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?

The kids will be asked what they want and their views will be taken into account due to their ages.

She needs to push hard do a greater %age of the assets and pension sharing.

Any violent behaviour needs reporting to the police. She also needs to look for more hours and better paid work.

It sounds like the DC will want to live with her more like 60/70% so she should push for that.

Only if they don’t have savings above the max amount, and after the divorce she may have savings above the threshold.

@Mangelwurzelfortea

She's not asking someone to 'pay for her life', she's working out what's fair and best for the kids. She can't support them herself on a part-time teaching assistant's wage, or even a full-time one.

So her solution is to get a different job or work more hours. If she’s not working out how to increase her own income, then she absolutely is asking someone to ‘pay for her life’, whether that be her ex or taxpayers. There are plenty of things that TAs can do to supplement their income, and getting a different job entirely is still an option. She could tutor, she could do holiday clubs, Saturday clubs, respite care either 1-1 or at a facility. She could do evening shits in hospitality and she could re train altogether. I am a TA and I love it, but it is not a job for life and it never was.

Her husband is clearly looking to avoid paying his fair share towards the kids. 50/50 usually ends up with the mum doing - and paying - for everything, out here in the real world. But yeah I guess she'll be able to fit retraining to be a CEO into that schedule somewhere.

How is he clearly looking to avoid paying his fair share? He’s offering to do exactly his fair share of childcare and financial support, which is more than these children’s mother wants to do.

The Courts will look at what's best for the children. Your sister could work more hours if her ex husband has them 50% of the time. Your sister may achieve more when assets are divided up, as she stayed at home when the children were small, it enabled her husband to pursue his own career. However, I don't think your sister would be given 100% custody, unless her ex is a danger to the children. She's going to need to find a different job that gives her more hours, increase her hours within the same job and use wrap around care.

It doesn't sound like he's a fit person to have any custody of the children!

I divorced when my 3 were 9,11 and 13. The 11yo has SN but was in mainstream school. I was a part time TA to fit around DS2's needs. My ex's career had taken off while I did the childcare. The divorce settlement reflected this. I got around 65% of the assets, 50% of his private pension at that time.

Even at 50:50 child arrangements, and with such a big disparity of earnings, she should still get some maintenance. She could argue for some spousal maintenance, but it's rarely awarded these days. I floundered for a year or so, claimed what was tax credits at the time, then got a FT job in a school, still term time only. This really helped when maintenance stopped completely when DS3 turned 18.

It sounds like the children would be better with her father. She needs to improve her dangerous mental health condition which would have a devastating effect and example on her children and potentially make her unfit to care for them (not at all her fault but she needs help), she has little income and poor financial stability.
The father is financially stable.
But now you are dirt feeding about his alcohol intake.

This one is for a lawyer to sort out. Personally I wouldn't place the children with wither of them. Some people shouldn't be parents.

As I said that was the choice they both made for an easier life. I know many people make this choice. And also think she should get higher percentage of the divorce settlement to account for it.

I dont think it is true though that his career would be any different if he had a career minded wife and they put kids in childcare. What difference would that make to his career? I genuinely don't understand.

I built my career from scratch as a single mum. By friend has a thriving career and done her PhD while working and her partner also working full time. My siblin and partner both have thriving careers where they both also have to go away for work conferences. They have childcare and each take turns to carry the full load while the other is away. My old boss built her career from scratch to reach a 100k plus level while her husband works full time. Yeah a SAHP can be helpful in avoiding costs. But the working person would do just as well if the other was working full time too

I actually think 50/50 would be better for her, if it actually happened (I don't think it's worth fighting against right now, but she should prepare to go back and get adjustments when it inevitably doesn't).

at 11 and 15 there's only a few more years until maintenance would end, and on 60k it's not as much in maintenance as she could earn in the days she would be able to earn with the free time/older children.

Honestly, the best thing your sister can do is take the 50/50 and get a better job - for her, her pension, her stability - for everything

This is unfair, you are not acknowledging the way in which coercive control operates in a relationship.

And we all know what tends to happen if a woman is carrer-minded and able to be the higher earner. Her husband resents it, he does not support her career (in the way that a wife would) instead he sabotages it and he makes sure that she also has to do the domestic work as well as earning the money

The family court won't care if mum will be worse off financially when deciding custody and putting that across as a reason to disagree with the 50/50 wouldn't look good. It's about what's in the best interests of the children and finances won't really come into that as we have a benefits system which ensures families have enough income for a reasonable standard of living.

Probably already been said now, but I can’t see an issue with him wanting 50%. They’re his kids, she’s no more “right” to them than him, especially if it’s just for money 🤢

However, if she can show that she reduced her earnings specifically as a decision to benefit the marriage, to raise the kids and that he was covering the costs of that, it’s highly likely she’ll be compensated for that either by receiving more house equity or a spousal maintenance type payment from him.

We absolutely don’t all know that.

Regards, a higher earner whose partner is currently loading the dishwasher and will not receive a round of applause for it.

Even if she had the kids full time now and all the child maintenance. They will grow up and she will need to look after herself then.

She needs to work on her career now instead of just relying on a temporary fix of child support. No not everyone gets high flying careers. But a full time role, even on minimum wage, would bring home more. She could even use this time to train to become a teacher to future proof her life. If they had remained married then sure he would have just topped up the joint income for life, but this has changed so she needs to take action to protect her future

I havent read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been said but the childcare for financial reasons isnt the point. She needs an increase in the equity of any assets to reflect her housing needs and lower earning potential including going part time for childcare reasons.

She needs to look at pensions his and hers to try to balance these.

On a 60k salary even if she had the kids full time he would be paying 736 per month. Thats probably still not enough for her with her salary.

Childcare needs to be best for the kids not based on financial need. The finances need to look at asset split and pension.

Why should the default option not be 50/50 for all co parenting arrangements? Fathers are just as important to a child as a mother.

Your approach seems to be she needs the money, which is besides the point and rather treating the father like a meal ticket.

Fathers are as essential as mothers.

If he has 50% she should increase her hours. This will give her more money and make sure he has to stick to his end of the bargain. Yes he earns more but she can argue that she supported him by staying home looking after kids whilst he progressed up the pay scale and should get a higher split of the house etc.

Lots of posts on here saying that she should no longer be a TA or work school hours, as if she’s been indulging herself in some trivial, pointless role. Also that she should ‘go full time’ just like that.

A TA role cannot really become full time (school budgets only allow for school hours) and is also a socially essential role, often acting as the 1-1 support that enables children with SEND to access education full stop. It is low paid but TAs are essential to the functioning of our education system and were key workers during Covid. She hasn’t been working as an aromatherapist, crystal cleanser or pet whisperer.

Obviously it’s a societal problem rather than a separation problem, but if a relationship breakdown forces an experienced TA to give up her role then that’s really not great for society. Or is it the case that single parents just can’t afford to work in some roles? There is also the problem that the job market is very, very difficult at the moment and employers can be reluctant to take on people whose experience doesn’t directly match the new role. So it’s not an easy fix.

I am not sure what the answer is but feel there is a case for more social support for people in low paid but essential roles.

Hi, I went though a divorce 8 years ago, the ex wife and i went to mediation. We were sat there and the man across said to me 1st, what do you want to come out with? All i answered was my child.
We easily agreed 50/50 (mainly cause my child's mum wanted 'free' time.
We split it so Mon/tues at her mums, wed/thurs at mine then fri/sat/sun at mums and that alternated so we both had her equally over the course of 2 weeks say.
I never thought for one moment the financial aspect and indeed WOULDN'T even have considered i didn't have to pay maintenance.

It's amazing how we are all judgemental to the father when all we can work on is hearsay. To be honest, the mum sounds a bit of a concern that her only worry is she will lose money not what's best for the children etc

Then it escalates with now the dad is abusive.....

Bottom line for me is do what the kids actually want, not just what they yell you. They may not say what they really want to your face for fear of upsetting you.

Her easiest option might be to work in after-school care, but the pay is still not great.

It’s just factual that many single adults can’t afford to live off a part time job. It’s not just TAs, it’s lots of part time jobs. It’s just a fact of life.

I know, but so much of our social fabric depends on people doing socially useful roles that don’t really ‘pay’. When they are no longer viable, what then?

A lot of it comes down to the cost of housing.

I employ TAs for a living, I absolutely recognise their value - but many people can’t afford to be one.

Theres a reason there’s an education staff shortage, those who need the money are better off working 35+ hours in Tesco, which is open all the time and less limited in terms of when you can work.

Well said 👏🏻