Discussion
Help78 said:
milesgiles said:
Muzzer79 said:
An ex-colleague of mine got divorced in his late 40s
Paid off house (c. £400k)
Pension (c. £500k)
Cash in the bank (c. £250k)
And they had two kids, both in early teens.
He struck a deal where all the assets, including the above, were split 50/50.
What really annoyed his now-ex-wife was that he also moved for (and demonstrated it was practical to have) 50/50 custody of the kids, so he didn't have to pay child maintenance (she assumed that she'd get it regardless)
OK, he was annoyed about writing a cheque for the thick end of half a million quid for her 50% share, but it was objectively the right thing to do and he got a clean break.
Good legal representation is key to getting a decent settlement, if you have to go legal.
Doesn’t sound right. Why wouldn’t she get child support ?Paid off house (c. £400k)
Pension (c. £500k)
Cash in the bank (c. £250k)
And they had two kids, both in early teens.
He struck a deal where all the assets, including the above, were split 50/50.
What really annoyed his now-ex-wife was that he also moved for (and demonstrated it was practical to have) 50/50 custody of the kids, so he didn't have to pay child maintenance (she assumed that she'd get it regardless)
OK, he was annoyed about writing a cheque for the thick end of half a million quid for her 50% share, but it was objectively the right thing to do and he got a clean break.
Good legal representation is key to getting a decent settlement, if you have to go legal.
50/50 without maintenance changing hands sounds great in principle but is hard in practise unless both parents are working in total co-operation on it, and believe that it is the best overall outcome for the children.
The moment its disputed it gets difficult. If Mum sees herself as a primary day-to-day caregiver and expects maintenance from Dad, she won't voluntarily reduce her share of care by some small margin and forgo the maintenance entitlement. They'll do everything they can to assume a greater day-to-day role.
Equally you may have some of the opposite where Dad wants to contrive a 50/50 situation to avoid maintenance even though the reality is that the kids spend more time with Mum because he's busy working a lot of the time, it was the same case before the divorce, and the kids are happy and comfortable in that arrangement and don't want to suddenly have two bedrooms and switch lives every weekend.
The only way to force it is to try and obtain a court order and to do so you'll have to really prove that it's in the kids interests to achieve this outcome.
I've been through it all. We were doing 50/50 for a while, the ex uprooted it all the moment the implications became clear, however in the end I benefitted from being able to 'delegate' the primary care to her in that I ended up working away from home etc. At first the kids wanted to spend time with both of us equally but now they are undoubtedly more rooted living with their mother most of the time.
Some would say my ex 'won' but really the only best outcome is the one that works best for the kids. I could also say the maintenance has ended up costing me a lot less than childcare.
It seems to me like the 50/50 thing is most often proposed in acrimonious situations, even though it requires the precise opposite.
The moment its disputed it gets difficult. If Mum sees herself as a primary day-to-day caregiver and expects maintenance from Dad, she won't voluntarily reduce her share of care by some small margin and forgo the maintenance entitlement. They'll do everything they can to assume a greater day-to-day role.
Equally you may have some of the opposite where Dad wants to contrive a 50/50 situation to avoid maintenance even though the reality is that the kids spend more time with Mum because he's busy working a lot of the time, it was the same case before the divorce, and the kids are happy and comfortable in that arrangement and don't want to suddenly have two bedrooms and switch lives every weekend.
The only way to force it is to try and obtain a court order and to do so you'll have to really prove that it's in the kids interests to achieve this outcome.
I've been through it all. We were doing 50/50 for a while, the ex uprooted it all the moment the implications became clear, however in the end I benefitted from being able to 'delegate' the primary care to her in that I ended up working away from home etc. At first the kids wanted to spend time with both of us equally but now they are undoubtedly more rooted living with their mother most of the time.
Some would say my ex 'won' but really the only best outcome is the one that works best for the kids. I could also say the maintenance has ended up costing me a lot less than childcare.
It seems to me like the 50/50 thing is most often proposed in acrimonious situations, even though it requires the precise opposite.
TownIdiot said:
milesgiles said:
But if she isn’t working or earning as much as him the kids aren’t getting the lifestyle they are accustomed to when staying with her? Compared to how it was when they were together
It doesn't say she isn't working. You obviously interpreted it differently. Which is fine
milesgiles said:
Help78 said:
milesgiles said:
Muzzer79 said:
An ex-colleague of mine got divorced in his late 40s
Paid off house (c. £400k)
Pension (c. £500k)
Cash in the bank (c. £250k)
And they had two kids, both in early teens.
He struck a deal where all the assets, including the above, were split 50/50.
What really annoyed his now-ex-wife was that he also moved for (and demonstrated it was practical to have) 50/50 custody of the kids, so he didn't have to pay child maintenance (she assumed that she'd get it regardless)
OK, he was annoyed about writing a cheque for the thick end of half a million quid for her 50% share, but it was objectively the right thing to do and he got a clean break.
Good legal representation is key to getting a decent settlement, if you have to go legal.
Doesn’t sound right. Why wouldn’t she get child support ?Paid off house (c. £400k)
Pension (c. £500k)
Cash in the bank (c. £250k)
And they had two kids, both in early teens.
He struck a deal where all the assets, including the above, were split 50/50.
What really annoyed his now-ex-wife was that he also moved for (and demonstrated it was practical to have) 50/50 custody of the kids, so he didn't have to pay child maintenance (she assumed that she'd get it regardless)
OK, he was annoyed about writing a cheque for the thick end of half a million quid for her 50% share, but it was objectively the right thing to do and he got a clean break.
Good legal representation is key to getting a decent settlement, if you have to go legal.
Obviously there are extremes - if you've installed your kids in private school and your wife has been a stay-at-home all their lives, you've got problems if you divorce.
But in a more regular situation, like my ex-colleague, where both parents work (the children were, as mentioned, early teens) then the father is by no means obligated to shoulder the lion's share of cost for the children.
My colleague simply said, via his lawyer, that if his ex didn't like the 50/50 arrangement with no maintenance either way, then he was more than willing to have the children live with him full time.
Obviously, you need to be able to follow through with that - demonstrably so - but he could so he got his deal. His ex was apoplectic......
All sound advice regarding getting a good lawyer etc but just to add it really does seem worth trying to calm things down a bit and discuss things sensibly before spending thousands on lawyers.
Reading between the lines it sounds a bit like your friend left her in the lurch after 30 years and 2 kids. Presumably she was thinking of growing old together, happily ever after stuff? Maybe she was thinking of retirement. I'm guessing she's in her 50s and this abrupt change of plan is probably a bit of a shock. If there's another woman in his flat all the more so.
What did she want and what does she want if that's not available?
There must be some kind of connection in there after 30 years of marriage and 2 kids, so make sure that all avenues of that have been discussed as calmly as possible before wasting money on lawyers.
Reading between the lines it sounds a bit like your friend left her in the lurch after 30 years and 2 kids. Presumably she was thinking of growing old together, happily ever after stuff? Maybe she was thinking of retirement. I'm guessing she's in her 50s and this abrupt change of plan is probably a bit of a shock. If there's another woman in his flat all the more so.
What did she want and what does she want if that's not available?
There must be some kind of connection in there after 30 years of marriage and 2 kids, so make sure that all avenues of that have been discussed as calmly as possible before wasting money on lawyers.
wiggy001 said:
Vasco said:
Kev_Mk3 said:
I'd be moving back in to the house if that where me to be bloody minded. I wish him all the best its not going to be an easy ride
She's probably changed the locks.csd19 said:
wiggy001 said:
Vasco said:
Kev_Mk3 said:
I'd be moving back in to the house if that where me to be bloody minded. I wish him all the best its not going to be an easy ride
She's probably changed the locks.milesgiles said:
But if she isn’t working or earning as much as him the kids aren’t getting the lifestyle they are accustomed to when staying with her? Compared to how it was when they were together
The lifestyle thing really gets me too. If a women leaves her husband for another man, why should she expect the same lifestyle financially that she had before at her soon to be ex husbands expense? Muzzer79 said:
milesgiles said:
Help78 said:
milesgiles said:
Muzzer79 said:
An ex-colleague of mine got divorced in his late 40s
Paid off house (c. £400k)
Pension (c. £500k)
Cash in the bank (c. £250k)
And they had two kids, both in early teens.
He struck a deal where all the assets, including the above, were split 50/50.
What really annoyed his now-ex-wife was that he also moved for (and demonstrated it was practical to have) 50/50 custody of the kids, so he didn't have to pay child maintenance (she assumed that she'd get it regardless)
OK, he was annoyed about writing a cheque for the thick end of half a million quid for her 50% share, but it was objectively the right thing to do and he got a clean break.
Good legal representation is key to getting a decent settlement, if you have to go legal.
Doesn’t sound right. Why wouldn’t she get child support ?Paid off house (c. £400k)
Pension (c. £500k)
Cash in the bank (c. £250k)
And they had two kids, both in early teens.
He struck a deal where all the assets, including the above, were split 50/50.
What really annoyed his now-ex-wife was that he also moved for (and demonstrated it was practical to have) 50/50 custody of the kids, so he didn't have to pay child maintenance (she assumed that she'd get it regardless)
OK, he was annoyed about writing a cheque for the thick end of half a million quid for her 50% share, but it was objectively the right thing to do and he got a clean break.
Good legal representation is key to getting a decent settlement, if you have to go legal.
Obviously there are extremes - if you've installed your kids in private school and your wife has been a stay-at-home all their lives, you've got problems if you divorce.
But in a more regular situation, like my ex-colleague, where both parents work (the children were, as mentioned, early teens) then the father is by no means obligated to shoulder the lion's share of cost for the children.
My colleague simply said, via his lawyer, that if his ex didn't like the 50/50 arrangement with no maintenance either way, then he was more than willing to have the children live with him full time.
Obviously, you need to be able to follow through with that - demonstrably so - but he could so he got his deal. His ex was apoplectic......
I’m doubtful
Seems more likely he is making out he got a better deal than he really did to his friends. Plenty of blokes egos can’t handle a divorce rape
Edited by milesgiles on Tuesday 4th March 00:21
milesgiles said:
Her lawyer sounds incompetent. The kids go horse riding and play golf with him, they get a tv dinner with her.
I’m doubtful
Seems more likely he is making out he got a better deal than he really did to his friends. Plenty of blokes egos can’t handle a divorce rape
What do you mean?I’m doubtful
Seems more likely he is making out he got a better deal than he really did to his friends. Plenty of blokes egos can’t handle a divorce rape
Edited by milesgiles on Tuesday 4th March 00:21
wiggy001 said:
milesgiles said:
But if she isn’t working or earning as much as him the kids aren’t getting the lifestyle they are accustomed to when staying with her? Compared to how it was when they were together
The lifestyle thing really gets me too. If a women leaves her husband for another man, why should she expect the same lifestyle financially that she had before at her soon to be ex husbands expense? You are effectively giving the other person the legal power to massively f
k up your life if they decide they don't want to be with you for any reason in the future.I know, standard Pistonheads response will be "Incel" or "You just married the wrong woman". Yet it still happens to almost 50% of men at some point in their life. Just keep thinking "But that will never happen to me, she loves me"
milesgiles said:
Muzzer79 said:
milesgiles said:
Help78 said:
milesgiles said:
Muzzer79 said:
An ex-colleague of mine got divorced in his late 40s
Paid off house (c. £400k)
Pension (c. £500k)
Cash in the bank (c. £250k)
And they had two kids, both in early teens.
He struck a deal where all the assets, including the above, were split 50/50.
What really annoyed his now-ex-wife was that he also moved for (and demonstrated it was practical to have) 50/50 custody of the kids, so he didn't have to pay child maintenance (she assumed that she'd get it regardless)
OK, he was annoyed about writing a cheque for the thick end of half a million quid for her 50% share, but it was objectively the right thing to do and he got a clean break.
Good legal representation is key to getting a decent settlement, if you have to go legal.
Doesn’t sound right. Why wouldn’t she get child support ?Paid off house (c. £400k)
Pension (c. £500k)
Cash in the bank (c. £250k)
And they had two kids, both in early teens.
He struck a deal where all the assets, including the above, were split 50/50.
What really annoyed his now-ex-wife was that he also moved for (and demonstrated it was practical to have) 50/50 custody of the kids, so he didn't have to pay child maintenance (she assumed that she'd get it regardless)
OK, he was annoyed about writing a cheque for the thick end of half a million quid for her 50% share, but it was objectively the right thing to do and he got a clean break.
Good legal representation is key to getting a decent settlement, if you have to go legal.
Obviously there are extremes - if you've installed your kids in private school and your wife has been a stay-at-home all their lives, you've got problems if you divorce.
But in a more regular situation, like my ex-colleague, where both parents work (the children were, as mentioned, early teens) then the father is by no means obligated to shoulder the lion's share of cost for the children.
My colleague simply said, via his lawyer, that if his ex didn't like the 50/50 arrangement with no maintenance either way, then he was more than willing to have the children live with him full time.
Obviously, you need to be able to follow through with that - demonstrably so - but he could so he got his deal. His ex was apoplectic......
I’m doubtful
Seems more likely he is making out he got a better deal than he really did to his friends. Plenty of blokes egos can’t handle a divorce rape
Edited by milesgiles on Tuesday 4th March 00:21
But hey, you go ahead and die on that hill.
wiggy001 said:
Correct but often it is the only way when dealing with an unreasonable entitled ex.
During my divorce, my factory had to be valued as part of the pot. I got a commercial estate in who valued it at circa 225k. She didn’t believe that was accurate so at £750 + vat (that I had to pay half of) she demanded she got a “ professional surveyor in.. who valued it at 215K. So she lost 5 grand along with £375 +vat.Towards the end when we were nearly done,she called it off unless I paid off her 9 grand credit card bill. When I did the figures, even when I paid that,after her 20 grand lawyer bill she ended up worse off than with my initial offer ( done without lawyers) 3 years earlier.Forty grand of our kids inheritance wasted,three years of our kids stuck in the middle… I’ll never forgive her.
wiggy001 said:
csd19 said:
wiggy001 said:
Vasco said:
Kev_Mk3 said:
I'd be moving back in to the house if that where me to be bloody minded. I wish him all the best its not going to be an easy ride
She's probably changed the locks.sjc said:
.Forty grand of our kids inheritance wasted,three years of our kids stuck in the middle… I’ll never forgive her.
But think of the poor solicitors.Yes, when I went through this we (I) tried to be fair, there were various "discussions", the Solicitors got their wack but not to the tune of £40K.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff