DH Resident in UK - his ex wife and children living in RSA ...

[Loosemo]

Since my DH divorced in 2002 & agreed to pay child maintenance for his 2 children, living with their mum in South Africa both his and his ex-wife's circumstances have changed dramatically.

My DH is now a UK resident, married (to me, natch!) and we now have 4 children together.

Ex wife is now working full time, living with another man and has re-married too.

My DH has a voluntary court order, dating back to 2002 stating that he should pay R6000 per month for both the children plus reasonable private school fees, plus yearly increase according to the consumer price index. Ex-wife's right to Spousal Maintenance was waived.

This was okay to begin with but has become increasingly difficult to meet with the arrival of each of our subsequent children. My DH, not wishing to short change his children in South Africa continued to pay, but we now find it increasingly difficult to meet the payments.

Ex-wife is not open to negotiation.

Where does my DH stand legally? Surely we don't have to go back to court in South Africa to resolve this issue? Is this something that we can resolve via a solicitor in the UK? My DH still wants to pay maintenance for his children in South Africa, but needs his new circumstances to be taken into consideration.

Can anyone out there help or at least point us in the right direction?

Thanks in advance,

Loosemo

prh47bridge I understand that completely. My point was merely that the OP posted that things had got progressively "tighter" for her and her DH moneywise after each of the four children they had, as a result of the court order in RSA.

And the OP seems to be driving the reduction to his existing children, and she seems to be only interested in what is "fair" for her four children, and not the two he already had when they got married (natch).

Out of interest, what would happen if the OP and her DH divorced and her DH then went on to have a further four children with another wife? Would the court order in RSA have precedence (for want of a better way to put it) over any maintenance the OP would be entitled to in that scenario?

interesting question heissobloodyhardwork!

I think you'd have to engage a solicitor to deal with this - which would cost a bomb for a start.

Has he approached her? What's the likelihood she'd agree to a decrease without a legal tussle, costing even more money? What if she counter-claimed for an increase? Either way, think of the damage done to his relationship with his older kids!

I'd forget it if I were you.

sorry babybarrister, I did not know you were a moderator on this topic.

It is a shame though, if lawyers are wasting their time on a parenting forum wading through opinions rather than getting straight to their advice.

Surely the best advice is, if you want legal advice go to a solicitor.

If you can't afford it, then post on a legal forum.

If you post on a parenting forum, then parents are going to come and give their views and opinions.

And I didn't think there were board monitors who decreed who was and wasn't allowed to post on a particular topic.

Where would all the supportive threads (like the Bereavement threads) be if you could only post if you had direct experience of the situation in the OP?

Hi, just so you know, anyone can post in Legal Matters. It's not a forum for lawyers to dispense advice; it's a forum for Mumsnetters to discuss their legal problems and issues with each other. Much like every other topic on Mumsnet, we're about sharing peer-to-peer advice, rather than dispensing expert advice (there are plenty of other sites for that!).

And, although it's not unusual for Mumsnetters to be able to offer peer-to-peer advice from the additional perspective of a professional in the field, we would caution all members that, as we do not check anyone's qualifications, they should not necessarily treat any one person's advice as being more "expert" or "professional" than anyone else's.

Thank you for pointing alorsmum that we don't have a 'note' at the top of Legal Matters threads. We'll sort that out ASAP.

Opinion is fine but when someone's brings an individual's personal circumstances, trustworthiness or character into question it is a personal attack which is supposedly against the ethos of MN.

STIDW I agree that personal attacks are against the ethos of MN. I have not, as far as I am aware, indulged in such behaviour. And yet there has been a generic "f* off" aimed at me and others like me who have posted asking fair and reasonable questions, and putting forward our own personal point of view and opinions.

Personal attacks are not only against the ethos of MN, they're against our Talk Guidelines.

If you see any personal attacks on the boards, do please report them to use (using the Report link above the post in question - that's what it's there for)>

Because people are very judgmental particularly against second-wives and step-mums.

Because the OP came on asking to be pointed in the right direction for legal advice/ where to go and everyone piled in telling her she shouldn't have had more children, was gloating about the fact and no one was really very helpful

If the op's dh lost his job (as he has done in the past) and wasn't married again, would you expect him to make himself homeless to continue to pay for a private education/maintenance set at richer times? ( don't answer that) Circumstances change irrespective of new relationships or not and it was a tad foolish to set things when no one has a crystal ball.

OP I would look at the documentation as a couple, then try to discuss a reduction in monthly payments for a year perhaps and then back up to the original payments, a little bit like spreading your credit card payments? Might she take that into account? If you had a legal document saying this likea new contract?

Professor the OP was hardly all sweetness and light in her first post with her (natch!)

And it's really a discussion for solicitors/lawyers and the DH and his ex-wife to be having - not the OP

And bear in mind, again from the OP, the ex-wife waived her right to spousal maintenance in order to get the court order in place to protect her children's education and to ensure they were adequately provided for.

Where does it say she waived spousal maintenance to protect her children's education and to see they were adequately provided for?

She could have waived the spousal maintenance as she knew she was going to remarry and it would then be cancelled.

And I can't possibly know that because it's not been written and I don't know them.

True Truck - I was projecting what I would have done in her shoes for which I apologise. But she did waive spousal maintenance and in return got a payment every month for the children, private school fees and a yearly increase so I don't think it's that big a jump

But technically, it doesn't say she did it for her kids, that's true.

Yawn at the attitude of some on this thread! Let's stop bickering - we're all guilty of an ill-considered off-the-cuff response occasionally, so let's just cut ourselves a little slack and get back to the issue.

OP, testing her response is crucial. If he is still paying his kids' private school fees (as he agreed to) and they are at a critical stage in their education (which is just about any stage, let's face it), I doubt the response is going to be very positive. Especially if it would mean the kids have to leave the school(s) they are settled in.

Then again she might say "Oh don't worry, they're your kids but I understand you're now too skint to fulfil your obligations." How likely is that, in reality? I suppose he can try it, but the mere enquiry might just be enough to light the fuse which explodes a bit of a bomb in his kids' lives, souring his relationship with them forever (if indeed he has one). What if she fights it with everything she's got, including putting in a cross-claim for an increase in maintenance?

I very much doubt this is something you will be able to achieve simply with a nicely-worded letter to the court. You're bound to have to engage a solicitor, and so you have to consider how much it will cost you to try to amend the voluntary court order, both in financial and emotional terms.

I certainly wouldn't push it with your DH, however skint you are and however good an idea this sounds to you. He knows her, and will have a better feel for how the land lies. Let it be his decision.

I am sorry just don't read it like that.

I just read everyone telling her that she shouldn't have had children.

If that applies then neither should my mother and father as my dad already had children from his first marriage who he didn't get to see more than 1 every 2 -3 weeks and who got everything as my father didn't want them to miss out. Consequently we did. But no, why should our arrival have any impact on the other members of the family?

Obviously if the dh had stayed with the ex wife none of this would have happened and even having another child with her wouldn't have changed their financial situation or that of their children

Professor I'm not in anyway saying the Op and her Dh shouldn't have any children, but they have had four more children which is a lot more children. And the OP says in her original post that it got tighter and tighter with each child - so it was getting harder every time a new child was born and the OP and her DH didn't consider how he was going to meet his financial obligations.

And she said "married to me - natch!" which is gloating and nasty in my opinion.

The OP's DH made a commitment to his ex-wife which was ratified in court to pay a certain amount of money - if he wishes to vary this amount of money then her DH will have to go back to the court and apply for a variation.

I was trying to be helpful

It always sounds ugly if anyone says or even implies that someone else shouldn't have children. But - and I feel nervous just saying this - people may have an infinite amount of love to give but time and money are often finite. I'm not surprised the OP and her husband are struggling. He has six children to support. That is a major challenge for anybody even in boom times. And the fact that things got worse with "each subsequent child" does suggest a certain trusting to luck and hoping that things would work out. And now things are really tight and it looks as if cuts will have to be made. And it sounds as if the children of the first marriage are going to bear some of the brunt of those choices. Fortunately, their mother seems to have made some sensible decisions.

perfumed I thought you were

And you are right, god forbid anyone saying a non-working single mother should stop having children but a second wife - nope she doesn't count.

Their circumstances have changed, they could equally change again tomorrow but we don't know that yet. And yes having more children can make finances tighter but say the op fell pg, then again and then accidentally got pg and had twins should she have just given them away? But 2 children is fine just not 4? Accidental pregnancies happen (there have been many threads about this just recently!!) but just in case you can't afford them or you have children from a previous marriage that you probably don't get to see very often, you should get rid of them?

It is a pretty big difference between saying people should not have children, and saying that people should consider carefully whether they can afford the amount of children they are planning on bringing into this world.