Divorce: children or finances first?

[Lucysmum75]

Hi I am posting on behalf of my sister who does not use the Internet. She is currently in the process of going through a divorce and cannot understand why the finances are being sorted before the children are. Surely what happens with the children will affect the outcome of the financial agreement? She can't get any sense out of the solicitor other than being told 'we need to sort the finances first'. Surely any settlement will depend on if she stays in the house and if she gets more than 50-50 custody?? Thanks in advance!!

Not really
om here people generally assume that the person with more nights/care gets more assets. In reality that is often not the case.

cms addresses that

What will decide split will be things such as

earnings and earnings potential
assers available inc pensions and anything else
needs of both parties ( usually pretty similar housing needs)
ability to get mortgage /buy the other party out of fmh/ pay mortgage and bills
ages of both parties and length of marriage
ages of children

whether child arrangements are 50:50 or eow doesn’t really impact

Divorce is does have the financial component, and children arrangement component.
Financial settlement - (division of assets and maintenance; if any) - needs to be approved by the court and that allows you to actually complete your divorce. The terms of financial settlement can’t be altered without going back to court.

Child arrangements don’t require court - only when parties can not agree do they end up in court.
Most child arrangements are verbal, or written agreement between the parties - and they don’t go through court approval. Such agreement can be changed by the parities as time goes.
If people end up fighting over arrangements in court - then it’s more prescriptive and court may be needed to alter them.

Why are financials normally the focus in the divorce? Because they are typically more complex - with lots of information required to be submitted and checked. And because - this is what solicitor’s job is - to get you interests defined and defended - so you can be divorced.

Your assets are divided with consideration of needs and fairness - and its a complex procedure with lots of variables.
Division of assets actually does’t depend on how kids are shared - as both parents need to appropriately house themselves and kids (during whatever time they area the parent)

Child arrangements have a bearing on child maintenance - if the CM is set via CMS.

If your sister’s H is a high earner - financial settlement may have a CM
component, but it, again, does’t depend on time split. Generally it’ll be defined by expense category and/or amount - for eg… H covers school feels, activities, school trips…

Your sister seems to be walking into an important fight for her livelihood - with little understanding of what is happening. She needs to get better advice and get onto internet and start reading and educating herself. Or it’ll all end badly for her.

Thank you, This is all really helpful.

My sister is planning on asking to keep the house, at least for a few years, so the children have some continuity, and can stay in the area/ stay in the same schools.

He's going for 50-50 custody to avoid paying her she thinks, but he's done very little for any of the kids to date, so I can't see him getting that.

Surely that has some effect on splitting of the assets? Ie if she's staying in the house, even for a few years, that's got to affect the asset split? Or is it split in principle only to be realised when the house is sold?

It's mad that the children (the most important part of this) are legally less important than the money - she's not after the money but the kids welfare, and can't get her head around why the solicitor keep just talking about the Form E.

And she's been to two solicitors and CAB, and none have been as clear as the above posts, so thanks.

Again, thanks

@Lucysmum75

She (and you) are being naive and I don’t think you quite understand what happens in divorce.
If you want to help your sister - you need to stop talking in terms of what you’d like this process to be like and accept reality. And you need to help your sister do the same. It’s an ugly process and she’ll need to fight for what’s best for her and her kids.

Kids are not ‘less important’ in this process. It is just that normally divorcing parents manage to agree child arrangements between themselves. And it doesn’t require court involvement.

Also - there isn’t necessarily a legal framework for deciding child arrangements. Both parents have a right to having their kids 50/50.
So - if your sister doesn’t agree to 50/50 - and they end up in front of family court judge - the judge would be deciding based on what’s best for kids, with a guiding principle that it’s best for kids to maintain relationship with both parents.
And even if your sister’s H didn’t used to do his fair share - it won’t disqualify him from having kids 50/50. Provided that H is able to provide care and is a fit parent.
Kids will also be asked for their preferences, depending on their age.

So - people try to avoid court for deciding child arrangements.
In my case - for eg - my exH also wanted 50/50 originally. I also did most of the childcare as i have been a SAHM. And exH’s job was long hours and frequent travel.
I told him he’ll have to take me to court if he keeps insisting and we’ll have a judge deicide if it’s best for the kids to have a nanny look after the kids while he is working vs them being with me.
At that time - on the advice of my solicitor - i started keeping a journal of what he does with kids, vs me. In case we ended up in court.
Many men start by saying they want 50/50 in the early phases of divorce. Then reality of what it means dawns and they become more sensible.

But for most people - if both parents work and father wants 50% and kids are not too young or high needs - it’s hard to argue why he shouldn’t get it.

Coming back to asset division. Your sister may have a preference to stay in family home until kids finish school. And in some cases it is possible to agree the settlement that way - and sell & split proceeds from sale later.
But - it is only possible if her H agrees to it - end he is able to get adequate housing for him and children while they are with him.

It sounds like you are assuming that your sister’s housing needs are greater than her H. It is not the case. Even if kids spend less than 50% time with father - they still need same type of housing as with mother.
So - say in the case of 2 kids - BOTH parents need to have 3BR places with a room per kid.

In other words - a judge won’t sign off on a deal where wife gets to stay in 3BR house and H rents 1BR - because when kids go to the father (even if just EOW) - and sleep in the living room.
So - financial settlements are complex and need to balance a lot of variables. They do try to make sure both adult parties to divorce end up with similar financial positions.

And, finally - if there is a significant difference in incomes - 50/50 childcare does not have to mean that H doesn’t pay child maintenance. It is possible to claim top up.
All really depends on family circumstances.

The children are not considered property any more in English law, whereas the finances are about property and both parties need to be adequately provided for.

As the children grow up, their needs will change as will their other commitments, so it is best for parents to be amicable and as flexible as possible in meeting this needs whilst ensuring that the DC are able to maintain a relationship with both parents.