Divorce - limiting future damage.
Discussion
It will probably benefit him to be a little over generous with division of assets and any maintenance payments (child and/or spousal) now and get the clean break as the payback.
It means that if now he can afford the agreement when his career takes off it’s still affordable but then he benefits more and should he inherit anything then that’s his too.
So if the standard child support is until “end of A levels” why not make it “end of full time education” shows a willingness to give ongoing support to his children if/when the consent order goes to court if things get nasty.
It means that if now he can afford the agreement when his career takes off it’s still affordable but then he benefits more and should he inherit anything then that’s his too.
So if the standard child support is until “end of A levels” why not make it “end of full time education” shows a willingness to give ongoing support to his children if/when the consent order goes to court if things get nasty.
macushla said:
Not really, I think it’s a shame when people are so bitter about things that they can’t move on and advise everyone to be as bitter as them.
Where have I done that?You have been here 5 minutes, we have not interacted before and yet you feel qualified to accuse me of being bitter and a misogynist.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Where have I done that?
You have been here 5 minutes, we have not interacted before and yet you feel qualified to accuse me of being bitter and a misogynist.
Your first comment didn’t help with the bit at the end but I was actually replying to the guy complaining about paying more for kids because he may earn more. If the cap fits though. You have been here 5 minutes, we have not interacted before and yet you feel qualified to accuse me of being bitter and a misogynist.
macushla said:
Your first comment didn’t help with the bit at the end but I was actually replying to the guy complaining about paying more for kids because he may earn more. If the cap fits though.
It's a fact that men/fathers get screwed in divorce. By all means disagree but hurling insults because you do is inappropriate and crass.
PurpleMoonlight said:
macushla said:
Your first comment didn’t help with the bit at the end but I was actually replying to the guy complaining about paying more for kids because he may earn more. If the cap fits though.
It's a fact that men/fathers get screwed in divorce. By all means disagree but hurling insults because you do is inappropriate and crass.machshla, you’ve come to this thread wilfully misinterpreting other posters and being inflammatory and insulting. If you’ve got anything constructive to add please go ahead. Otherwise could you knock it off please.
I did the clean (me out) break divorce about seven years ago.
We agreed a level of maintenance built into the court order at the time of divorce. That only lasts a year (or two- I can’t rememebr which) and so after that you and your ex wife are at liberty to joyfully discuss the maintenance payments as you move forwards. It’s never any fun in my experience.
Key points for me were that although I was paying around 25% more than I needed to using the CSA caluculator as a guide for my income level and the 3 nights a week that I have my son I noted that at every possible turn there were cash requests from my ex wife. School trips, school clothes, trainers and other essentials were all requested on top of the money I was already paying and, more worryingly, the pattern was that the more I said yes to maintain the relationship the more the requests came.
My solution was to threaten to cut back the maintenance to the standard, CSA level if the requests kept coming. That’s a hard thing to do because the response always used to that is “think of the poor kids” - but for me it was important to gain some kind of respect from her that I wasn’t just a pushover.
Finally, the camel’s back was broken with a request that I transfer £2.something into her account for his dinner money when he was leaving from my house. I immediately cut the maintenance to a level just above the CSA amount, with a warning that any further nonsense would see me reduce it further to the minimum level. I found it helpful to do a quick calculation to show her how much this stupidity was costing her from now until my son is 18 - even relatively small amounts add up over that time period.
That was about a year ago, and by and large it worked really well - I’ve had no further grief so far. I’m not expecting it to be a permanent fix and memories are short with this kind of thing but it certainly helped.
The earlier poster alluded to maintenance being used to line pockets rather than to look after the children and this, for sure, is a reality when both parties are relatively comfortably off.
Regardless of financial circumstances I take umbridge to my son, who is only 10, being brought up to think that expensive, branded clothes are normal and “to be expected”.
The final thing to remember is that no matter how much money you give your ex, or how amicable you are, or how much you think you’re overpaying you will never receive any gratitude or acknowledgement for any of it. For this reason I judge that the singular matter of importance is to ensure that when your child is old enough to understand he or she will look at your actions and see that you acted in their best interests at all times with regard to the level of payments made.
We agreed a level of maintenance built into the court order at the time of divorce. That only lasts a year (or two- I can’t rememebr which) and so after that you and your ex wife are at liberty to joyfully discuss the maintenance payments as you move forwards. It’s never any fun in my experience.
Key points for me were that although I was paying around 25% more than I needed to using the CSA caluculator as a guide for my income level and the 3 nights a week that I have my son I noted that at every possible turn there were cash requests from my ex wife. School trips, school clothes, trainers and other essentials were all requested on top of the money I was already paying and, more worryingly, the pattern was that the more I said yes to maintain the relationship the more the requests came.
My solution was to threaten to cut back the maintenance to the standard, CSA level if the requests kept coming. That’s a hard thing to do because the response always used to that is “think of the poor kids” - but for me it was important to gain some kind of respect from her that I wasn’t just a pushover.
Finally, the camel’s back was broken with a request that I transfer £2.something into her account for his dinner money when he was leaving from my house. I immediately cut the maintenance to a level just above the CSA amount, with a warning that any further nonsense would see me reduce it further to the minimum level. I found it helpful to do a quick calculation to show her how much this stupidity was costing her from now until my son is 18 - even relatively small amounts add up over that time period.
That was about a year ago, and by and large it worked really well - I’ve had no further grief so far. I’m not expecting it to be a permanent fix and memories are short with this kind of thing but it certainly helped.
The earlier poster alluded to maintenance being used to line pockets rather than to look after the children and this, for sure, is a reality when both parties are relatively comfortably off.
Regardless of financial circumstances I take umbridge to my son, who is only 10, being brought up to think that expensive, branded clothes are normal and “to be expected”.
The final thing to remember is that no matter how much money you give your ex, or how amicable you are, or how much you think you’re overpaying you will never receive any gratitude or acknowledgement for any of it. For this reason I judge that the singular matter of importance is to ensure that when your child is old enough to understand he or she will look at your actions and see that you acted in their best interests at all times with regard to the level of payments made.
So said:
I have to agree.
machshla, you’ve come to this thread wilfully misinterpreting other posters and being inflammatory and insulting. If you’ve got anything constructive to add please go ahead. Otherwise could you knock it off please.
1. I withdrew the earlier comment, al5ough you cams EE why it was mademachshla, you’ve come to this thread wilfully misinterpreting other posters and being inflammatory and insulting. If you’ve got anything constructive to add please go ahead. Otherwise could you knock it off please.
2. Read the below, probably better advice than anyone has provided so far and complimented on it by another
3. All purplemoonlight has done is have specific digs at me, yet you side with him. Hmmmmmm, is he telling you what you want to hear, rather than the truth?
supersport said:
macushla said:
The one important bits of advice to take on board are that the financials bear no relation to who’s at fault for the divorce, he won’t get any sort of closure or revenge, arguing over money just gifts it to solicitors and the kids shouldn’t be used as bargaining chips by either side.
Exactly this!Sort of sounds like OP is advising to not work hard and better himself just in case wifey comes back for more. Sounds like shooting you self in the foot.
So said:
What I will be suggesting he avoids is a situation where he divorces now, at his current level of income, then works his nuts off for 15 years, only to have his current wife try to claim a share of his additional wealth. I gather that it can happen.
You may find these of interest.https://www.businessinsider.com/dale-vinces-divorc...
Note the crucial bit that the financial arrangements were not 'sealed off'.
This is what she ended up with.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/millio...
Note the judge's comments in this one.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/24/ju...
In both cases the men concerned were not short of a penny or two but the underlying principles are still relevant.
One thing that can make quite a difference in the longer term vis-a-vis the financial arrangements is the ages of the children.
Both of ours were over 20. That made things much simpler. We just divvied everything up 50/50 with a clean break consent order.
It's seldom possible to give advice because every family is different and each case depends on its own facts and those are what the judge will look at.
The only thing I would say is do your utmost to reach an amicable settlement because otherwise you will simply end up lining the pockets of the legal profession.
That is not to say you shouldn't involve them at all. In our case it was just as well we did because both of us had overlooked an important detail which could have been expensive to correct later on.
Red Devil said:
You may find these of interest.
https://www.businessinsider.com/dale-vinces-divorc...
Note the crucial bit that the financial arrangements were not 'sealed off'.
This is what she ended up with.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/millio...
Note the judge's comments in this one.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/24/ju...
In both cases the men concerned were not short of a penny or two but the underlying principles are still relevant.
Thanks RD, this is just the sort of thing I was referring to. In fact, I think it was the energy chap whose case was in the back of my mind.https://www.businessinsider.com/dale-vinces-divorc...
Note the crucial bit that the financial arrangements were not 'sealed off'.
This is what she ended up with.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/millio...
Note the judge's comments in this one.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/24/ju...
In both cases the men concerned were not short of a penny or two but the underlying principles are still relevant.
Whilst I suspect the lad who has asked me will never be "massively" wealthy, I still don't think he should be busting a gut to improve his situation, only to find that his ex-wife crops up later wanting a handout.
So said:
Thanks RD, this is just the sort of thing I was referring to. In fact, I think it was the energy chap whose case was in the back of my mind.
Whilst I suspect the lad who has asked me will never be "massively" wealthy, I still don't think he should be busting a gut to improve his situation, only to find that his ex-wife crops up later wanting a handout.
Why? It’s a simple solution, get a clean break settlement. The energy boss didn’t, hence why there’s comeback. However, even if there was always comeback, you’re talking about a fraction of his money. The ex-wife got £300,000 he’s worth well over £100m. If you’re suggesting that it’s better to cruise through life than risk losing 0.3% of your wealth then you need to reassess your priorities, better still, your friend needs to reassess who he takes advice off. Whilst I suspect the lad who has asked me will never be "massively" wealthy, I still don't think he should be busting a gut to improve his situation, only to find that his ex-wife crops up later wanting a handout.
Every case is different, but my advice, after two divorces, is that if at all possible the divorcing couple should sit down and decide what they want to do about property and children and only use lawyers ,if at all, to help implement those decisions, not influence them.
Otherwise, given half a chance, the lawyers will have the couple at each others throats seeking their precise legal rights- this won't just make them both poorer, but may create even more bitterness and will make it even more difficult to cooperate over the children in the future. And the children deserve for their parents to try as hard as they can to do just that.
I do realise that this requires both parties to see eye to eye on it and that may not be the case.
Otherwise, given half a chance, the lawyers will have the couple at each others throats seeking their precise legal rights- this won't just make them both poorer, but may create even more bitterness and will make it even more difficult to cooperate over the children in the future. And the children deserve for their parents to try as hard as they can to do just that.
I do realise that this requires both parties to see eye to eye on it and that may not be the case.
mac96 said:
Every case is different, but my advice, after two divorces, is that if at all possible the divorcing couple should sit down and decide what they want to do about property and children and only use lawyers ,if at all, to help implement those decisions, not influence them.
Otherwise, given half a chance, the lawyers will have the couple at each others throats seeking their precise legal rights- this won't just make them both poorer, but may create even more bitterness and will make it even more difficult to cooperate over the children in the future. And the children deserve for their parents to try as hard as they can to do just that.
I do realise that this requires both parties to see eye to eye on it and that may not be the case.
Agreed. Otherwise, given half a chance, the lawyers will have the couple at each others throats seeking their precise legal rights- this won't just make them both poorer, but may create even more bitterness and will make it even more difficult to cooperate over the children in the future. And the children deserve for their parents to try as hard as they can to do just that.
I do realise that this requires both parties to see eye to eye on it and that may not be the case.
As I mentioned earlier, this is what I am going to suggest he does. I don't know his wife, but I gather they are on good terms currently.
Back in 2012 I went through a fairly acrimonious divorce. Not helped by the fact that my ex wife decided that she would let her Solicitor “Guide” her through the process. After a very protracted process and at least £90k of legal fees between us (mine was £45k so assume hers were similar) we arrived at an agreement which for her was less generous than the proposal I made to her at the outset, before she took that to her Solictor for his advice...
I was a Shareholder in a business that was young at the time, but had lots of potential. This made it more complicated especially as the Shareholding was significant.
I had no issues with Child Maintenance and this was not in contention. Neither was ongoing “reasonable” contribution to their Tertiary Education, once CM stopped (up to A Levels). The issue of Spousal Maintenance was the issue.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, the key in any settlement agreement is either to get a Clean Break, which in reality is harder than it may seem or as I did to get a defined term or end date when Spousal Maintenance stops (apart from standard Death of either Party or remarriage of wife).
If the consent order is open ended, then it is far more likely that the ex wife may seek a variation if your friend’s situation changes for the better. However, that will require further dreaded Form E full financial disclosure of both parties as she would have to be able to demsontrate a viable “need” for the variation, not just vindictiveness.
Divorce can be a messy business and sadly is still very much biased towards the wife.
I was a Shareholder in a business that was young at the time, but had lots of potential. This made it more complicated especially as the Shareholding was significant.
I had no issues with Child Maintenance and this was not in contention. Neither was ongoing “reasonable” contribution to their Tertiary Education, once CM stopped (up to A Levels). The issue of Spousal Maintenance was the issue.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, the key in any settlement agreement is either to get a Clean Break, which in reality is harder than it may seem or as I did to get a defined term or end date when Spousal Maintenance stops (apart from standard Death of either Party or remarriage of wife).
If the consent order is open ended, then it is far more likely that the ex wife may seek a variation if your friend’s situation changes for the better. However, that will require further dreaded Form E full financial disclosure of both parties as she would have to be able to demsontrate a viable “need” for the variation, not just vindictiveness.
Divorce can be a messy business and sadly is still very much biased towards the wife.
So said:
mac96 said:
Every case is different, but my advice, after two divorces, is that if at all possible the divorcing couple should sit down and decide what they want to do about property and children and only use lawyers ,if at all, to help implement those decisions, not influence them.
Otherwise, given half a chance, the lawyers will have the couple at each others throats seeking their precise legal rights- this won't just make them both poorer, but may create even more bitterness and will make it even more difficult to cooperate over the children in the future. And the children deserve for their parents to try as hard as they can to do just that.
I do realise that this requires both parties to see eye to eye on it and that may not be the case.
Agreed. Otherwise, given half a chance, the lawyers will have the couple at each others throats seeking their precise legal rights- this won't just make them both poorer, but may create even more bitterness and will make it even more difficult to cooperate over the children in the future. And the children deserve for their parents to try as hard as they can to do just that.
I do realise that this requires both parties to see eye to eye on it and that may not be the case.
As I mentioned earlier, this is what I am going to suggest he does. I don't know his wife, but I gather they are on good terms currently.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff