Separated, how much should I provide?

Treevo

19lottie82 wrote: »

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"?

She volunteered at an animal shelter - she wasn't working.

And yes, in this period he is obliged to pay - this is interim support and he walked out. So until the settlement is reached he is required to continue to fund the family. He doesn't get to turn around, rent a mansion and spend all the family income (for that is what it is until they divorce) on himself.

RAS

Treevo wrote: »

And she's not that expensive, fyi.

How do you know that?

JackRS

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.

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.

First of all thank you for providing an alternative view to create the balance.

I'm following the advice of my professional which as you have read is frustrating many MSE members as they believe I'm being weak giving more than I need to legally.

You really offend me when you imply I am not continuing to support the children as I would have. I continue to pay his contract phone and a monthly allowance to them both. I continue to pay for driving lessons and tests and materials needed. I gave them additional money so they could buy their mum a birthday present. I continue to pay when doing things with my daughter like the cinema (we're going Saturday), all as I would if I was still at home. I am continuing to pay for my ex's car and the voluntary maintenance. I continue to contact my son and offer support and help. I continue to talk to and see my daughter. So my priorities are in line with my children’s needs. I waited 6 months before I moved into a rented semi, which is basic but meets my immediate needs.

Gigervamp

Treevo wrote: »

He doesn't get to turn around, rent a mansion and spend all the family income (for that is what it is until they divorce) on himself.

Nobody here, nor Jack himself has suggested that.

Maybe there would be less acrimonious divorces if less people *played the divorce game* as you keep suggesting.

Treevo

JackRS wrote: »

First of all thank you for providing an alternative view to create the balance.

I'm following the advice of my professional which as you have read is frustrating many MSE members as they believe I'm being weak giving more than I need to legally.

You really offend me when you imply I am not continuing to support the children as I would have. I continue to pay his contract phone and a monthly allowance to them both. I continue to pay for driving lessons and tests and materials needed. I gave them additional money so they could buy their mum a birthday present. I continue to pay when doing things with my daughter like the cinema (we're going Saturday), all as I would if I was still at home. I am continuing to pay for my ex's car and the voluntary maintenance. I continue to contact my son and offer support and help. I continue to talk to and see my daughter. So my priorities are in line with my children’s needs. I waited 6 months before I moved into a rented semi, which is basic but meets my immediate needs.

Jack, I'm not saying that you're not - quite the opposite. I'm countering the people who are telling you that you shouldn't.

Treevo

Gigervamp wrote: »

Nobody here, nor Jack himself has suggested that.

Maybe there would be less acrimonious divorces if less people *played the divorce game* as you keep suggesting.

Actually that has been suggested - whether it was serious or not is unclear.

There may be fewer, but not many marriages end in complete serenity so the two parties are able to be fair and balanced on their own.

19lottie82

Treevo wrote: »

She volunteered at an animal shelter - she wasn't working.

And yes, in this period he is obliged to pay - this is interim support and he walked out. So until the settlement is reached he is required to continue to fund the family. He doesn't get to turn around, rent a mansion and spend all the family income (for that is what it is until they divorce) on himself.

It is working, just not paid work. And my point was that this will make it easier for her to find paid work, rather than if she had been doing nothing.

I disagree that he is obliged to pay for her haircuts.

And he hasn't spent "all the family income on a mansion", he has rented himself an adequate home. No judge in the country is going to shoot him down for that.

Again, as someone has pointed out, you are missing the 1 doesn't go in to 2 equation. Jack simply CANNOT hand over his whole salary every month. He needs to support himself too. I don't know where you expect him to live, or how you expect him to feed himself?

When a couple splits up, it is almost unheard of that both can maintain the lifestyle that they have been accustomed to. That's a simple fact.

Treevo

RAS wrote: »

How do you know that?

Because I know how expensive 'expensive lawyers' really are, and I know the firm that Jack is using (he's mentioned it - and the cost, as I recall) and it may be expensive by MSE standards, but not by the real world standards.

Treevo

19lottie82 wrote: »

It is working, just not paid work. And my point was that this will make it easier for her to find paid work, rather than if she had been doing nothing.

That may well be the case - equally, it may not. But up until a few months ago she didn't need to work at all ever again. So for the interim support - she's allowed time.

19lottie82 wrote: »

I disagree that he is obliged to pay for her haircuts.

Doesn't matter what you or I think - but he is. He was paying for them before and so for the interim support, he has to pay for them.

19lottie82 wrote: »

And he hasn't spent "all the family income on a mansion", he has rented himself an adequate home. No judge in the country is going to shoot him down for that.

It was an example. Quite obviously so.

19lottie82 wrote: »

Again, as someone has pointed out, you are missing the 1 doesn't go in to 2 equation. Jack simply CANNOT hand over his whole salary every month. He needs to support himself too. I don't know where you expect him to live, or how you expect him to feed himself?

He doesn't need to use his whole salary - he can still rent a small flat while keeping up his previous financial commitments.

Thankfully Jack is taking the advice of his solicitor first and not listening to the 'cut off all money' mob on MSE. And before you start - that doesn't include people like RAS who have given him excellent advice.

kelpie35

Treevo wrote: »

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

You must live in a different world to mine then if you think Jack's wife is living on the breadline.

I wish I had half her allowance to live off.

Jack has taken his responsibilities very seriously and has provided for all his family over and above what was required.

Personally, I think he should be admired for keeping so dignified throughout this whole episode in his life.