Child Support from Ex-Husband

JReacher1

Gavin83 wrote: »

But it's ok for the man not to live with his children anymore? What's the difference?

The difference is that it is very unlikely a court will decide to take children off their mother just because the father doesn't have a job.

There are different rules for Mothers and Fathers. Its not fair but its not a fair world and you have to be realistic.

mark5

If you want to keep the house then buy him out, if you can't afford to do that then sell up and give him his share, I can never understand why people think they should keep the partners share of the home after divorce and stop them getting on with their life.

Maybe once the divorce is settled and he receives his equity from the house he might start his business up again?

I doubt it's in his financial interests to earn a lot while the divorce is going through.

How many days does he have the children at the moment?

If it's very little then morally he should probably pay something to you.

Gavin83

JReacher1 wrote: »

The difference is that it is very unlikely a court will decide to take children off their mother just because the father doesn't have a job.

There are different rules for Mothers and Fathers. Its not fair but its not a fair world and you have to be realistic.

His job status is irrelevant but if he's been the primary carer so far it's likely they'll find in his favour. The fact he also ran his business from the family home and they won't wish to remove the children from the home will work in his favour too. I'd imagine if he pushed for this and it went to court they would award him custody and the mother visitation rights. I'm not the only one here who's suggested this. Gender isn't as relevant as it used to be, it's just that generally the mother is the primary carer but this isn't always the case.

I also agree with the other poster who stated the reason he might be reluctant to find a job is for this very reason.

Just being realistic.

Ames

JReacher1 wrote: »

So you are advocating that the OP doesn't live with her children anymore because her husband won't get a job?

I don't think the fact her husband is lazy is a good enough reason to part a mother from her own children

As others have said, he had a job but lost it because of leaving the marital home.

Your later post is probably right about the courts awarding custody to mothers almost by default, but it should be about what's best for the children, not about gender.

Save

Vikipollard

raelill wrote: »

Hi


During the conversation the mediator asked about our income. I currently have two jobs and receive tax credits which means I receive about £1500 income a month.

My ex used to run a business converting campervans from a workshop in the garden of the marital home. Since the separation he has closed the business. He told the mediator that he is currently doing odds and sods, working for friends and as a contractor on seasonal jobs. He said that this month he has only earned £100.


If he does not have an income can the courts ask me to sell the house to pay his part of the equity in the house? He is saying he wants it so he can get his own place but if he's not earning he has no way of paying mortgage or rent. I feel like I'm still supporting him even though he's been gone for nearly a year.


Thanks
Rae

There seems to be a lot of presumption in the replies!

The bit highlighted above in red says he closed the business since the separation. Where does it say that this wasn't simply a choice on his part? There is no reason why he can't apply for full time work now - he's choosing not to. I'd hope the court would take a dim view of that, especially given you are working two jobs to keep the home going for you and the children.

Where does it say he's ever been the main carer for the children? Again, this is an assumption simply because his business ran from home. For all we know, the kids could be teenagers and well able to come home from school/stay alone in the holidays.

OP, if it was me, and I was in a position to, I'd either buy him out or sell up and buy another place for myself and the children. I wouldn't go down the route of moving out simply so the lazy ar*e doesn't have to get a full time job.

JReacher1

Gavin83 wrote: »

His job status is irrelevant but if he's been the primary carer so far it's likely they'll find in his favour. The fact he also ran his business from the family home and they won't wish to remove the children from the home will work in his favour too. I'd imagine if he pushed for this and it went to court they would award him custody and the mother visitation rights. I'm not the only one here who's suggested this. Gender isn't as relevant as it used to be, it's just that generally the mother is the primary carer but this isn't always the case.

I also agree with the other poster who stated the reason he might be reluctant to find a job is for this very reason.

Just being realistic.

You're making information up based on one paragraph. There is nothing that says the OP's husband is the primary carer. Running a business from a workshop in your garden does not mean that you also looked after the kids at the same time.

This is what annoys me about this forum. The OP has posted a question about child support and only three or four posts in people who know almost nothing about the situation are advocating that she moves out and leaves her children to her unemployed husband. However if she didn't want to do this then her husband can take her to court and win them.

It's ridiculous and ever so slightly pathetic.

barbiedoll

I don't see why he had to "close the business", he could still have used the workshop during the day, especially as OP is at work.

Or he could set up a business somewhere else, or work for someone else, he obviously has some skills.

OP, where does he live now? How much equity in the house? And who has been paying the mortgage for the past few years, have you always worked and contributed (financially) to the household?

DS4215

If you are working two jobs to keep a roof over your head, can you actually afford to keep the house long term. Maybe you would be better selling up and getting somewhere smaller with the kids and not having to work so hard?

raelill

ok, presumption one that ex closed business because he left the home is untrue as he was living in a caravan in the garden, next to the workshop for 6 months after he closed it before he's finally moved to a friends and there is no reason and nothing stopping him reopening it if he wanted, least of all me.Second assumption that because he worked from home he took care of the kids also not true as I work at a school so I am home to take care of them after school and in holidays.
Thirdly I do not earn enough money to be able to afford to remortgage or to rent anywhere big enough for myself and the children who are 7 and 12.
I just want security for my kids and feel that it might be unfair that as I have paid the majority of the bills etc for our entire marriage that I might end up supporting him still when we're getting divorced.

raelill

barbiedoll wrote: »

OP, where does he live now? How much equity in the house? And who has been paying the mortgage for the past few years, have you always worked and contributed (financially) to the household?

HiHe lives on a friends farm close by paying minimal rent. We think we have about £75k equity depending on house valuation and I have always paid the mortgage and bills as ex has pretty much always been self employed and couldn't count on his salary.