Query of spousal maintenance

Gavin83

daisiegg wrote: »

Don't wedding vows still say 'until death parts us' (death, not divorce!) Mine did anyway but it was a church wedding so I don't know if it is different in another setting.

Maybe it should be reworded then. Not very romantic though!

As far as I'm concerned the contract of marriage is broken upon divorce and therefore the original vows do not apply.

FatVonD

OP, should your ex win the lottery (or earn significantly more than he does now) then his contribution towards your children's upbringing will go up regardless of whether you have a clean break divorce or not.

Reams

I dare say when posters say that spousal maintenance shouldn't exist, they are assuming that the two parties are fairly equal financially.


We're not and nor should we be privy to the finances in Cuppa's case. Her solicitor is though and has advised the door be kept open. Unless the ex can come up with a vast lump sum, he cannot get a clean break.
The Court will of course make the final decision. Even if Cuppa decides to forego including the clause, the Judge may still introduce it.


Dad may pay for the children and take them on holidays etc., but if mum has to scrimp and scrape for herself, suffers ill health and cannot work, maybe even lose the home, the children growing up will note that and even resent their father to the detriment of his relationship with them.


Keep the mother of your children happy, and they will be happy too.

Mojisola

Reams wrote: »

I dare say when posters say that spousal maintenance shouldn't exist, they are assuming that the two parties are fairly equal financially.

If there is a big financial difference between the parents, that would be taken into account when the marital assets are divided.

One spouse shouldn't be expected to pay the other money for ever. Once they are divorced, they lead separate lives.

Reams

liney wrote: »

Why?

What do you gain apart from 5 pence, and an irritated ex-husband? How will this benefit your two children?

There is no 5 pence to gain. It doesn't arrive in her bank account. She won't be checking daily on the anniversary to see whether it's arrived so she can go and buy a new handbag as she was five pence short.
It simply keeps the door open as the mother of his children to claim something from him, rather than the state i e., you and me if she became incapacitated in some way.


Just to say in case anyone thinks I'm a disgruntled mother of dependant children, I'm not. However, the mother of your kids should be treated well IMO.

Reams

Mojisola wrote: »

If there is a big financial difference between the parents, that would be taken into account when the marital assets are divided.

One spouse shouldn't be expected to pay the other money for ever. Once they are divorced, they lead separate lives.

You're making things up now. No one said "forever". Besides,there may be no assets to divide.
I'll bow out now a I feel Cuppa's original question has been answered and we are now debating general points, interesting though it is.


@Cuppa.
Cuppa you can ignore the 5p clause for the rest of your life, and let's hope you never need to invoke it. However, if it is left out, that's it. You'll never be able to reintroduce it. Keep it in and protect yourself.
Wishing you well in what is a horrible time and hope it's soon a new beginning for you.

mumps

whodathunkit wrote: »

"In sickness and in health" refers to during the marriage, not after it ends in divorce.

And the next line is, "Til death do us part." So the relationship might be ended but the responsibility isn't.

mgdavid

Reams wrote: »

........
Besides any of the above, unless the ex has made a substantial payment to be invested for the children,( usually only applicable in high end settlements), there cannot be a clean break where dependant children exist.............

Simply untrue, in this family's recent experience.

whodathunkit

daisiegg wrote: »

Don't wedding vows still say 'until death parts us' (death, not divorce!) Mine did anyway but it was a church wedding so I don't know if it is different in another setting.

By that logic you would have to be remain faithful to your ex husband or wife even after the divorce!

GobbledyGook

Reams wrote: »

I dare say when posters say that spousal maintenance shouldn't exist, they are assuming that the two parties are fairly equal financially.

I don't think that's always the case.

In my case despite the fact I'd given up uni and job opportunities as joint decisions based on the fact that it was better for his career, which in turn offered us as a couple and family a better lifestyle, people very much seen that as tough luck on my part.

A lot of people believed that it was my choice to support his career and I'd just have to get on with it and accept that we'd not be anything like equal financially.