What is maintenance supposed to cover?

[FallenFigs]

context is 2DC, we’re in the process of untangling.

DH has agreed the basic level of maintenance, and we are discussing what that should cover. He had reduced his salary and is likely to take dividends etc. and be a bit (a lot) shifty about his actual earnings.

My solicitor has advices maintenance is for ‘keeping the lights on’ in the DC primary home. Should this also cover things like pocket money, school lunches, activities (sport etc) and clothing, school enrichment activities? Or should any/some of those things be over and above?

They will stay with him 2-3 nights/week. This is reflected in the maintenance calcs.

If the maintenance calcs are based on him having some caring responsibility, then surely he also has some additional financial responsibility? Not that, I then pay for everything for the kids out of the maintenance? This is how he is trying to play it.

We won’t be able to play this on a case by case basis ie when they need new clothes. He’ll be difficult about it each time so we need an agreement.

It is a bit mean to call a parent that doesn’t want to spend money on activities as tight arse, we all have different priorities and ways of doing things.

Roughly in terms of money OP how much would you like per month?

Once a couple splits things are not fair and you need to accept that unless you are lucky to have an amicable ex partner the main costs fall on the resident parent.

You have to be realistic. How old is your DC? Have you looked into splitting school holidays? Bank holidays? Inset days?

It covers the children's expenses on the days they are with you. He pays for their expenses on the days they are with him. That is reflected in the number of days maintenance he pays.

He's only paying half of the mortgage as he wants it split 50/50 when their youngest child is 18. The alternative would be OP gets more than 50 percent of the equity of the house and downsizes. He would likely get 30 percent and OP 70 percent and he doesn't want that. The needs of the children are put first.

He could get 50:50 when kids are 18 and not make a penny further contribution

In terms of house equity split that id

he doesn’t have to contribute to morthage payments to retain his share

But once the kids are 18, surely they are adults and neither party would be looking to create a 50/50 arrangement?

The 50:50 is referring to the sale of the house, not child living arrangements.

if o/p remains in the house and can’t/doesn’t buy him out, he will not have to pay a share of the mortgage or upkeep as he is not living there. That will be on her.

then when the kids are 18, or finished uni, or whatever the agreement is, he will be entitled to his 50% share.

I had an acquaintance with this arrangement. Did no maintenance or upkeep so when the valuation to sell happened the house had barely risen in value in 20 years, so she got away with paying him a relatively tiny amount.

If it doesn’t benefit OP, she can request a sale now.

From the sounds of it, OP wouldn’t be able to afford to buy or pay for a suitably-sized house for her and the children in school catchment area from her share of the equity and salary, so she’d probably end up squandering the money on rent or having to move the children during exam years (and if they didn’t want to move, presumably they’d end up staying with their dad which would damage the relationship with OP and mean she gets no maintenance or benefits). Therefore staying in the house, then getting a lump sum to buy somewhere smaller or out of catchment area in several years’ time is much better for her.

But a judge can award unequal shares in a house. A friend of my sister was awarded 70 percent of the equity in their house and she offset the rest against having less of his pension. So she ended up with all of the house with a very small mortgage on and her DH kept about 65 percent of his pension which was a very good pension. She didn't have a pension as had stayed home to look after 3 children and was also disabled at time of divorce with a degenerative disability so unable to work and therefore add to her pension. It does sometimes happen. It's not always 50/50.