at that time?

I just don't get the rationale that OP needs to own a home to provide for her kids, especially when all she could afford is a 2 bedroom flat rather than renting a 3 bed with a garden which surely is better for the kids.

Also, you might have picked up that I haven't given a definite outcome. I've outlined why the OP might have a case and put forth cases that support the OP's position. My argument is to trust her solicitor whereas yours is to believe moralising strangers online.

And being an accountant (a real one or AAT?) does not qualify you in law. It barely touches the sides on company law let alone anything else!

No you haven't you have stated that the first child will definitely imocat the outcome. That's not fact. You stated that, in law, he must continue to provide for that child. Again, that's not always the case.

I haven't given legal advice. My advice has been get a second opinion. Because the solicitor appears to be giving absolutes where there are non. A solicitor can not guarantee an outcome.

Its not difficult to find out that 'child of the marriage' and a guaranteed outcome can not be promised when it comes to blended families. Its extremely murky water where how long the non biological parent has been an active parent to the child, how long the non biological parent has financially provided for the child and wether the child's bio parent is involved. This child must be at least 8. Maybe older. But stbexh has likely provided for 1/8 (or less) of the child's life. And not for 4 years. And not for 4 years. Its really clear.

As for the 'a real one one or AAT', professional snobbery doesn't do you any favours trying to convince people you are a professional or capable of having an adult discussion.

I am quite happy in the knowledge, my job is a real one.

I'm a high earner. To earn a salary like mine I'm expected to do overtime without warning sometimes for no extra pay. That's the price you pay to be a high earner.

The OP can't be a high earner like me because she can't offer an employer the kind of flexibility and long hours that they demand. She has to pick her children up from school and provide care for them.

She could use childcare to build such a career but that will not happen overnight. For a start, you would need to explain how at the beginning of her career when the pay is not so great she could afford that childcare and afford to live.

And you don't live in the real world. Single parents aren't all low earners. Single parents don't have absolutes. They are not one group that all applies to.

I earn a 6 figure salary. I built that while martied and continued whilst being a single parent AND using child care.

Again talking in absolutes. She can't be a high earner, because she hasn't worked in years.

Yes, as women we know mat leave and time out impacts our career. It's not the equivalent to being run over, as no one consents to being run over. Op was part of the decision to have a child AND not return to work. The dog walker so not benefit from being run over and didn't be part of the decision making.

As someone said before, if she gets everything she wants, her UC would largely disappear anyway. Since homeowners do not get the housing element. So, she will need to work full time anyway.

I'm curious about one point here and have skimmed the thread and haven't seen it be mentioned, so hoping someone can answer.
As they split in 2018, would the equity in the house be calculated from then rather that what it's worth now. House prices have bumped in the past 4 years and OP is calculating on today's figures rather than 2018.

Interesting point.

@NorthernSpirit

IMO you sound a little greedy.

When you met the manager you & your other child were living in rented accommodation and you were living off benefits.

Your EH sold a property and purchased a new one for you and your child from a previous relationship to live in.

You married in 2017. He paid for the wedding & purchased you a car. Did you contribute anything? In 2018 you separated.

Why do you think you are entitled to 50% equity in the house, when you put nothing into it and were married a year before you separated?

You seem to think because your EH (of a year) and his new partner have ‘a healthy salary and seem to have a good life whilst me and the children have been served section 21 and forced to move and struggle’ you are entitled to be paid for by someone else’s hard work.

I doubt you would be awarded an order to get back into what is effectively his house 4 years after you left & separated.

Not a chance in hell you will get spousal maintenance for a 14 month marriage. When you met him you were on benefits and now 4 years after separating you want SM because he has a better lifestyle than you. From what you have written your youngest child is 6/7 (?) - there’s no reason you can’t get a job and start supporting yourself.

Am presuming you get CM for your first child and get CM for the 2nd child?

This!