husband not playing fair in divorce - help needed pls

alleycat`

neneromanova wrote: »

The husband has to pay maintenance which I thought was more than 20% for 2 children...but I can't find out where it is.

Also half of the mortgage and that's it. As your cousin lives in the house she will have to pay the other half of the mortgage plus all bills herself.

It sounds like he has sort legal advice for himself and is paying the £1k to hide the money. Or he could genuinely care about his kids so pays that much to help out.

P.s Just wanted to say I LOVE your username OP!!

If you pop the values (roughly) into a child maintenance calculator (based on 2 children) it comes in that he should be paying £200 a week on net earnings of £1,000 a week.

That assumes i've got his weekly earnings right (and i've guessed based on what he is paying).

It works out at 20% based on the kids not staying with him for more than 52 days a year.

paddy's_mum

I read this that the £1k paid over by the husband is to cover the mortgage and running costs of the former matrimonial home, not just for groceries and housekeeping.

I don't like to see 'meal ticket' type divorce settlements any more than anyone else but it does seem unfair that he can just walk out, live the life of Riley, buy whatever silliness takes his fancy, yet all the while hold the purse-strings and have his (presumably!) loved ones dancing to whatever tune appeals to him this week.

Her best move is, as others have already said, to get a solicitor experienced in Family and Divorce law, and give The Little Boy cause to worry, in his turn.

emma12345

(Warning, rant ahead!!!)

To all those saying why should the dad pay £1000 a month and the parent with care should work full time, look at it this way.

That £1000 is not just to go towards socks and filling the freezer, that's the least of the mum's problems.

As the parent with care (applies the same if it's mum or dad, but in this case mum) she'll have to pay out for a larger property. Alone she could perhaps have a studio flat, e.g. £550 a month. With 2 children and probably not wanting to take away their stability she'll have to stay in the current home probably. Cost for a 3 bed in my area starts at £1200, bit of a difference there.

To pay that she will have a severly diminished income. It's ok saying go out to work full time etc, but who is going to look after her sons? The dad has already walked out on his responsibilities. Someone's got to be there. 13 out of 52 weeks are holidays in schools, one quarter of the year. Would you let a 12 year old become a latchkey kid at this vulnerable time in their lives, especially with the gang culture that's around?

He may be ok after school for an hour or two, but whereas the dad can work to midnight if he so desires, 7 days a week, her two sons might need a little parental guidance. And seeing as dad's too busy enjoying his free and single life mum has to be there for them.

So on severely reduced earnings (not through choice and through no fault of her own) say of £8000, to fit in with school and to pay out for childcare and activities on the quarter of the year school is closed, mum has to pay out for a property large enough to house all three of them (not a single person like the runaway dad), pay for the more expensive costs of heating etc, and will have to look forward to no or very low pension in the future and possibly homelessness as she has to give a large part of the house to the runaway ex after she's brought up THEIR children.

The parent with care (mums or dads) do it because they love the children more than anything and would make any sacrifices for them and will likely live in poverty for the rest of their lives. The !!!!less runaways are usually too selfish to care.

Don't get me wrong I'm as against silly payouts as much as the next person but it should be FAIR. Unless of course !!!!less father wants the responsibilities and mum can go out and live the free life but most parents with care have too much love for their children to do that.

My advice, tell your cousin to get proof of what he's earns first if she can and then get a solicitor. Try and keep it friendly if possible, you will more likely get his co-operation that way and self-employed people can find ways to hide their income and plead poverty to avoid paying.

BTW, I'm not a single parent although I was for a while. I just feel single parents both men and women work abnormally hard, 24 hours a day, usually with no breaks for the love of their children and take a lot of unjustified criticism for what in most cases was not their choice, whereas the deadbeat 'mum' or 'dad' who may have walked out on their responsibilities get things comparatively easy in MOST cases I have seen in the real world and not the world of ridiculous payouts that you see in the papers.

Fang_3

emma12345 wrote: »

(Warning, rant ahead!!!)

To all those saying why should the dad pay £1000 a month and the parent with care should work full time, look at it this way.

That £1000 is not just to go towards socks and filling the freezer, that's the least of the mum's problems.

As the parent with care (applies the same if it's mum or dad, but in this case mum) she'll have to pay out for a larger property. Alone she could perhaps have a studio flat, e.g. £550 a month. With 2 children and probably not wanting to take away their stability she'll have to stay in the current home probably. Cost for a 3 bed in my area starts at £1200, bit of a difference there.

To pay that she will have a severly diminished income. It's ok saying go out to work full time etc, but who is going to look after her sons? The dad has already walked out on his responsibilities. Someone's got to be there. 13 out of 52 weeks are holidays in schools, one quarter of the year. Would you let a 12 year old become a latchkey kid at this vulnerable time in their lives, especially with the gang culture that's around?

He may be ok after school for an hour or two, but whereas the dad can work to midnight if he so desires, 7 days a week, her two sons might need a little parental guidance. And seeing as dad's too busy enjoying his free and single life mum has to be there for them.

So on severely reduced earnings (not through choice and through no fault of her own) say of £8000, to fit in with school and to pay out for childcare and activities on the quarter of the year school is closed, mum has to pay out for a property large enough to house all three of them (not a single person like the runaway dad), pay for the more expensive costs of heating etc, and will have to look forward to no or very low pension in the future and possibly homelessness as she has to give a large part of the house to the runaway ex after she's brought up THEIR children.

The parent with care (mums or dads) do it because they love the children more than anything and would make any sacrifices for them and will likely live in poverty for the rest of their lives. The !!!!less runaways are usually too selfish to care.

Don't get me wrong I'm as against silly payouts as much as the next person but it should be FAIR. Unless of course !!!!less father wants the responsibilities and mum can go out and live the free life but most parents with care have too much love for their children to do that.

My advice, tell your cousin to get proof of what he's earns first if she can and then get a solicitor. Try and keep it friendly if possible, you will more likely get his co-operation that way and self-employed people can find ways to hide their income and plead poverty to avoid paying.

BTW, I'm not a single parent although I was for a while. I just feel single parents both men and women work abnormally hard, 24 hours a day, usually with no breaks for the love of their children and take a lot of unjustified criticism for what in most cases was not their choice, whereas the deadbeat 'mum' or 'dad' who may have walked out on their responsibilities get things comparatively easy in MOST cases I have seen in the real world and not the world of ridiculous payouts that you see in the papers.

As long as you're not overreacting. The stench of bitterness is overwhelming.

emma12345

Fang wrote: »

As long as you're not overreacting. The stench of bitterness is overwhelming.

Sorry, it's not meant to be. In my situation I got the house, he got fed up of the high life after a few years and came running back with his tail between his legs bankrupt. Rightly or wrongly I let him return because I wanted a family for the children. (BTW, he only paid me the legal minimum maintenance, I didn't fleece him, he made his own mistakes.)

I just feel for the single parents out there and some of the situations I see them in, life can be tough and incredibly unfair for them and their children.

Fang_3

emma12345 wrote: »

Sorry, it's not meant to be. In my situation I got the house, he got fed up of the high life after a few years and came running back with his tail between his legs bankrupt. Rightly or wrongly I let him return because I wanted a family for the children. (BTW, he only paid me the legal minimum maintenance, I didn't fleece him, he made his own mistakes.)

I just feel for the single parents out there and some of the situations I see them in, life can be tough and incredibly unfair for them and their children.

But as you should know it takes two to make a marriage work, and if it doesn't work out then each party should accept some blame. And then not go after the other for every penny they can get.

emma12345

Fang wrote: »

But as you should know it takes two to make a marriage work, and if it doesn't work out then each party should accept some blame. And then not go after the other for every penny they can get.

Agreed, it should be EQUAL, and that's my point.

Fang_3

emma12345 wrote: »

Agreed, it should be EQUAL, and that's my point.

I agree, in principle. But it depends very much on a variety of factors.

For instance what if a woman was a multi-millionaire through hard work, and then she meets a penniless man, who she marries. Over the course of the marriage she continues to be wealthy and he continues to be poor. Should he be entitled to half of the money that she earned before she met him? Or just half of the money made by both of them during the term of the marriage? Or even what he put into the marriage?

purplepardalis

Whilst everyone is feeling sorry for the single parent, have a think abou the non resident parent who wants to maintain contact with his/her children.

They may have to

1. Maintain a house big enough for their children to stay. One extra bedroom can cost £300 extra in rent per month

2. Spend money on travel costs to collect the children. Return train journeys of over 100 miles twice per month = £250

3. Maintain a seperate wardrobe for the children at their house. Approx £100 per child, per year.

So, another £6800 per year.

All I'm trying to illustrate is that as usual there are 2 sides to every story and 1 person's circumstances are missing from this discussion

emma12345

purplepardalis wrote: »

Whilst everyone is feeling sorry for the single parent, have a think abou the non resident parent who wants to maintain contact with his/her children.

They may have to

1. Maintain a house big enough for their children to stay. One extra bedroom can cost £300 extra in rent per month

2. Spend money on travel costs to collect the children. Return train journeys of over 100 miles twice per month = £250

3. Maintain a seperate wardrobe for the children at their house. Approx £100 per child, per year.

So, another £6800 per year.

All I'm trying to illustrate is that as usual there are 2 sides to every story and 1 person's circumstances are missing from this discussion

I agree with you, but the circumstances you're outlining above are different from the one we've been told about. Possibly you're talking about someone that didn't walk out on the family, doesn't want to live the single life and still wants to be a father just one that lives separately.

In that case if both parents are taking responsibility for the children, financially things should be nearer 50/50 too. Every situation is different.