Is spousal maintenance a right or a privilege?

angelfire9

A friend of mine is going through a rather nasty divorce and this got me thinking about the "right" to spousal maintenance

In the situation my friend is in, he and his ex wife are separated for years
They both work and are on pretty much equal salaries
She has custody of their 4 children (all in secondary school at this stage)


When they seperated she got the house with a small mortgage (circa €80k)

She is now seeking a divorce which would be no problem EXCEPT

Since they separated she has gotten herself into serious debt
She built an extension to the house and is living way beyond her means with expensive holidays and a new kitchen that cost almost 50k when all the fixtures & fittings are costed in

Because she is getting older (40+) she now seems to realise that she is going to have problems repaying her mortgage and all her loans and her credit card debt when she retires in circa 20yrs time so what did she do.....

Take her ex to court and demand:
Spousal Maintenance
An increase in child maintenance
50% of his pension (and she has a decent pension herself already)
50% of whatever assets he has managed to acquire in the years since they split (He has a small house)

She gets €800 a month from him in maintenance at the moment
She gets €700 a month in child benefit
Her annual salary is circa 50k per year which is almost the same as his

Why should he have to pay her spousal maintenance?

His current net income per week is circa €150 (his mortgage is paid direct from his salary as are most of his bills so this money is for food, petrol & day to day expenses

She has far more income than him before his maintenance & her child benefit are even taken into consideration

Why should he pay her money & half his pension so that she can continue to live in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed


Should we not cut our cloth to fit our means??????

J.Ball

This is the problem with the irish system the woman gets far more then the man just doesnt make sense to me. In my opinion he should be of course helping with the children (50% of whatever the kids needs are) and thats it nothing else should be given at all unless they earned the thing together which should be split evenly such as a house

angelfire9

J.Ball wrote: »

This is the problem with the irish system the woman gets far more then the man just doesnt make sense to me. In my opinion he should be of course helping with the children (50% of whatever the kids needs are) and thats it nothing else should be given at all unless they earned the thing together which should be split evenly such as a house

Fair enough she should get some maintenance for the kids
BUT
Should he be forced to pay out more in maintenance every week than that which he actually has to survive on for himself?
(I mean considering his ex has far more income/means than he has??

€800 a month is equivalent to a mortgage for some people and leaving him with €150 a week is a bit much I thought
€50-60 of that has to go on petrol for work every week
He has to pay for food, car tax & insurance, and house insurance and any medical expenses he has from month to month out of that money

Nett his ex has per week
Salary €1000+ (depending on overtime etc but min 1k)
Child Benefit 175

He even pays for her and the kids on his medical insurance

Should he really have to pay THAT much maintenance for the kids
PLUS
Spousal maintenance for his ex??????
He'd be better off on the dole at that rate!

angelfire9

Maybe this should be in legal discussion forum????

looksee

Just because she is looking for it does not mean she is either entitled to it or will get it.

It is easy to describe any situation to achieve the effect you want, presumably the court will take everything into account and decide what is reasonable.

angelfire9

looksee wrote: »

Just because she is looking for it does not mean she is either entitled to it or will get it.

It is easy to describe any situation to achieve the effect you want, presumably the court will take everything into account and decide what is reasonable.

I would hope so
But i don't have a lot of faith in the family court system

This woman has screwed him so many times already bringing barristers (on free legal aid) to every maintenance hearing they have had

She is currently in breach of a district court order with regard to access but when it was brought back before the district court (by my friend) her legal team argued that as divorce proceedings have been filed with the circuit court that the district court had no jurisdiction :eek:

Zombrex

angelfire9 wrote: »

A friend of mine is going through a rather nasty divorce and this got me thinking about the "right" to spousal maintenance

In the situation my friend is in, he and his ex wife are separated for years
They both work and are on pretty much equal salaries
She has custody of their 4 children (all in secondary school at this stage)


When they seperated she got the house with a small mortgage (circa €80k)

She is now seeking a divorce which would be no problem EXCEPT

Since they separated she has gotten herself into serious debt
She built an extension to the house and is living way beyond her means with expensive holidays and a new kitchen that cost almost 50k when all the fixtures & fittings are costed in

Because she is getting older (40+) she now seems to realise that she is going to have problems repaying her mortgage and all her loans and her credit card debt when she retires in circa 20yrs time so what did she do.....

Take her ex to court and demand:
Spousal Maintenance
An increase in child maintenance
50% of his pension (and she has a decent pension herself already)
50% of whatever assets he has managed to acquire in the years since they split (He has a small house)

She gets €800 a month from him in maintenance at the moment
She gets €700 a month in child benefit
Her annual salary is circa 50k per year which is almost the same as his

Why should he have to pay her spousal maintenance?

His current net income per week is circa €150 (his mortgage is paid direct from his salary as are most of his bills so this money is for food, petrol & day to day expenses

She has far more income than him before his maintenance & her child benefit are even taken into consideration

Why should he pay her money & half his pension so that she can continue to live in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed


Should we not cut our cloth to fit our means??????

She can ask for what ever she wants, a more relevant question is whether she actually got any of it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

angelfire9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Opportunistic is a nice word.... i like that.... sounds better than greedy anyway

The case is due to be heard this summer and the poor guy is stressed beyond belief
I have seen her affidavit of means and she is claiming she needs the money to pay for ridiculously over estimated (IMHO) expenses for the kids

Who spends 3k per year per child on clothing, footwear and school expenses?? :eek:
Extra curricular activities are well and good but they are voluntary and paying over a grand a year per child seems excessive
In this day and age surely a foreign holiday for all the family is not a "reasonable" expense

I had heard stories about women who really take their exes to the cleaners but this takes the biscuit!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

carlybabe1

This sort of thread makes me laugh. Apparently theres a load of ex wives taking thier husbands to the cleaners via the court system, but I have yet to meet any of them, or indeed a judge that is so obviously prejudiced that he would reasonably expect one spouse to live on the breadline while the other "lives it up". I have heard of husbands who deliberately hide or underestimate their means/income so that they wont have to pay as much, Ive also heard of men who give up thier jobs, or reduce their income to avoid paying any kind of maintenance at all. Also, if a couple have children, then split, the yes the father should cover a reasonable amount of the childcare costs so that the mother can go back to work. She did after all give up a certain amount of her options to have them in the first place. And also, i dont think a holiday in the sun for the kids is an unreasonable request, nor is it living beyond their means, especially considering if thye had stayed together chances are they would have had at least one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

angelfire9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He does have a good solicitor and barrister for a change
He cant really afford her but then again he can't really afford not to have one either!

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fingers crossed!

carlybabe1 wrote: »

This sort of thread makes me laugh. Apparently theres a load of ex wives taking thier husbands to the cleaners via the court system, but I have yet to meet any of them, or indeed a judge that is so obviously prejudiced that he would reasonably expect one spouse to live on the breadline while the other "lives it up".

I thought it was urban legend myself til I saw this guy's documents
It annoys me because
a) this guy is a mate and he is going through hell
b) women like hus ex give all women a bad name! :mad:

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I have heard of husbands who deliberately hide or underestimate their means/income so that they wont have to pay as much, Ive also heard of men who give up thier jobs, or reduce their income to avoid paying any kind of maintenance at all.

This guy is not in that situation he has payslips for the last 3 years showing a steady decline in his wages due to tax increases and a reduction in OT from his employers

carlybabe1 wrote: »

T Also, if a couple have children, then split, the yes the father should cover a reasonable amount of the childcare costs so that the mother can go back to work. She did after all give up a certain amount of her options to have them in the first place. .

There is ZERO childcare costs here
the children are all in secondary school together and are collected from school by their grandmother who feeds them and supervises homework until the mother gets home @ 5.30/6pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

And also, i dont think a holiday in the sun for the kids is an unreasonable request, nor is it living beyond their means, especially considering if thye had stayed together chances are they would have had at least one.

I don't agree
If the kid's mother wants to take them on a fancy foreign holiday every year she should bloody well pay for it herself
Since when has a foreign holiday every year become the "norm"??
If she wants it that badly then she should cut down on unnecessary expenses & save up for it like everyone else
She did up the kitchen in the house recently and installed MAHOGANY kitchen units & a brand new mahogany table & 6 chairs
The kitchen & sitting room both have flat screen TV's the sitting room one has a 42 inch display :eek:

I mean.... hello..... talk about living it up

When our house when on fire 3 years ago we refitted the entire kitchen for less than 10k when included new walls & ceilings & painting & tiles & kitchen units as well as plates, utensils & all white goods etc etc
She spent about 30k on her fit out alone!

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is EXACTLY what is happening here!
We went through her affidavit of means with a fine tooth comb and have requested receipts for lots of things she is claiming to pay for every year
I just hope that if she fails to provide receipts that the judge will see that for what it means i.e. she is exaggerating the kids expenses to get more money for herself!
I

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

God I wish you were a justice in the Family Courts
You sound reasonable & grounded & in touch with reality
I wonder though if a judge on a salary of 100k+ can actually understand what it is like for someone to live on €150 a week

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hopefully things will work out this time
It will be the first time this guy has ever had legal representation at a family law hearing as he used to always represent himself as he couldn't afford a solicitor and is not entitled to free legal aid as that is calculated on his gross earnings not his net and FLAC do not take into consideration the fact that €800 of his earnings every month are gone on maintenance it is not an allowable expenses apparently!

I spent weeks & weeks persuading him to find a solicitor to handle the divorce and thankfully he listened for a change
The legal fees are going to be massive
BUT
If the court order is fair & reasonable then i think it will be worth it

Fingers crossed!!!!!!!!

Freddie59

God, I'd hate to be in that man's shoes. I can speak with a little experience, as two relations are supporting children by their ex-girlfriends (not wives). The kids are very well supported and both chaps, and their immediate families, are excellent with the children.

Yet one of them, who i believe is contributing way more than he should, was informed by SW recently that he must contribute MORE. It is sickening, to say the least, to see him punished for stepping up to the mark.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sophia25

Well all those who moan about single Mothers should welcome this. The maintenance recovery unit are now seeking payment from absent fathers. It has no benefit to mothers or kids but is offset against opfa payments. The MRU have a formula for calculating what should be paid if you have a child and what you can be left to live on after paying for a child. It is the way that the state is now looking to make errant parents pay. Previously the old system penalised men who wanted to support their children and partners and made it easy for a man to abscond. Now, even if they walk out on the mother, their financial obligations remain. I think this is a lot fairer than responsible dads paying their way and then through tax, carrying the burden for those small but significant minority of errant dads.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Freddie59

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fair play to him. It's absolute lunacy.

Leopardi

J.Ball wrote: »

This is the problem with the irish system the woman gets far more then the man just doesnt make sense to me. In my opinion he should be of course helping with the children (50% of whatever the kids needs are) and thats it nothing else should be given at all unless they earned the thing together which should be split evenly such as a house

I'm in total agreement with this, but it would totally undermine the culturally-hallowed notion that men were born to finance the lives of women.

In those despicably rare cases where men gain custody of their children following marital breakdown, are their ex-wives expected to "maintain" the man's life along with the lives of the children? Does "Deserted Husband's Allowance" exist?

In response to the original question, I see such maintenance as a privilege.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Leopardi

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The developments you mention are very much welcome, if long overdue, yet knowing a number of men who earn less than their ex-wives and are still compelled to support them, I remain to be convinced that any meaningful change is imminent.

However, even if spousal maintenance is predominantly of benefit to women now, I would be equally opposed to the notion of women being legally compelled to support men.

CDfm

I know one guy paying maintenence to his ex who has to send groceries home with the children to ensure they eat adequetly.

So no, it should not be a right, it is not enforced equally or fairly.

Also, mens requirements for housing etc are not adequetly addressed to be alternative carers .

amiable

CDfm wrote: »

I know one guy paying maintenence to his ex who has to send groceries home with the children to ensure they eat adequetly.

So no, it should not be a right, it is not enforced equally or fairly.

Also, mens requirements for housing etc are not adequetly addressed to be alternative carers .

I don't doubt your story for one second but everyone knows of situations where 1 parent may be abusing the situation after a break up.
It doesn't mean they all are.
There's plenty of cases where seperated fathers don't pay enough just as there are cases where the mother takes the father for a fool.

CDfm

amiable wrote: »

I don't doubt your story for one second but everyone knows of situations where 1 parent may be abusing the situation after a break up.
It doesn't mean they all are.
There's plenty of cases where seperated fathers don't pay enough just as there are cases where the mother takes the father for a fool.

Gender stereotyping does not help matters either.

We need to get away from this.

If the system is such that it cannot mention bi-sexual or lesbian moms and there are more than a few about too - that means it cannot tackle reality.

In the OP's case a guy is being penalised for doing all the right things, and, is afraid he may loose whatever he has put together.

Not all guys are angels - not all women are goldigggers either. The system is adversorial and favours the extremes.

Everyone has the right to a fair shake.

amiable

CDfm wrote: »

Gender stereotyping does not help matters either.

Who has done this?

CDfm

amiable wrote: »

Who has done this?

I did not mean here - what I meant is that it is inherent in the system that it occurs. I am sorry I did not make that clear.

I am a divorced dad and have a very good friend who is a lesbian mom and it always strikes me that the system has not served either of us well.

amiable

CDfm wrote: »

I did not mean here - what I meant is that it is inherent in the system that it occurs. I am sorry I did not make that clear.

I am a divorced dad and have a very good friend who is a lesbian mom and it always strikes me that the system has not served either of us well.

I have to agree that i don't think the system is fair either but i don't have the answer unfortunately.

angelfire9

CDfm wrote: »

Gender stereotyping does not help matters either.

We need to get away from this.

If the system is such that it cannot mention bi-sexual or lesbian moms and there are more than a few about too - that means it cannot tackle reality.

In the OP's case a guy is being penalised for doing all the right things, and, is afraid he may loose whatever he has put together.

Not all guys are angels - not all women are goldigggers either. The system is adversorial and favours the extremes.

Everyone has the right to a fair shake.

You make a few good points but the one that struck home the most is the one I have in Bold
The System is adversarial
And it favours the person who can afford the better legal team and is most vicious in their approach

My mate was one of those guys who wanted to bury his head in the sand when he separated he wasn't able to handle the stress of the marriage break-up and the court hearings and therefore didn't fight as hard for what he should have been entitled to as he could have
His ex is the adversarial type and will fight tooth & nail for every red cent she can squeeze out of him
HOPEFULLY his current legal team can handle this better than its predecessors because honestly the solicitor who advised him on his separation agreement should be struck off IMHO

CDfm

ronco wrote: »

the legal people in Ireland are a rip off and are in league with one another. and the family law court side with the woman in every instance the male does not have a chance of equality in Ireland and it needs to be changed

I was saddened to see Alan Shatter become Minister for Justice given his track record on this as he has been very instrumental in promoting this culture.

Lawyers for women know the system and cynically use it.

Giselle

CDfm wrote: »

I was saddened to see Alan Shatter become Minister for Justice given his track record on this as he has been very instrumental in promoting this culture.

Lawyers for women know the system and cynically use it.

I don't think many lawyers confine their practices to female clients only.

Lawyers, cynically or otherwise, exploit the system on behalf of their clients of either gender, because that is their job.

To get the best deal for their client.

CDfm

Giselle wrote: »

I don't think many lawyers confine their practices to female clients only.

Lawyers, cynically or otherwise, exploit the system on behalf of their clients of either gender, because that is their job.

To get the best deal for their client.

Hiya Giselle - its been a while -howya been

If I were a lawyer I would be going to maximize my fees and sticking with the client to get the payout -the one with the money. And lawyers do specialise.

I dont buy this whole gender stereotype thing across the board and it is fairly well accepted know that DV/abuse stereotypes are untrue as are other stereotypes of the little woman etc.I also don't buy that the system is the way it is for the benefit of children.

So the legal system operates the way it does because we allow lawyers to have their say -far far too much.

When you buy in to equality -you should buy in to it for everybody and not cherrypick. A radical re-think is needed. That includes things like parental leave instead of maternity leave.

How we still have this Animal Farm - four legs good -two legs bad is beyond me.

It wasn't me!

CDfm wrote: »

When you buy in to equality -you should buy in to it for everybody and not cherrypick. A radical re-think is needed. That includes things like parental leave instead of maternity leave.

The problem there is that you are ignoring key distinctions which should dictate what is required for each partner in the interests of a stark and insensitive concept of equality. For instance, the father is not undergoing the same physical recovery or hormonal imbalance issues which the mother is after the birth. It's important to acknowledge the different experiences but in a way which doesn't negatively affect either partner. If you start looking for absolute, stark "equality" you diminish the life experience of both parties you hope to serve. What happens when men get the same leave as their wives at the birth of their child? Do you retain the current maternity leave entitlements or do you compromise? What happens when employers start viewing men in their mid to late twenties and early thirties as high risk for long periods of leave upcoming and are reluctant to hire them? There's a certain wisdom in acknowledging that men and women are not the same and catering to them differently. That's not to say they're different in value or that one should be entitled to anything more than the other, but there's a practical reality there. For instance, how many people who sincerely believe in equality would castigate me more for punching a woman who hit me than a small guy who did the same? The argument would inevitably be that a proportionate response to capacity to cause harm is in order (And the guy of small frame is likely to be more dangerous than an average woman) and rightly so. We acknowledge differences because it's a practical reality. Provided we're sensible, I don't think that's a problem.

CDfm

I think you are into the "what if " situation here It Wasn't Me.

Men and women abuse each other in almost equal numbers and 50% of all DV is mutual violence and DV is the exception and not the rule in relationships. So why should all relationships on break-up be treated as if it is.

Also, when it comes to parental leave, whats wrong with both partners having equal rights -especially if the woman is the higher earner and they want to exploit a financial advantage.

The DV stereotype model is not serving same sex couples well at all either and I see you are not tackling that issue. Where is the help for lesbian led families.

When it comes to child care why is it kept as a womens issue.

As I understand it the Mother of Irish Feminism Anna Haslam ran a business in Rathmines in the 19th Century while her ill husband Thomas ran the house.

A little bit about them here on how radical they were in the late 1800's .

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=050-dx66&cid=0#0

So maybe our thinking needs a radical shake-up too and why the resistence to change.

What would Anna Haslam say ???