Guest post: 'Spousal maintenance matters - we should be worried about the 'get a job' ruling'

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

On Monday, the Court of Appeal supported the ruling that the ex-wife of a millionaire, Tracey Wright, should 'go out to work'. Lord Justice Pitchford said that Ms Wright had no right to expect 'an income for life' at her former husband's expense.

No shocks there, you might think. And about time too, perhaps. But the judge went on to make specific comments about working versus stay-at-home mothers:

"There is a general expectation that, once children are in year two, mothers can begin part-time work and make a financial contribution."

There's a perception that the English Legal System is sympathetic to wives – or, as my solicitor put it, "the courts here are soft on women". But this certainly doesn't fit with Pitchford's assertions, and I think that his words have undermined how essential spousal maintenance is to many single mothers.

When I divorced, I managed to avoid going to court. I have ended up with a small monthly spousal payment, as well as child maintenance. In practice, it means I have a smaller house than my ex, even though I look after the children for the majority of the time. My income is less than his, and yet I have to pay for everything to do with our kids.

I am lucky – my kids are of an age where I can work four days a week, and we're fine, really. It was my decision to walk away from the marriage, and believe me; I would rather be happy and poorer than better-off and miserable. But I still feel aggrieved, because I chucked in my well-paid career to have and raise our children. I took years off, and now there’s no going back.

And this is the crux of the issue for many divorced women: it is pretty bloody difficult, actually, to return to work when you've had years off to raise the children. To find a job that will let you work flexibly enough to be the sole carer during the week, or that pays enough to make it worth the after-school childcare. Fancy being a teaching assistant? Join the back of the queue.

Regardless of the specifics of Tracey Wright's case, we should be worried about this ruling, and we must ask what it means for women who are in unhappy or abusive marriages and have young children. Reading Pitchford's words, they may now be thinking: I cannot earn enough to support myself and my child. So I can't afford to break away from this marriage. I am trapped.

It's interesting that the judge put an age on it, too; that at seven, your child is obviously old enough for you to go out to work. Maybe he assumed that they have settled in at school, can dress themselves after a fashion, and have learned how to use a knife and fork.

What he certainly hasn't taken into account is that single mothers constantly walk a tightrope - whatever the age of the child. You want to be there for them when they need you (and they need you more than you think, even when they're older), but you need to provide for them too, which sometimes makes the former impossible.

You feel guilt, constantly. I certainly cut corners - I don't generally stick to the 48-hour tummy bug rule because I can't take extra time off (sorry, but if your son or daughter starts barfing, it could well be my fault). I have crow-barred my eldest to school when he had a migraine, with just a couple of paracetamol, a wing and a prayer that I won't get the 'come and get me' call two hours later.

I find that my boys, aged 14 and 12, need me more now more than ever. My 14-year-old wants to endlessly discuss his options for GCSEs, as well as the confused feelings that puberty brings and the problems that he's encountering on social media. My 12-year-old has spent a term trying to get used to a new school; has woken me up in the night crying, saying he is worried he has no friends. Pitchford's 'year two' is completely arbitrary.

Maintenance from your ex can help you find the right balance, which, in my view, needs to be sustained for the entire time your children live with you. This is why I hope that English law doesn't take a blanket view on this knotty issue. Each case is different. In Tracey Wright's case, I think the judge was right. But in others, where money is tight and support is non-existent, I hope that courts are able to see the bigger, wider picture.

juneau that is where I am but was over 10 years out of the workplace.
And it is hard, there is huge competition among school mums for even the worst part time jobs so am working for myself but bringng in very little income.
Hopefully that will change and I hope single parents who are also primary carers wont be penalised for not working full time as another poster mentioned up thread....

It does need to be considered on a case by case basis. I don't receive spousal maintenance and was bullied out of applying to the Court for it. I don't work - not because I don't wish to, I'd love it - because our youngest son has serious medical problems for which I am his carer. I have to rely on state benefits. My ExH doesn't play a part in any of DSs medical stuff, or indeed in the day to day practicalities of caring for any of our four children. I cannot have a career due to what would be very frequent and unpredictable absences due to hospital admission, appointments and such, I cannot build a personal pension as I can't afford the contributions. For this I have been called a sponger, benefits scum and worse but my exH and exFriends whilst he goes on several holidays a year and generally lives it up. I think he should have had to pay spousal maintenance to make up for the fact that my life and earning capability is entirely dictated by family responsibilities whilst he is a higher wage earner and can do what he wants - we actually have joint parental responsibility which is a joke!! We both chose to have our children and yet only my employment and financial future is affected.

I don't think anyone needs to worry about the judgment in this particular case having a wider impact on the existence of spousal maintenance. Although I do think the publicity around this case is unfortunate and could be damaging for other woman going to court to get a fair deal but not taking the piss completely like she was.

There are some scenarios where spousal maintenance is appropriate and fair but it is ridiculous to think such an arrangement should last indefinitely

Why any woman would want to align themselves with the values of this particular woman is beyond me.

I think spousal maintenance is a nonsense. Women should always maintain their financial independence and keep working. The idea of giving up a career pretty much upon gaining professional qualifications and then expecting a man to maintain you for years to come, even when your children are in school...ludicrous.

I was a single parent to my eldest DC for the first 2 years of his life. His father is entirely absent. I also have no family whatsoever. And yet I have ALWAYS worked ft. No, it wasn't always easy. But I am fit, healthy, intelligent, I have a career. I certainly wasn't going to assert my right to sit at home until that child was a young man before returning to the workplace! Frankly if I can work in that situation,full time in a demanding legal role, then I think anyone (leaving aside health issues, DC with special/ complex needs etc which situations are plainly different) can.

I've also been a lp for the past 6 years since my relationship with DC2s father ended. I don't receive, nor would I want, a penny from him in child maintenance.

Lets be clear that not all lp are living in poverty. It's quite possible to be pretty well off post divorce. My bf's exw is sitting on a substantial 6 figure inheritance, and has an income from pt work, various benefits and child maintenance, of 3000 pm, of which her mortgage is much less than 10%. His earnings are far less, and housing costs are half his monthly wage. But yes of course the percentage he pays, and having his DC 2/7 of the time isn't enough. He and men like him should probably live in a bedsit or hostel, sp they can give 50% or more of their income...

I agree with the court order. Bar women who have to care for children with SEN, I think all adults should expect to work. Share the costs of childcare and other expences but otherwise expect to contribute as much as possible.

Yes, she should be expected to work. And presumably now the husband is retiring, he'll be a great help in school holidays etc. But the point is, the work she was doing for the family will not be reflected by the salary she commands on returning to work. The real world doesn't acknowledge that contribution in monetary terms. So she has to be compensated by her husband, who has benefited from all those years she was working at home. That benefit is reflected by his current salary, which actually belongs to both of them.

I don't think anyone thinks that parents of kids with complex disabilities should automatically have to find work unless it's clear there is extensive and readily affordable care already available and the parent concerned is clearly free for vast swathes of the day, not having been up all night seeing to his or her child. Seriously, there is something that really does need special consideration. I can't imagine there would be many parents up to holding down a job and caring for such a child properly.

That benefit is reflected by his current salary, which actually belongs to both of them. I can't agree with this. Some are more talented, harder working, better qualified, more ambitious etc. There is no evidence his ex would ever have been able to earn the sort of money he does even if she never took a day out of her career. Legal secretaries & riding instructors just do not earn that much. So far from being impoverished as a result of marring & giving up work, her marriage has left her much better off than she could have achieved on her own.

Support the children - yes. Support the ex forever - no. He pays generously for his children, that is all he should have to do after this length of time.

Spousal maintenance was introduced when the majority of women did not work and the rules should be updated to reflect most women now work before children. I was married 9 years but was told I would not get SM as marriage was short. I managed a full time job with no family near by and did an additional part time job when the children were with their father. It is hard work but can be done. FWIW I believe all non resident parents should support their children even if there is no contact. My ex did see the children but I had to fight him for a pittance!

I realise that this may be an unpopular view, but I think women need to start taking responsibility for their own employability, and they need to think through the implications of becoming a sahp much more carefully before taking that plunge.

In the vast majority of cases, I don't believe that there is any significant benefit for the children in having a parent at home, so it is essentially a lifestyle choice for the adults - and a very risky one in my view.

I believe that spousal maintenance should be paid in very specific circumstances only - for example, where one parent has had to give up their career to care for a disabled child. In such cases, the sahp has clearly had to make sacrifices and this should be recognised.

In most other circumstances, women need to think long and hard about the consequences of sacrificing their financial independence. Child maintenance should reflect the actual costs of raising a child (and I recognise that in many cases, it doesn't), but as adults, we should be able to look after ourselves.

I fully understand that some women may need SM so please don't assume I'm speaking for everyone here, I'm talking about myself. My solicitor pushed and pushed me to apply for SM. XH earns a lot and I have 3 DCs, youngest is 13 with ASD. Since our separation I've worked p/t in various jobs. I had to give up work when my eldest was born - XH was abusive and controlling so I've never had a successful career. It hasn't been great but with my wages, tax credits, maintenance and then my DPs wages we've done ok. But still he wanted me to push for SM despite our upcoming marriage cancelling any SM I would have be awarded. I even had to sign a disclaimer saying I was going against my solicitors advice! If the DCs were younger than yes, definitely. But I do think there should be a cut off age, imo some women and especially the surgeon vet's wife see SM as a career choice.

Seekingtheanswers - I don't believe that there is any significant benefit for the children in having a parent at home

I'm afraid many don't agree with you on this at all. Even if parenting changes as the child's independence grows, it is still important to just be there even in teenage years.

If women are expected to support themselves through work perhaps the courts can also put an order in place to say husbands must also do 50% of the drop offs/pick ups/holiday cover/sickness cover/ attending parents evenings/assemblies etc. No? Thought not.

This is the major issue for me. Husbands like SAH wives as they can carry on with their careers without worrying about these issues. As posters have pointed out, finding jobs that fit in with school hours etc is incredibly difficult. Women have often also lost out on massive amounts of pension contributions too which should be taken into account during splits.

I am married and work PT, btw.

Personally speaking (although everyone must make their own judgement) I don't think it's a particularly good thing for children to see Daddy earning all the money and Mummy doing most of the childcare and housework. It enforces out dated stereotypes. Fair enough for a short while when children are babies but in the long term. Absolutely not.

mamslats I'm seeing this with a couple I know. Post separation he is continuing to build a career and relies on the ex totally to pick up the slack in her more child friendly (lower paid) career that she has entered later. The alternative would be child on the street.

She will never be able to outearn him.

seekingtheanswers

As springalong says, many people disagree with you. Even if everyone suddenly agreed today and went out to get jobs, there would still be millions of current/former SAHPs whose earning capacity has already been severely compromised, if they could even get a job at all. Surely you acknowledge that it is easier to be good at your job when all of your shopping,housework, childcare, etc, responsibilities are taken care of for you? Given the reality, rather than how you think everyone should run their lives/raise their families, do you maintain that in the event of a split SAHPs should be entitled to no help from the ex-partner whose career has flourished due to never having to miss a day's work, never arriving at work sleep-deprived or distracted by home responsibilities/errands, and being able to travel/work overtime at no notice?

I realise that this may be an unpopular view, but I think women need to start taking responsibility for their own employability, and they need to think through the implications of becoming a sahp much more carefully before taking that plunge.

In theory I agree with this, but again it has to be looked at on a case-by-base basis, because what about parents of DC with SEN? Childcare of any kind can be hard to come by, depending on the disability, so what then?

Also, its easy to give glib, all-encompassing solutions, but in my case we were living OS when DS1 was born. I'd have had to return to my FT job just 12 weeks after he was born, which neither my DH nor I wanted, but that's the way things are there. What I didn't realise, what no one realised, was that the credit crisis would occur while I was on what I thought would be just a year out of work, rendering it impossible for me to find another job. According to you it would be right for me to be penalised for lack of forethought regarding what turned into a global recession.

I am the main earner in my family. It makes no difference to my career if my DH works or not. He was a sahp for a short period, and yes, it was nice to do a bit less housework, but it didn't actually mean that I was able to do a better job at work - just that we both had a bit more free time. Neither of us felt that there were tangible benefits for our dc, so we decided that it would be better for him to return to work.

Employed people can and do care for sick children, attend parents evenings and so on. I would like to see these responsibilities being shared more equally with men.

I have not seen any real research to support the notion that children are happier/more successful with a parent at home. A secure attachment to a parent is clearly very important, but working need not preclude this.

Seekingtheanswers, you say that "Neither of us felt that there were tangible benefits for our dc" and "I have not seen any real research to support the notion that children are happier/more successful with a parent at home" but the point is that some people do believe that their DC will benefit. You don't, and I absolutely defend your right to that belief, but I also defend my right to believe the opposite, whether or not it is based on research or just on a 'feeling'.

All families should have the choice of how to arrange their work / childcare arrangements. And in the cases when both partners agree that one of them will be a SAHP, and this has an impact on the earning power of that partner, then I think the law should ensure that partner is protected, to some fair extent, in the event of a divorce.

Employed people can and do care for sick children, attend parents evenings and so on. I would like to see these responsibilities being shared more equally with men.

Of course they can, I never said otherwise. But it would be disingenuous to pretend that no career has benefitted from the spontaneity the backup of a SAHP affords. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see that, too. But the reality is that many couples prefer the model by which one parent stays at home. Do you insist that because people do not go along with your ideal model they should be financially penalised for the rest of their lives? On another note, rarely a week goes by on MN without a thread complaining of how both parents work ft but only one of them - usually the woman - is doing their share of housework/childcare. It doesn't seem like either model works perfectly to me. I just don't wish to see women penalised because both parents decided together on the one-SAHP one-earner model.

Well the judge has basically just told all mothers everywhere, not to be SAHMs.

The risk is just too great. You hardly EVER get back on the career ladder where you were before you stepped off it, so it's too big a risk to get off it.

And no this doesn't apply to SAHDs, because men can take time out of the workplace (to travel, to set up their own business, to be a SAHD) and on average within 5 years of returning, they've caught up with their peers. Women very rarely catch up, because guess what, sexism is still a thing. You take 5 or 6 years out of the workplace and you're screwed forever in most cases.

Why would anyone take that risk now? Unless there is full compensation on divorce in the form of a lump sum for having given up a career and enabled the other partner to improve their career, to say nothing of the ca. 30K+ p.a. worth of work which women do for free (childcare, housework etc.) while SAHMing, I just can't see how anyone could have the confidence to do it.

But this woman is still substantially better off as a result of her marriage. She could never have afforded a 450k house with stabling through her own career, even if she never had children. It is not as if giving up her career has left her any worse off - far fron it!

The suggestion seems to be it's all men forcing women to be SAHP, and then turning the tables on divorce. I doubt in reality it's like that. At best it's agreed and both parties are happy that the wife stays at home for a few years (certainly not for 10 years or more). However I can think of several (now failed) marriages where the wife presented it as a fait accompli...she wouldn't be returning to work once DC was born...or went back briefly, didn't like it and decided to leave. And in those cases the husband had no choice but to go along with it, despite wanting his wife to pursue her career, because she wouldn't. Rather a forced agreement in those circs, and not uncommon.

I certainly think the lady in the judgement was greedy and the skills required as a riding instructor do not decline or go out of date during a maternity break and, from the sound of it, she didn't quit riding. If this ruling is to be used as a benchmark, however, it is far too sweeping. It might dispel the rosy glow of pre-marital bliss but if situations such as this were up for discussion before marriage it could save a lot of grief and would certainly encourage both parties to identify priorities. I have known couples who didn't even discuss parenthood before they tied the knot.