Calling any divorced dads out there....

wigginsmum

My DH never had to pay spousal maintenance for his ex; she has never really worked, and the kids were 9 and 4 when they split.

She then moved in with the 'affair,' and had another kid. DH always got on well with the 'affair' (never really blamed him as he was one in a long line of fleeting affairs that turned into something more) and was concerned 8 years later when she dumped him for a third guy. So now we get on well with the third guy too - seems easiest that way. Both of the other guys have been really good to DH's two kids, and the third guy is now stepdad to both of them and the 'affair's' kid. No doubt there will be a fourth kid by him too.

Bossyboots

The crucial issue here is actually her occupation. The whole point of awarding a larger share to the parent with residence of the children is so that they have sufficient space to live. Usually that parent is disadvantaged in terms of current and potential income and therefore is deemed to require a larger share of the pot.

In the situation described here, the wife appears to have the better ability to raise capital and favourable rates. It should definitely be argued therefore that the husband requires no less than 50%, perhaps more, because his borrowing will be more expensive and he does need somewhere that the children can stay overnight.

This is something he really needs to make an issue of and get his solicitor to fight for.

No, from what you say he will not be expected to pay spousal maintenance. That is a very outdated concept and as she is working, the children are older and she clearly has extra earning potential, she will be expected to have her own income. In the old days it was always deemed that the wife should be looked after. In those days, most women stayed at home after marriage and certainly once children came along. Therefore, they had no earning potential and their husband had to continue to support them. This meant that they were always tied in some way. Nowadays the principle of divorce is for it to be a clean break in respect of the couple and spousal maintenance is only awarded where there is an exceptional need or circumstance.

filigree_2

ben500 wrote:

The csa will make an allowance only if the children spend four or more nights a week with him

The current CSA rules make a reduction if the children spend at least 52 nights per year with the absent parent - 1/7 of the assessment. Of course, it's anybody's guess what will happen once the CSA is reformed.

hobo28

filigree wrote:

The current CSA rules make a reduction if the children spend at least 52 nights per year with the absent parent - 1/7 of the assessment. Of course, it's anybody's guess what will happen once the CSA is reformed.

The general rule for the replacement "CSA" is that they will only get involved if parties cannot agree.

System

Thanks for all your help. At the moment my SIL is trying to persuade my brother to leave the family home.
She says for the sake of the kids they should make a clean break, my brother can go live with my dad, (just as well he didn't die last year when he had major surgery that would have scuppered her plans) and then she can gradually introduce the kids to "mummys new friend". Brothers solicitor says NO not until the finances are sorted.

My SIL is currently viewing new housing developments but is finding that the new properties of a similar size to their current home (4-bed detached) are considerably more expensive and she and her boyfriend will require a much bigger mortgage. Given that do you think it would be a good idea for my brother to offer his wife the opportunity to buy him out of his home on the understanding that he gets at least 50% of the equity. The kids will not have to move and SIL will not have to increase her mortgage by as much. If she chooses to move on to a better property later on then that's her expense and not my brothers.

Even though I've asked that question I'm not sure if my brother would consider it. He made that home what it is with the amount of work and effort put into decor and DIY and I'm not sure he will fancy her just moving her boyfriend in. Ultimately though it's just bricks and mortar.

Just one final question (this post anyway ). Why on earth should my SIL be entitled to be able to have the same standard of living after destroying her marriage? She doesn't need a 4-bed detached house there are some very reasonable smaller houses with just as much room for her and the 2 kids. Surely she should have to cut her coat according the her cloth just as my brother will have to do when he buys a home big enough to have the kids stay over.

Lady_S

It sounds reasonable for people to become worse off due to their actions, but in reality if it went to court it wouldn't be seen like that. Regardless of who is at fault the children are the courts priority and therefore their needs will have to be looked at first.

I was lucky, my OH's ex wanted to leave the family home because she thought surviving off the state was a better idea.

Mrs_Optimist

Some friends of ours have just divorced in similar circumstances after 13 years of marriage and two children (7 and 5). Wife had affair with best friends husband, who left his wife (and 3 kids) and moved in with her. Hubby out on his ear. Wife had just inherited a huge amount of money which hubby had no claim to (apparantly inheritance doesn't count as assets). She paid him 50% of the value of the house - still not enough for him to get a mortgage after he had paid child support. She sold the house and bought a much bigger house with boyfriend who is reaping benefits of her new found wealth. They have just splashed out on a brand new car, whilst ex hubby is rattling around in a banger. After hassle from her own family she reluctantly stumped up some more cash to enable ex hubby to buy a house (with a large mortgage) so that the kids had somewehere to stay when they were with him (he was previously sleeping on a floor). It was a real shock to the system and the Law is just not geared up to help the innocent party in a marital affair.

Bossyboots

Mrs_Optimist wrote:

Some friends of ours have just divorced in similar circumstances after 13 years of marriage and two children (7 and 5). Wife had affair with best friends husband, who left his wife (and 3 kids) and moved in with her. Hubby out on his ear. Wife had just inherited a huge amount of money which hubby had no claim to (apparantly inheritance doesn't count as assets). She paid him 50% of the value of the house - still not enough for him to get a mortgage after he had paid child support. She sold the house and bought a much bigger house with boyfriend who is reaping benefits of her new found wealth. They have just splashed out on a brand new car, whilst ex hubby is rattling around in a banger. After hassle from her own family she reluctantly stumped up some more cash to enable ex hubby to buy a house (with a large mortgage) so that the kids had somewehere to stay when they were with him (he was previously sleeping on a floor). It was a real shock to the system and the Law is just not geared up to help the innocent party in a marital affair.

I am surprised he was told he couldn't claim against her inheritance as this should have been counted as her capital. If I was him, I would ask for his file from his solicitors and see just exactly what has gone on.

ianian99

cant he throw the s**g out and stay in the house with the kids, thats what i would do

System

Ian I would love him to throw her out but to be honest my brothers work would not really allow for him to have full-time custody of the kids. Much as I am loath to say it she is a good mum and the better option is for them to stay with her with my brother having them 2 or 3 nights per week. He is devastated that he will have less contact with his kids.

The company my brother works for has been laying off people on and off for the last few years and he has just escaped redundancy by the skin of his teeth so he can't afford to rock the boat workwise incase he is in the next batch which is coming up soon. That plus the fact that the law favours mothers makes it nigh on impossible for him to file for custody.