Divorce and financial settlement

daska

Molly41 has a good point. How about until the youngest leaves full time further education. With a stipulation that you must be sent confirmation from the school/college of their course and attendance record. (says me thinking back to a couple of recent threads)

daska

princessdreamer wrote: »

What always gets to me about situations like this is that children do not suddenly become independent when they reach 18, they still require food, shelter and security. Most NRP forget this all they see is the money they want.
Still what would I know I am a single parent who will help and support my children till the day I die, just like my parents did for me. No amount of money would temp me to take their home away.

And no doubt some PWCs see keeping their kids in at home as long as possible as sensible financial planning

princessdreamer

Trust me having full grown adult children living with you is not a way to save money lol

Mojisola

After 18 there is nothing to stop a non-resident parent giving money to their "child" but there has to be some cut-off point when the NRP stops handing money over to their ex.

daska

princessdreamer wrote: »

Trust me having full grown adult children living with you is not a way to save money lol

I have a 6'2"er - I never cease to be grateful that his dad pays the food bill, and the taxi bill, and the "I forgot" to turn the light/computer/tv off bill.

M00se_2

seems i am getting slated for "wanting to take my kids home away from them" can someone point out to me where i actually said that ?? i think you will find what i said was "all I want to know is that sometime in the future I can financially benefit from my former home." for the record their mum is welcome to the house, its just bricks and mortar to me now but i`ll be damned if im just going to roll over and accept her offer which is basically i get 100% of sweet FA cos she wont ever sell voluntairly.

@Molly41 I pay her maintainance out of which she pays the mortgage, she asked for this as she said the social needed to see that I wasnt supporting the home directly. The mortgage is in joint names and so I am still responsible for it (which I have no objection to)

princessdreamer

So she pays the mortgage too, classic. You pay for your children guess what you are supposed to.

In life we make choices. By the way it is not bricks and mortar to the children and they will know it was you who took it away no matter how old they are.

DS4215

Some questions to consider:

How long is left to pay on the mortgage? - is it more than the time until the youngest leaves school/university. If you will have paid it all off next year it is different to if you have 25 years to run.

Have you made a will to determine what happens to your share if anything happens to you?

You also need to consider what happens to the mortgage if you are no longer working. If you are made redundant or through illness cannot work long term then she could lose the house.

Molly41

Im not slating you - just offering another perspective.

Ultimately the family home will benefit your children and I would be happy with that. Maybe a way forward is to ensure your will and hers reflects this, rather than demanding your pound of flesh.

Errata

I think the solution depends on whether you value money or your children's welfare most. Demanding the house is sold when your youngest child reaches the age of 18 simply means they will spend all their teenage years living with the knowledge that they will become homless at 18. Is that what you want for your child?