Agreeing to forgo child maintenance

[Fuzzypinetree]

I'm pondering at the moment, so what do others think about not asking for child maintenance? (I can get my lawyer to draw up an agreement...)
The situation is that ex is a cheating arsehole, who left a few days before DC2 was born because he had to sleep with his colleague...
Since then, he's not paid maintenance. I've managed on my maternity pay for the past year and I'm now officially back at work (but it's the summer holidays, so I'm wfh). He's had notice that he's liable for child maintenance and that's currently all adding up until we go to court. In theory, I should be buying him out for 100k. However, the bank is beyond slow in getting things sorted and I will have to pay additional taxes if the house gets signed over to me after the divorce has gone through (I can file from next week).
I was considering offering that he signs the house over to me, doesn't get the 100k but wouldn't have to pay child maintenance going forward. (And I could be persuaded to drop the claim on the outstanding amount, which is now at about 10k.) By the time DC1 is 18, he'd have paid about 120k in child maintenance.
For him, it would mean that he has no financial responsibilities towards us or the house anymore. For me, it would mean not having to take on an additional loan and the divorce would go through much quicker.
Any thoughts? Is that a stupid proposal? (No point suggesting it to him if everyone thinks it's a dumb idea and he wouldn't go for it...)

CMS isn't dealt with on court.

The reality is his lawyer woukd never advise him to agree to such a deal in the UK because you would be able to claim via CMS that's why people are mentioning it. It would be negligent on the lawyer's part to allow him to sign to such a deal when they can't legally prevent a later claim. They aren't saying it won't work if both parties agree and stick to it.

In the absence of knowing which jurisdiction you are in and local laws noone can really help. If you are certain that it would be enforceable there it's a good suggestion. However I am not sure £120k capitalised would be as much as £100k. If payments are £1k a month this suggests you are getting some of the money 10 years early so it might be a lower capital amount

No, I'm still waiting for the bank to get the appointment sorted. It's not really an issue, though. It's just paperwork at this point.

It's very unlikely that I'll end up in a financial situation that will require me to ask for more money from him. I don't want anything from him. If I never see him again, that's fine by me.

I get it to an extend. There are lots of women, who financially have relied on their husband and suddenly it all blows up and they are left penniless. That's not my situation, though. I've earned more than him for years. I'll be earning double what he does once I'm back full time.

It's an idea to get the bank to move with getting the mortgage transferred and also to get round his constant moaning that he cannot possibly pay any child maintenance. (I had even offered the base amount and he wouldn't agree because he thinks it's too much. He's never paid for anything related to the children so has no bloody clue what it actually costs.)

That's not an option in England and Wales OP.

CMS isn't dealt with on court.

It is here. Well, it is actually dealt with by child services but they will just go through court as well. Since I have my own lawyer, child services have passed it on to her to sort out.
It's a bit different. He's been informed that he owes child maintenance. If he doesn't pay it and I push the claim through with the court (which would happen when we get to the actual divorce proceedings), they will inform his employer and dock his pay.

the custody agreement may change, what ages are the dc and do you think it would change?
have you both completed affidavits of means and welfare? What does your solicitor advise?

If it’s legally possible then yes I’d absolutely do it.

again I don’t know the laws there but in the UK it feels incredibly difficult to try and actually get the child maintenance you are due to. My ex regularly just stopped paying, did jobs cash in hand, got his employer (a relative) to pay me less and get the business to buy his car etc. He rarely ever paid what was due.

plus it sounds quicker and like you are free of him as completely as you can be

I don't know what an "affidavit of means and welfare" is. Child maintenance gets calculated based on his income (tax return). It has nothing to do with my income or my living situation.
My solicitor hasn't advised anything, yet. We have to wait until I'm allowed to file for divorce, which is next week. It's an idea to put in front of him for now.

The visitation agreement might change in that DC1 would have to spend less time with him. He's not able to get him to school or pick him up, which makes things difficult. I've helped facilitate this while I was on maternity leave but I'm not any longer.

What country are you in? It would help to know?

@Fuzzypinetree in the theory yes but also remember that everything goes up , it may be more then £120k he would be due .

State in the agreement that the figure covers up to child’s 18th birthday, then maintenance would start to be paid again after that date if child is still in full time education. .

Well, yes. It would most likely be more than 120k by then but equally, the house would be worth more and I'd earn more...

As I said, I dont want anything from him. I'd consider this the end of our financial relationship.

The DC can go to uni here, if they wish. It's basically free. We are in commuting distance of at least three major universities, so they could live at home (very common here). I've got savings accounts for them and they'll have money for a deposit once they are old enough.

Thanks all. Things for me to consider.
I guess he could say no and then we'll just have to go with the original plan.

@Fuzzypinetree
OP ~ you can of course propose this deal to him and hope he accepts it.

However - you must also be realistic and objective here. Or maybe you really believe what you are saying - and in this case, you need to speak to someone who understands finances snd who can explain it to you.
Financially - this deal is hugely beneficial to you - and he needs to be stupid, or feel remorseful and trying to repent for him to agree to it.

…You keep saying you ‘do not want anything from him’. It is not true in the financial sense. You want a lot from him - to sign away 100k of assets upfront. This is huge.
…You are saying - ‘but i am not actually asking him to give me 100k’ - he just signs it over to me in leu of future payments. It’s not how value of money works. Money in the present os valued more - as it’s more sure. Value of future payments is less, as they are not certain.
What you are asking him, really is:

.You pay him 100k - that he can use today - invest it or put into a property.
.He gives it back to you, and thus can not use it today. So, foregoes its use and any growth that would happen over the years.
So yes - you are actually asking him to give you 100K of assets he is entitled to, by foregoing his clam in the present.

These sort of deals are not common, unless there are a lot of assets. And in that case - the other spouse just wants a clean break and their life won’t be affected much.
In your case - I suspect - if he agreed, he won’t be able to buy a property for himself, as he won’t have a deposit.

In my divorce, for eg - my exH had a court defined maintenance for a number of years. There were plenty of assets - so he could have given me (maintenance x n of years) upfront and be done with it. But of course, it was bot in his interest. Because even court defined maintenance could change IF his life circumstances changed. He’d have been stupid to do it and he was not.

Also as you’re in a different country, I don’t know what will apply but when I divorced it was deemed that my ex does not pay maintenance because we do 50-50 first of all, and even though he earns more than me. But it’s stipulate that he doesn’t pay maintenance unless circumstances change so if I lose my job, then he will have to pay maintenance and vice versa if he loses his job I will have to pay maintenance to him. So I just don’t see how this will work if those circumstances present themselves in the future.

Well, we aren't doing 50-50.
I'm not sure how it's only beneficial to me. In the short term, I'll be losing out on money. I could take the 1k, pay the 800 for the increase in mortgage payments and save the remaining 200 each month. It would leave him with very little money each month, though.

He could take those 1k a month to save for a deposit if he really wanted to buy a property. It's not that big a deal here, though. Most people just rent. He wouldn't get a mortgage approved. Not sure about the UK. His net income would be much too low if he had to pay child maintenance. He'd have a better chance if that payment didn't get deducted each month.

I'm a civil servant so no chance of losing my job. It's secure until retirement. If he did a runner or went abroad to get out of paying, child services would step in, pay me upfront and then get the money back from him. If he lost his job, I'd also be entitled to a base amount and they'd claim that back from him once he's earning again. It's not CMS. We're much more secure here financially.

@Fuzzypinetree what ages are the dc and are you sure he won’t change his mind and want to see them more?

What country are you in?
No-one’s job is secure until retirement. If you become ill or disabled to the point of no longer being able to work you could lose your job.

Not how it works here...he can change his mind to see them more often...or actually get to know DC2 but that doesn't change the child maintenance. Unless we did 50:50, which he cannot physically, mentally or linguistically do, he is liable for the full maintenance. He's not even managed the visitation times he's had so far.

Yeah, it is...unless I commit a crime and go to prison...😁
If I get too ill to do my job, I get to take early retirement. My pension is pretty good, too.
When I got pregnant, I got signed off on full pay for the entire pregnancy...

She’s in Germany. @Fuzzypinetree i very rarely say this on here. But if you know all the answers then why did you ask the question? Maybe you need to ask on a German forum.

Agree and in UK. You can claim CMS until the child is 19 of the child is in full time education. Income goes up and down so whilst this idea seems to work for OP. It may not be for her ex just looking at both sides fairly.

Well, I asked because it was something I was considering and was wondering whether anyone else had done it. (We also moved here from the UK and were meant to move back...we won't now.)
It's not that I know all the answers but I'm actually a bit peeved that I'm constantly being told that I'll just go back on a deal like that anyway and that I will go and ask for more money. As if everyone who gets divorced is just a money-grabbing bitch.

It also doesn't matter where I am. I would have considered it a reasonable proposal, especially with a view of getting a financial split sorted.
I hadn't asked about an evaluation of my financial situation or whether I might lose my job or whatever. That wasn't part of the question.

It’s good for you has it’s certain. You get the value of his cash as certainty now and will be investing a property which will appreciate, and probably impacting his ability to buy or take that 100k and invest elsewhere.

yes he could invest his thousand a month but he’ll be losing out on significant compounding interest. You haven’t factored in time value of money etc

Put it to him and see. But if I was him I wouldn’t be agreeing. Maybe he will

It’s not about saying you’re money grabbing. It’s simply saying that no one can guarantee the future. And circumstances change. And when couples divorce it usually makes the odds of contravening trust even higher!

And it does matter where you are. Because that changes the laws of the land and child maintenance rules.

And this is why it’s a bad idea for him and he’s be advised not to. You could take the 100k and they claim anyway