Query of spousal maintenance

Imp

I take it the OP wouldn't object to the clause being mutual, so that if she came into money, or her spouse fell ill, then the clause could be used for her to support him? This seems the fairest solution.

Takeaway_Addict

Imp wrote: »

I take it the OP wouldn't object to the clause being mutual, so that if she came into money, or her spouse fell ill, then the clause could be used for her to support him? This seems the fairest solution.

fairest? I doubt it.

mumps

FBaby wrote: »

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

With the cost of childcare I don't think it is that unusual. I know someone who had two sets of twins under school age, she would have needed some job to cover the cost of childcare. Her husband had a very good job so I don't think they would have got any financial help. He also did lots of international travel so she couldn't rely on any help from him.

I also work with someone with three children under school age. She isn't in a particularly well paid job and is working for peanuts by the time she has paid childcare. She is working
because she wants to but it isn't a great economic decision as she needs a car so by the time she has paid travel, childcare, lunches, office collections etc she can't be making much.

If one parent has a high paying job and one doesn't childcare is a huge cost as they won't get any help so it is the partner of a high earner who can get left behind. Exactly the sort of person who might have a good case for spousal maintenance.

Takeaway_Addict

mumps wrote: »

With the cost of childcare I don't think it is that unusual. I know someone who had two sets of twins under school age, she would have needed some job to cover the cost of childcare. Her husband had a very good job so I don't think they would have got any financial help. He also did lots of international travel so she couldn't rely on any help from him.

I also work with someone with three children under school age. She isn't in a particularly well paid job and is working for peanuts by the time she has paid childcare. She is working
because she wants to but it isn't a great economic decision as she needs a car so by the time she has paid travel, childcare, lunches, office collections etc she can't be making much.

If one parent has a high paying job and one doesn't childcare is a huge cost as they won't get any help so it is the partner of a high earner who can get left behind. Exactly the sort of person who might have a good case for spousal maintenance.

Is this not what the CSA is for, to pay for the children, on top of all the other benefits they would be entitled to?

No one person should have to pay for an ex partner after they split, children..yes.

Imp

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

fairest? I doubt it.

Why?

......

Takeaway_Addict

Imp wrote: »

Why?

......

Because whats fair about either party having to contribute to the others way of living?

Reams

mgdavid wrote: »

for what, a troll?

You should get up to speed david, trolls were 1990's.
If you feel you are being followed let's say, report to MSE HQ.

GobbledyGook

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Because whats fair about either party having to contribute to the others way of living?

It's fair when one party has sacrificed their earning potential for the others in a joint decision.

In my case if I'd gone to uni I'd have been in the position of earning good money. As it was I was almost 30 with a short history of part-time work instead.

In our case he particularly wanted the children to have a SAHP because that's what he'd had. I hadn't had that so I was happy to work, but he couldn't get to where he was with any sort of responsibility for sick days or days when the childminder was ill etc. He needed to be able to focus 100% on his work M-F (sometimes S-S). Together we made the decision that we'd do what we did.

The fact we got divorced (in this case his fault, but not entirely relevant) shouldn't mean I was just left up the creek without a paddle surely?

specialboy

Reams wrote: »

You should get up to speed david, trolls were 1990's.
If you feel you are being followed let's say, report to MSE HQ.

Can you reply to my post #34 please

Mojisola

GobbledyGook wrote: »

It's fair when one party has sacrificed their earning potential for the others in a joint decision.

In my case if I'd gone to uni I'd have been in the position of earning good money. As it was I was almost 30 with a short history of part-time work instead.

In our case he particularly wanted the children to have a SAHP because that's what he'd had. I hadn't had that so I was happy to work, but he couldn't get to where he was with any sort of responsibility for sick days or days when the childminder was ill etc. He needed to be able to focus 100% on his work M-F (sometimes S-S). Together we made the decision that we'd do what we did.

The fact we got divorced (in this case his fault, but not entirely relevant) shouldn't mean I was just left up the creek without a paddle surely?

In this situation, it's possible for spousal maintenance to be agreed for a set period of years to give the SAHP a chance to retrain or gain work experience or until the children are a certain age but it's hard to justify for the rest of the parent's life.