Separated, how much should I provide?

Treevo

duchy wrote: »

I do think it's a very grey area -it's one thing to choose to shelter and feed your kids ....... £40 phone contracts and designer labels don't come under the need catagory though.

Parenting goes a bit further than just putting a roof over your child's head and food in their stomach? Please remember that not everyone is poor - this is MSE where penny pinching reigns supreme, but it's obvious that the family can more than afford the phone contract and clothing bills - at least in the short term. Presumably the contract was taken out before Jack left the marriage, because clearly the agreement to pay it was and therefore he is at the very least morally obligated to continue to pay for it until it ends.

Just because someone walks out of his marriage doesn't give him (or her) the right to abandon all financial commitments made to their children, especially when (relative to income) they're not that expensive.

19lottie82

Treevo - two households need to be funded now they have split. Standards must drop or extra income must be brought in, Jacks wife seems to have blinkers on regarding these facts.

Treevo

19lottie82 wrote: »

Treevo - two households need to be funded now they have split. Standards must drop or extra income must be brought in, Jacks wife seems to have blinkers on regarding these facts.

No one is disputing that but this is for interim support - not final settlement. That means that existing financial commitments must be met before new ones are taken on. In other words - pay what you were going to pay anyway for your kids instead of getting a lovely three bedroom house for yourself. That won't go down with the judge.

She playing the game just as well as Jack should be - better in fact. I suspect that's probably because she's getting professional advice but Jack's allowing MSE to tell him that she's entitled to hundreds of pounds worth of benefits each month which she is not.

19lottie82

Treevo wrote: »

No one is disputing that but this is for interim support - not final settlement. That means that existing financial commitments must be met before new ones are taken on. In other words - pay what you were going to pay anyway for your kids instead of getting a lovely three bedroom house for yourself. That won't go down with the judge.

Jack isn't disputing paying for his kids. He is disputing giving hundreds of pounds each month for her clothes, "hobbies", private osteopath and hair dressers appointments.

And just to point out, one of the "kids" is an adult, and the other almost is. Not that they shouldn't be helped, but they should also be working towards supporting themselves. It's not like it's two primary school children.

And shouldn't the Mother be supporting them too?

And re the house, should Jack not be providing his kids with the facilities for them to come visit him?

duchy

I think you are overlooking the two into one doesn't go aspect.

The income that previously supported two households now supports one -Jack's wife worked until comparatively recently (2 years ago) but for now the "pot" is still Jack's earnings only.

If Jack had fallen ill or lost his job whilst still with his wife and the total household incomings dropped then savings would need to be made - and kids at college would most likely find the bank of Mum and Dad restricted if not closed when it came to phone contracts, expensive clothes etc.

Both adults need to maintain homes for themselves and in the short term also for the children however our society doesn't expect children to be permanently maintained by their parents once they are out of education nor is it obligatory to provide iphones and Jimmy Choos -If the budget can take it-it's a nice thing to do but if the budget can't no-one is going to be prosecuted for making a teenager use a Nokia or buy Primark boots instead !

No-one including Jack thinks his wife and children should exist on bread and water but with less money to go around luxuries previously taken for granted simply aren't possible to the same degree.

Does Jack's wife expect what she's asking for ? Probably not ...her solicitor has advised her to claim high with the expectation it will be beaten down -possibly feeling that if she didn't inflate expenditure and gave reasonable figures it could get knocked down to unreasonable and difficult to survive on. As Jack was the one who chose to end the marriage there is possibly a feeling on her part that he should "pay" for disturbing the status quo and she shouldn't need to have to find work (although as a women probably in her forties who was working in education 2 years ago with children who will be out of education in 2 years one has to wonder what on earth she thinks she is going to do with the rest of her life).

Both partners will end up "taking a hit" on lifestyle with the need to support two households -It seems to me Jack is simply trying to make it fair and not be massively disadvantaged -but is certainly offering to help his wife in transition but just isn't prepared to support her for the rest of her life ...not unreasonable when she has twenty years of working life remaining and has already shown the ability to earn until comparatively recently.

Treevo

19lottie82 wrote: »

Jack isn't disputing paying for his kids. He is disputing giving hundreds of pounds each month for her clothes, "hobbies", private osteopath and hair dressers appointments.

And just to point out, one of the "kids" is an adult, and the other almost is. Not that they shouldn't be helped, but they should also be working towards supporting themselves. It's not like it's two primary school children.

And shouldn't the Mother be supporting them too?

Not in this situation - their family situation worked by the father being the breadwinner and the mother not working. For EIGHT YEARS.

So until the final settlement is reached, he still has an obligation to continue to pay. He isn't allowed to walk away from his previous commitments to them because he doesn't want to be married anymore.

It doesn't actually matter what any of us think about what she is doing, or not doing - she's playing the divorce game. Telling Jack she's being horribly unfair doesn't do any good.

19lottie82

Treevo wrote: »

Not in this situation - their family situation worked by the father being the breadwinner and the mother not working. For EIGHT YEARS.

So until the final settlement is reached, he still has an obligation to continue to pay. He isn't allowed to walk away from his previous commitments to them because he doesn't want to be married anymore.

It doesn't actually matter what any of us think about what she is doing, or not doing - she's playing the divorce game. Telling Jack she's being horribly unfair doesn't do any good.

She volunteered until very recently. this is essentially working thus it will be a lot easier for her to get a job than if she had been doing nothing.

Obliged to pay for what? Her hairdressers appointments? And what is your definition of "obliged"?

RAS

Treevo

JackRS is getting advice from a very expensive lawyer; because he was encouraged to do so by the bad folk on MSE.

Treevo

duchy wrote: »

I think you are overlooking the two into one doesn't go aspect.

I'm not overlooking it - I'm pointing out that for the interim support, it doesn't matter. Jack doesn't need a three bedroom house but he's got one - that doesn't suddenly mean that he no longer has a responsibility to pay a phone bill.

duchy wrote: »

The income that previously supported two households now supports one -Jack's wife worked until comparatively recently (2 years ago) but for now the "pot" is still Jack's earnings only.

She last did paid work in 2005 - so unless it's 2007, you're off.

duchy wrote: »

If Jack had fallen ill or lost his job whilst still with his wife and the total household incomings dropped then savings would need to be made - and kids at college would most likely find the bank of Mum and Dad restricted if not closed when it came to phone contracts, expensive clothes etc.

But that didn't happen and courts don't deal in 'well if X happened' - they deal in reality.

duchy wrote: »

Both adults need to maintain homes for themselves and in the short term also for the children however our society doesn't expect children to be permanently maintained by their parents once they are out of education nor is it obligatory to provide iphones and Jimmy Choos -If the budget can take it-it's a nice thing to do but if the budget can't no-one is going to be prosecuted for making a teenager use a Nokia or buy Primark boots instead !

Actually - in the short term, only one does, the mother in this situation.

Nobody is saying that it is obligatory to provide those things (though you are making yourself look very foolish if you think the amounts could cover more than a few pairs of Jimmy Choo shoes;)). But in this situation he does have the obligation to continue providing the support that they (they were a unit) were providing before he walked out. That is how it works.

You're too poor to give your kids a decent smart phone or you don't think Jack's son should have one - that doesn't affect this situation at all.

duchy wrote: »

No-one including Jack thinks his wife and children should exist on bread and water but with less money to go around luxuries previously taken for granted simply aren't possible to the same degree.

So the person who takes the biggest hit for that for the interim period is Jack, not them. If he wants to stand any chance of getting a fair final settlement that is, not to mention a decent relationship with his children.

duchy wrote: »

Does Jack's wife expect what she's asking for ? Probably not ...her solicitor has advised her to claim high with the expectation it will be beaten down -possibly feeling that if she didn't inflate expenditure and gave reasonable figures it could get knocked down to unreasonable and difficult to survive on. As Jack was the one who chose to end the marriage there is possibly a feeling on her part that he should "pay" for disturbing the status quo and she shouldn't need to have to find work (although as a women probably in her forties who was working in education 2 years ago with children who will be out of education in 2 years one has to wonder what on earth she thinks she is going to do with the rest of her life).

She's playing the game, just as Jack is. She's just playing it better.

duchy wrote: »

Both partners will end up "taking a hit" on lifestyle with the need to support two households -It seems to me Jack is simply trying to make it fair and not be massively disadvantaged -but is certainly offering to help his wife in transition but just isn't prepared to support her for the rest of her life ...not unreasonable when she has twenty years of working life remaining and has already shown the ability to earn until comparatively recently.

For the final settlement, of course they will. For the interim support - they shouldn't be disadvantaged for Jack's own benefit. If he is unreasonable now, it will go against him.

And for the final time - she hasn't earned any money since 2005. So please stop with your false information - it doesn't help anyone.

Treevo

RAS wrote: »

Treevo

JackRS is getting advice from a very expensive lawyer; because he was encouraged to do so by the bad folk on MSE.

Of which I was one. And she's not that expensive, fyi.