Spousal maintenance
Discussion
Durzel said:
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.
I think this is the main issue with spousal maintenance. It is fair and useful in many applications, where the women has given up a career to look after the children/maintain the house but in quite a lot of applications the system is exploited.I'm seeing a women currently who is separated awaiting divorce, her sense of entitlement is frightening.
Hypothetical (maybe scenario)
Young couple straight out of University get engaged and both start on a (potentially well-paid) career path. Nature being what it is the couple have several kids and decide that it makes sense for the wife to stay at home and raise them, effectively putting the handbrake on a potentially lucrative career.
Husband's career takes off and family enjoys a very good standard of living. However husband then decides (after 20+ years) that he'd prefer to shack up with his 18 year old secretary and moves out The wife, who gave up her career to look after husband and kids, suddenly has no source of income. Husband earns £100k+.
I would argue that at least part of the husband's success was down to the support he received from his wife. As such it's only fair that she is recompensed for her investment into the "partnership".
Young couple straight out of University get engaged and both start on a (potentially well-paid) career path. Nature being what it is the couple have several kids and decide that it makes sense for the wife to stay at home and raise them, effectively putting the handbrake on a potentially lucrative career.
Husband's career takes off and family enjoys a very good standard of living. However husband then decides (after 20+ years) that he'd prefer to shack up with his 18 year old secretary and moves out The wife, who gave up her career to look after husband and kids, suddenly has no source of income. Husband earns £100k+.
I would argue that at least part of the husband's success was down to the support he received from his wife. As such it's only fair that she is recompensed for her investment into the "partnership".
Countdown said:
Hypothetical (maybe scenario)
Young couple straight out of University get engaged and both start on a (potentially well-paid) career path. Nature being what it is the couple have several kids and decide that it makes sense for the wife to stay at home and raise them, effectively putting the handbrake on a potentially lucrative career.
Husband's career takes off and family enjoys a very good standard of living. However husband then decides (after 20+ years) that he'd prefer to shack up with his 18 year old secretary and moves out The wife, who gave up her career to look after husband and kids, suddenly has no source of income. Husband earns £100k+.
I would argue that at least part of the husband's success was down to the support he received from his wife. As such it's only fair that she is recompensed for her investment into the "partnership".
I don't think that anybody has a problem with spousal maintenance being granted in this scenario. The issues arise when people are exploiting spousal maintenance.Young couple straight out of University get engaged and both start on a (potentially well-paid) career path. Nature being what it is the couple have several kids and decide that it makes sense for the wife to stay at home and raise them, effectively putting the handbrake on a potentially lucrative career.
Husband's career takes off and family enjoys a very good standard of living. However husband then decides (after 20+ years) that he'd prefer to shack up with his 18 year old secretary and moves out The wife, who gave up her career to look after husband and kids, suddenly has no source of income. Husband earns £100k+.
I would argue that at least part of the husband's success was down to the support he received from his wife. As such it's only fair that she is recompensed for her investment into the "partnership".
Countdown said:
Hypothetical (maybe scenario)
Young couple straight out of University get engaged and both start on a (potentially well-paid) career path. Nature being what it is the couple have several kids and decide that it makes sense for the wife to stay at home and raise them, effectively putting the handbrake on a potentially lucrative career.
Husband's career takes off and family enjoys a very good standard of living. However husband then decides (after 20+ years) that he'd prefer to shack up with his 18 year old secretary and moves out The wife, who gave up her career to look after husband and kids, suddenly has no source of income. Husband earns £100k+.
I would argue that at least part of the husband's success was down to the support he received from his wife. As such it's only fair that she is recompensed for her investment into the "partnership".
What happens though in reality is she gets the house, the kids, the dog. She receives a fortune from him each month and ends up better off than him, and he is the one working each day while she becomes a lady who lunches.Young couple straight out of University get engaged and both start on a (potentially well-paid) career path. Nature being what it is the couple have several kids and decide that it makes sense for the wife to stay at home and raise them, effectively putting the handbrake on a potentially lucrative career.
Husband's career takes off and family enjoys a very good standard of living. However husband then decides (after 20+ years) that he'd prefer to shack up with his 18 year old secretary and moves out The wife, who gave up her career to look after husband and kids, suddenly has no source of income. Husband earns £100k+.
I would argue that at least part of the husband's success was down to the support he received from his wife. As such it's only fair that she is recompensed for her investment into the "partnership".
It needs to be fair, and it so rarely is.
StottyEvo said:
I don't think that anybody has a problem with spousal maintenance being granted in this scenario. The issues arise when people are exploiting spousal maintenance.
One person's "exploiting" is another person's "rightfully entitled" 
It's hard to say what is and isn't a fair distribution of assets and income post-separation without having a detailed knowledge of exactly what both partners invested in the relationship. The one thing which I do think is pretty despicable is when one party decides that his/her kids are somebody else's responsibility and dumps them on the State.
JumboBeef said:
What happens though in reality is she gets the house, the kids, the dog. She receives a fortune from him each month and ends up better off than him, and he is the one working each day while she becomes a lady who lunches.
It needs to be fair, and it so rarely is.
I don't disagree, however as i said, the definition of fair depends on which side of the fence you are sitting on. My own personal view is - I married "for better or for worse" - therefore ensuring my wife and kids are looked after (to the standard they want) is my responsibility until I shuffle off this mortal coil.It needs to be fair, and it so rarely is.
ETA the "standard" they had before separation.
Countdown said:
StottyEvo said:
I don't think that anybody has a problem with spousal maintenance being granted in this scenario. The issues arise when people are exploiting spousal maintenance.
One person's "exploiting" is another person's "rightfully entitled" Which is why I don't plan on marrying
Countdown said:
JumboBeef said:
What happens though in reality is she gets the house, the kids, the dog. She receives a fortune from him each month and ends up better off than him, and he is the one working each day while she becomes a lady who lunches.
It needs to be fair, and it so rarely is.
I don't disagree, however as i said, the definition of fair depends on which side of the fence you are sitting on. My own personal view is - I married "for better or for worse" - therefore oensuring my wife and kids are looked after (to the standard they want) is my responsibility until I shuffle off this mortal coil.It needs to be fair, and it so rarely is.
ETA the "standard" they had before separation.
Countdown said:
Husband's career takes off and family enjoys a very good standard of living. However husband then decides (after 20+ years) that he'd prefer to shack up with his 18 year old secretary and moves out The wife, who gave up her career to look after husband and kids, suddenly has no source of income. Husband earns £100k+.
I would argue that at least part of the husband's success was down to the support he received from his wife. As such it's only fair that she is recompensed for her investment into the "partnership".
Strange that you never hear the argument that the wife held his career back and he could have achieved far more without her in tow ....I would argue that at least part of the husband's success was down to the support he received from his wife. As such it's only fair that she is recompensed for her investment into the "partnership".
PurpleMoonlight said:
Countdown said:
Husband's career takes off and family enjoys a very good standard of living. However husband then decides (after 20+ years) that he'd prefer to shack up with his 18 year old secretary and moves out The wife, who gave up her career to look after husband and kids, suddenly has no source of income. Husband earns £100k+.
I would argue that at least part of the husband's success was down to the support he received from his wife. As such it's only fair that she is recompensed for her investment into the "partnership".
Strange that you never hear the argument that the wife held his career back and he could have achieved far more without her in tow ....I would argue that at least part of the husband's success was down to the support he received from his wife. As such it's only fair that she is recompensed for her investment into the "partnership".
It's not strange at all that you don't hear it. Anyone thinking like that probably has issues and shouldn't be getting married in the first place.
Devil2575 said:
Given your distorted view of the world I'm not surprised you came up with this.
It's not strange at all that you don't hear it. Anyone thinking like that probably has issues and shouldn't be getting married in the first place.
If marriage only had a beneficial effect on life then there would be no divorce ...It's not strange at all that you don't hear it. Anyone thinking like that probably has issues and shouldn't be getting married in the first place.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Devil2575 said:
Given your distorted view of the world I'm not surprised you came up with this.
It's not strange at all that you don't hear it. Anyone thinking like that probably has issues and shouldn't be getting married in the first place.
If marriage only had a beneficial effect on life then there would be no divorce ...It's not strange at all that you don't hear it. Anyone thinking like that probably has issues and shouldn't be getting married in the first place.
Perhaps the problem is that some people don't see the benefit provided by having a partner at home raising the kids. Perhaps some people, especially those without kids, don't realise that most men get a lot out of having a family.
Well heeled men who don't have kids but allow their partner to live a life of leasure should see the folly of their ways.
JumboBeef said:
And if she ran off with her 25 year old tennis coach, would you still be happy to support her, even after you've moved out and he has moved in?
She's obviously not run far if he's moved into the house. 
In the cicrumstances you describe my priority would be to make sure the kids were looked after.
Maybe a divorce lawyer could advise - if the wife is "at fault" is hubby still liable to provide for her?
coyft said:
Makes absolutely no difference who is at fault.
Oh yes it does.If I leave my wife in the lurch then I expect to pay to keep her, at least in the short term.
If she leaves me, boots me out to live in a bedsit and she shacks up with a wealthy man who showers her with money, diamonds and exotic holidays then I'll be damned if I'm going to pay anything to her.
(We are talking about spousal maintenance only, I would/do always pay for my children).
Collectingbrass said:
To answer the OP's question it depends on your settlement but generally:
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.
Wow, you're bitter against women. 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.
Kateg28 said:
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 f
k can she have justified a £450k house AND £75k per year??? 
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.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 f
k can she have justified a £450k house AND £75k per year??? 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.
Yes each case on it's own merits etc, but the case I highlighted above (albeit extreme) is an absolute perversion of the law (not to mention morally obscene) as it stands!
There should be no 'upkeep to the standard of living she/he was used to'!!! Millions of people manage on £10/20/30k per year - separation from a multi millionaire SHOULD NOT entitle you to a massive income, you've already received half of the estate. Sell something if you're too lazy to get a job!
It should be:
If there are no children, the marital assets are split 50/50, the end!
If there are children, as above plus a maintenance payment to the non resident parent as long as the children are dependent and finish school/higher education!
If I enter any details into the CSA website, the MAXIMUM (for one child) is £1200 per month, bearing in mind this is a ridiculous figure to pay (some people don't earn that), things like horse maintenance are laughable, shouldn't even be mentioned in a seperation case!
She got £75,000 per year to support her and her daughter (and her horses)??? ON TOP OF AT LEAST 50% of everything!
At least tell me you think this is wrong!
You say you didn't go for maintenance, I bet you got at least 60% of the assets? If he gives you 15% of his earnings after tax, that is a fair settlement...
Unless you want to explain in more detail?
That's it, I've had enough of my job, don't like it anymore and I'm walking out. Due to them taking me on several years ago I gave up my previous job and they won't take me back as I never bothered keeping up any useful skills. They say I'd have to do a refresher course, the cheek of it!
Oh well. I'd like my current lot to keep paying me please as that's the lifestyle I wish to be kept in.
Oh well. I'd like my current lot to keep paying me please as that's the lifestyle I wish to be kept in.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff