Query of spousal maintenance

GobbledyGook

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.

It's not about punishment and reward.

It was about recognising that we made a decision together when he was offered his job. We got married knowing that to have the family we both wanted we'd need medical help (IVF and the likes). We decided together to get married, move abroad for his job (for a number of years we lived in different places) and I would stay at home with the children.

Now that's not something he forced me to do, but equally it's not something I would have done without him.

His work life was made better by having a wife at home that had dinner on the table when he had an hour to eat before dashing back out the door, a wife who spent time with the wives of his new staff and colleagues helping them settle to wherever we'd all moved too and a wife at home that meant he didn't have to worry about collecting the children when he was running late or staying home when the kids got chicken pox one after the other.

It's about recognising that we both worked damn hard together to have the life that we built. Yes, I couldn't have my life without him - maybe I'd have gone off the rails, flunked uni and be working in a burger joint - however he wouldn't have had his life without me either. How can I say that for sure? Because since we split up his work life has suffered massively and he says so himself.

It's not all about him. I have a property left to me by my grandparents and it's value was included in the divorce. It wasn't all poor him and lucky me. The maintenance simply recognises that we made choices that, for the next few years at least, put me at a disadvantage if he was able to simply walk away and ignore the fact that we put off putting money in a pension for me etc. We had a plan, the only thing the maintenance did was made sure that some of that plan wasn't ripped away without giving me a chance to sort some of it out.

It can't have been that unfair to him - he argued with the judge it should be for longer. I also can't be that evil and grabby because we are a couple again... Thankfully he recognised, same as the court, that we had a plan based on joint decisions made over 10+ years and that deserved some recognition.

lostinrates

FBaby wrote: »

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.

Spousal maintenance is less common because of these averages I guess. But one cannot say 'never' because average is only 'average'. That's why spousal maintenance ( in either direction) surely must be left open as an option in some cases. If a solicitor who knows the situation is suggesting it and a judge agrees to it one must presume its not wholly punitive.

I know people like forces wives and 'corporate' wives and partners whose home making or careers other than homemaking would have been different over decades were they not married to their husbands following them for the benefit of both via the main earning partners ( almost always husband historically and IME) career. Of course marriage continues to impact on people choices in such circumstance.

mgdavid

GobbledyGook wrote: »

..............When you get married you commit to sharing everything. .......

Exactly; so logically when the marriage ends the sharing ends too.

FBaby

mgdavid wrote: »

Exactly; so logically when the marriage ends the sharing ends too.

And yet posters have gone all the way to support another poster here trying to help her to keep her savings so that her husband couldn't get half of it.

It's a sour subject but certainly one where opinions tend to go one way. Ok for the hard working man to share everything, another matter when it is the SAHM who might inherit and feels that she shouldn't have to share half of it when she decides she is now fiancially free to leave her husband.