Divorce / csa / spousal maintenance

Giraffe5021

Spendless - you make very valid points. Had it not been for my ex taking on by far the majority of the childare I would not have been able to devote the time to career development albeit that this was to fund larger housing requirements etc etc, Nevertheless it is a point well made and certainly not lost on me by any means.
I think the spousal maintenance period would indeed give ex time to retrain (which she is doing) and which then children of high school age give her greater flexibility and earnings potential than she currently has. I have absolutely no problem with that.
Forgive my ignorance but what do the terms DH and OP stand for?

Spendless

Giraffe5021 wrote: »

Spendless - you make very valid points. Had it not been for my ex taking on by far the majority of the childare I would not have been able to devote the time to career development albeit that this was to fund larger housing requirements etc etc, Nevertheless it is a point well made and certainly not lost on me by any means.
I think the spousal maintenance period would indeed give ex time to retrain (which she is doing) and which then children of high school age give her greater flexibility and earnings potential than she currently has. I have absolutely no problem with that.
Forgive my ignorance but what do the terms DH and OP stand for?

Dear/Darling Husband (DH) and then same for any relative DS (Dear son) DD (dear daughter) and so on. OP original poster. Is your ex currently working? I'm not totally sure by some of your comments.

Giraffe5021

She works about 3 hours per morning for either 3 or 4 days per week

Spendless

Giraffe5021 wrote: »

She works about 3 hours per morning for either 3 or 4 days per week

So she's not currently claiming working tax credit as you have to be working at least 16 per week? That may make her financially better off if she could find more hours. Have a play with figures.

http://www.turn2us.org.uk/default.aspx

I've no idea of what she'd lose if anything from what she currently is able to claim, but it might be a question worth asking.

Giraffe5021

No I obviously have my figures wrong - she works exactly 16 hours therefore qualifying for the higher benefit. She works at school and I think she does this by working over the lunchtimes as playground duty or something.

Marker_2

dirtysexymonkey wrote: »

£100 per week just for clothes?!!!!! what planet do you live on? this lazy cow needs to get off her !!!! and look for a job if she wants a particular lifestyle, not sponge off of her ex husband!

There is nothing worse than people reading what they want to see. I CLEARLY stated £100pw for clothes AND petrol. Which I believe is a sufficient sum for a mother and 3 kids of growing age. Bare in mind the cost of petrol and the probability the ex will be driving the kids round from a to b aswell as to her own job and just general places she will have to drive to and from!

ALSO, given the family income when they were together, the kids especially will have come accustom to certain ways of life which the OP has stated he wanted to keep as much as possible.

A valid point from another posted which I would just like to reiterate, the ex's career was put to a holt in some respects to have children and raise them to allow the OP to move forward within his own career. This happens in alot of families. The ex shouldnt be shunted in respect to money for being the one that 'stayed at home with the kids'. I think it is very admirable of the OP to understand and support that, as too many men in your position would not feel this way, but should. However the ex needs to be reasonable.

Mojisola

Bubby wrote: »

This is the bit that I have hi lighted, this only applies to new parents on "income support" and those parents with children in primary school are allowed to specify that they are only able to work within the school hours Monday to Friday. Your comment is also irrelevent as far as this case is concerned as there is spousal maintenance involved which will prevent the wife from claiming income support.

The "relevance" is that Bubby said that, as Giraffe's ex has an 8 year old to care for, she shouldn't be expected to work. The government doesn't see things the same way. As the ex isn't on income support, she won't be forced to work but it's obviously considered possible.

Giraffe has since said that he has only achieved the level of income he now earns because of his ex's support in caring for the family. This is probably why she feels entitled to some spousal support but she also has to be realistic - if the money won't stretch to the extent she wants, she won't be able to receive that much.

Giraffe5021

Marker - totally agree with your comments. Hence the level of my offer.
I really have tried to look at this dispassionately from both view points (and yes of course I appreciate this is an impossibility being so inextricably involved in a highly immotive and personal issue) and work out financial requirements from both points of view. I have spreadsheets (one for ex and one for me) detailing outgoings other than food / clothes / petrol and have tried desperately to work this from both ends inwards (if that makes sense) to make sure that financial needs (not necessarily wants!!) are met from both sides. I think (although I would wouldnt I !!) that my proposal does this.
It keeps coming back to there is a limited pot of income and there has to some some sacrifice on both sides. It's not what I want - far from it - its just the harsh reality that is facing us.

Bubby

Mojisola wrote: »

The "relevance" is that Bubby said that, as Giraffe's ex has an 8 year old to care for, she shouldn't be expected to work. The government doesn't see things the same way. As the ex isn't on income support, she won't be forced to work but it's obviously considered possible.

Giraffe has since said that he has only achieved the level of income he now earns because of his ex's support in caring for the family. This is probably why she feels entitled to some spousal support but she also has to be realistic - if the money won't stretch to the extent she wants, she won't be able to receive that much.

Where did I say she shouldn't be "expected" to work?? I said that she may only be able to work around the children so the judge wouldn't "expect" her to suddenly work 9-5. Of course there is no reason why the wife can't work whilst the children are at school, sadly this is a major problem for alot of mums returning to work and particularly in our area the jobs for people having to work around schooling are so few and far between and the ones that come up are having so many applications. That doesn't mean it is impossible just that it is harder than looking for a full time job. Spousal maintenance was invented for this very reason, if a husband leaves his wife (or vice versa) and he earns £100k and the wife earns £10k but has stayed at home to enable him to achieve that high salary it is something that is recognised in the courts and in such cases the court will look to make sure both parties still benefit from the main earners salary I don't see that as unreasonable, however I can see that the original posters wife is being a bit unreasonable in her "demands" and perhaps the best way forward is to point that fact out and she may rethink what she has to lose.

princessdreamer

The wife may still be very hurt if it was the OP who cheated or walked out on her. She has the children to deal with, all the backlash is on her when someone has to say no it is her. The children only see their lives changing, they have no interest in how their father lives unless he is sleeping on a park bench.
I do think the OP is trying to do their best unlike a lot of men and wish them all the best.