Separated, how much should I provide?

Hobbyhorse15

Also the longer and harder the fight the longer it will take her to recover and the less likely she is going to be devoting her energy into getting on with her life and that includes job hunting. Nothing to fight over, people put their energy elsewhere.

jayII

Hobbyhorse15 wrote: »

This thread is so large it is impossible to follow but I do feel that you are being misled by some very biased opinions and they aren't helping you.

I accept you want to be fair and I understand you feel some guilt and responsibility for the situation that's arisen and I totally stand by that and I think a lot of your posts demonstrate that.

First off there seem to be people who want to 'get away with giving the least to their families'. In my experience those people aren't just mean with money. At the same time they often don't deny themselves.

Then you have people who were 'left in the lurch, had to survive and provide for their children' and think that everyone else should too because they had to when really the system has let them down.

If you have an actuary involved then there's a lot of money involved and pensions can be complicated. Very few people need an actuary involved.

In your marriage you've presumably agreed that one of you will work to bring money into the whole family and it is therefore not your money it is the family's money. Nor did the children only get 20%, your wife 10% and you the rest. Your wife worked for this familly's benefit unpaid for 24 years and very likely so that you would be free to pursue your job in a way you couldn't if you had to be at the out of school club to pick your kids up at 6pm, etc. You both knew that this would seriously disadvantage one person if the marriage ended.

Of course she's going to fight! Who wouldn't?

Everyone must realise that this woman's world has been cut from under her and yes she must adapt to something that's been forced on her and I think it's clear she isn't doing that too well and may be that is to punish you to a degree.

It must also be clear that in this day and age she is not going to get a job that pays well and nor are your children. Do you want the best for them or do you want them to experience hardship just because other people tell you to or because their children had to?

The fact is that because you have an income you are best placed to pay your rent/mortgage, bills etc and they aren't.

Think about the money in the house, think about your income and realistically what your needs and wants are. And the pension. Plus your respective ages and your realistic futures. Why should she after 24 years hard graft bringing up your family, caring for you, etc be not only dumped but have no income, pension or much of a future? After all who can afford to retrain and who at her time of life is going to get a decent job.

Realistically, you should have both prepared for this by discussing the fact that in say 20 years you could divorce and that she needed to retrain for a career, you'd sort out decent childcare, cleaner, share cooking and other chores and set up her pension. Sadly that wasn't done and she's the one in the s**t

You both relied on the promises that the other made - unfortunately one of you is more reliant on those promises than the other.

Course you shouldn't be living hand to mouth but the fact is that courts try to be fair to both parties taking into account their current circumstances and their potential. She realistically has little potential.

Her solicitor has presumably advised her on the money facts to pursue a certain route. We haven't been privy to her side of the story. In my experience she will ask for more expecting to settle at a lesser figure. Yours will advise offering least amount but knowing it will be higher and hoping that she won't get a huge amount more.

You know what the lifestyle of the family was and what her expenses are.

Your relationship with your wife and children is damaged probably beyond repair. That's the real crime here and your son has been insulted on this site and you've stood by. How do you think your son feels about you and why do you think that is.

Some people will tell you he's drip fed by his mother. What rubbish! Of course he's not drip fed. He can see perfectly well how this break up has damaged the family, his sister and himself. Probably most of it caused by people telling you to stop paying for lessons, etc. What kid is going to see that as anything but personal?

My opinion: sort things out with your children now - ignore anyone who tells you to keep them short of money. Don't. Can promise you that never ends well.

You wife is going to get child benefits for a negligible amount of time.

Your wife's worry is personal security and her future and you need to address that. You need to look at the figures fairly. She isn't going to get a good job - ever. She needs a pension and unless you have a massive house that she can downsize from that enables her to have the children live with her then giving her the house isn't enough to cover housing and future pension. A one bed flat doesn't cut it.

As to spousal maintenance - well that's harder and if she were 25 and capable of retraining fine - a short time to cover retraining. At 50ish a bit harder. You could try agreeing a time length or until remarriage/cohabitation.

In short - stop relying on other people - many of whom will only be happy when your wife is working in a care home on minimum wage 50 hours a week and your kids are wearing second hand clothes.

Sort your kids and look properly at the figures then speak to your solicitor frankly about what is fair rather than what you can get away with. I can promise you (I work in family law) most will respond and probably ask a barrister for an opinion. If the offer is fair you will be able to point out that the money wasted on court costs could be used to benefit your family again and you might start to repair those relationships. That's priceless.

You might even get on with your ex 5 years down the line. However, I wouldn't count on it. Most people dislike others for much less than ripping their lives apart.

Good luck to you Jack and while it might feel I'm getting at you I'm actually trying to put you in touch with the reality of the situation for your wife and children.

Lots of assumptions!

As someone who has followed the thread throughout, I was going to reply to your comments properly but I think I'd be wasting my time. Your first sentence, and your numerous judgements and assumptions, say it all...

Amongst other things, you're assuming that Jack and his wife agreed on her not working in the long term, when I don't believe he has confirmed that either way. I also don't believe he has shared any information about his wife's qualifications, skills or training.

From what I've read, Jack is being extremely fair to his family (all of whom are old enough to at least get part-time jobs) and rather unfair on himself in the process. Why you think his wife will be left with nothing, if you've read even half of Jacks's comments, is a mystery.

LannieDuck

Hobbyhorse, unfortunately you really haven't read enough of the thread.

If I recall correctly, Jack's wife has been out of work for a grand total of 4 years. Throughout the whole thread he's defended his children and continued to pay for their driving lessons regardless of what anyone's said (and very few people have suggested he stops).

His wife has made frankly outrageous demands, and he's currently paying her interim maintenance using credit cards. His salary doesn't cover two houses' bills, but she refuses to look for work or seek the benefits she would be entitled to. She's also run up unnecessary expenses (e.g. taking the car over mileage), and then expected Jack to pay for it.

I think the majority of the advice to Jack has been very reasonable - most of the suggestions are that he's looking at an uneven split of house and pension in her favour, with child and possibly spousal maintenance for a couple of years.

Edit to add: There isn't a lot of money involved particularly. The actuaries are involved to calculate pension share.

kelpie35

Hobbyhorse15 wrote: »

This thread is so large it is impossible to follow but I do feel that you are being misled by some very biased opinions and they aren't helping you.

I accept you want to be fair and I understand you feel some guilt and responsibility for the situation that's arisen and I totally stand by that and I think a lot of your posts demonstrate that.

First off there seem to be people who want to 'get away with giving the least to their families'. In my experience those people aren't just mean with money. At the same time they often don't deny themselves.

Then you have people who were 'left in the lurch, had to survive and provide for their children' and think that everyone else should too because they had to when really the system has let them down.

If you have an actuary involved then there's a lot of money involved and pensions can be complicated. Very few people need an actuary involved.

In your marriage you've presumably agreed that one of you will work to bring money into the whole family and it is therefore not your money it is the family's money. Nor did the children only get 20%, your wife 10% and you the rest. Your wife worked for this familly's benefit unpaid for 24 years and very likely so that you would be free to pursue your job in a way you couldn't if you had to be at the out of school club to pick your kids up at 6pm, etc. You both knew that this would seriously disadvantage one person if the marriage ended.

Of course she's going to fight! Who wouldn't?

Everyone must realise that this woman's world has been cut from under her and yes she must adapt to something that's been forced on her and I think it's clear she isn't doing that too well and may be that is to punish you to a degree.

It must also be clear that in this day and age she is not going to get a job that pays well and nor are your children. Do you want the best for them or do you want them to experience hardship just because other people tell you to or because their children had to?

The fact is that because you have an income you are best placed to pay your rent/mortgage, bills etc and they aren't.

Think about the money in the house, think about your income and realistically what your needs and wants are. And the pension. Plus your respective ages and your realistic futures. Why should she after 24 years hard graft bringing up your family, caring for you, etc be not only dumped but have no income, pension or much of a future? After all who can afford to retrain and who at her time of life is going to get a decent job.

Realistically, you should have both prepared for this by discussing the fact that in say 20 years you could divorce and that she needed to retrain for a career, you'd sort out decent childcare, cleaner, share cooking and other chores and set up her pension. Sadly that wasn't done and she's the one in the s**t

You both relied on the promises that the other made - unfortunately one of you is more reliant on those promises than the other.

Course you shouldn't be living hand to mouth but the fact is that courts try to be fair to both parties taking into account their current circumstances and their potential. She realistically has little potential.

Her solicitor has presumably advised her on the money facts to pursue a certain route. We haven't been privy to her side of the story. In my experience she will ask for more expecting to settle at a lesser figure. Yours will advise offering least amount but knowing it will be higher and hoping that she won't get a huge amount more.

You know what the lifestyle of the family was and what her expenses are.

Your relationship with your wife and children is damaged probably beyond repair. That's the real crime here and your son has been insulted on this site and you've stood by. How do you think your son feels about you and why do you think that is.

Some people will tell you he's drip fed by his mother. What rubbish! Of course he's not drip fed. He can see perfectly well how this break up has damaged the family, his sister and himself. Probably most of it caused by people telling you to stop paying for lessons, etc. What kid is going to see that as anything but personal?

My opinion: sort things out with your children now - ignore anyone who tells you to keep them short of money. Don't. Can promise you that never ends well.

You wife is going to get child benefits for a negligible amount of time.

Your wife's worry is personal security and her future and you need to address that. You need to look at the figures fairly. She isn't going to get a good job - ever. She needs a pension and unless you have a massive house that she can downsize from that enables her to have the children live with her then giving her the house isn't enough to cover housing and future pension. A one bed flat doesn't cut it.

As to spousal maintenance - well that's harder and if she were 25 and capable of retraining fine - a short time to cover retraining. At 50ish a bit harder. You could try agreeing a time length or until remarriage/cohabitation.

In short - stop relying on other people - many of whom will only be happy when your wife is working in a care home on minimum wage 50 hours a week and your kids are wearing second hand clothes.

Sort your kids and look properly at the figures then speak to your solicitor frankly about what is fair rather than what you can get away with. I can promise you (I work in family law) most will respond and probably ask a barrister for an opinion. If the offer is fair you will be able to point out that the money wasted on court costs could be used to benefit your family again and you might start to repair those relationships. That's priceless.

You might even get on with your ex 5 years down the line. However, I wouldn't count on it. Most people dislike others for much less than ripping their lives apart.

Good luck to you Jack and while it might feel I'm getting at you I'm actually trying to put you in touch with the reality of the situation for your wife and children.

I think you should have read the whole thread before you made any assumptions :mad:

Jack has always shown integrity and he is the one who is not only suffering financially but emotionally.

Again, if you had taken the time to read the WHOLE thread, you would have seen how he has not only supported his children financially and emotionally but tried to have a father/son/daughter relationship.

From reading his posts, in my opinion, his wife is abusing him financially and emotionally. Also she has now backtracked on her plans and that has caused a lot of hardship to Jack.

JackRS

Hobbyhorse15 wrote: »

This thread is so large it is impossible to follow but I do feel that you are being misled by some very biased opinions and they aren't helping you.

I accept you want to be fair and I understand you feel some guilt and responsibility for the situation that's arisen and I totally stand by that and I think a lot of your posts demonstrate that.

First off there seem to be people who want to 'get away with giving the least to their families'. In my experience those people aren't just mean with money. At the same time they often don't deny themselves.

Then you have people who were 'left in the lurch, had to survive and provide for their children' and think that everyone else should too because they had to when really the system has let them down.

If you have an actuary involved then there's a lot of money involved and pensions can be complicated. Very few people need an actuary involved.

In your marriage you've presumably agreed that one of you will work to bring money into the whole family and it is therefore not your money it is the family's money. Nor did the children only get 20%, your wife 10% and you the rest. Your wife worked for this familly's benefit unpaid for 24 years and very likely so that you would be free to pursue your job in a way you couldn't if you had to be at the out of school club to pick your kids up at 6pm, etc. You both knew that this would seriously disadvantage one person if the marriage ended.

Of course she's going to fight! Who wouldn't?

Everyone must realise that this woman's world has been cut from under her and yes she must adapt to something that's been forced on her and I think it's clear she isn't doing that too well and may be that is to punish you to a degree.

It must also be clear that in this day and age she is not going to get a job that pays well and nor are your children. Do you want the best for them or do you want them to experience hardship just because other people tell you to or because their children had to?

The fact is that because you have an income you are best placed to pay your rent/mortgage, bills etc and they aren't.

Think about the money in the house, think about your income and realistically what your needs and wants are. And the pension. Plus your respective ages and your realistic futures. Why should she after 24 years hard graft bringing up your family, caring for you, etc be not only dumped but have no income, pension or much of a future? After all who can afford to retrain and who at her time of life is going to get a decent job.

Realistically, you should have both prepared for this by discussing the fact that in say 20 years you could divorce and that she needed to retrain for a career, you'd sort out decent childcare, cleaner, share cooking and other chores and set up her pension. Sadly that wasn't done and she's the one in the s**t

You both relied on the promises that the other made - unfortunately one of you is more reliant on those promises than the other.

Course you shouldn't be living hand to mouth but the fact is that courts try to be fair to both parties taking into account their current circumstances and their potential. She realistically has little potential.

Her solicitor has presumably advised her on the money facts to pursue a certain route. We haven't been privy to her side of the story. In my experience she will ask for more expecting to settle at a lesser figure. Yours will advise offering least amount but knowing it will be higher and hoping that she won't get a huge amount more.

You know what the lifestyle of the family was and what her expenses are.

Your relationship with your wife and children is damaged probably beyond repair. That's the real crime here and your son has been insulted on this site and you've stood by. How do you think your son feels about you and why do you think that is.

Some people will tell you he's drip fed by his mother. What rubbish! Of course he's not drip fed. He can see perfectly well how this break up has damaged the family, his sister and himself. Probably most of it caused by people telling you to stop paying for lessons, etc. What kid is going to see that as anything but personal?

My opinion: sort things out with your children now - ignore anyone who tells you to keep them short of money. Don't. Can promise you that never ends well.

You wife is going to get child benefits for a negligible amount of time.

Your wife's worry is personal security and her future and you need to address that. You need to look at the figures fairly. She isn't going to get a good job - ever. She needs a pension and unless you have a massive house that she can downsize from that enables her to have the children live with her then giving her the house isn't enough to cover housing and future pension. A one bed flat doesn't cut it.

As to spousal maintenance - well that's harder and if she were 25 and capable of retraining fine - a short time to cover retraining. At 50ish a bit harder. You could try agreeing a time length or until remarriage/cohabitation.

In short - stop relying on other people - many of whom will only be happy when your wife is working in a care home on minimum wage 50 hours a week and your kids are wearing second hand clothes.

Sort your kids and look properly at the figures then speak to your solicitor frankly about what is fair rather than what you can get away with. I can promise you (I work in family law) most will respond and probably ask a barrister for an opinion. If the offer is fair you will be able to point out that the money wasted on court costs could be used to benefit your family again and you might start to repair those relationships. That's priceless.

You might even get on with your ex 5 years down the line. However, I wouldn't count on it. Most people dislike others for much less than ripping their lives apart.

Good luck to you Jack and while it might feel I'm getting at you I'm actually trying to put you in touch with the reality of the situation for your wife and children.

Yeah follow all of that and thanks for your views, I completely understand what you're saying.

Mojisola

Hobbyhorse15 wrote: »

Good luck to you Jack and while it might feel I'm getting at you I'm actually trying to put you in touch with the reality of the situation for your wife and children.

And the reality for Jack is that if he gives in to all her demands he will be homeless and in debt.

Neither household will be living as comfortably as they did when Jack's money was spent on one household - that's the reality of the situation which his wife doesn't seem to want to accept.

Hobbyhorse15

I have made certain assumptions leaning one way as have you leaning exactly the other. Neither of us have the facts because the OP quite rightly in my view doesn't want to lay everything out on a public site.

No one knows therefore if her demands are outrageous or not. Maybe they are to you in your circumstances. They might not be to someone else.

There is an assumption on the site that everyone is poor. That isn't the case. Some people just don't want to waste money on bills for instance when they could use the money towards a holiday.

However, the point is to help the OP and I don't think that the OP is being helped by people telling him to let his family suffer because 'they need to learn that the meaning of life is hard graft' That has happened to some people here - it doesn't make it right. Your energy would be better placed trying to make sure it doesn't happen to others and trying to make the system work.

The other thing that needs to happen is the matter is settled so the OP and his family can move on and rebuild their lives and hopefully so he can keep his relationship with his children.

It is clear that that doesn't happen in most families therefore the advice to let them 'lump it' might be wrong don't you think?

I'm not telling the OP to roll over and hand money over hand over fist. I'm suggesting fairness in the circumstances. He has to live and he has to have a chance of starting a new life. Based on potential (very important to the court) he probably he is more likely to get on his feet quicker - I didn't say straight away.

I do think his wife is punishing him to a degree for a choice that he's made. I'm not judging that choice but I am saying that she had no choice and it has ripped hers and the children's lives apart. If you choose not to understand that that's up to you but once you start understanding what is going on you can start to find ways to put that right. He has his reasons for ending the marriage.

Divorce may be right for the OP - and that's totally fine. It doesn't mean it is right for the other parties. It doesn't mean they they look at it as minor upset - the kids to all intents and purposes have lost a parent and no matter what anyone says - every other weekend and one night in the week for example are not enough to 'know' another person in the way that a child (teenagers are especially vulnerable) needs.

Divorce is like bereavement - it can take several years to get over. Take the fight out of it and people start to recover and move on.

Actuaries are involved where there is a lot of money in a pension full stop. Most pensions don't warrant an actuary. She's worked for that pension too you know and it would have been in the couple's expectations that it was their's by virtue of what they've both committed to the family and no doubt discussed as 'theirs'. One person now wants to change the rules yet another is reliant on that and has been encouraged to rely on that and therefore made choices based on that. If that's not the case then set it out from the beginning.

I'm suggesting the OP makes a decent offer to settle - possibly make the offer in different ways because he doesn't know what's attractive to the family, lay it on the table, leave it there and if possible don't enter a fight.

I'm suggesting that the OP lets his wife and children work through the anger - particularly the children and that he ignores advice (of which there has been plenty) to act to the detriment of those children.

I'm suggesting that he looks at the fear, insecurity, etc behind what is happening and address that. With children - even teens - of course it's going to be a childish and a bit selfish but he's the grown up here. He might be surprised at how little he actually needs to do to take the sting out of it.

I'd also like to suggest to the OP that he takes care of himself too - this is very stressful and it is important to take time to look after himself especially from the mental stress. It's in his interests to to settle this and keep the legal bills down. After all, I'm sure both sides could use that money.

I think the OP really does want to do what's best but he just needs help to do it rather than hinderance

My opinion are contrary to most people's - I fully appreciate that

FBaby

Your wife worked for this familly's benefit unpaid for 24 years and very likely so that you would be free to pursue your job in a way you couldn't if you had to be at the out of school club to pick your kids up at 6pm, etc. You both knew that this would seriously disadvantage one person if the marriage ended.

Your views are so stereotypical and old-fashioned, it is depressing. You can just see it....


Young girl going to school and telling everyone that she is going to have a wonderful job when she is older and have tons of money. She is on her way to achieve this, when she falls in love and get married. Hubby insists that they have three kids and that she gives up her career because he needs her to be at home keeping the house clean, cook his meals and doesn't want his beautiful children to go to childcare providers. Wife is indignant, she wants her career, but because she is totally committed to her husband and marriage, she sacrifices her career and stays home. Even when the children are at school and she could consider going back to her career, she doesn't because her being at home is so much better for her children and husband, so she still sacrifices her wishes. It's ok though because she will always be financially secure because her husband will always be there to make up for her sacrifice.

Of course, it couldn't possibly be a case of 'young girl not doing so good at school but it is ok because mummy tells her that she is better off marrying a successful man. Young girl knows that she wants children, be a mummy and be a home maker, but she doesn't want to do that without the money to enjoy that lifestyle. She picks her husband very carefully, one who has a promising career. When they are engaged, she tells him that she would much prefer to be a stay at home mum because it's always been a dream. Hubby says that it might be good for her to consider working when the children are at school, even if part-time, but wife says that she doesn't see the point when they don't need the money. Wife enjoys life at home, and when the kids are at school, makes the best of it, meeting with here friends, going to the club, and laughing at those poor tired looking mum who work to afford the same club. She doesn't care about the future because as she tells her friends, hubby will never leave her, there is too much at stake, and even if he did... she would make sure to take him to the cleaners...

I personally believe that both circumstances exist, but there are a lot more of the second scenario than we presume...and having read Jack's thread, I suspect his wife is much more likely to fall in that late one....

Mojisola

Hobbyhorse15 wrote: »

I'm not telling the OP to roll over and hand money over hand over fist. I'm suggesting fairness in the circumstances.

My opinion are contrary to most people's - I fully appreciate that

Have you read the thread?

If your opinion is that fairness to both sides should be the aim, that seems to tie in with most other posters' advice.

justme111

I may have missed something - what exactly jack's son is angry about ?
Hobbyhorse , I believe.somewhere in the beginning of this thread jack given all the numbers as he tried to find the answer to what the title said - how much woould be reasonable to pay. I reckon it was like leaving jack with £400 a month. Question would been mute without numbers.
not sure why you believe jack done something wrong to offend his children.
Not sure why you suggest he himself works out what is fair and makes an offer , the issue is in hands of solicitors . Of course its regrettable they have not worked it out between themselves but that's what happened ,you as a worker in family law must be well aware how difficult and sometimes impossible it is to do , there is no way back now anyway.

To
Yes I agree with you there was somewhat biased and emotional advice on here , and a lot of praise to him /tongue in cheek silly comments , nothing wrong with it , just gives him.opinions to ponder