low-paid mum being coerced into 50/50 custody

[SillyFinch]

so... my vulnerable younger sister (eating disorder and very low self esteem) is facing divorce. Her husband is driving the split and we're not quite sure whether he has been having an affair or not. Seems 'matter of fact' about it all. She is devastated. He wants 50/50 custody, which I believe would remove child support (for two kids) from her end. She is a teaching assistant and earns a very low wage. He is on approx £60,000. He is hoping that once the equity of the estate is split, he will be done, financially, in terms of supporting her. She can't possibly survive on her wage (£1200 take-home a month), a job that she took on to work around childcare. She is doing most of the childcare and always has done. For the sons' early years, he actively wanted her to be an at-home mother, and so she gave up her career. There's also a reasonable suspicion of coercive control from him too. He is really pushing the 50/50 custody split. Should she go for full custody? Should she view herself as a housewife rather than a ft worker?

I’ve been in the same position as the mother in this situation, single and a TA, but with no offer of my children being having 50/50 care with their father. It is possible to have sympathy with the difficulties of her situation without thinking that her ex needs to support her. As a TA with secondary age children, she has the opportunity to increase her earnings without leaving the job she already has. If her mental health issues don’t prevent her from working as a TA, they won’t prevent her from doing other work.

All parents have a responsibility to financially support their children, not just the male ones.

what career did she have before the children, can she not go back to that?

they don’t really need much childcare during work hours at 11 and 15. So she doesn’t need to still be sticking to TA hours.

at their age their wants will hold weight as well.

Her freedom and ability to work full time will make her feel more secure and give her a lot more financial options. She should talk to her solicitor and let them know the children asked at his urging to live with her and offer 2/5 or 3/4 as a compromise.

Unless they've previously made an agreement otherwise that one party relied upon to their detriment

She needs to make sure that she gets what she is entitled to re pension as well. The actuarial report can be expensive up front cost but can be worth thousands either in lump sum
or pension sharing depending on what his job is.

She should go for primary custody.

When the assets are split, then it should definitely be a consideration that she gave up work to be there for the kids and her earnings took a dive .His didn't !

@Celestialmoods That's not the arrangement she and her STBX husband had though, is it? They agreed he'd support financially while she took a low-paid part-time job that she could fit round the kids. He's the one who's decided that doesn't suit him any more, but she's the one who'll pay the price for having sacrificed her own career for his. And all those posters blithely suggesting she'll easily find a full-time job to support herself and her kids clearly don't know the first thing about the job market at the moment. It's incredibly tough to find work - even in supermarkets.

It wasn’t entirely to her detriment though.

We need to stop pretending that any woman who has gone back to work part time or who has stayed at home has selflessly sacrificed themselves and that the only benefit of that was for their partner. It is a privilege to be able to work little or not at all and the mother here was very lucky to be able to do so. It was a situation that worked while they were married, but it was never going to last forever. Her contribution to the family will be recognised in the divorce settlement, but after that, she needs to support herself and contribute financially to her children.

It should be whats best for the children not what is financially more viable for your sister!
As long as there is no evidence based safeguarding issues, why shouldn't the father be able to see his children 50% of the time, just like the mother??

It’s not an excuse to get more custody just to get more money and with her eating disorder they are likely to side with the father. She will be able to work full time to improve her finances.

I agree.
I will never understand this argument.

Some women choose to work PT or be SAHM’s.

This is a luxury and a choice - no one is forced to do so unless they are in a controlling relationship and not allowed to work.

You cannot turn around years later and say you’re at a disadvantage because of it and how it’s unfair.

There was a thread on here about a woman who never worked, her kids were all adults and her DH was leaving her and she wanted him to continue giving her money.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

She NEEDS to speak to a solicitor who specialises in family law/divorce.

My sister has recently been in the same situation where her husband was insisting on 50/50 custody so that he “wouldn’t have to pay her a penny”.

He then found out that she was entitled to a higher percentage of their combined assets (mainly their lovely 4-bedroom home) because she earns less (she works part-time due to health issues from the trauma her ex has put her through and can’t manage more hours, but she works in a high stress, high responsibility position). She’s also entitled to some of his pension.

Funnily enough, once he knew that he agreed to a 60/40 split - but did keep pressuring her with lines such as, “if you agree not to go after my pension, I’ll agree to pay child support….” But she had a good solicitor who kept her well informed as to what she was legally entitled to and stuck to her guns.

He was abusive (not physically to her, but verbally, financially etc, did get physical with the kids, intimidated her, bullied her, never lifted a finger to help with either of the kids, cheated on her, etc) so she owed him nothing. He’s an awful person.

Your sister really does need to speak to a solicitor so you know exactly what position she’s in and what she’s entitled to. She will need evidence of joint assets (property, savings etc) and earnings, and if she can do any digging to see if he has anything set up in secret, that will help her too. My sister found multiple secret savings accounts that her ex had, which he’d squirrelled money into from their JOINT savings accounts (that he denied her access to).

Good luck!

Have you ever noticed how few men do it. There's a cost, money, position, skills, pension etc and it's not fair the woman takes 100% of it on. Even if it's a choice, it's a choice 2 people make not just the woman. Am I in the right century here.

Starting point is 50/50 split. Theres no such thing as 'going for custody' 'residency' etc. If it goes to court then it's a child arrangement order and it's made in the best interest of the children . Finances are handled separately, children are not 'pay per view' (and my ex was a grade 1 a hole so I have no interest in defending anyone.
Doesn't matter what she views herself as, all assets get put into the marital pot and divided. She can claim universal credit, child elements of universal credit and universal credit housing allowance as a single person. If she can't afford to stay in the house, then she'd have to rent somewhere cheaper with the assistance of the local housing allowance element of universal credit. She needs to realise that being devastated (though understandable) won't make it go away. Get her to gather the financial information together before he starts trying to move stuff around (commonly called getting your ducks in a row) tell her not to rely on him being honest!!! If there's a house then she needs to know what the equity is, is she on the mortgage etc make copies of EVERYTHING
Make sure she has all the children's birth certificates, passports etc all together. Unfortunately she will need to toughen up emotionally. She's not a SAHM if she's working, the financial split should reflect how each person is going to provide a home for the children and how long they've been married

Choosing to limit your earning potential and career development is definitely a choice only you can make. Unless you’re into the habit of letting your partner determine those things for you, which I’m not.

You can’t make that decision and then complain about the consequences. Including that without a back up plan, you are left short when the earner leaves you.

The financial arrangement is separate from the childcare arrangements. You can go 50:50 with childcare but take 60% of assets in terms of the finances.

This, if at any point DH had said “you’re not going to work, I’m not doing any childcare….” I doubt would have married or had kids with him

Do also be aware that the family court is not looking at whether he's a 'great' dad. Particularly with teens, he literally has to be 'good enough' and not present a safeguarding risk. Should it go to court (she'd be expected to try mediation first with no reported domestic violence) then the children will have their wishes and feelings taken into account including how feasible it is for them to move easily between homes for access to school, friends etc. For teens relationships with parents can largely be facilitated by the young person as long as neither parent uses it to try and apply pressure. My niece and nephew were 14 and 15 when their dad moved in with his affair partner, parents chose to work a flexible arrangement whereby the young people went to dad's house when they wanted and mum's house when they wanted and a calendar was used to make sure they didn't loose belongings etc. Just requires a bit of planning and listening to what the young person is voicing.
As far as kicking the door etc, courts would want to know if it's part of a wider pattern (my ex h broke both my legs but still got access as it wasn't against ds)

Because typically the mothers are the ones that want to stay home.

Unless there is DA/control it’s purely a choice and not one that every couple get to make.

I’m sure most fathers would rather have 2x incomes coming in but they love their partners and kids more.
But you can’t then turn around once the kids are older and moan that you were a SAHM when it was a choice.

I'm not sure how these points are relevant - this isn't a general discussion on SAHPs. OP has said that there is coercive control, and that the H actively wanted her sister to be a sahm.

If she can prove absolutely that the marriage arrangement impeded and diminished her career and earning potential, then she may have some recourse to chase spousal support.

However, this is usually very difficult to prove and may end up being more costly trying to prove it in court, and she may end up without it anyway.

A divorce judge would never sign off on an inequitable divorce - if your sister and her husband owned a property together the court will expect division of the equity insomuch that both parties can afford a property to live in that can suitably house the children.

With his salary of £60,000 he will be considered to be of better means and therefore would be in a better financial position to borrow more from a bank than she is, and so you will likely find that she will end up with more of the property equity than just a straight split.

She is entitled to numerous benefits in this situation, she can find out what she can apply for on gov.uk

Why on earth would any judge award a stranger to look after a child when the other parent is available and wanting to look after them. That is most definitely not in a child's best interest

We’re all widely missing the point on childcare. Nobody is paying for after school club for a 15 year old.

OP doesn’t want the father to have them because they don’t like him. You don’t need to be at home caring for a 15 year old at 3:15pm.

Well now we know their ages they don’t need childcare.

But people divorce all the time and parents who stayed at home prior to the split don’t automatically get full residency because they’ve been the primary carer. 50/50 arrangements are put in place where one or both parents use paid childcare. That frees the SAHP to find paid work. I’m not sure why you think this doesn’t happen.

the 15 year old will deonitely be asked what they woujld prefer i mean they'll probably both be asked but she should just get a good settlement for divorce foremost not just 50 50 equity