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.

[quote Pootlepoodle]@Unknown83
To be fair though we don’t know the details of the split. It could be OP who had an affair or other unreasonable behaviour that caused the breakdown of marriage.[/quote]
Irrelevant to a financial settlement though. My wife cheated on me several times, she'll still get more of the assets because her earning capacity is lower.

Ending up on the streets seems a disproportionate penalty for cheating too.

[quote BillMasen]@Unknown83 you’re the one coming across as a tit. Let’s leave the personal insults out of it eh…

So you’re not a lawyer, or a paralegal, you’re a different type of “professional” (who takes the piss out of qualifications like AAT and other posters with accounting qualifications).

Im also a professional and could well, like you, also claim equivalence with some junior levels in other professions. I don’t, because they’re not my area of expertise. I have opinions, but don’t claim them to be legal fact. I also don’t look down on junior levels like AAT or any other qualification someone has worked hard to gain.[/quote]
I'll stop insulting you when you stop being silly!

I've worked in a legal role for nearly 20 years and will not take advice on legal matters by morally outraged bean counters.

I've worked in a legal role for nearly 20 years and will not take advice on legal matters by morally outraged bean counters.

Again with the insults and lack of detail. I am not in the slightest morally outraged. I actually told op I thought she could get more than 16k. But don't let details or facts get in the way. You don't seem to require them.

And your 'bean counter' comments means very little.

If you need to insult other professions to make yourself feel better, that's a you problem. Its doesn't impact me.

We’re challenging you because you seem arrogant and utterly blinkered to your own situation. There are thousands of people living in rental accommodation and blended/ divorced families are the norm now. You seem to have taken your particular situation and stated that this happens across the board when it’s simply not true. At first I assumed that you were talking with such authority because you were a really experience divorce lawyer but now it appears that you’ve learned your divorce law from textbooks and your own case. That is not helpful to the OP as unless your divorce was so spectacularly interesting, it won’t form the basis of case law.

Irrelevant to a financial settlement though. My wife cheated on me several times, she'll still get more of the assets because her earning capacity is lower.

Your posts don't even make sense. @Pootlepoodle comment, that you quoted, was made because you decided this man must have got her pregnant and abandoned her. All in a very Lès Mis kind of way. Pootle was pointing out that we don't know that.

And now you say the circumstances are irrelevant. It was you that made up, the circunstances around the split and pretended it was fact.

[quote YABVVU]@Unknown83 - thats what I thought, any person with a basic morals would absolutely want their children to not live in abject poverty with the mum who bought them up so well whilst they afford to be the 'fun' parenting who can afford to give the children whatever they want. I couldn't even buy them anything for Christmas when he bought them new phones/laptops/took them out e.t.c

I hold on to the hope that I will afford a place by upping my income and being granted a mortgage. this is looking less likely every month.

I tried 3 different solicitors in the end and this is the shit position I end up in. I did all of the patenting to both my additional needs children 95% of the time. Had a very highly paid job prior to this but have to start over.

Threads like this make me so sad because what the OP is after is NOT fair by any stretch.[/quote]
I'll square it with you and admit I'm a bit torn in two directions. I feel a responsibility to ensure my children are housed well when they are with my ex and to the extent that my ex does four nights to my three this small difference does make a big impact to my ability to continue working full time and therefore when the divorce is settled I will gladly continue to pay the child maintenance that I do as money well spent.

However, I'm less inclined however to think my ex should have exactly the same lifestyle as me because whereas I work in a stressful job with a long commute to earn my salary, she chooses at the moment not to work at all either when the children are with me or at school though she has finally conceded that she will have to get a job soon (she still won't concede that she should make some effort for that job to be what she trained in, but it makes no real difference to me as she's been told don't even think about spousal maintenance by her own solicitor). I think if one spouse is more productive than the other after marriage by choice rather than circumstance then naturally they are going to be able to afford more nice things for their children (although I would make sure she had £20 per DC to at least get them something at Christmas for their sakes and hers, a relationship with both parents - unless there is abuse - is very important).

However, if my wife were to actually maximise her earning potential and work towards taking in £40k rather than £12k I would be more inclined to help her out in the interim and live more equal lives. It is her refusal to do that which puts me off setting any precedents with money that could cause problems in the future, such as claims of spousal maintenance when the child maintenance and much of the universal credit eventually stops.

What I think makes your claim so strong though is the special needs of your children. I simply cannot comprehend how you could end up in a position where you are doing 95% of the child care and a partner earning £100k+ can just walk away from their responsibilities to the carer of their own children. This should not be something individuals decide for themselves, there should be clear laws in place to protect you and your children.

@AlDanvers

Irrelevant to a financial settlement though. My wife cheated on me several times, she'll still get more of the assets because her earning capacity is lower.

Your posts don't even make sense. @Pootlepoodle comment, that you quoted, was made because you decided this man must have got her pregnant and abandoned her. All in a very Lès Mis kind of way. Pootle was pointing out that we don't know that.

And now you say the circumstances are irrelevant. It was you that made up, the circunstances around the split and pretended it was fact.

I wasn't talking about the OP when I made that remark. Attention to detail eh?

Man with tiny amount of divorce law expertise comes on mumsnet and talks with the authority of Fiona Shackleton. Not a glimmer of self-doubt that his advice is absolutely correct. It’s like the posters who’ve done a first aid course who go on medical threads and pontificate like they’re an A&E consultant.

@LemonTT

Let’s acknowledge that many of us do understand what impact having children has on life earnings and career. And that many of us have been or are single parents. Most people on here are incredibly sympathetic and knowledgeable about these issues. We don’t need lectures from people who assume that only they understand the situation.

She is a single parent to young children and her wage earning potential is limited by those factors. But give us some credit. She has confirmed she receives £1000 per month CS for both children. She works part time and earns minimum wage. She receives UC support and child allowances. Her net income is reasonably high and would be in the region of at least £2k per month before housing costs.

Her aim is to live mortgage free. She intends to do this by taking money from her parents and from her share of the marital assets. This doesn’t make her whole as a consequence of the marriage and having a child. It makes her better off and leaves her ex with an increased mortgage of £80k. He has to work and parent as well.

There is no moral unfairness in the ex husbands response or the pps. The OP can quite easily buy a property with her £100k and a share of the equity accrued in the period they were together. She just has to get a mortgage. If she wants to own a home she needs to pay for it. Her ex’s will contribute towards it for a long time through CS. But she should pay for part of it as well.

All of this. Some posters are adamant that the only reason every woman in the world isn’t on six figures is that they had kids. The OP wasn’t a high earner before she married her ex husband, so he has had zero impact on her not being one now. She just sees her children’s fathers as a meal ticket for living mortgage free and working as little as possible. Failing that her parents are expected to cough up. Ridiculous and embarrassing.

For those insistent that her earning potential has been stamped out by parenthood and therefore her ex owes her - she was already a single mother on benefits when he met her. She wasn’t a high earner and he hasn’t changed that. Of course he should support and co parent his child but as for the rest of it, I despair.

@Unknown83

You have misunderstood my post. You wrote: It certainly reeks of privilege. It's positively 19th century when a man would make a girl pregnant and then just leave for the next town. There's a word for a bastard and a slut but there's no word for the man who runs away....

I wasn’t talking about the legalities of the situation. I was simply responding to the suggestion that the OP was left holding the baby of a feckless man when we don’t really know what happened.

@Marchmount

Man with tiny amount of divorce law expertise comes on mumsnet and talks with the authority of Fiona Shackleton. Not a glimmer of self-doubt that his advice is absolutely correct. It’s like the posters who’ve done a first aid course who go on medical threads and pontificate like they’re an A&E consultant.

Given my advice basically boils down to "there are cases that have gone your way so listen to your solicitor and not a load of randomers online" I'm going to stand by it. The rest of my posts are quite clearly my opinions on why the cases I've brought up might have gone the way that they have. I certainly have just as much right to do that as those posting online with authority that she definitely won't get what she asks for.

“ I've worked in a legal role for nearly 20 years and will not take advice on legal matters by morally outraged bean counters.”

And that right there is why you’re marking yourself as pompous arse and I’m not engaging with you any more

I wish you were right but there has been a noticeable hardening of attitudes towards vulnerable people in the UK in the past decade
Why are you considering OP vulnerable? Do you class all single parents who do not want to work FT because they are no worse off in benefits, as OP acknowledged vulnerable? I don't. There are vulnerable women and men out there that the law needs to support. OP is not one of them. She's getting a monthly income of £3k or so. If that makes her vulnerable, it makes half of the population of the UK vulnerable too.

Gosh, this thread is crazy.

OP I think you're on dangerous grounds here. Consulting another lawyer seems wise, I fear this one is pushing you hard to fight for an outcome that is unlikely.

First: spousal. I think this is incredibly unlikely. He doesn't earn enough, the marriage was too short. And spousal would reduce your UC so he'd have to pay astronomical amounts to make a difference. Can't see a judge allowing it.

Second: children of the marriage. This is less clear cut and the case law is murky. It will depend on the judge to a certain extent. But I think you're on shaky ground here too. Firstly because her father pays maintenance and sees her regularly. Secondly because your STBXH was involved in her life for such a short period of time and no longer has a relationship with her.

Third: your STBXH's new partner. You need to leave her (and her high income) out of it. She is not expected to pay for you OR your children. They could split up tomorrow, so a judge will not include her in these decisions. She might be taken into account in terms of his needs / costs. But not in a meaningful way that will impact your needs or those of the children.

Fourth: the house equity. There's no hard and fast rule that says you need to be a homeowner at all, let alone own a home outright.

Given your youngest child is six, you will be expected to work and maximise your salary.

That said, you might have a case for more of the equity, given you've been evicted and seemingly can't afford rent.

I severely doubt - given the length of the marriage, the little you put into it, and your situation pre-marriage - that you'd get half outright.

You've ruled out sums between 16k and £80k because you'd have to live off it rather than putting it towards a deposit. That's absurd. Not least because even if it went towards rent it would still be securing your home for XX years.

If I were his lawyer I'd be advising him that the maximum he should offer is based on this calculation.

• take the equity
• less the pre-short marriage deposit
• less any gains pre-marriage
• less any gains since the split
• divided by two.

So half the equity increase in the one year that you were married and living together.

Don't forget. If he has to sell the house he needs to buy his own place with enough room for the children. If you claim both children are of the marriage, he needs three bedrooms. If not, he needs two (but then he isn't responsible for your other child).

You say he earns £70k a month, that's a take home of £4100 a month. (Less pensions contributions).

He pays you £500 in child maintenance, which brings his income down to £3,600 per month (less pensions).

He's also potentially got the outstanding debt of your car.

You have £1,000 per month in CM. + 24 hours a week at minimum wage. So extra £900. You also get child benefit and Universal Credit. UC for a single person with two children is £844.42 - thoughthat doesn't include housing element which I presume you get. CB is around £150pm for two children.

That makes your monthly income £2,900 + any housing element. That's not a million miles from his income. That's also an annual income of £34,000 (after tax) - substantially higher than national average. (On this basis your mortgage capacity looks extremely low. Many will take child maintenance into account).

You also have the £100k loan from your parents (which could be much higher if you didn't spend on legal fees).

That £100k is your deposit. He also needs an equivalent one if he's selling his house.

If there's £140k equity. Once he'd matched the £100k deposit you have, you'd be splitting £40k, which is £20k each. You then have similar incomes.

But I don't think he'll have to split all that. Just the equity increase for the year you were married and cohabiting.

Suddenly that £16k offer looks very reasonable indeed.

You say you're happy to keep fighting as it's only your parents money. But it's not. It's his too. And if you're making a claim for the house, debts will be shared too. If this goes on much longer, the equity will vanish entirely and you'll get nothing.

I agree with PPs that you are ALSO expected to contribute to your child and your own living. You say you can't earn more because of Universal Credit - but UC is a taper, so you'll never be worse off and you'll eventually be far better off. Both your children are school age.

Judges are very fickle and it could go either way. You could end up with nothing, less than the £16 he's offered, or slightly more. It's very precarious and given what you've already spent you could end up with a significant net loss.

If I were you, I'd bite his hand off and take the £16k offer. I would also try and negotiate an agreement for him to pay a proportion of wrap around care to enable you to work longer hours. He might well go for that.

@OnceUponAThread

Bravo 👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼

It certainly reeks of privilege. It's positively 19th century when a man would make a girl pregnant and then just leave for the next town. There's a word for a bastard and a slut but there's no word for the man who runs away
It's 19th century that any women would think that they can only support her children by relying on her ex, parents and the States. The world has evolved a lot, women can work FT and raise children.

I meant that from OP’s posts, she is unable to get a FT job that takes her to a salary worthwhile bearing in mind the cut to benefits she is eligible for if she stays under the threshold
Do to the choices she's made up to now. If she'd started to work FT 4 years ago, she might not have been better off then, but in all likelihood would be now. Working FT is an investment. You take or you don't, but one day, your choices catch you up. Work is the baseline for the decision one makes, not how much benefits one can claim.

@OnceUponAThread another round of applause here. Great post

@vivainsomnia
You are correct of course but she can hardly go back in time! The starting point is now and this is the situation she is in.

She can't go back in time but he can't be made responsible for the poor choices she has made.

In any case, OUAT has summed it up perfectly for all.

@vivainsomnia

I wish you were right but there has been a noticeable hardening of attitudes towards vulnerable people in the UK in the past decade Why are you considering OP vulnerable? Do you class all single parents who do not want to work FT because they are no worse off in benefits, as OP acknowledged vulnerable? I don't. There are vulnerable women and men out there that the law needs to support. OP is not one of them. She's getting a monthly income of £3k or so. If that makes her vulnerable, it makes half of the population of the UK vulnerable too.

She has access to £100k to help her buy a property and £1k a month in CS. She is entitled to UC and child benefit on top of a low wage. She isn’t on her uppers. Some women will be after a split but she isn’t one of them.

The childrens’ father hasn’t run off leaving her to a life of poverty. They provide financial support and see their children or at least one of them does.

@ Unknown83

However, if my wife were to actually maximise her earning potential and work towards taking in £40k rather than £12k I would be more inclined to help her out in the interim and live more equal lives. It is her refusal to do that which puts me off setting any precedents with money that could cause problems in the future, such as claims of spousal maintenance when the child maintenance and much of the universal credit eventually stops.

What I think makes your claim so strong though is the special needs of your children. I simply cannot comprehend how you could end up in a position where you are doing 95% of the child care and a partner earning £100k+ can just walk away from their responsibilities to the carer of their own children. This should not be something individuals decide for themselves, there should be clear laws in place to protect you and your children.

Precisely and you put it so eloquently. Sorry for my ramblings but I'm typing in sheer anger at the vulnerable position I've been left in.

I'm retraining to be an editor (would you believe it!), and will be looking to maximise my earnings in about 3-4 years and once my little one start secondary school. Once qualified, my potential earnings could be 20-30k full time which is where my head is at. What riles me is that our housing capital is diminishing each month and I cannot get a mortgage on my crappy £500 pm wage. So where does that leave us?

The ex fought hard and used all the family savings to make sure I didn't get a penny. Half of them were mine too! There ought to be a law as my children have been hit hard by this and none of this was their fault.

I guess I have to soldier on and hope that the saying 'what goes around comes around' has substance to it.

I wasn't talking about the OP when I made that remark. Attention to detail eh?

So totally irrelevant then. Just a statement for what purpose?

How was it not about the op talking about man being able to get someone pregnant and abandon them? Talking about a man in a living the mother of child in a different situation?

I think you are being very unreasonable in expecting much more than he has offered you.
Very short marriage.
His house and his deposit and money paying for it.

Push for more child maintenance but I'd concentrate on getting a career for yourself to grow and support yourself. Don't expect more. You've thrown 8k at it already which your family are funding. It makes no sense at all.

I do not expect his partner to keep me but if you are in a serious Co habiting relationship both being high earners it's a lot easier to meet your housing needs than it is for me. If I had a millionaire boyfriend I was cohabiting with I'm pretty sure it would be deemed my needs are met and effect my settlement so surely that works both ways?!*

This is a quote from OP. Do you expect that if, in the future, you should find a man brave enough to take on you and your 2 dc, that you would repay any of your hoped-for divorce settlement, as he would be then able to contribute to your household? If he has a great salary, can you imagine him being happy to step straight in to provide for the 3 of you as you would gladly repay the settlement, because new dh has a good wage?

Good luck op. You're going to need it.

I really hate the notion that having children means women can only do part time low paid jobs and their earnings are restricted ! It’s insulting.
Myself and many other women manage to do just that
I had two children within 18 months of each other, always worked full time, used differing methods of childcare, child minders, relatives. Attended all sport days, did drop off and pick up every day, fed, bathed, read every night etc, managed through sickness etc
It’s called juggling

Yes I was lucky to work in IT industry that afforded some flexibility but worked late evenings, early mornings to accommodate also being a mum to 2 young children
My earnings went up since having young children

Yes it’s hard but OP is not limited by having children - she’s limited by her own ambition, work ethic and I presume level of qualifications which means low paid work . And rather than resolving those seems to think she is owed things on a plate
Now , I’m not going to comment on the legal aspect, she may well have a case but if that’s so for such a short relationship and marriage the law is an ass!