Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

Did I get a fair deal at the FDR?

41 replies

SandyMae · 23/09/2017 08:19

I had the FDR hearing yesterday (representing myself) and I thought I did get a fair deal so consented to it and it's gone into a consent order. Today I don't feel so sure anymore 😳

Anyone who can give me any input, was this a fair deal?

-I get to keep the house. If I can't get exH off the mortgage in 56 days it must've be sold, but all proceeds go to me. There's about £250k of equity in the house.

-£150 a month in child maintenance for DS until he turns 18. (Aged 9 now)

I thought it was rather generous but now I'm just wondering why they let me off so easily so there must be a catch? 🤔

OP posts:
kittensinmydinner1 · 25/09/2017 08:15

Does Ex have somewhere to live. New partner or renting on his own . If the latter - does he fund that himself. Judge usually wants to know that children are 'adequately housed' . Presuming ex will have DS for a proportion of the time, how will he be housed on these occasions if you have been given all the equity. ?

prh47bridge · 25/09/2017 08:43

This is a consent order. The judge made it clear that he needed to pay maintenance. He has agreed £150 per month. The judge did not decide the level of child maintenance. The judge has no powers to do so. The amount has nothing to do with the judge's view of his earnings.

kittensinmydinner1 · 25/09/2017 16:22

Prh47bridge . Could you possibly explain that again. ? I always read your advice to posters as you are so knowledgeable but haven't quite got my head around this.

Are you saying that the £150 is spousal maintenance? Not child maintenance? This would make sense as I understood minimum child maintenance was set in a standard calculation by the Child Maintenance people and was fairly standard percentage based on number of children /NRP earnings / minus no. of nights in NRP care.
If this is the case then assume OP can also request Child Maintenance . ?

prh47bridge · 25/09/2017 22:13

No, it is child maintenance.

There are two ways child maintenance can be set:

  • by the CMS using a standard calculation as you refer to in your post
  • by the courts in a consent order

The courts can only order child maintenance as part of a consent order, i.e. where both parents agree the figure. The courts cannot (other than in certain special cases) order child maintenance if the parents don't agree. If there is a consent order including child maintenance it is open to either parent to refer the matter to the CMS after 12 months, at which point the standard calculation would be used. But the figure in the consent order is up to the parents. They don't have to use the CMS calculation at all.

What appears to have happened is that a consent order was being proposed with no child maintenance at all. The judge told the OP's ex that he needed to pay child maintenance so the ex agreed a figure of £150 per month. The OP accepted that proposal and the judge has approved it. The judge did not come up with the figure of £150 per month. The judge simply made it clear that a consent order that did not include child maintenance would not be approved. The judge then approved the overall agreement as being reasonably fair.

So the £150 per month is child maintenance but it is at that level purely because that is what the OP's ex agreed to pay and she accepted that proposal. The CMS were not involved so it has absolutely nothing to do with his earnings.

I hope that helps to clarify matters.

MrsBertBibby · 25/09/2017 22:50

Nice piece of arm-twisting by the judge.

babybarrister · 26/09/2017 07:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Collaborate · 26/09/2017 09:20

we'd all do the same though wouldn't we?!

Absolutely!

Original poster
SandyMae · 26/09/2017 10:24

@MrsBertBibby @babybarrister @Collaborate even if the paying party is not earning?

Obviously I'm happy he's going to pay maintenance, I just don't understand how they can order him to do it without any income!

OP posts:
babybarrister · 26/09/2017 10:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Happinesssssss · 26/09/2017 10:35

Were there any other savings or assets?

MrsBertBibby · 26/09/2017 10:36

They can order it because he agreed to let them order it. And because the judge knows full well that he's a lying hound about his income so s/he cornered him into agreeing maintenance.

babybarrister · 26/09/2017 11:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

prh47bridge · 26/09/2017 11:35

Agree with babybarrister and MrsBertBibby.

If he hadn't agreed to pay £150 per month child maintenance the court could not have ordered him to do so. However, the judge's arm twisting had the desired effect so you at least have some child maintenance.

By the way, as it seems likely he was lying about his income, he may also have been lying about his assets. It may be that he owns stuff that he didn't disclose. If you find evidence that he has indeed hidden stuff you should definitely consult a lawyer as it may be possible to re-open the settlement.

Original poster
SandyMae · 26/09/2017 11:56

To be honest, I don't think he is lying about his income. During our marriage it has always been going up and down (consultancy work) so I'm not really questioning that he's not earning atm.

Re assets, we've been married for 12 years and had a shared economy so don't know how he would have been able to hide any assets 😳

OP posts:
Mumsnut · 26/09/2017 14:40

After a year he can re-apply , can't he, and get it reduced to the CMS level?

Collaborate · 26/09/2017 15:51

After a year he can re-apply , can't he, and get it reduced to the CMS level?

Yes, though it might increase as well. The court has used the fullest extent of its powers. It gives OP some short term stability and time to adjust.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page