Thinking of Abandoning your Wife and Child? Here’s what you need to know.

[Adviceshop]

1 – will I have to pay maintenance to my ex?
A: Yes – you will have to pay 16% of your gross salary (after pension deductions)
2 – So if I increase my pension contributions my maintenance will go down?
A: Yes.

1. My child is in nursery as we both work – will I have to pay half towards childcare?

A: No, not at all. If your ex wishes to continue working she will have to pay it all.

1. But won’t I have to have the child half the time and pay for my half when I have them?

A: Not if you don’t want to, no. You can just see the child at weekends and explain you can’t have them in the week because you work.

1. Is there a minimum amount of time I will need to see my child?

A: Again, no, you can see your child as little as you wish.

1. What if my ex won’t let me see my child?

A: You can take her to court to force her to allow you to see the child

1. Can my ex take me to court to force me to see the child more regularly?

A: Not at all, no, this is not available as an option.

1. Can I move away from my ex and child?

A: Certainly. In fact, if you move a long distance away you can apply for a “variation” to your child maintenance so that you pay less. You can say this is because you are incurring costs in visiting your child.

1. So I would have to prove that I was incurring these costs to get the variation?

A: Not really no. Keep the receipts from one trip and say that you’re making that same trip every month, even if you’re not. 10. Can my ex move away with my child? A: Yes, but you can apply for a court order to stop her. 11. Can she apply for a court order to stop me moving away? A: No, of course not. 12. Won’t my leaving have an adverse effect on my child? A: Probably, but your ex will probably do everything in her power to minimise the ill effects. 13. How can I be sure my child will be looked after? A: If your ex neglects your child she will be punished by the state. If it gets really bad your child will be taken into care and looked after by the state. 14. Can the state make me take my child back? A: No, not at all. 15. Won’t society think badly of me for doing this? A: Possibly at first. Explain how unhappy you were. If you see your child a few times a year and pay the minimum maintenance then eventually you will be called “A Good Dad”.

How many of the men who want 50-50 go part-time the way that many mothers do after their kids are born?

How is that an option though when their wage has to pay for a house for the children, a home for them and maintenance? Surely if they go part time there's a lot less money available?

But they wouldn't be paying any maintenance if they genuinely had the child 5050. They'd be in a better situation than many parents on here who receive no maintenance, have the child 100% of the time and have to make ends meet.

leaving aside the rights and wrongs of 50/50 as far as the kids go (though that is what matters, not the parents' 'rights' to custody) saying that the (usually dad) couldnt possibly go part time because he has bills to pay highlights exactly what is wrong still with attitudes to parenting. How ridiculous to expect a MAN to reduce his career to take care of a child, yet women are expected to do that, criticised if they don't as being unmaternal and are simultaneously blamed for not standing on their own two feet financially. It's bonkers.

How many of the men who want 50-50 go part-time the way that many mothers do after their kids are born? In my experience the Dads often stay full-time and have their mothers or new gf looking after the kids during their time

^^ THIS. This. This, This, This, THIS THIS THIS.

50/50 has been proved to be no good for young children its emotionally damaging

Utter bollocks @slipperywhensparticus

Any separation is emotionally damaging, regardless of how careful both parents are to ensure they coparent succesfully. Where is your evidence to back up your very sweeping statement? Because in my experience, and that of some of my friends, 50/50 has worked very well. I have, however, witnessed children being torn apart by parents who can't agree, who use the child as a bargaining tool, who repeatedly let their children down and fail to follow through with promises. Both mothers and fathers.

I've seen some thoroughly nasty women who have total control over when their ex sees their children. I've seen men broken because they just cannot get to see their children. I've seen men completely abandon their children. And I've seen women do the same. There are many different scenarios, but hey, it's ok to stereotype fathers as feckless men who don't deserve to see their child.
This post smacks of gang mentality against fathers. It's generalising to the extreme and we need to see some balance, not whip up a frenzy of anger against non residential parents.

@40Soontobe60 maybe the gang mentality is because the majority have negative experiences.
If the reverse was true I suspect the post would be very different and staff at cms would be getting made redundant by the shed load.
You cant really chastise people for voicing their truths.

Moreover those nasty controlling woman you refer to are often protecting their children but portrayed that way be narcissistic non resident males who are adept at playing the victim to an audience and as we know the media love a story about evil single mothers as much as any separated fathers next girlfriend who needs to explain away why hes such a crap dad.

@Kennyy he earns alot more than me, so I'm pretty sure the court would order him to pay some if I wanted it. I waived my right to spousal maintenance too.

BUt actually the benefit for me of being free of his controlling ways, (and money remains the only control he now has over me) would outweigh the need for money and I'd move house and do without.

In any case my teens don't want to do it - they see their friends going between houses and how much they all hate it, and just don't want to do it. Their rooms and space at home and routines are so important to them.

But they wouldn't be paying any maintenance if they genuinely had the child 5050

In many situations 50:50 isn’t practical. The nrp needs a home suitable for the kids- buying a house fresh off a divorce on one income that is reduced by child support is difficult unless you’re high income. And in most situations the family home isn’t worth enough to be sold and two houses bought, and the rp will also struggle to raise a full mortgage on their own.

Then also 50:50 and no maintenance doesn’t work for many RP. There are still bills to pay, and again unless they have kept up their careers or are in a well paid job losing a couple of hundred pounds a month can be significant, and isn’t compensated financially by not having the children there half the time. As in many couples logistically it works better to have one primary parent, while one works full time.

I know when 16 yo stepdc wanted to live with us as we were nearer college there was hell from her mum. We were taking her child away and no way on earth was she going to pay us for the privilege. Society does judge mums whose children don’t live with them.

Btw dividends from limited companies are absolutely counted as income. They must be declared through HMRC and are included on any assessment of income. Anyone not doing that will be in serious trouble.

I also thought if the nrp moved away they did not get a variation. Their choice, they bear the cost. They only get a variation for travel if the child moves away.

I think if 50/50 were the norm, right from the outset, when women are having children, the norm wouldn't also be for them to downgrade their jobs, or go part time or be a SAHM. A 50/50 norm would reflect a more equal relationship in other parts of childcaring - in child care, in treatment at work. Idealistic I know, but in scandinavian countries this is the case.

The biggest mistake a woman can make when having children is to stop work, to place her eggs in her H's basket. No one expects to get divorced. And I say that as someone who did carry on working, but who gave up a much better paid career to let my H carry on the same one (and one he was not as good as as me).

Anna i was just thinking about the Scandi norms. I suppose the problem begins at the outset where the child is normally primarily looked after my one parent.

I believe that most Scandi mothers are back at work by 1 year plus there is a very strong encouragement for the fathers to take a sizable paternity leave.

So if they are more hands on from the outset the parents should have an equal bond, be equally capable and have had equal career disruption.

I suppose the problem begins at the outset where the child is normally primarily looked after my one parent

In uk society there is also the expectation that it is the mum who is the primary parent.

In divorce a dad, even a fully hands on, 50:50 or more would not have a chance at RP without the mothers agreement.

My dbro and his ex both worked full time. He did more of the parenting in fact as she worked 8-6, he was self employed. So he did the school runs, the bedtime routines etc, and finished his work in the evenings.

He asked his solicitor about RP as he was best placed to continue this routine. Was told he’d have to prove her unfit (drink, drugs, abuse) before it was worth even considering court.

Court in the financial settlement basically told him he had a full time job and could start again financially, so ex got the house as she had dependent kids.

To add insult to injury ex then used our parents for all before and after childcare as dbro had to up his hours to pay for a small flat an child maintenance.

His relationship with the kids has suffered badly.

For those who cried bullshit here is the recommendations from.the university of Virginia as I said it can cause damage in young children older children can cope better but not the very young

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130719083611.htm

agree @ThighThighOfthigh 50/50 can't be the norm until the rest is like the Scandi countries.

Most of us simply can't afford 2 houses (because we've downgraded or stopped our careers) , and certainly my H (who wasn't unenlightened) wouldn't even have contemplated staying at home with the kids even on a pt basis.

It's going to take generations to fix. Most of us grew up with a p/t or sahm and, probably, would prefer to do some form of that ourselves.

I think it's still only 10% single Dads and i don't know the statistics for sahds.

Your post is so true in many many cases I know.

However there are good dads who the ex still paints in the bad light.
I know a dad who left when ex was pregnant. It was a toxic relationship and he realised it wasn't the right environment for child. Even says this probably wasn't great either but the pregnancy was unplanned (on pill) and he wonders if she stopped taking it as he'd already said the relationship was failing as it was. Paid CMS from day 1. Paid for 50% of all baby stuff. Went to court for access as Mum was denying it. Now gets EOW but wants more. He knows he won't get it though atm. Even says he probably is what is described as a Disney dad as he has to cram what he wants as 15 days contact into 4. He does all transporting for contact too.
I'll be honest he isn't my favourite person - so I don't have rose tinted glasses on with regards this. But I do know in this 1 case it's a dad who has stepped up.

But they wouldn't be paying any maintenance if they genuinely had the child 5050. They'd be in a better situation than many parents on here who receive no maintenance, have the child 100% of the time and have to make ends meet.

Ok, exclude the maintenance then but 2 homes still need to be paid for and both parties need to be able to provide for the children 50% of the time.

If both parents work part time how is that affordable for many parents? Would both parents be able to claim benefits?

I know someone who is divorcing. It was his wife's decision. He works, she doesn't. Her expectation is to live in their house until youngest child is 18 - 14 years away so the man is expected to continue paying the mortgage on this house, plus maintenance. He cannot afford to house himself so mil has suggested he gets a room in a shared house - but how can he have the children for over night stays then?

If he wants them to stay over, or even have 50/50 he will need a house. How can that happen on one wage?

This is very sad. I'm sorry but it's not about paying the ex. It's about supporting a human being you help to create. It's shameful and disgusting. Any man or woman who thinks like u shouldn't have been allowed to have children... Poor kids!!!

What gets to me is that lifestyle isn't taken into account at all. My ex went self employed so that he can pay the minimum. He does. Mainly. Sometimes he doesn't pay or threatens to remove chunks of maintenance so I never know where I am. He has also cut my payments by £500 a month this year. I know there are people who would be delighted to have that amount at all but he's halved what he's giving for his kids meaning I'm having to take on a second job to afford the life his kids already have (which isn't lavish by any means). All because I bought a flat and he tried to stop me getting my mortgage by refusing to sign a letter saying how much he paid. He failed and he's furious that I'm not living in a hovel with his children. He, on the other hand, flies around Europe every month on weekend breaks, goes on nice holidays and generally spoils his new wife, meanwhile his teenagers are not seeing him at all anymore and have none of the extras they had from him before. And our household budget has had to tighten beyond belief. The stress that I'm under financially is horrible and they're both aware of it. They are in a constant state of flux between being normal teens who want to ask for things, and being aware of the pressure it puts me under. Meanwhile he does nothing for them, doesn't see them and pays nothing compared to what he's earning. I'm not in debt yet but it's not far away. All because I asked him to leave many years ago because he was a shit husband. He's decided the punishment for that is to keep trying to financially ruin me. And ultimately his kids are the ones that suffer; he wanted them brought up a certain way, but is now constantly bitching when I simply can't provide the fancy clothes, electronics or school trips on my salary. I honestly thought that by divorcing him I'd be free of him, but I won't as long as I need his money to pay for the kids. He is holding me to ransom financially and emotionally. It's a disgrace.

Well said, pinkbutterfly !

Putting all finances to one side, why is it just assumed that a mother will be RP ? Why is not assumed that care will be 50/50 and that finances are a separate matter?

So many seem to assume that paying minimum child maintenance is a fair contribution by the NRP. And the RP's need to work, pay her mortgage, save a pension, progress in her career can just be ignored... to the detriment of her children.

For the record, if a NRP is working full-time to pay the mortgage on the children's home until they're 18, that NRP will be enjoy the benefits from the sale of that home when they're 18.

And for the record, plenty of us RP mothers pay all the bills, do all the childcare and work. I receive a paltry sum through CSA - that is my ex's sole financial contribution to DD, the minimum he has to pay. And, yes, he claims that I prevent him from seeing DD more/ he claims to be very, very busy working...

Micah my ex moved away and got a variation for contact costs, it's not just if the child is moved away.

For the record, if a NRP is working full-time to pay the mortgage on the children's home until they're 18, that NRP will be enjoy the benefits from the sale of that home when they're 18.

Ok. So how do they house themselves in the mean time, until they can benefit from the sale of the house? Living in one room in a shared house means they can't have their children to stay so what does that do for the relationship?

Decomposing - good question!

What's your solution? Does it require you to claim that you don't have time to be involved in your child's life?

What's your solution? Does it require you to claim that you don't have time to be involved in your child's life?

I don't understand.

In a no fault divorce do you think that it's fair that the mum can live in a house, paid for by the ex and have a proper relationship with the children but the ex has to live in an HMO and see the children for a few hours eow?

I guess 1 solution is that the house is the children's and then it's the parents who rotate living there. What can't be right is that a genuine non abusive dad can't have decent time with his children simply because he can't pay for 2 homes.

Recent holiday I was on, both single dads had 50/50 and 50 per cent of the single mums had 50/50 (including me). All fully committed to their kids. i suspect society is very slowly moving towards this becoming the norm on splitting as mums and dads are expected (and want) to step up.
Completely get if your ex is not committed though this will not happen.

Rotate time in the house? Yes, that's one solution. My friend knows of people in Sweden doing that - they're putting their kids' needs first.

For me, that wouldn't work. I bought and paid for the house in which DD lives with me. Ex has never contributed anything to my finances. He works full-time and, arguably, should be able to pay for his own home - whatever that is. Apparently, he works very long hours which prevent him from spending more time with DD so you'd think he could afford somewhere to live.