We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Query of spousal maintenance
Comments
-
I reiterate, report trolls to MSE HQ.specialboy wrote: »Can you reply to my post #34 please0 -
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.
I have this clause in my divorce paperwork - it was made clear by the judge at the time that he wouldn't sign it off without it. I also understand that it's pretty common practise where children are young and one party earns significantly more than the other.0 -
Takeaway_Addict wrote: »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.
why do you assume that a PWC will be entitled to benefits? It doesn't take that much from an earnings point of view to have nil eligibility for tax credits.
Child maintenance is a contribution towards the upbringing of children. My ex's current liability (if he paid it) is £30 a week. I work full time and pay out £140 a week in childcare. Even if he paid, he would be making a contribution worth....£0 towards his children's upbringing, not even half the childcare that allows me to work to support them. And my eligibility for tax credits is now almost non-exsistent - likely nothing at all by the 2015 - 16 tax year but I'll still have those childcare costs.
Please do recognise that the stereotype of the non-working single mum raking it on benefits isn't the reality for the majority of lone parents - it's what the Government wants you to believe.0 -
clearingout wrote: »I have this clause in my divorce paperwork - it was made clear by the judge at the time that he wouldn't sign it off without it. I also understand that it's pretty common practise where children are young and one party earns significantly more than the other.
It is. It's also why op should listen to her solicitor. Given her brief explanation here, her solicitor obviously knows more.
I wouldn't be excluding it because of people on the internet raging at her or judging her.0 -
Takeaway_Addict wrote: »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.
Why not?
Take my parents as an example. She's a very well-educated woman, and very clever, and she and my Dad made a joint decision that she would stay at home with their 4 children. She cashed in her pension when they bought their first house, so she doesn't have that.
My Dad could never have worked in the way he did, and earned as much as he has, if she hadn't been running his life for him. She couldn't ever recover her earning potential now, either.
Their assets and his current income aren't just a function of his hard work, but also of hers....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
If the maintenance is for the kids, then any self-respecting DH will happily contribute.
If it's for cash to the ex, then what's it for?0 -
It may leave the door open for you to claim to be an 'independent' at a later date. Not sure how much mileage that amount will get you though.
For example my Mother has a claim for damages against the hospital my uncle died in after negligence because she is able to provide regular payments to herself from him.
I'm sure without knowing the facts people would judge her too for being an 'independent' but I don't see how it matters what judgemental nonsense people write.
There is a fine line between advice and opinion and I personally try to stay impartial to give the best advice, some of the people on here can be really quite boorish and trashy though, but each to their own.
0 -
-
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.
That would be the case if the Mrs had a good career before and her pension potential were good (ie. what she has lost on by having children and decided to be at home). However, as you've said, most women stop because their earning potential are lower than the cost of childcare, meaning that they wouldn't have accumulated much pension if they'd work anyway.
This is all about compensation, so there has to be a compension in the first place, ie. what the Mrs has lost out by not working and gaining a pension for herself. Claiming for Mr's pension when she would never have been able to accumulate the equivalent of the award if she'd work and not taken time of because of children is wrong in my views.0 -
It may leave the door open for you to claim to be an 'independent' at a later date. Not sure how much mileage that amount will get you though.
For example my Mother has a claim for damages against the hospital my uncle died in after negligence because she is able to provide regular payments to herself from him.
I'm sure without knowing the facts people would judge her too for being an 'independent' but I don't see how it matters what judgemental nonsense people write.
There is a fine line between advice and opinion and I personally try to stay impartial to give the best advice, some of the people on here can be really quite boorish and trashy though, but each to their own.
I think you mean a dependant rather than an independent.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards