Lies lies lies

[Deleted User]

zagfles said:

Purbeck14 said:

zagfles said:

Purbeck14 said:

zagfles said:

Spendless said:

zagfles said:

Spendless said:

GiantTCR said:

Spendless said:

GiantTCR sforaid:

Pollycat said:

What are their financial circumstances?
Do both work?
Earn similar amounts?
How long have they been married?
How old is the child?
What are their pension provisions? These will go into the pot.
Do they own a house (with or without a mortgage)? Or rent?
Can either of them afford the repayments?
Can either of them afford to buy the other out?
When they 'agreed' the 50/50 split of assets and childcare, what were the planned arrangements?

And probably lots more questions.

You'd better serve your friend by helping him do some research rather than encouraging him to sue his wife for slander on top of what may be an expensive divorce. 

Yes as far as I know every financial detail (house, salaries, savings, pensions) were disclosed in one of the mediation sessions and the agreement both verbal and in writing (emails) was for a 50-50 split of all of the assets.

The wife also verbally agreed on a 50-50 custody split and my friend and her were working on a few options for how to split the custody like days of the week/pick ups and so on.

Everything was going well until she realised that in case of 50-50 custody, my friend wouldn't have to pay anything for child maintenance (it says it clearly on the gov.uk website).

That's when things escalated. That's when all of a sudden my friend allegedly became an abusive husband who shouldn't have 50-50 custody. Seems very strange and convenient that these things are only coming up a couple of days after the wife found out she may not get the money she thought she was entitled to.

My friend has always been trying to avoid going to court as he knows how costly these things can be and they could both use the money to buy their new homes rather than pay legal fees. But if the wife will want more than 50% custody, it'll be court time and nobody wins.

Could you post a link please. I'm either on the wrong thing or have skim read and missed it because I don't see it here.

https://www.gov.uk/how-child-maintenance-is-worked-out

So from what you've said your friend is a higher earner than his ex, is  getting 50% of assets and won't be paying child maintainance. I can understand why is ex wife to be isn't happy. 

How old is child? If you could also answer the questions that I think Pollycat has also posted such as has wife compromised her own career/earnings duet o taking on lion's share of childcare during their marriage?  

From the link you posted, if you click on the calculator link you'll see a page where it says in bullet points that you won't have to pay anything if you equally share caring responsibility for the child.

Yes I can understand why his wife isn't happy. She should be getting more than half of the assets as my friend earns more.

I just find it curious how she had agreed to equal custody split during mediation but after realising that she may be getting nothing for child maintenance NOW AND JUST NOW my friend has become this abusive husband...

Ok thanks, I've seen it now.

Consider this

'I'm a lousy husband. I've been verbally/emotionally/[psychologically abusing my wife for years. It's not a face I show anyone else though, so they wouldn't believe her if she said anything. No scars to show I just say she's lying. She's never exposed me before why would she be believed. I have some enablers, people usually call them friends. They always believe me cos I show them my good side. We're splitting up. We've gone to mediation, by some luck of the draw I got it suggested there that despite me earning more, we split everything 50/50 including the child residency and this also means  I have no maintenance to pay. Woohoo I don't want solicitors and courts involved because they might tell my ex wife that she's not getting a fair deal, so I'll put my best face on and say it's because I don't want to waste money that I could spend on my child. I'm such a charmer people believe me. The problem is on discovering there'll be no maintenance  my ex isn't happy. She's saying exactly what I've done to her, so I'm turning it round, to say it's her lying after all there's no proof and my enablers I mean  mates all believe me'

Now I'm not saying your friend IS the above, but consider it a possibility. Someone like that came into a close relatives life. Not exactly the same because they were a lot younger. To my shame I was the enabler. I believed the other person against my relative because they were charming, manipulative and a very good liar. Until some things started not adding up and I started digging and was shocked by what I discovered and uncovered and found out  exactly which one wasn't telling the truth. 

For me,  ok I'm suspicious due to the above happening but red flags rang at the mediation that is verbally agreed at 50%. Wife needs legal advice and pronto. 

We can all invent scenarios based on our own experiences and prejudices, but I'd say this one falls flat because why would the wife even consider 50/50 custody ie leaving her children half the time with an abuser?

Why do abused people do many things that they do, including staying in the relationship, keeping quiet and returning to them. 
Not usually to someone they publically declare as an abuser? Or is your experience different?
I've pointed out that my view is biased.  The wife still needs legal advice. 

Well quite possibly, but she's not the one asking for advice.

No but in point of fact neither is the husband, it is the husband's "friend". Are the couple  aware that their situation is being discussed here and assumptions being drawn as to truth of the situation by the OP? 

Happens all the time, and sometimes with named couples (think celebrity cases) rather than anonymous couples. People often ask for advice on behalf of others, nothing wrong with that IMO, as long as the people being discussed remain anonymous, and the scenario isn't likely to be unique enough to identify individuals.

Yes it does, but since the OP has already decided who is 'in the right' ( the heading "lies, lies, lies" suggests a decided opinion which may or may not be based on actual facts) really they don't want advice as such, more like a confirmation that suits their own bias.  UNLESS the OP has been in the marital home for the length of the marriage they really don't know the true circumstances. Friends are usually biased, it's natural, but this is one of those cases where emotional involvement may hinder rather than help the person who needs the advice, which IS what he's paying the solicitor for. 

OP clearly isn't asking who we think is "in the right". He/she is obviously telling us that - and asking what to do about it.

Did I say anywhere that the OP was "asking who we think is in the right"?. No. They have already decided. Advice has been given, some of it sensible, so what the OP or the divorcing couple decide to do with it is their affair. 

zagfles

Purbeck14 said:

zagfles said:

Purbeck14 said:

zagfles said:

Purbeck14 said:

zagfles said:

Spendless said:

zagfles said:

Spendless said:

GiantTCR said:

Spendless said:

GiantTCR sforaid:

Pollycat said:

What are their financial circumstances?
Do both work?
Earn similar amounts?
How long have they been married?
How old is the child?
What are their pension provisions? These will go into the pot.
Do they own a house (with or without a mortgage)? Or rent?
Can either of them afford the repayments?
Can either of them afford to buy the other out?
When they 'agreed' the 50/50 split of assets and childcare, what were the planned arrangements?

And probably lots more questions.

You'd better serve your friend by helping him do some research rather than encouraging him to sue his wife for slander on top of what may be an expensive divorce. 

Yes as far as I know every financial detail (house, salaries, savings, pensions) were disclosed in one of the mediation sessions and the agreement both verbal and in writing (emails) was for a 50-50 split of all of the assets.

The wife also verbally agreed on a 50-50 custody split and my friend and her were working on a few options for how to split the custody like days of the week/pick ups and so on.

Everything was going well until she realised that in case of 50-50 custody, my friend wouldn't have to pay anything for child maintenance (it says it clearly on the gov.uk website).

That's when things escalated. That's when all of a sudden my friend allegedly became an abusive husband who shouldn't have 50-50 custody. Seems very strange and convenient that these things are only coming up a couple of days after the wife found out she may not get the money she thought she was entitled to.

My friend has always been trying to avoid going to court as he knows how costly these things can be and they could both use the money to buy their new homes rather than pay legal fees. But if the wife will want more than 50% custody, it'll be court time and nobody wins.

Could you post a link please. I'm either on the wrong thing or have skim read and missed it because I don't see it here.

https://www.gov.uk/how-child-maintenance-is-worked-out

So from what you've said your friend is a higher earner than his ex, is  getting 50% of assets and won't be paying child maintainance. I can understand why is ex wife to be isn't happy. 

How old is child? If you could also answer the questions that I think Pollycat has also posted such as has wife compromised her own career/earnings duet o taking on lion's share of childcare during their marriage?  

From the link you posted, if you click on the calculator link you'll see a page where it says in bullet points that you won't have to pay anything if you equally share caring responsibility for the child.

Yes I can understand why his wife isn't happy. She should be getting more than half of the assets as my friend earns more.

I just find it curious how she had agreed to equal custody split during mediation but after realising that she may be getting nothing for child maintenance NOW AND JUST NOW my friend has become this abusive husband...

Ok thanks, I've seen it now.

Consider this

'I'm a lousy husband. I've been verbally/emotionally/[psychologically abusing my wife for years. It's not a face I show anyone else though, so they wouldn't believe her if she said anything. No scars to show I just say she's lying. She's never exposed me before why would she be believed. I have some enablers, people usually call them friends. They always believe me cos I show them my good side. We're splitting up. We've gone to mediation, by some luck of the draw I got it suggested there that despite me earning more, we split everything 50/50 including the child residency and this also means  I have no maintenance to pay. Woohoo I don't want solicitors and courts involved because they might tell my ex wife that she's not getting a fair deal, so I'll put my best face on and say it's because I don't want to waste money that I could spend on my child. I'm such a charmer people believe me. The problem is on discovering there'll be no maintenance  my ex isn't happy. She's saying exactly what I've done to her, so I'm turning it round, to say it's her lying after all there's no proof and my enablers I mean  mates all believe me'

Now I'm not saying your friend IS the above, but consider it a possibility. Someone like that came into a close relatives life. Not exactly the same because they were a lot younger. To my shame I was the enabler. I believed the other person against my relative because they were charming, manipulative and a very good liar. Until some things started not adding up and I started digging and was shocked by what I discovered and uncovered and found out  exactly which one wasn't telling the truth. 

For me,  ok I'm suspicious due to the above happening but red flags rang at the mediation that is verbally agreed at 50%. Wife needs legal advice and pronto. 

We can all invent scenarios based on our own experiences and prejudices, but I'd say this one falls flat because why would the wife even consider 50/50 custody ie leaving her children half the time with an abuser?

Why do abused people do many things that they do, including staying in the relationship, keeping quiet and returning to them. 
Not usually to someone they publically declare as an abuser? Or is your experience different?
I've pointed out that my view is biased.  The wife still needs legal advice. 

Well quite possibly, but she's not the one asking for advice.

No but in point of fact neither is the husband, it is the husband's "friend". Are the couple  aware that their situation is being discussed here and assumptions being drawn as to truth of the situation by the OP? 

Happens all the time, and sometimes with named couples (think celebrity cases) rather than anonymous couples. People often ask for advice on behalf of others, nothing wrong with that IMO, as long as the people being discussed remain anonymous, and the scenario isn't likely to be unique enough to identify individuals.

Yes it does, but since the OP has already decided who is 'in the right' ( the heading "lies, lies, lies" suggests a decided opinion which may or may not be based on actual facts) really they don't want advice as such, more like a confirmation that suits their own bias.  UNLESS the OP has been in the marital home for the length of the marriage they really don't know the true circumstances. Friends are usually biased, it's natural, but this is one of those cases where emotional involvement may hinder rather than help the person who needs the advice, which IS what he's paying the solicitor for. 

OP clearly isn't asking who we think is "in the right". He/she is obviously telling us that - and asking what to do about it.

Did I say anywhere that the OP was "asking who we think is in the right"?. No. They have already decided. Advice has been given, some of it sensible, so what the OP or the divorcing couple decide to do with it is their affair. 

No, what you did say was "but since the OP has already decided who is 'in the right' [...] really they don't want advice as such, more like a confirmation that suits their own bias."

I disagreed. The OP wasn't after everyone to go "I agree, you're right, how terrible." Or indeed, "perhaps you are wrong".

The OP was after advice about what to do about the situation as he/she understood it. That was my point.

tightauldgit

TBagpuss said:

 
In the short term, a court will err on theside of caution, e.g. decline to order contact between a child and a parent who has been accused of being violent towards them, however, they can direct that there should bea fact finsing hearing to determine the trust of any claims beforemaking a decision about the split of care.

A court will act in the best interests of the child but that doesn't generally mean believe any old tosh spouted by a disgruntled ex-partner or act as if any allegation is true. It takes more to get the court to act - obviously otherwise both parents can just say the other one is abusive and then what does the court do? 

The reality is that before any contested child arrangements hearing there will likely be a CAFCASS interview with both parents and it will be up to CAFCASS to flag up any concerns in their report. In the absence of credible claims of abuse the court will not take any action.   

GiantTCR

tightauldgit said:

TBagpuss said:

 
In the short term, a court will err on theside of caution, e.g. decline to order contact between a child and a parent who has been accused of being violent towards them, however, they can direct that there should bea fact finsing hearing to determine the trust of any claims beforemaking a decision about the split of care.

A court will act in the best interests of the child but that doesn't generally mean believe any old tosh spouted by a disgruntled ex-partner or act as if any allegation is true. It takes more to get the court to act - obviously otherwise both parents can just say the other one is abusive and then what does the court do? 

The reality is that before any contested child arrangements hearing there will likely be a CAFCASS interview with both parents and it will be up to CAFCASS to flag up any concerns in their report. In the absence of credible claims of abuse the court will not take any action.   

I think it's good in any case that something like CAFCASS is involved. I bet they're used to hear parents telling lies so they can spot odd behaviours pretty easily. I think my friend know about CAFCASS already but I'll mention it to him the next time we speak

It's also extremely good that nowadays this concept of the mother always having the edge because she's allegedly the primary care giver is going out of fashion. The older the child gets and the less it's a given that the mother is the primary care giver and it's never nice to see mothers use their kids as bargaining chips to take advantage of their partners.

Jude57

I'd just point out that fathers being granted full custody isn't a new concept. It happened in 1965 when my (unmarried) parents separated. My mother didn't drink or take drugs, wasn't unfaithful, kept a spotless home, was an excellent cook, earned an honest living and hand made all my clothes, from underwear to winter coats (it was her profession). She was, however, someone who should never have had children and after the Judge had spoken to me privately, custody was given to my father, ratified on two subsequent occasions in later years.

It was rare but not unheard of in those days and I think it's far more common today that fathers are understood to be equally capable as parents. I know that the children's wellbeing is always paramount and the Court will decide based on that above everything. Family Court Judges are well able to spot parties making inflated or invented claims.

GiantTCR

Jude57 said:

It was rare but not unheard of in those days and I think it's far more common today that fathers are understood to be equally capable as parents. I know that the children's wellbeing is always paramount and the Court will decide based on that above everything. Family Court Judges are well able to spot parties making inflated or invented claims.

Nowadays it makes even more sense.

The older the child gets and the more equal childcare becomes. So it just makes sense to give more than 50% of custody to the children's fathers, given on average they make more money than their ex-wives and can therefore provide a better quality of life.

elsien

Not if they are working long hours and away from home a lot making that extra money.
Money  helps but a better quality of life isn't just related to finances. 
Your statement is a blanket one, in the same way as the view that you are arguing against. 

GiantTCR

elsien said:

Not if they are working long hours and away from home a lot making that extra money.
Money  helps but a better quality of life isn't just related to finances. 
Your statement is a blanket one, in the same way as the view that you are arguing against. 

Your statement isn't any better. Both men and women can work equally long hours. Or are you suggesting that women work less than men, therefore they should have custody of the kids because they can spend time with them? I could even argue the opposite: after a mother stayed off work to be a stay-at-home mum, once she's back in full-time employment she may want to work longer hours to boost her career and make up for lost time. 

It's 2023 almost: men and women work the same. Only for now men make more money (which is not fair but that's how it is at the moment).

I'll put it down more easily for you: in a scenario where father and mother work the same amount of time, the father tends to earn more than the mother (because of gender pay gap, but that's not the issue). Therefore the kids would be better off with the father.

TBagpuss

Jude57 said:

I'd just point out that fathers being granted full custody isn't a new concept. It happened in 1965 when my (unmarried) parents separated. My mother didn't drink or take drugs, wasn't unfaithful, kept a spotless home, was an excellent cook, earned an honest living and hand made all my clothes, from underwear to winter coats (it was her profession). She was, however, someone who should never have had children and after the Judge had spoken to me privately, custody was given to my father, ratified on two subsequent occasions in later years.

It was rare but not unheard of in those days and I think it's far more common today that fathers are understood to be equally capable as parents. I know that the children's wellbeing is always paramount and the Court will decide based on that above everything. Family Court Judges are well able to spot parties making inflated or invented claims.

Yes, the law is gender neutral, there's no presumption in favour of one parent over the other on the basis of gender. 

However, while it's more common these days for fathers to be SAHP or for care to be shared,  it's still the case that more women than men take time out of paid employment  / go part time / fit their job round child care responsibilities than men, so it's more common for the woman to have been the main carer for the childnre imediately pior to any split.

Since courts decide issues based on what is in the child's best interets, and one of the thinghs they consider is the effect on the child of any changes, it's oftn appropriate for the mother to continue to be the main carer as often that's least disruptive for the child, and of course if you have a situation where one parent has been at home or working part time, very often that will also mean that the other parents may have been able to make more career progression so may well have higher earnings, so the financial implications of making big changes to the pattern of child care can make it impractical. 

So where one parent has been the primary carer before the split (whatever that parent's gender) it's common for them to continue to tbe the primary carer after the split.

Equally, if one parent is available to care for the children directly but the other is seeking shared care but planning to use external child care to fill in around working hours, that may well not be in the children's interests, if the alternative is an unequal split but child is being cared for by a parent not a child minder for more of the time.

TBagpuss

GiantTCR said:

TBagpuss said:

If the motvatin is money, your firend could try offering to make voluntary payments / agreeing that the other parent can claim the child benefit, at least in the short term. (if their finacial position would allow them to do so. his would feel very unfiar but somtimes loking for a practica aolution can be a sensible wway forward, and of course if they were then able to agree shred care and set up a pattern of split care, it would be harder for the other parent to then resurrect their claims.

Ok, genuine question: why would a parent agree to make voluntary payments to the other parent if, according to the child maintenance service, no payments are due if child care is shared equally between the 2?

Like, one parent is blackmailing the other with false claims so let's give them money voluntarily. Not only the parent making false claims doesn't get punished, they also make financial gain from the situation. This sounds absurd to me. Is this how the system works?

Sometimes it makes sense to find a solution which works - yes, it's awful if false allegations are made and if one party is behving unreasonably. However, a pragmatic approach can result in things being sorted much more quickly and in practical terms, making a low level of payments, voluntarily, for a limited time, and getting equal shared care immediately might well be much cheaper than fighting through the courts, plus if the other parent were to agree to equal shared care and then tried to re-raise the allegations 6 months down the line if at that stage the voluntary payments were stopped or reduced they are in a much weaker position, having allowed the chldren to live part time with the person they are accusing, after having first made the claims. 

Also - you can have a situation where the legal position is unfair - for instance if one parent earns more but the plan is for shared care so neither pays child support - a voluntary payment by the higher earner in that situation can be in the children's best interests by allowing both parents to be able to privide simialrly for the children while in their respective homes .

Things like the CMS, and to an extent, court proceedings, are blunt intruments and are limited in what they can achieve. Looking at options which may be different to what a court can or would do, but which are more likely to achieve the actual outcome you want, are always worth exploring.