Query of spousal maintenance

esmerelda98

FBaby wrote: »

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.

A poor argument, because most people start off in a humble position and work their way up, even the person who has been able to achieve a good career and wage because they have been amply supported by their partner at home.

It sticks in some people's craw, but some couples do decide that it is better for their family for one person to be able to focus on their work whilst the other can focus on managing the family, and especially the children. It may be considered old-fashioned by some but that doesn't make it wrong. I had that experience as a child and I found it immensely reassuring to have my mother around during the day. She actually worked from home when we were older, but that's not always possible for some SAHMs. And I doubt you will find many children who will complain about their SAHP being a SAHP, and rather more who express alarm when their SAHP announces they are going back to work.

Takeaway_Addict

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?

You would have got the better from the divorce settlement? I do see the point though so could understand it being there for a set number of years but even that should be limited.

GobbledyGook

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

You would have got the better from the divorce settlement? I do see the point though so could understand it being there for a set number of years but even that should be limited.

It depends what you deem as better. I got the marital home and a slightly more than equal split of savings and the likes.

However our youngest is 3 so I've still got a good number of years where I simply don't have the ability to focus entirely on a career like he can as I have to take in-service days and school holidays into the equation. As we're repeatedly told on here child maintenance is for the children and not for the parent spousal maintenance was the only way to do it.

Although for people worrying that poor blokes are being ripped off - the judge wouldn't rubber stamp our original agreement as he said it wasn't fair on my ex. Ex and his solicitor had drawn up the agreement to run until our youngest was 18 (which was effectively 18 years at the time as he was a baby). Judge said that was too long, that one he was at school I could return to uni or return to the workplace and by the time he was at secondary school I'd be in a position to fend for myself. So it's not like poor men are tied to their exes forever - judges are well aware of folks trying to rip off their exes and are on the ball about it (a couple we know had similar, but in their case she was the high earner and he stayed at home with the children. Their spousal maintenance was similar as well).

mumps

FBaby wrote: »

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.

Her career might have advanced if she hadn't been at home. It isn't just about pensions.

You are entitled to your view, it seems that the legal position is somewhat different.

FBaby

A poor argument, because most people start off in a humble position and work their way up, even the person who has been able to achieve a good career and wage because they have been amply supported by their partner at home.

I think marriage has changed since then. People don't get married in their 20s straight out of college nowadays, many don't do so after they have established a career. You might have a 30yo who has been working since end of Uni at 22, getting some promotions, paying into a pension from the start of his employment whilst repaying his student loans. His wife might have decided to take on a low paid job straight out of school, never bothering to pay into a pension. They get married, have a couple of kids and 3 years on, she wants a divorce...and she should be entitled to his pension he has mainly contributed towards before he even met her?

Her career might have advanced if she hadn't been at home. It isn't just about pensions.

This is always the argument...except that most who go for a slice of the pension rarely have diplomas/experience to justify a supposed successful career had they not given up work for the benefit of her husband.

I think the legal position is thankfully moving on. A friends of ours has jut gone through a divorce after his wife cheated on him. She wasn't going to go for his pension initially (she clearly felt guilty for her actions, but through it in the spanner at the end when she realised that she wasn't doing so well on her own financially and could do with a bit more cash. The judge told her to take a hike.

GobbledyGook

I find it staggering people seem to think that the person who has been at home with the children, through mutual choice, should just lump it.

I'm certainly glad that in my case the judge recognised the fact that we made a decision that I should stay at home didn't mean that was simply a choice made because my earning potential would be lower.

I do laugh when people always, without fail, assume that the SAHP is the one who didn't have the brains to do anything good academically. I was an A grade student and I sailed through my first year of university. I'm neither stupid nor grabby - I just made joint decisions with my husband about what was best for our family unit. He wanted the children to have a SAHP, but he doesn't have the patience to be at home all day every day. I could do that. I could also deal with the late nights, the endless hospital/doctor appointments for DD and could also be the dutiful wife at work events or could send in the home baking on someone's birthdays. He got to where he is today in part because he had me to back him up and to make his home life happy and easy.

When he decided to get drunk and mess it all up why should I have been left with nothing?

When you get married you commit to sharing everything. If you don't want to make that decision then don't get married.

People also need to lose the idea that it's easy to rinse your poor, hard-done-by other half for everything. Our divorce took ages to sort because every time the finances went before them they were rejected as unfair on him. People are expected to be fair, but fend for themselves as much as possible.

The only person I know who has ever been hard done by in the divorce courts was one who was too lazy to do any reading himself and didn't take the time to realise that his legal rep was as much use as a chocolate teapot.

GobbledyGook

Also I'm only early 30's and all of my friends are married. I think that people who are in good jobs tend to get married earlier, simply because they can afford it sooner. Certainly in my experience anyway. OH is 35 and only one of his friends is unmarried.

Takeaway_Addict

just reading this makes me want to stay single forever....

FBaby

He wanted the children to have a SAHP, but he doesn't have the patience to be at home all day every day.

So he forced you against your will. He made you quit Uni and told you that you had to have children before you finished your course and got a good job? What would have happened if you'd say that you didn't want children yet, but wanted to settle in your career first and be able to contribute towards a pension? Would he have not married you then?

You made choices together, but it wasn't forced upon you. Yet, you consider that because of a choice that you made jointly, he should be punished and you rewarded for it. I don't agree with this.

The average age for a woman to have her first child is 28 (and 30 for her first marriage). That's plenty of time to start work and pay towards a pension, that she can contribute towards again after the children are at school.

mumps

FBaby wrote: »

So he forced you against your will. He made you quit Uni and told you that you had to have children before you finished your course and got a good job? What would have happened if you'd say that you didn't want children yet, but wanted to settle in your career first and be able to contribute towards a pension? Would he have not married you then?

You made choices together, but it wasn't forced upon you. Yet, you consider that because of a choice that you made jointly, he should be punished and you rewarded for it. I don't agree with this.

The average age for a woman to have her first child is 28 (and 30 for her first marriage). That's plenty of time to start work and pay towards a pension, that she can contribute towards again after the children are at school.

Why does punishment come into it? They made a joint decision so the consequences should be equal.

I don't know where you get your ideas about marriage and young women not getting qualifications. I know, through my children, many young couples who had their first baby whilst at uni, often the woman will take a year out but they have all finished their degrees.

You are also ignoring the fact that OP has poor health. Now the husband entered into a contract, marriage, and he decided to leave and left a woman in poor health to do the lions share of bringing up the children. I think you will find that breaking a contract normally carries a cost and so should this one.