Spousal maintenance

Author
Discussion

solo2

Original Poster:

858 posts

146 months

Thursday 26th February 2015
quotequote all
When does that stop being paid basically? I know it stops if the receiver of the maintenance remarried but if they don't does it continue to be paid even after the children of the marriage become adults and no longer in education which is where child maintenance payments stop?

JumboBeef

3,772 posts

176 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
Depends on the court order. Some have to pay it for life. What's your situation?

Jim1556

1,771 posts

155 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
JumboBeef said:
Depends on the court order. Some have to pay it for life. What's your situation?
It is disgusting and should be stopped immediately after the children reach 16 (or finish higher education)!!!

Looks like it may be starting to happen - need more judges like this one!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/get...

How the fk can she have justified a £450k house AND £75k per year??? yikes

Kateg28

1,352 posts

162 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
Jim1556 said:
It is disgusting and should be stopped immediately after the children reach 16 (or finish higher education)!!!

Looks like it may be starting to happen - need more judges like this one!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/get...

How the fk can she have justified a £450k house AND £75k per year??? yikes
No it isn't automatically disgusting. Each case on its merits... If a wealthy man has a stay at home wife then buggers off with the secretary should the wife be left destitute because she has no skills in the workplace? Her life has been turned upside down through no fault of her own.

However if she did the walking out then why should the husband continue to support her? But this is difficult to qualify. What if she walked out because he beat her? I completely disagree with women using men as a meal ticket however if you arrange your marriage in a certain way and then renege on it, why should the other party be left with nothing? This applies irrespective of gender.

And before you shout, yes I am a divorced woman whose husband walked out to be with his mistress (so essentially I was the innocent party) but I took no maintenance for myself, I just went for child maintenance. I get a token amount of child maintenance which doesn't cover half our son's costs but can't be arsed to go for more.

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
Kateg28 said:
If a wealthy man has a stay at home wife then buggers off with the secretary should the wife be left destitute because she has no skills in the workplace?
Who would owe her a living if she hadn't married? Isn't it a person's own problem if they are unemployable?

Rick101

6,959 posts

149 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
If she has no skills that's her responsibility.

If a chap has no skills he has to either work for minimum or go find some. Why should women be any different. I'm sad that women lower themselves in such a way. They should Have some self respect.

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
Rick101 said:
If she has no skills that's her responsibility.

If a chap has no skills he has to either work for minimum or go find some. Why should women be any different. I'm sad that women lower themselves in such a way. They should Have some self respect.
That's a very black and white way of looking at the world.

A couple may choose to have one half stay at home to raise the children, in which case that person will leave the workforce and over time become less employable. They may have given up a promising career in order to raise a family. Couples make decisions like this.

It's not unreasonable to expect a certain degree of support following a divorce.

I'm not avocating women being supported for life by an ex husband, or indeed a husband by an ex wife, I'm just saying that it isn't black and white.

Rick101

6,959 posts

149 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
I think it's quite often the choice of the wife to be at home. Why work when you can spend you day shopping and drinking coffee. Nobody is forced to live that lifestyle.

Remember we're talking about spousal maintenance, there may not be any kids to beat home for. Even if kids are at home they are at school from 4. No reason they can't start back in the workplace.

Anyway, I think they're all silly sods for getting married in the first place.

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
Rick101 said:
I think it's quite often the choice of the wife to be at home. Why work when you can spend you day shopping and drinking coffee. Nobody is forced to live that lifestyle.
I think you're talking about a very small section of society here. I also very much doubt that many men in this situation are not in agreement.


ascayman

12,732 posts

215 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
Rick101 said:
I think it's quite often the choice of the wife to be at home..
yes

Seriously what bloke is going to say no to a little extra income?

My wife doesn't work because she doesn't want to and we/she are lucky enough that she doesn't have to. I don't mind its great for the kids etc but it is most certainly her choice.

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
ascayman said:
yes

Seriously what bloke is going to say no to a little extra income?

My wife doesn't work because she doesn't want to and we/she are lucky enough that she doesn't have to. I don't mind its great for the kids etc but it is most certainly her choice.
There is a difference between it being her choice and you not agreeing. If you don't mind then it is essentially by mutual agreement that she doesn't work, IMHO.

I think the situations that grab the headlines tend to be divorces involving rich men who are happy for their wives not to work because they don't need the extra cash.

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
There is a difference between it being her choice and you not agreeing. If you don't mind then it is essentially by mutual agreement that she doesn't work, IMHO.

I think the situations that grab the headlines tend to be divorces involving rich men who are happy for their wives not to work because they don't need the extra cash.
In return for which generosity they may acquire a liability to support her indefinitely.

Rick101

6,959 posts

149 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
I just find it bizarre the women are happy to be equated to a pet like a dog or something that they need to be kept and are unable to provide for themselves.

Remember chaps a wife is for life not just until the divorce settlement.


Strange how it doesn't work the other way. I have no skills doing the washing as I've been too busy at work so for my 'maintenence' can you pop round once a week?

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
Rick101 said:
Strange how it doesn't work the other way.
It does work the other way round

http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/16/the-de-gendering-...

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
ascayman said:
yes

Seriously what bloke is going to say no to a little extra income?

My wife doesn't work because she doesn't want to and we/she are lucky enough that she doesn't have to. I don't mind its great for the kids etc but it is most certainly her choice.
That seems like a rather narrow minded way of looking at it to be honest.

If she hadn't have given up working, who would've looked after your child? It seems likely in most cases that one person in a relationship has to make the decision to sacrifice their career, logically it's usually the one on a lower income that - although times have changed - tends to be the woman.

It likely wouldn't be possible for you to have a child, or have had, if your wife hadn't been the one to look after it while you had the "luxury" of your work life being unaffected. I do know guy friends who you would struggle to notice any compromise in their daily lives, quite simply because the wife/girlfriend deals with everything child related.

I guess my point is that I think some people forget that their partners giving up their careers in most cases enables them to have a child in the first place. There is a value to that, which is why courts recognise that women have every right to be compensated for enabling their husbands successes, etc.

Obviously no two marriages or circumstances are the same, and the legal system is imperfect and inconsistent at the best of times. Likewise there are women (and men) who exploit the system. Such is the way of things.

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
Durzel said:
I guess my point is that I think some people forget that their partners giving up their careers in most cases enables them to have a child in the first place.
On the other hand, it is not uncommon for the pressure to have children to have come from her too.

Countdown

39,690 posts

195 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
ascayman said:
Rick101 said:
I think it's quite often the choice of the wife to be at home..
yes

Seriously what bloke is going to say no to a little extra income?

My wife doesn't work because she doesn't want to and we/she are lucky enough that she doesn't have to. I don't mind its great for the kids etc but it is most certainly her choice.
Same here. Except my wife works a lot harder than I do. We have four (relatively) well behaved kids and most of that is down to her. She's also given me lots of support in my career - rarely complaining about the long hours or travel. Quite frankly she deserves a lot more than half of what we have.

smashie

685 posts

150 months

Friday 27th February 2015
quotequote all
My parents are divorced and my dad pays spousal maintenance to my mum. My sister and I both left home a long time ago.
When my parents met and married they were both working. When I was born, my mum became a stay at home mum as that was my dad's wish. She had a part time job for a while, but he made her give it up to spend more time at home with the kids.
Parents got divorced around 1988. My mum could not find work that fitted in with school hours so that she could look after us during the holidays, cook supper etc and any job she could find she was under qualified for. She had not worked for a long time, her skills were out of date and that made it difficult for her.
Had my dad allowed her to continue working after she had us/we started school, then she would have either still been in work or at least employable. In this case I feel it is right that she should still get maintenance despite us having grown up and moved out as she gave up her career at his request.

Rick101

6,959 posts

149 months

Saturday 28th February 2015
quotequote all
Seriously? Nearly 30 odd years ago?

Im sure she could have retrained in something. What did she do with her time?

I'm amazed by All these women that no longer have responsibility for kids and are unable to get any work whatsoever. As discussed in numerous other threads there is always work out there for those that are willing to do it. Can't understand why having a few years off makes these women go from career driven powerhouses with a fantastic future to not being able to find work.




Collectingbrass

2,198 posts

194 months

Saturday 28th February 2015
quotequote all
To answer the OP's question it depends on your settlement but generally:

The parent without care is liable for child maintenance until the children finish tertiary education, I.e. University or HE college, regardless of the exSWTs marital state.

Spousal maintenance is usually paid until end of secondary education or remarriage. It ceases temporarily if the receiver cohabits with some poor unfortunate for more than 6 months, if she can find one to put up with her and good luck to him, but the payer remains liable until the set out end date.

This is the general case, and is mine, but yours may be different and IANAL