Higher-earning mother considering divorce: likely maintenance, school fees and assets?

[Privelegedproblems]

I'm looking into whether I can afford to divorce my husband. I am the far higher earner but I am also the primary carer and would likely be the resident parent after a split.

I earn £160k plus bonus so obviously I can afford to house myself and look after my kids! They are, however, in private school and would love to keep them there as it's a lovely school and they are happy. My husband earns around £50k. We both work full time and have maintained our careers throughout the young childhood years. We have a few hundred thousand in savings plus house equity. So all in, we are very well off.

Would he be obliged to pay me any maintenance/contribute to school fees given he is the much lower earner and might struggle to house himself and do this? Would he get a larger split of the savings and equity to make it easier for him to house himself? Could I potentially have to pay him maintenance given his standard of living will be much lower?!

I'm really clueless about this and struggling to find answers online where the mother and primary carer is also the high earner. Am also aware that I am enormously privileged compared to many women in this position so please don't throw that at me.

If you're the resident parent, he would pay you. The CMS calculation starts from his gross income only; your salary doesn't come into it. It's then reduced by the number of nights the children stay with him each year: If care is shared equally, nothing is payable. As you both work full time, he may well ask for 50/50, so bear that in mind.

School fees sit outside CMS. You can agree between you how they're paid, and the agreement can go into your financial consent order so it's enforceable. Cover the detail: proportions, extras like trips and uniform, and whether it runs through sixth form.

The starting point is an equal split of everything built up during the marriage, including pensions. The court can move away from 50/50 if one person's needs wouldn't be met. The key figures will be each of your mortgage capacities. At £50k he might borrow around four to four and a half times his income; you can borrow much more, although lenders will take the school fees into account. If his borrowing plus half the pot houses him somewhere suitable for the children to stay, equal may well stand. If it doesn't, your greater ability to meet your own needs from income is the argument for him receiving more than half.

Maintenance to him is possible, because of the income gap. But on £50k with a share of the capital, his needs may be met without it, and the courts prefer a clean break where they can. If there was a shortfall, it's more likely to be dealt with through a short-term order or an extra lump sum than open-ended payments.

Things that will change the picture are how much equity there is, both your pensions (yours is likely to be much larger), how many children and their ages, and how long you've been married.

Get a mortgage capacity letter from a broker for each of you, get your pensions valued, and pull together full figures on everything. Mediation is worth trying. It starts with a meeting on your own with a mediator (called a MIAM), who explains how it works and checks it's suitable, before any joint sessions with your husband. It doesn't sound like they will but if talks break down and you end up going to court, you'll have to have attended a MIAM before you can apply anyway.

Thank you for such a comprehensive answer! Id hope it could be amicable but I feel uncomfortable about him having a much reduced standard of living. The two children are both only primary age. One of those circumstances where I'd be making all of us poorer and three of us probably less happy.... Urgh!

In your circumstances it would be far better to come to a private arrangement which you are both comfortable with and think is fair, you then can put before the court on a joint consent order, very rarely are they rejected.

I would consider it to be fair that assets are 50/50 including he is able to be housed without a mortgage. He should be paying some cms but you can decide if it’s fair he pays the full recommended amount, school fees in your circumstances are your responsibility

Would a nesting arrangement (you buy/rent a 1 bed flat, kids stay in the house and the adults do the swapping) work - are you both amicable?

Why do you say school fees are my responsibility? We jointly decided on the school and I would like to think we would be aligned on keeping the children there. For what it's worth, he does have the ability to earn more money!

I would be in favour of this but can't think that he would. Struggle to work out how the children would take it, too.

Presumably a little easier than packing their bags every week to stay in a small flat with their father…

3 separate issues here and although they nay influence each other a bit, they should start off being considered separately and then trade-off to find mutually acceptable compromises.

1. the assets split. The contract of marriage pegged your financial futures together and "for richer for poorer" applies even more importantly during the process of ending that contract. You should assume a 50:50 split of all assets, including current value of pensions, so that you each start out your new life on an equal footing.

2. maintenance - yes if the kids are staying with you he will pay some maintenance - the children are entitled to support from both parents and he doesn't get absolved from contributing to his children's needs just because you have a greater earning power, but the amount will be a few hundred a month - maybe up to £500 but he's allowed to reduce his liability by increasing his pension contributions, and won't make a significant difference to you. If they have overnights with dad some of the time that will reduce the amount due. If he gets a new partner and gets her pregnant that can reduce what is due to you so don't count on it.

3. school fees - it's up to you how you spend your own income and the CM you receive from him but if that's not sufficient to afford school fees you cannot compel him to pay more. Most people on £50k per year do not send their children to private school.

I think he has a very strong case for much higher share than 50% of assets as well as spousal maintenance ( possibly capitalised) and you paying school fees. You definitely need solid legal advice.

if this was reversed and you were the lower earner by this magnitude noone would be saying 50:50 fair - and it most likely isn’t.

OP, im in a similar situation to you , albeit slightly further along the separation journey, but not yet reached the formal divorce process. I have been using ChatGPT to model different scenarios of financial settlement. I strongly recommend this before engaging with any lawyer

Hi. I was in exactly the same position last year. I earn £210k husband earned £50k. Assets were split 50:50. Despite living in London, the judge deemed that a £50k salary was well above NMW and with 50% on the assets he’d have enough to rent a three bedroom flat for him and the kids. The only thing that was different was the kids were adults (one still at uni) but he wasn’t forced to contribute to uni fees.

Courts like a clean break so they don’t awards spousal maintenance unless you’re a multi millionaire. I bought him out of his share of the house.

hope that helps

Yes I agree but equally the lower earning woman has usually been the primary carer and sacrificed their career. He hasn't done that and I've still done most child related stuff. Would totally understand if he had been a SAHD for my career.

Thank you. We don't live in London so I think this would apply.

Did he push for more or did you reach a mutual agreement before the formalities of the courts?

@Privelegedproblems understand that but there are many women who are also just lower earners.

regardless of that ultimately if it got to court a decision would be based on needs. What assets does he need to house himself and the children and what can he afford. What do you need and can afford. What assets are there available to do that. What earnings and mortgage capacity does each party have to provide that. And so on. Ultimately your mortgage capacity is considerably greater so he will argue ( most likely ) for higher share of assets to meet his needs. If there are more than enough assets to provide for each party then the sharing principle would be brought in.

factors considered would include

your earnings ( both of you)
your earning potential ( both of you )
length of marriage
childcare arrangements
assets available
ages and ability to recoup
etc

it doesn’t generally matter who paid what all assets go in the pot.

it’s absolutely possible he could be awarded higher share of assets. It’s also possible if there are enough to provide needs ( which is not a tiny fiat unsuitable for children to live) that it would be 50:50

my advice is educate yourself on the principles of fair division under the law ( not moral) - there’s loads of advice online, and use tools like wikivorce and AI to help you think through things. And see a lawyer even if you hope to do most yourselves and reach agreement between you.

ultimately if it went to court it will come down to the judge on the day which can go either way and while courts absolutely do prefer a clean break will award spousal if that’s not possible and one party has the ability to pay, as well as order unequal division of assets in order to reach a clean break.

Lastly on his salary it’s highly unlikely he’d be expected to pay school fees

If he does push for 50:50 childcare and the court agrees, then as you earn over £156K you may still be liable to pay him child maintenance. It's one of the few situations where child maintenance is payable despite 50:50 care.

I’m in the same position albeit slightly further along. House has been sorted via a settlement agreement and I reserved my position on his pension until we had the valuation. This has taken 18 months to get through. During this time, as I’m the higher earner I took on responsibility for the school fees and now university costs. We don’t pay maintenance as it’s a 50/50 split on our youngest (college age)

what I will say is, as the higher earner I do feel like it’s being used as something to punish me with. I had to wait to start my career until my husbands ended, of which he was able to build a very large defined benefit pension. My pension currently sits at 10% of the value of his and with the financial hit of school and university costs I’ve not been able to add considerable contributions to mine. This remains our final sticking point. He doesn’t see why I should have a pension share, he earned that pension, I can earn my own. In the meantime he claims poverty, while the financial load of supporting the children remains solely on my shoulders. If he kept his pension it’d be an 80/20 split in his favour, I accept he should have more than 50% but in all honesty I have no idea where we’ll end up. Now waiting for a PODE report to be finalised and I’m hoping when he sees it in black and white with a % required to equalise retirement income he’ll be more amenable but I doubt it 🙄

what I will take away from all of this is, my kids know who supports them. The damage my ex has done to his relationship with the kids through comments like “ask your mum, she earns more than me” has all been noted. Especially by my eldest son. It’s horrible but try not to let the financial fairness overrule your relationships with your children. While it gripes on me that my ex now lives in a house with the woman he had an affair with, going on holidays, completely renovating their house whilst claiming poverty to my kids I take solice in the fact that I know I still put them first 😊

I'm sorry it's been so difficult.

I agree that I don't expect sympathy because I am capable of looking after myself and my children to a high standard of living, which makes me fortunate compared to many. But it does grate that he will likely benefit from my sacrifices and hard work, which allowed him to coast. His lack of drive is probably one of the reasons things have soured.