Money & Divorce

Any

newcook wrote: »

Im a firm believer in it takes 2 to tango!! People do not get ‘lured away’ they cheat because they want to cheat. If 2 people are happy and in love in a relationship they will not let their eyes or anything else stray – if they do stray then something isn’t right in the relationship.

I also wouldn’t blame the other woman – she’s not the one who is meant to love you but instead is cheating on you (however this theory goes out the window if it is a mate or family member who they are cheating with!!)

Do you have the same theory on abuse relationships? Also take 2 to tango? One only get beaten when provoked an argument?

I know what you are saying and more of the time then not it is true - but that theory only works on 2 completely straight ordinary people with strong morals - and we all know that many humans are anything but...

mackemdave

Mackemdave - know what you're saying about staying out of it. I am as much as I can but when I see someone I love being hurt out of (what looks to me to be) spite, then if I can't change it, I want to understand it. Also it is not him paying to 'have his children looked after'. He would much prefer it to be looking after them himself, but this is not an option. Plus it's the money that she wants for herself that's the kicker.[/QUOTE]

If your boyfriends ex went to court her solicitor would be pushing to go for Spousal Maintenance as she presuamably gave up work when the children were born,he would be expected to pay child maint (CSA rules would be 20% of his take home pay)and also a contribution,if not all of the mortgage to keep a roof over his childrens head.I presume that your boyfriend has moved in with you there his housing needs have been satisfied and his living cost are only half of what they would be if he lived on his own,other half borne by you.

Why is his ex bitter,presumably she wasnt the cause of the split but her life style has probably been affected and for most of the time she is having to be Mum AND Dad to the two children and is at least making an effort to start a business to help look after them...

ninky_2

who said divorce had to be fair?

we long forgot about any fairness in relationships both morally and legally in this country. it's all about number one these days.

newcook

What a ridiculous comparison – domestic abuse is completely different from someone cheating on you!

When people cheat its because they want to cheat – they possibly feel something is missing from their current relationship or even that the person they are with has changed from the person they met and fell in love with. Fortunately I have never cheated (treat others as you wish to be treated yourself etc) so don’t know what goes through a cheaters mind.

My parents split because my dad couldn’t keep it in his pants but my mom only blamed him not the woman he left her for as it was my dad who chose to jump into bed with this other woman. He wasn’t drugged nor dragged kicking and screaming – he went of his own accord and he was the only one to blame for HIS actions.

ninky_2

newcook wrote: »

What a ridiculous comparison – domestic abuse is completely different from someone cheating on you!

.

i disagree. cheating is a form of abuse in a relationship. if you are unhappy in a relationship you sort it or end it. cheating is an insidious form of dishonesty.

newcook

ninky wrote: »

i disagree. cheating is a form of abuse in a relationship. if you are unhappy in a relationship you sort it or end it. cheating is an insidious form of dishonesty.

I was on about that I got asked if my theory of '2 to tango' also covered someone being beaten because they provoked an argument.

though I agree it is a form of abuse because its abusing someones trust.

Bubby

It is good that they are going through mediation, the courts tend to work from a 50/50 split and then take into account the housing needs of the children and the income and pension of both. Spousal maintenance is getting more and more rare these days with the courts favouring a clean break. It is likely that they would look at both pensions and if indeed the ex gave up work to look after the children this would be considered and she would likely be awarded some of his pension pot. They would also more than likely award her the house until the children are 18 with him paying half to full mortgage payments. What she is asking for is very unrealistic and as the divorce in this country is "no blame" then they wouldn't really care whether he had bed hopped the entire marriage as that would have no impact on what she is awarded (not saying that he did just an example). They will work out what is fair for the children and believe it or not they do also look at what is fair on both the pwc and the nrp. If he is finding that he is paying over the odds and still getting nowhere then he needs to decide whether to play hardball and drop her money to the csa amount and give her a month or two and I am sure she will be more reasonable;)
Of course this is not the option anyone would "want" to take but sometimes drastic measures are called for:(

Ignore the ignorant comments about whether you broke up their marriage that is irrelevent and none of anyone's business

northwest1965

boyang wrote: »

This question has been in my head for a while and the other thread about unfairness with money in divorce has raised it again.

My boyf split with his ex over 2 years ago. They have 2 girls, who he sees every other weekend (only 1 night as the ex won't agree to more unless she suddenly has plans for the second night and then that is fine!) and half the holidays (except the summer holidays where she has just booked a two week holiday right over one week he was meant to have them so he is down to 2/6 weeks). They are trying to arrange a permanent agreement about contact through mediation, but I'm not holding my breath.

Each month, he pays her about 3 times the CSA recommended amount, plus the mortgage on both their houses. She worked the whole time throughout their marriage, except for maternity leave. She has now started her own business and says she draws no income from it so the money he pays doesn't just support her children, it supports her. So right now in terms of money she gets £1000 per month tax free (this includes child benefits, etc) and her mortgage paid for without working.

She has said that from the divorce she wants to keep her pension, her shares, the house her and the girls live in, the equity from the house he lives in and half of his pension.
Obviously my boyf will not agree to that and despite them trying to come to some amicable agreement on this I foresee all of this ending up in court in a painful, long drawn out battle that will also involve the time he gets to spend with his children.

Now I understand that she is massively bitter about him splitting up with her and about his relationship with me, but I don't understand how she can possibly think that this set of circumstances is a) remotely fair and b) anything you would use as an example to your children. But obviously I am incredibly biased in this and am completely missing her POV. Given how very very blunt people can be on here, perhaps someone can shed some light?

Blunt was about right! I hope you were ready for that!

It seems to me that the BM wants it all. CSA state 20% for 2kids. I suppose it depends what your OH earns really. If he is paying 2 mortgages and 3 times what the CSA state, he must earn a good amount.
I think it would be wise to sell the second property and split 50/50.
As for the home where the kids live, judges would possible award 55/45. Could he make an arrangement to pay 50% of the mortgage and it be sold when the girls reach 18?
Pensions should be split 50/50, whats good for one is good for another.
As for spousal maintenance, make SURE that it is not written in any agreement that a nominal amount be paid. Thats asking for trouble.
Good luck with it, I know how difficult it can be to just sit by and not say anything. I just hope they can sort it wihout affecting the kids too much

boyang

Thank you for all the replies, some of which have been more helpful than others!

Just to re-clarify the question - can anyone help me understand her POV? I'm not trying to change anything between them and I quite rightly have no input in what they decide with either money or the children. I'm just trying to understand where she's coming from.

I'd also like to add amplifying information. As originally stated she did not give up work to have the children, she had maternity leave and went back to work at the end of that. She has now voluntarily decided to start her own company and is therefore not able to contribute to any expenses (e.g. mortgage) because she is not drawing a wage. The fact that my OH wants his children to remain in the house means he is happy to continue paying 100% of the mortgage. But it does mean that he is essentially paying her spousal maintenance as she doesn't have a wage. If he's happy with that fine, but I think it shows that he is being reasonable and therefore I struggle to see why she then wants to take all of the other assets on top of accepting this.
Also as originally stated, he lives in their second house; we do not live together.
And as for her having to be mum AND dad - um, what?! He is still the children's father and would be much more involved in their lives if she would only let him.

Anyone sticking with this long post, thanks.

Fang_3

newcook wrote: »

What on earth does that have to do with anything the OP is after advice on?!?!

She wants to understand the wife's POV and so understanding the nature of their relationship is crucial in this.

If he did cheat with the OP then it's more understandable that the wife wants to take him to the cleaners. If he didn't, then it's less so.