Advice needed for my friend

[jampots]

My friend is splitting up with her partner of 10 years - they have a 21month old child. She works 4 days per week and is on about £45k pa, he works 5 days and is on about £25k. Their son goes to nursery. They jointly own a house with a mortgage. Maria pays pretty much for everything with a £350pm contribution from her partner. She has £22k in savings which he doesnt know about. In broad terms what would she be entitled to being as thought she is financially better off than he is? and is there any way she can "hide" her savings?

jampots, I know this will sound bolshy but it isn't. I pay £125 per week too - I would love a part time job and more time with DS - it just doesn't work out that way at times.

I am on £14,000 and ex is on £16,000 - money is a mad thing isn't it? as I said, different strokes. I hope she finds her answers.

I think I left mine under a packing box for now!

Actually, courts sometimes do take into account how much one person has contributed both financially and in labour terms in a marriage, and she may find that a court doesn't award her xh half her savings, because it may decide he isn't entitled to them.

However, if she tries to hide them and the court finds out, they will look much less favourably upon her. And after all, when you sign up to marriage, you are signing up to pool all your worldly goods.

they're not married though

Oh well then it's a totally different ball-game. He's not automatically entitled to any of her savings unless he can show a court that there's good reason for him to have a percentage (and of course, they'll take his savings into account as well) and they'll probably have to come to an arrangement about what percentage split of the house is reasonable. She should see a lawyer though - as should he, of course!

i didnt think hte law was the same for unmarried couples - its such a minefield isnt it?

If the parents of a child are unmarried, then only the mother has any automatic rights in respect of the child. She alone will have parental responsibility for the child, which covers all aspects of his/her welfare and upbringing. However since 1 December 2003 (s111 of the Adoption & Children Act 2002) it is now easier for an unmarried father to acquire similar rights. All he needs to do is to register the birth of the child with the mother.

An unmarried father can also acquire joint parental responsibility or (in extreme circumstances) sole parental responsibility, if the parents have entered into a Parental Responsibility Agreement (more on this here at a later date), or if he applies to the court and they grant him an order in his favour.

Therefore if an unmarried couple split up the mother will automatically have the right to look after her child in a manner and place as she sees fit, and the father could not challenge her unless they have entered into a Parental Responsibility Agreement or he has a court order in his favour.

The father can apply to the court for joint parental responsibility, a residence order (ie that the child live with him rather than his/her mother), or for a contact order (ie that he should be entitled to see his child on a regular basis).

There is no such thing in English law as a ?common law wife? (or husband). Many couples wrongly believe that they will automatically qualify for some protection under the law if their relationship breaks down. But their relationship with one another is not recognised as having any legal standing, and they have no special status in the eyes of the English legal system. The law effectively treats them as separate individuals with no rights or liabilities to each other if the relationship ends.

For such couples, this has far-reaching consequences for their home, their children and their finances.

Unlike married couples, unmarried couples have no basic rights to their partner's property or to maintenance if they split up. Basically what is his is his, what is hers is hers, and what is jointly-owned needs to be divided.

If a house is bought in joint names, it should be split accordingly on separation, and either party can force a sale of the property to realise their share. If the parties are contributing unequally to the purchase price, or to payments on the property, for example if he is paying 70% and she is paying 30%, this should be reflected in the amounts they take away with them.

If the property is in the sole name of one party, it remains that person's property on separation, unless the other party can establish that there was an intention that they would be entitled to a share in the property. Proving this can cause much stress, expense and frustration.

Message withdrawn

If the parents of a child are unmarried, then only the mother has any automatic rights in respect of the child. She alone will have parental responsibility for the child, which covers all aspects of his/her welfare and upbringing.

so how come fathers have to pay maintenance? it all seems a bit unfair really

who's it unfair on? the mother because she shouldnt have to shoulder this responsibility on her own? or the father for not being automatically granted the right?

And they say men are the sly conniving %^$%""£'S
You don't say who has initiated the split let alone why?
If it's your friend fault I hope she fails in all she tries.
If it was him he deserves all he gets.
The one I feel sorry for is the child.
As always in these cases the innocent that ultimately suffers.

You have said ?partner? I take it from this they are not married.
If this is the case as far as the law is concerned they have no obligation to each other what so ever and therefore she needs not even mention savings; what?s hers is hers and vice versa.
They both however have an obligation to the child.
The absent parents are obliged to support the child until the coming of age.
Try this web site www.lawontheweb.co.uk/basics/family.htm
The only right an unwed father has were his child is concerned is only if he has registered with the child?s mother, the child?s birth [since 1 December 2003 (s111 of the Adoption & Children Act 2002)] but this looks tenuous.
As per usual even if the mother is a mass murderess, the courts tend to favour giving her custody of the child/children and making the father pay through the nose even when it?s plain to see he cannot afford the amount were by he is then hounded till he is on the street in a card board box or driven to suicide.
Yes we know some fathers don?t pay but the law eventually catches up with them and he ends up in jail hence a burden to the tax payer even when he gets out as he can no longer get a job as he is termed an ex con .
It?s a question of knowing with hind?s sight.
If you love him/her make it a long courtship and no babies until married.
Most people don?t realise a marriage licence is a contract and in the past was unbreakable but now it is the only legality a male has where his chosen family is concerned.
Sexual discrimination used to rein here on the males side but has swung so far the other way that fair minded and loving ex male partners don?t only suffer though the break up but a financially slaughtered as in an abattoir

What an unpleasant and spite ridden last post.

Although I hardly think a woman who has got to a position where she earns 45K PA and has managed to save £22k in that time IN ADDITION to being a parent and dealing with all the emotional/financial/physical 'work' that entails is likely to be a 'failure', on any level.