Divorce and future needs - disability considerations

[foranoldfriend]

Genuinely asking for a friend - they are starting divorce after a couple of years of separation from their spouse. They are marginally the higher wage earner in the couple and do have the bigger pension pot, 2 children with 50/50 custody. The FMH is on the market and they have informally agreed 50/50 equity of when sold. The biggie is they have a progressive degenerative physical disability that will end up with wheelchair use, essential home adaptations, carers etc. Does anyone have any online resources or experience of how they need to take account of future needs - not wanting to leave the spouse unfairly disadvantaged financially but also retaining money for future needs. They don't currently envisage having to stop work much earlier than normal retirement age but the progressive nature of the condition is not linear. Thanks for any help!

Do you mean that they might take a bigger share of assets based on future needs? Or do you mean that the ex would support them in the future?

@Camillasfagwrinkles am guessing elements of both capital and pension retention as the next home will likely need adaptations in the next 5/10 years & obviously in later years significant personal care will kick in. It is unlikely their ex would be in a financial position to support them as children will be finishing compulsory education when the ex is in their mid / late 50s plus they currently are the lower wage earner anyway.

Better all round for there to be a clean financial break in case the non disabled spouse changes their mind later. There should be acknowledgement of the future needs f the one with the health issue and that factored in.

@blondieminx definitely a clean break settlement required so it's just guidance needed on how to phrase things that will best lead to some sway in the settlement.

Pretty sure you can't petition based on potential future health needs, but could request a higher % of house equity ti ge able to purchase fir instance a bungalow which are disproportionately expensive. The best option is to negotiate privately, the courts won't interfere unless they believe one party isn't able to understand what they are giving up, so they could agree a larger share