Wife suing for aliment ....how much will she get?

duchy

Dunroamin wrote: »

Unless the law is very different in Scotland, it still isn't his responsibility to support his ex.

My understanding is that it is vastly different - as others have commented above.

peachyprice

Dunroamin wrote: »

Unless the law is very different in Scotland, it still isn't his responsibility to support his ex.

This bit seems to be.

MonkeyLoo wrote: »

We are not yet divorced and the law apparently is that we have a duty to provide for each other until divorce is final.

However, it does say a duty to provide for each other so presumably it's a two way street?

GwylimT

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

Reading the posts, it appears that in Scotland, his wife is legally his responsibility and he's seeking to cook the books to avoid this legal obligation.

Not the case, also as his wife has a higher salary and did so before they started divorce proceedings he isn't liable to pay anything, his wife, however could be required to. It doesn't matter if she decided to quit her job when the relationship ended, if she did that she is choosing to forgo her previous standard of living and could easily be treated as her leaving her job to gain financially from the divorce, which wont be looked upon very favorably at all.

Gigglepig

if she earns double (300 a week) well, nursery alone would cost more than half of that...?

I guess it depends on whether OP draws 150 a week because of financial restraints or by choice.

Also, is the child maintenance is the legal minimum CSA (would be hardly anything on a 150 a week salary) or if OP is already providing a more true reflection of the cost of having a child.

We don't know the full picture, but can only hope that OP isn't one of the people who deliberately reduce their liability for contributions (this seems to be an issue for some parents with self employed exes).

If you google "aliment scotland" it says the full financial circumstances of both parties are taken into account.

rpc

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

Reading the posts, it appears that in Scotland, his wife is legally his responsibility and he's seeking to cook the books to avoid this legal obligation.

There's no suggestion of cooking the books.

OP is starting a new company and, rather than draw out every penny he can early on, he is drawing out as little as possible to fund the growth of the company. Nowhere has he said his motive is to reduce his assessed income. What he is doing is pretty normal for any startup that is going to have a future (living the high life in a startup tends to mean it is doomed).

If the wife earns enough to turn down £70k jobs, I'm not sure she would be assessed as needing to be supported. You didn't support her before, she doesn't need supported now. That doesn't mean she can't apply though!

MonkeyLoo

The law in Scotland is that the partners of a marriage have a responsibility to support EACHOTHER until divorce is final.
I obviously wouldn't expect her to support me as she has primary care of our child. This is through choice however.
The claim for Aliment is simply a way of being vindictive and to use the child for bargaining purposes through the divorce process.
My original question was based that based on what I draw as a wage compared to what the business takes what is she legally entitled to.
Thanks for the constructive answers......we will get there in the end im sure

marisco_2

It never even occurred to me to claim spousal maintenance when I divorced my ex. Why do some women think that having a child by a man gives them a meal ticket to be subsidised? Of course a NRP should provide for their child as best they can. I think any self respecting woman should accept that as being it, get off her backside and go out to work to provide for the child/children she is equally responsible for.

peachyprice

MonkeyLoo wrote: »

The law in Scotland is that the partners of a marriage have a responsibility to support EACHOTHER until divorce is final.
I obviously wouldn't expect her to support me as she has primary care of our child. This is through choice however.

In that case can you not counter sue?

GwylimT

Gigglepig wrote: »

if she earns double (300 a week) well, nursery alone would cost more than half of that...?

I guess it depends on whether OP draws 150 a week because of financial restraints or by choice.

Also, is the child maintenance is the legal minimum CSA (would be hardly anything on a 150 a week salary) or if OP is already providing a more true reflection of the cost of having a child.

We don't know the full picture, but can only hope that OP isn't one of the people who deliberately reduce their liability for contributions (this seems to be an issue for some parents with self employed exes).

If you google "aliment scotland" it says the full financial circumstances of both parties are taken into account.

OP has already said somewhere that is providing more than the CSA would request on £150 a week earnings. I would think she earns more than double as she has just felt she is financially secure enough to turn down a £70K job.

A new business starter will pay themselves a very small wage otherwise they wont be able to gain revenue for a successful business and will find themselves job hunting and in debt very soon.

MonkeyLoo

peachyprice wrote: »

In that case can you not counter sue?

I probably could but I would rather focus on more positive activities as Im not a vindictive person. I would rather focus on our child and my new business.