Separated, how much should I provide?

Treevo

carolan78 wrote: »

She travels down south to her parents.

I don't think it is for Jack to fund this though, it is her choice how often she makes that journey.

I do. Her son now lives with her parents there.

19lottie82

Treevo wrote: »

Is she being unreasonable - yes. Is Jack running the risk of being equally as unreasonable - I think so.

So Jack should work full time, and consider a second job only so he can hand over the bulk of his wages, leaving himself short, so his wife can maintain a privileged lifestyle because she thinks she's too good to claim benefits and won't look for a job?

It is NOT his job to support his wife. They are not together anymore. He WILL support his, almost adult children, while they are in education, but she should be making steps to assist in supporting them, as she obviously seems so strongly about it.

This is not a woman who has dedicated her whole life to raising her children and for that reason is unemployable, she has worked relatively recently and is an experienced teaching assistant. She needs to pull her finger out and support herself and her kids.

Treevo

19lottie82 wrote: »

So Jack should work full time, and consider a second job only so he can hand over the bulk of his wages, leaving himself short, so his wife can maintain a privileged lifestyle because she thinks she's too good to claim benefits and won't look for a job?

It is NOT his job to support his wife. They are not together anymore. He WILL support his, almost adult children, while they are in education, but she should be making steps to assist in supporting them, as she obviously seems so strongly about it.

Actually that's for the courts to decide but for now it is his job. If a couple makes the joint decision for one of them to work and the other not to, then that doesn't suddenly change because one of them decides to leave. That only ends when the divorce is final and the courts have sorted out the appropriate financial settlement.

Re: the benefits issue - her spousal maintenance will probably render her ineligible for any benefits that are income dependent.

19lottie82

Treevo wrote: »

Actually that's for the courts to decide but for now it is his job. If a couple makes the joint decision for one of them to work and the other not to, then that doesn't suddenly change because one of them decides to leave. That only ends when the divorce is final and the courts have sorted out the appropriate financial settlement.

Re: the benefits issue - her spousal maintenance will probably render her ineligible for any benefits that are income dependent.

What about JSA?

Treevo

19lottie82 wrote: »

What about JSA?

What about it? She's not going to be able to claim contributions based JSA if she hasn't worked for the last two years, and her income will prevent her from claiming income based.

Threads like this can do a lot of good - but they can also lead to situations where the OP becomes convinced that his wife should be doing something that she just cannot do - in this case, claiming benefits.

BargainGalore

posts by Janetlyod is :spam:

19lottie82

Treevo wrote: »

What about it? She's not going to be able to claim contributions based JSA if she hasn't worked for the last two years, and her income will prevent her from claiming income based.

Threads like this can do a lot of good - but they can also lead to situations where the OP becomes convinced that his wife should be doing something that she just cannot do - in this case, claiming benefits.

But she hasn't even tried!

Treevo

19lottie82 wrote: »

But she hasn't even tried!

She hasn't tried what? Claiming benefits? She may as well try to fly to the moon for all the good it will do.

The DWP doesn't work on some secret formula when deciding who gets benefits - it's clearly laid out. It took me less than two minutes to see that she wouldn't be able to claim anything due to her maintenance.

carolan78

The point is if she had claimed benefits when he left and he just paid child maintenance she would have been entitled to them and would not have needed the spousal support. Jack was paying a lot of things for the children anyway and has said he would have continued to do that on top of reasonable child support.

Treevo

carolan78 wrote: »

The point is if she had claimed benefits when he left and he just paid child maintenance she would have been entitled to them and would not have needed the spousal support. Jack was paying a lot of things for the children anyway and has said he would have continued to do that on top of reasonable child support.

Actually the point is that they are married and they made decisions as a unit so he was obligated to pay spousal maintenance.