Query of spousal maintenance

Reams

mgdavid wrote: »

Simply untrue, in this family's recent experience.

We are all waiting.

Mojisola

CuppaTea wrote: »

However on the advice of my solicitor, I've a clause for spousal maintenance of 5pence a year.

Reams wrote: »

You're making things up now. No one said "forever".

Unless the clause also says "5p a year for x number of years", forever (which would be until death) is what it means.

specialboy

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.


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.

Has this been changed then? when I got a divorce 20 years ago it was a clean break and I didn't hand over a vast lump sum.

mgdavid

Reams wrote: »

We are all waiting.

for what, a troll?

mgdavid

specialboy wrote: »

Has this been changed then? when I got a divorce 20 years ago it was a clean break and I didn't hand over a vast lump sum.

no, it hasn't changed. Your situation also pertained to a family member just a few months ago.

FBaby

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, what I assume is that in most circumstances, there was a choice to be equal financially. I think that the time when Mr order Mrs to stay at home and look after the children are long gone. I think the decision nowadays is much more led by Mrs even if her decision make sense to the family. Even so, I don't think there are many Mrs who desperately want to work, but make the decision not to as a sacrifice to Mr or the family. I think spousal maintenance doesn't have its place anymore in our modern society.

onlyroz

GobbledyGook wrote: »

Think about it carefully before you make a decision and make the decision that is right for you and your circumstances.

I got slated by some people for getting spousal maintenance in my divorce. Lots of people thought it was disgusting I didn't get up off my 'lazy bum' (and that was the polite ones) and fend for myself. However, I gave up uni to move for my husband's job and I then became a SAHM to our children because his career progression would have been severely hampered if he had to take days off when the children had chicken pox etc. Even when I went back to work part time it was still me who was responsible for sick days and school holidays. Spousal maintenance was put in our divorce for a set time to give me the chance to build up my employment history and/or go to uni or college. By the time our youngest starts high school I'm expected to be completely fending for myself (obviously his responsibility to the children would still stand).

In our case spousal maintenance was right and fair (and he also thought so). If it's right and fair in your case then don't put it aside because other people don't agree with it in any case.

This isn't the same as the OP though. You inhibited your own prospects so that your husband could expand his - which is why he "owes" you maintenance in a divorce settlement. However I don't see how the OP getting her 5 pence a month could be in any way comparable. Surely such arrangements should either give an amount that you can live on until you've retrained, or nothing at all because it's not necessary.

mumps

FBaby wrote: »

I don't, what I assume is that in most circumstances, there was a choice to be equal financially. I think that the time when Mr order Mrs to stay at home and look after the children are long gone. I think the decision nowadays is much more led by Mrs even if her decision make sense to the family. Even so, I don't think there are many Mrs who desperately want to work, but make the decision not to as a sacrifice to Mr or the family. I think spousal maintenance doesn't have its place anymore in our modern society.

But it isn't always the case that the Mrs wants to stay at home, it might be a purely practical decision. A couple I know have a severely disabled child, one parent needs to be at home, Mr earns more so it makes practical sense for Mrs to be at home, the opposite would mean real financial problems. My husband worked erratic shifts when children were young, I did work but I needed help from family (my mother in fact) or it just wouldn't have been possible.

If the Mrs loses her career caring for the children should she be financially penalised for the rest of her life or should the couple share that? If Mr walks away from disabled child or sick wife should you and I carry the can, as tax payers, or should he man up and do his bit?

If people are fairly equal financially then the above doesn't apply but for some couples it does and of course sometimes it is the other way round and Mrs is the big earner so she needs to do her bit. I think there was a recent high profile divorce where a rich wife had to give up about £1,000,000 of her assets.

[Deleted User]

Can I say something here please? Spousal maintenance of 5p leaves the option open for claims in the future. But it works for both parties. Should the OP win the lottery or inherit, her ex husband can make a claim on it. It's not just about one party grabbing from another!

FBaby

But it isn't always the case that the Mrs wants to stay at home, it might be a purely practical decision

There will be exceptional circumstances of course, I was talking in general.