Consent Orders and Judges "Fairness" review

Dingle81

I think our understanding of fair and the legal stance when it comes to divorce are different...

So, the scenario as below:
Both parties have kept finances separate for the whole of the relationship (5 Years living together, 5 more as wife and husband), 1 child aged 3. The husband has a salary of £50k and the wife has a salary of £18k (part time 3 days a week). Savings are similar but husband has more than £100k more in pension (mostly within last 5 years), £60k equity in home (which husband funded £50k off)

The husband agreed with the wife for her to go part time as she wanted to spend more time with the child growing up but this was planned to increase back to almost full time hours/salary, so the reduction from full time salary to part time was agreed on this basis, also due to his financial decisions it has increased the wife's savings from £0 to £50k in the length of the marriage.

Basically (after) the agreement they have come to the the split looks to be about 65% - 35% in favor of the husband but with the wife keeping the child benefit claim and all future child care and costs being 50/50. Most likely the husband will keep the house or sell it, but equity from this is part of agreement. If they both agree and confirm they have both sought independent advice is it likely to be rejected? seems silly to reject if everyone involved is happy that it is fair based on factors/support within the marriage.

There is no cheating or abuse in the relationship, they have just drifted apart, however the decision has to be someones so although they are both on good terms it is still a raw subject and it seems wise to come to an agreement.

TBagpuss

It depends. What's the justification for the husband having so much more, especially as he appears to be the higher earner and to have been able to build up very significant pension assets while the wife was caring for their joint child and therefore not in a position to make similar savings.?
If the wife returns to full time work will she be able to earn £50K? On the face of it if she does so in her current role presumably she'll only be earning £30K. 
Why is it being suggested that child care costs should be split 50/50 in that case, if the husband will be earning 40% more than W, meaning she will have to use a much higher proportion of her income to fund those costs .

I think a judge faced with an order in those terms is likely to have questions about why such an unequal split in favour of the financially stronger party is fair, so it will depend on whether there is a good answer to that question.

If the split was to be 65% to W, 35% to husband then (on the limited information available) that's much more likely to be seen as fair

Dingle81

I do find things like this interesting, on a point like below...
"while the wife was caring for their joint child and therefore not in a position to make similar savings.", the wife in this situation could of just as easily worked full time and saved money, it seems the husband is being punished for not saying from the outset  'no, I work full time so you do the same'

burlingtonfl6

Dingle81 said:

I do find things like this interesting, on a point like below...
"while the wife was caring for their joint child and therefore not in a position to make similar savings.", the wife in this situation could of just as easily worked full time and saved money, it seems the husband is being punished for not saying from the outset  'no, I work full time so you do the same'

And what career did she give up to take care of her children? If she was a waitress, then she's probably lived a life far beyond her means.
This reminds me of all the women kicking off when Adele split with her husband and he walked with a huge sum. Why is it women only seem to complain when it does't go their way (which is very rare)
Tiger Woods have to give his wife a quarter of a billion dollars......she's never eagled a hole in her life

mason's_mum

Dingle81 said:

I do find things like this interesting, on a point like below...
"while the wife was caring for their joint child and therefore not in a position to make similar savings.", the wife in this situation could of just as easily worked full time and saved money, it seems the husband is being punished for not saying from the outset  'no, I work full time so you do the same'

OK, so the wife works - should she then be the one paying the childcare costs? if they are sharing them, in this situation they would both have been poorer.
A nursery costs ~£250 a week - which has to be earned after tax. if you're in a NMW job then you'd just about break even. pretty much your whole wages going on childcare, so no savings to be gained there. Obviously if she was in some highly paid job (which burlingtonfl6 believes most women aren't able to get) it would be a different calculation - but then I would expect husband to be doing 50% of household jobs and any extras.
Doesn't sound very "fair" to me

burlingtonfl6

mason's_mum said:

Dingle81 said:

I do find things like this interesting, on a point like below...
"while the wife was caring for their joint child and therefore not in a position to make similar savings.", the wife in this situation could of just as easily worked full time and saved money, it seems the husband is being punished for not saying from the outset  'no, I work full time so you do the same'

OK, so the wife works - should she then be the one paying the childcare costs? if they are sharing them, in this situation they would both have been poorer.
A nursery costs ~£250 a week - which has to be earned after tax. if you're in a NMW job then you'd just about break even. pretty much your whole wages going on childcare, so no savings to be gained there. Obviously if she was in some highly paid job (which burlingtonfl6 believes most women aren't able to get) it would be a different calculation - but then I would expect husband to be doing 50% of household jobs and any extras.
Doesn't sound very "fair" to me

Statistics prove that men earn more (on average) because they work in the Stem sector and work in more dangerous environments. Women have the choice to do the same but when given that choice they choose not to. Studies in the countries with more ''gender equality'' prove this.
https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/
Nothing wrong with this fact, people are free to choose but they shouldn't complain about the outcome of their choices

sassyblue

Dingle81 said:

I do find things like this interesting, on a point like below...
"while the wife was caring for their joint child and therefore not in a position to make similar savings.", the wife in this situation could of just as easily worked full time and saved money, it seems the husband is being punished for not saying from the outset  'no, I work full time so you do the same'

Well judges view a woman's contribution in raising children to be equal as that of the men working and rightly so. It sounds like now you want your wife punished as though she wasn’t pulling her weight when you were quite happy for her to go part time when you were together. As someone who's been both a managing director and a stay at home mum believe me, going to work is easier. 

it’s irrelevant whether you had joint or separate money, and any money amassed is as a result of you both because she would have been involved in house expenditure too wouldn’t she?

bitter posts like yours annoy me, you were quite happy with arrangements before splitting but now, surprise surprise, you’re not happy. You have a greater earning power going forward, nearly three times that of your wife's currently, yet she will be paying 50/50 on the childcare costs.

Alias_Omega

So,

You have been "together" for 10 years. The date starts from Cohabiting, and ends with Decree Absolute. For pension sharing, its either Decree Absolute or 28 days after the Pension Sharing Form is stamped.

I would be looking at -

• 50/50 split of Pension Accured during that 10 year period.
• 50/50 split of savings
• 50/50 of any debt
• 50/50 split of profit on the property
  
• Wife/Ex-Wife to be paid spousal maintenance (to maintain her current lifestyle, also the lifestyle that your child had).

If there is a disability present, expect it to shift towards the wife/ex-wife to the realms of 70/30 (in her favour).

Note - If the £50k was saved during the 10 year period, thats gonna be halfed too...

Child Benefit is paid to whoever has is the resident parent, and not part of a divorce agreement.

I had a consent order approved, then set aside, and now where going through Ancillary Financial Relief through the court. The first hearing is in 7-8 weeks time.

I've had to present Payslips, P60, 12 months of bank statements, house valuations, mortgage statements etc. The judge will then make a suggested agreement between ourselves.

i wish you well

TBagpuss

Dingle81 said:

I do find things like this interesting, on a point like below...
"while the wife was caring for their joint child and therefore not in a position to make similar savings.", the wife in this situation could of just as easily worked full time and saved money, it seems the husband is being punished for not saying from the outset  'no, I work full time so you do the same'

Except that isn't normally how things work in real life. Many parents feel it's best for their child to be cared for by them, rather than than being in a nursery full time as an infant. In many cases, parents agree that the arrangements that they feel re best fo them as a family are for one parent (more commonly the mother) to reduce her hours, or stop paid work for awhile, in order to care for children. it often makes financial sense, given the costs of full time child care, and has benefits for the child.
Most people don't make those plans with an eye on what will happen when they divorce - and that's a big reason why it would be unfair to treat them, on divorce , as if they had. 
Generally, the reality is that they make decisions on the assumption that they are a couple, and that they are making choices which work for their family, not on a selfish individual basis. What a court does it try to ensure that they are treated fairly when they separate, and that the spouse who acted in a way which benefited the family as a while, but which wasn't financially beneficial to them on a personal level, is not disadvantaged by that.

It doesn't work as well as it should,   women are still, typically, worse off in the long after divorce than men, just as women are still, on average, paid less then men even after adjusting for time out of the workplace. 

And sadly, a lot of men still believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that courts and settlements discriminate against them! 

mason's_mum

burlingtonfl6 said:

mason's_mum said:

Dingle81 said:

I do find things like this interesting, on a point like below...
"while the wife was caring for their joint child and therefore not in a position to make similar savings.", the wife in this situation could of just as easily worked full time and saved money, it seems the husband is being punished for not saying from the outset  'no, I work full time so you do the same'

OK, so the wife works - should she then be the one paying the childcare costs? if they are sharing them, in this situation they would both have been poorer.
A nursery costs ~£250 a week - which has to be earned after tax. if you're in a NMW job then you'd just about break even. pretty much your whole wages going on childcare, so no savings to be gained there. Obviously if she was in some highly paid job (which burlingtonfl6 believes most women aren't able to get) it would be a different calculation - but then I would expect husband to be doing 50% of household jobs and any extras.
Doesn't sound very "fair" to me

Statistics prove that men earn more (on average) because they work in the Stem sector and work in more dangerous environments. Women have the choice to do the same but when given that choice they choose not to. Studies in the countries with more ''gender equality'' prove this.
https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/
Nothing wrong with this fact, people are free to choose but they shouldn't complain about the outcome of their choices

Interesting that you should pick that as an example.  I work in STEM and my partner works in business management and earns more than I do! STEM is notoriously badly paid!
Men do earn more than women on average, but not hugely so (~8% - this gap is lower for those under 40 years old)  - average UK full time wage is ~£30,000 (Source: here) and if you are earning £80k per year you are in the top 5% of earners, so I doubt there really are these plethora of high earning men choosing to marry, have children with and then divorce waitresses (or other jobs you consider menial!) although if there are, they are also free to choose this, but they also shouldn't complain about the outcome of their choices...

burlingtonfl6

mason's_mum said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

mason's_mum said:

Dingle81 said:

I do find things like this interesting, on a point like below...
"while the wife was caring for their joint child and therefore not in a position to make similar savings.", the wife in this situation could of just as easily worked full time and saved money, it seems the husband is being punished for not saying from the outset  'no, I work full time so you do the same'

OK, so the wife works - should she then be the one paying the childcare costs? if they are sharing them, in this situation they would both have been poorer.
A nursery costs ~£250 a week - which has to be earned after tax. if you're in a NMW job then you'd just about break even. pretty much your whole wages going on childcare, so no savings to be gained there. Obviously if she was in some highly paid job (which burlingtonfl6 believes most women aren't able to get) it would be a different calculation - but then I would expect husband to be doing 50% of household jobs and any extras.
Doesn't sound very "fair" to me

Statistics prove that men earn more (on average) because they work in the Stem sector and work in more dangerous environments. Women have the choice to do the same but when given that choice they choose not to. Studies in the countries with more ''gender equality'' prove this.
https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/
Nothing wrong with this fact, people are free to choose but they shouldn't complain about the outcome of their choices

Interesting that you should pick that as an example.  I work in STEM and my partner works in business management and earns more than I do! STEM is notoriously badly paid!
Men do earn more than women on average, but not hugely so (~8% - this gap is lower for those under 40 years old)  - average UK full time wage is ~£30,000 (Source: here) and if you are earning £80k per year you are in the top 5% of earners, so I doubt there really are these plethora of high earning men choosing to marry, have children with and then divorce waitresses (or other jobs you consider menial!) although if there are, they are also free to choose this, but they also shouldn't complain about the outcome of their choices...

Men know the world isn't fair. If you choose to marry someone and she takes you to the cleaners, tough.
But what is happening is men are choosing not to get married. Marriage rates are at a historic low.
''Marriage rates for opposite-sex couples are now at the lowest level on record. This continues a gradual long-term decline seen since the early 1970s, with numbers falling by a third over the past 40 years.''

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/marriagecohabitationandcivilpartnerships/bulletins/marriagesinenglandandwalesprovisional/2017
And it's men who chose to get married, not women. Women are the gatekeepers to sex, men are the gatekeepers to marriage.