Divorce query - can ex wife demand this?

[WildwestWind]

have name changed for this query.

Have lived with partner for a year in my house. Partner buys food and I pay for everything else re household expenses whilst his divorce is going through.
Partner gives ex wife and two children (13 and 9) three quarters of his salary and keeps one quarter for himself.

Financial settlement is being discussed and has been amicable so far but now ex wife's solicitor is demanding to know my income and financial position 'as it could affect support for wife and children.'
I'm a widow and don't have any dependent children. Both me and my partner work full time, ex wife hasn't worked for 20 years.
Any ideas if I will need to contribute to support them?

Don't tell, and don't be bullied by either her or his solicitor.

Please ensure that your DP doesn't know your exact salary so he can say he doesn't know in truth.

If you are dragged into this divorce get your own independent advice, your DP solicitor is working for him and not you.

Who knew- as far as I know child maintenance doesn't work like that. It's nothing to do with who can afford what, it's simply a % of his salary.

Take your example the other way- ex marries a millionaire and wants for nothing. He will still be expected to pay maintenance, even if he is on minimum wage, and it means he and children he lives with go without.

Spousal maintenance is rare these days except in big money cases. It's a reasonable expectation that they both support themselves and their own households. his ex will be expected to provide for herself post divorce like any other single woman. Any maintenance is to help with the children.

sigh.

so many people have posted on this thread without actually knowing what they are talking about.
The post by katandkits Thu 08-Jan-15 23:24:53 is completely wrong;
"His contribution to your household has absolutely nothing legally to do with his divorce and isn't a matter for his solicitor surely? Of course it is something OP should definitely discuss with him but it is not to do with his ex wife. "

These are the exact words of Section 4.6 of the Form E, which OP's partner must fill out and under which he has a full duty of disclosure:

"4.6 If you have subsequently married or formed a civil partnership (or intend to) or are living with another person (or intend to), give brief details, so far as they are known to you, of his or her income, assets and liabilities."

And the reason why this is asked is exactly as other posters have said - because it indicates what is a reasonable amount of his income to allow for his living expenses, and what is therefore left over to be considered for spousal maintenance.

It is true that the courts tend to regard spousal maintenance after divorce with caution, it is not nearly so common as it used to be - but if an ex spouse has young dependent children and has not been in work, then the chances are she will be awarded payments at least for a while.

if she hasn't worked for 20 years then presumably the arrangements during the marriage was that husband supported her; so at the very least on divorce there would need to be a realistic time for her to make a transition to working. Nobody finds it easy to enter the job market after 20 years. If the younger child is 9, then child care around school hours is still needed.

The situation is totally different for child support, where it is a % of his income regardless of other outgoings.

The OP said 'financial settlement is being discussed'. That must mean divorce. Perhaps child support is also being negotiated as part of the deal, which is fine, but it won't change the statutory minimum for child support.

I don't think that you are obliged to say or do anything OP unless ordered by a judge, but your partner has to provide information as he understands it. I think that it is not to add in your financial information so that you are effectively paying spousal support, but to ensure that your partner has disclosed his true obligations in respect of his own liabilities i.e. if he is not paying any rent due to you owning your house outright then that scenario will be included in any calculation. I am not a lawyer or anything, I am referring to my understanding based on recent friends experiences - he had actually started up a new relationship with a very very wealthy woman and it caused allsorts of uproar with his ex partner who felt that spousal support and additional child maintenance was applicable due to his significantly improved lifestyle. I believe that ultimately though, the ex wifes claim was not upheld.

I don't care whether the OP is a billionaire. They are not her children. Why on earth should her circumstances have any baring?

The quote from form E is what the husband puts down. It does not say the new partner has to give any details so as said above if the husband knows or has a rough idea he can put that down.

if you were to marry him just be a bit careful. I know someone who remarried, paid school fees for his new wife's two children (at Millfield - total £60k a year). Marriage broke down and even though he was not the father of those children as they had become a child of the family and he supported them because their mother chose not to work in either marriage he had to carry on after the second divorce to pay for children who were not his.

Like many of us this man is spending 75% of his income on his children. Our court order said I had to pay 5x sets of school fees and university fees. SO yes, some of us resident mothers who work full time pay huge amounts of what we earn towards our children and non resident parents do. Children are expensive. That's the point. Far too many people move on and neglect children. The bigger issue is why did he get into a marriage where a wife would not work for 20 years. Why not just marry career women where you both work so then you have equal incomes on divorce? In a sense he is now reaping what he sowed.

New partner's don't contribute to maintenance. As others have said your financial resources are only relevant because you should be contributing towards the living expenses of your household reducing your partner's expenses so he has more disposable income with which to pay any maintenance.

At the moment disclosure is voluntary, but if your partner and his wife can't reach agreement and the matter goes to court the court requires both parties to complete a disclosure, Form E. One of the questions asks for some basic known financial information of a new partner. IF the details aren't provided the court may assume you are contributing more towards your household's living expenses than you actually are.

Where the solicitor is coming from is there is a court pre application protocol which the the parties are expected to comply with. It states parties should exchange schedules of assets, income, liabilities and other material facts, using Form E as a guide. See;

www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/practice_directions/pd_part_09a#IDAIQMGC

OP....to make it 'fair'....why doesn't your partner move out until the divorce is finalised? that way he (and the other side) will get a good breakdown of exactly how much 'disposable' income he actually has?

after the divorce he can just move back in?

when you're dealing with lazy gits like his ex-wife you have to play it clever and be one step ahead of them all the time.

him paying 75% of his income and you having to subsidise him puts him in the position of what MN so often refer to as a 'cocklodger'. now THAT is not right nor fair.

"OP....to make it 'fair'....why doesn't your partner move out until the divorce is finalised? that way he (and the other side) will get a good breakdown of exactly how much 'disposable' income he actually has?

after the divorce he can just move back in?"

That doesn't help. One of the questions to be answered is whether you live or intend to live with a new partner.

Tell your partner to go to the CSA. No way should he be handing over three quarters of his salary. This greedy person should find out the hard way. He will pay much much less than this.

Vivienne and other - the CSA/CMS have no jurisdiction over a divorce settlement which this is referring to.

Although in practice plenty of we resident parents 75% of what we earn goes on children - child care, school fees, clothes etc. never mind needing a house big enough to house them so a good part of the mortgage.

75% of what we earn goes on children.....resident parents also receive child benefit and child tax credits and in a lot of cases they also receive child maintenance from the non-resident parent on top.

you are not exactly hard done by

One of the questions to be answered is whether you live or intend to live with a new partner

easy...you move out and say you have no intention of living with your partner. after the divorce you move back in whenever you feel like it. it is every individuals perogative to change their mind about living with a partner in the future and they should not be penalised for exercising that right.

plus plenty of people use this tactic currently - both men AND women.

Crikey talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. This has nothing to do with child maintenance unless the husband earns more than the CSA/CMS capped amount, lives abroad or there are children over 18 in education or training. It's about the claims between spouses.

Spouse maintenance may not be a factor at all in this particular case. For the majority of couples the priority is the welfare of children and meeting the “financial needs” of the divorcing spouses is the only other issue. Only in a small proportion of cases is spouse maintenance a consideration and then it is often paid for a year or so or until the children reach independence. Very rarely does the global figure of child maintenance and spouse maintenance amount to a global figure of 75% of income.

Without the answers to the disclosure it is impossible for anyone to say where someone stands and that makes negotiating an out of court settlement impossible. If it does go to court it could not only be expensive but tends to do more damage to long term family relationships than necessary.

"easy...you move out and say you have no intention of living with your partner. after the divorce you move back in whenever you feel like it. it is every individuals perogative to change their mind about living with a partner in the future and they should not be penalised for exercising that right.

plus plenty of people use this tactic currently - both men AND women."

I would hope most people are honest and not prepared to commit what is strictly contempt of court in that way or risk having the final settlement set aside later if evidence of the non disclosure comes to light.

"75% of what we earn goes on children.....resident parents also receive child benefit and child tax credits and in a lot of cases they also receive child maintenance from the non-resident parent on top."

Actually "resident parents" don't always receive child tax credits. Some of us earn too much.

as the saying goes STIDW..."all is fair in love and war", if one party wants to use tactics then the other has a right to do so as well - especially if the laws of the land are not balanced

and if you 'earn too much' to be eligible for tax credits then you're not exactly hard done by either

Or another quote "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless."

This flower fairy's fourth incarnation if I'm not mistaken! Not sure why all the name changes though...

STIDW but your quote is out of context in this particular matter

Thanks for the helpful feedback. To ensure the children were not financially disadvantaged and to allow the ex wife to get some vocational training partner has been contributing more than required. She is also getting benefits so is in a good financial position.

We have worked out what a reasonable contribution to living expenses would be and these were put down on form E, but we decided that partner would not contribute just yet so that there was more in the pot.