Relationship breakup

CIARAN_BOYLE

Skipduke wrote: »

What are the chances of her getting a council house? Single mother, no income. Presumably, this would be a reasonable option if you get to keep the property and she gets her own (cheap) space.

I hope she doesn't expect you to move out. Get legal advice asap. There are guys out there that would be glad to move into your cottage, with you pay the bills. The only fair thing in this situation is if she moves out and you continue to pay maintenance for the kids.

Not a chance. Only if she is homeless. His house is hers as far as the council people care.

She is more likely to get the house they are sharing free and clear.

Gruffalux

I just think it is very unfair. The whole system is rigged badly. The following is how I think it should be done to be just. It is not how it is unfortunately it seems. But maybe it could be negotiated?
I can understand your children having a claim on the house. 2 kids . Quarter interest each. You made them. You owe them that. There would be restrictions on that in that their claim would activate upon your death. That is as inheritance. But with the natural right of the child (of any age) to a home until then.
I can understand your partner having some kind of claim on the property but it aught to be part leasehold and part proprietorial in my view. If the law was equitable.
It should be possible to work out the contributions to the mortgage by both parties going by income over past 10 years. It should be possible to work out a leasehold claim to 25% of the family home for the mother's contribution to family rearing thus far. So the mothers 25% would be part mortgage earned and part home maker earned.
It should not be that the father is automatically expected to leave his home when the other breaks the relationship.
I am completely in the realm of non-existant law now but the woman under that partition above would be claiming only a portion of 25% proprietorial interest. Their children would have 50% and could live there. He would have 25% and could live there.
And she being the party seeking to end relationship could have a certain portion of the last 25% depending on her contributions, familial and financial.
Thus she could either live there, renting her maternal leasehold portion and maintaining her proprietorial interest for finance already contributed or live elsewhere with the children living between the parents. He could buy out her portion of the 25% that she would be entitled to claim as hers. (Credit union is a good place for loans).

I always said if I chose to quit my relationship with my husband I would claim none of the house, leave the kids to live peacefully in their home and make my own arrangements re housing. To do otherwise if I was making the choice to break the bonds seems very unfair.

I just think the above arrangement is fairer. People might say oh but she is the mother and earned x y or z doing home maker duties. But she could only have done that by being facilitated by him and his income. The present mothering role needed the backup of the absent fathering role or else it could not have happened. They are equal contribtions to the children.

The house was built with a mortgage taken out in both their names, and they've both been contributing towards paying it.

Its their house, not "his" house, and their childrens' home.

This is exactly why laws for cohabitating couples were introduced - to protect people from thinking that after a long relationship they could just put someone out of a shared home and close the door behind them.

This equally applies to him, as to her.

Gruffalux

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The house was built with a mortgage taken out in both their names, and they've both been contributing towards paying it.

Its their house, not "his" house, and their childrens' home.

This is exactly why laws for cohabitating couples were introduced - to protect people from thinking that after a long relationship they could just put someone out of a shared home and close the door behind them.

This equally applies to him, as to her.

It is all their homes. The childrens too. Why should he not have as much a claim to the childrens portion of the house as her? Plus in this case she is breaking the relationship - that has to count for something in terms of justice.
I understand what you are saying and accept it but I did not say he should be able to simply boot her out at all. I just think that all of them deserve a claim on it equally. If she has a full proprietal claim it should be no more than his.

Separation and divorce is "no fault" in Ireland.

It does not matter why the relationship fails, or who ends it. It is considered irrelevant.

So no, she doesn't have to "pay" for ending the relationship.

Gruffalux

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Separation and divorce is "no fault" in Ireland.

It does not matter why the relationship fails, or who ends it. It is considered irrelevant.

So no, she doesn't have to "pay" for ending the relationship.

But he does?

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

People might say oh but she is the mother and earned x y or z doing home maker duties. But she could only have done that by being facilitated by him and his income. The present mothering role needed the backup of the absent fathering role or else it could not have happened. They are equal contribtions to the children.

And likewise, he could only continue to work full time because his partner was taking care of their children.

The responsibility for taking care of children does not just fall to one parent anymore.

Most couples make a joint decision if one parent is to stay at home while the other works, as they prefer to sacrifice a second income rather then pay it to a childcare service. Or vice versa.

The parent in the home should not find themselves at a disadvantage in a seperation because of this.

This is one of the reasons why laws to protect cohabitating couples were introduced.

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

But he does?

This is what family mediation is for, and for the courts to ultimately decide what is fair, on a case by case basis.

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

And likewise, he could only continue to work full time because his partner was taking care of their children.

The responsibility for taking care of children does not just fall to one parent anymore.

Most couples make a joint decision if one parent is to stay at home while the other works, as they prefer to sacrifice a second income rather then pay it to a childcare service.

The parent in the home should not find themselves at a disadvantage in a seperation because of this.

This is one of the reasons why laws to protect cohabitating couples were introduced.

Okay. Fair enough. I accept this point. So she has a 25% claim on the house, he has 25%, the kids have 50%.
I don't see why she should have any more claim than him. He has parented by earning, she has parented by home-making; both have contributed equally and facilitated each other.
He should not have to leave the family home. Nor should she, unless her decision to end her relationship compels her to do so.
I know so many fellas who have ended up in utterly sh1t conditions because they have had to leave the family home and in some cases they have had really poor access to their children thereafter. And that poor access was deliberately caused by their former partners. I am not talking about abusers or bad people - I am talking about very ordinary people subjected to spite and manipulation in the wake of failed romance.
Whatever about how the law stands and seeks to protect parties, I think it is morally unjust to enable that kind of thing happening to fathers. I think there should be quite clear and equitable means of dividing up property rights so that no parties are unfairly treated.

html6

tpt1979 -- she maybe testing him subconsciously. No contact is not a childish game. It benefits both parties. It allows her to get her break up and the relief and space which she wants. Whilst he gets space to grow and heal. In time she may realize things are not as so great when she is going solo.

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

Okay. Fair enough. I accept this point. So she has a 25% claim on the house, he has 25%, the kids have 50%.
I don't see why she should have any more claim than him. He has parented by earning, she has parented by home-making; both have contributed equally and facilitated each other.
He should not have to leave the family home. Nor should she, unless her decision to end her relationship compels her to do so.
I know so many fellas who have ended up in utterly sh1t conditions because they have had to leave the family home and in some cases they have had really poor access to their children thereafter. And that poor access was deliberately caused by their former partners. I am not talking about abusers or bad people - I am talking about very ordinary people subjected to spite and manipulation in the wake of failed romance.
Whatever about how the law stands and seeks to protect parties, I think it is morally unjust to enable that kind of thing happening to fathers. I think there should be quite clear and equitable means of dividing up property rights so that no parties are unfairly treated.

Where have I said she should have MORE claim then him? Nor have I said he should leave the house.

What I have said, is that he needs to prepare for mediation, and that he should not play games, e.g. withhold finances, and should attempt to remain civil.

At the end of the day, considering the equity in the home, she could push for a property order for it to be sold and the equity after the mortgage paid off split between them, giving them both enough for a fresh start with a deposit for new homes, and neither of them could end up with the house they live in now!

But one thing is for sure, make it acrimonious, and the only ones who will come out of it well, will be the solicitors with the big bills for legal fees.

Oldandtired

I wasn’t the one who wanted out , I hadn’t miss behaved so why should I move bedroom ,, as a by the by no judge Will consider the relationship over while your in the one room ! And hell hath no fury is an understatement
But the op needs to consider where he wants to end up ,there is a need to position himself, firstly he doesn’t want out , so what’s the hurry , stay put and see how big a hurry the other half is , you might learn something !
I would imagine that herself been a stay at home mum is a luxury that can’t and won’t be affordable into the future esp post separation lots of couples work full time and mind their children between them with bits of grandparent help , either way it’s essential that the op maximise his time with the children,,
What would selling the house and splitting the equity look like. ,, this is a bargaining proscess , look at all options

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

At the end of the day, considering the equity in the home, she could push for a property order for it to be sold and the equity after the mortgage paid off to be split, giving them both a fresh start with a deposit for new homes, and neither of them end up with the house!

.

Agreed, that could be a solution. But the equity remaining after the mortgage is paid can only be split equally if custody of the children is also equally split.

Rodin

Apply for custody of the children.
Why should she get them by default ?

She's no home in her own name and no job.
You're in a much better place to support them.. any other opinion is discrimination based on your sex and is illegal.

raclle

Deleted User wrote: »

What I have said, is that he needs to prepare for mediation, and that he should not play games, e.g. withhold finances, and should attempt to remain civil.

But if she's personally dipping into those finances surely something has to be done?

Deleted User wrote: »

At the end of the day, considering the equity in the home, she could push for a property order for it to be sold and the equity after the mortgage paid off to be split, giving them both a fresh start with a deposit for new homes, and neither of them end up with the house!

How will that work if the deeds are in OPs name even though they have a joint mortgage? Is it fair she get half of those deeds as well

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

Whatever about how the law stands and seeks to protect parties, I think it is morally unjust to enable that kind of thing happening to fathers. I think there should be quite clear and equitable means of dividing up property rights so that no parties are unfairly treated.

You're preaching to the choir here.

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

You're preaching to the choir here.

Between us we would sort out the bullsh1t! :pac:

occupied

I have been in this situation (as the mother of three young kids at the time, they are all teens now) and my ex-husband refused to leave thehome we lived in for a few years after I ended the relationship.

It was absolutely awful. Just horrible for everyone for us to continue sharing a home. It was like living in a pressure cooker and was not a healthy environment for the kids. My kids all recall that time as being extremely unhappy with the adults arguing and feeling tense and stressed all of the time because of the living situation. It might work better in a bigger house where there is more space so the parents are not under each others feet all the time but I wouldn't advise this course of action at all unless there is absolutely no other option.

I stayed in the family home after my ex finally moved out as I was and still am the primary carer. This suited my ex as he could focus on his career without having to worry about childcare. My ex rents a home now where the kids stay with him regularly and this arrangement has thankfully worked well for us.

The thing is, the children of parents who split up have not chosen to have their lives turned upside down. And from experience, the only thing that happens when the adults decide to wage war on each other is that the kids suffer horribly. My kids were very small when we broke up and they still remember the first few years after we separated. They heard all of the arguments behind closed doors and felt all of the tension. They all say they are much happier now, even though me and their dad live apart.

Please try to resist the urge to hurt your ex for leaving the relationship. And despite the posts on here that are dragging her through the mud and assuming that she will want to take you to the cleaners, she is still the mother of your children and your kids will be watching how you both treat each other in the coming months and years.

Not all women are out to get everything they can from their ex partner. I live in the family home, sure. But I am much worse off financially than my ex. I have spend many, many hours worrying about money and robbing Peter to pay Paul over the years. But it is still preferrable to staying in a relationship that was broken. I am content, my ex is happy and most importantly the kids are happy too. They have seen their parents treat each other with (mostly) respect and kindness and that has helped them feel safe and secure with having two parents living apart. I have never taken advantage over money and to that end my ex has never withheld maintenance or failed to share joint costs because we both understood that if we started playing silly buggers with each other the kids would be the ones to lose out. By all means, take advice on financial matters, but try not to use money to punish your ex.

You are right to seek professional advice. Just be wary of letting other hurt people colour your choices. It is possible to break up amicably, even with children and property involved. At the end of the day, the kids are the ones who will be most affected by you and your ex-g/f decisions from now on and they will rely on you both to help them adjust. Obviously it's a bit more complicated as you are not married but it's totally possible to reach an amicable agreement that works for both parties. You just don't read about it very often on here!

Best of luck. I know it sucks, but there will be a time when things are better again.

raclle

raclle wrote: »

But if she's personally dipping into those finances surely something has to be done?

How will that work if the deeds are in OPs name even though they have a joint mortgage? Is it fair she get half of those deeds as well

Nothing has been decided regarding how they will split their up-to-now combined income yet. Seperating combined finances after a 10+ year relationship does not happen overnight and in the interim the household bills still have to be paid, the mortgage paid, groceries bought. Again, this is where mediation comes in.

As for the property, the court can make any order as they see fit. If the op can raise a new mortgage to buy her out of her share of the equity in the house, then he can apply for an property order that he gets to stay and she leaves. She might be happier with that, given that the house was built on land belonging to his family.

Gruffalux

occupied wrote: »

I have been in this situation .

I can understand your story, and it seems to have worked out grand for you guys. But this OP is on 35000 per annum, that is 673 euros before tax a week, probably 500 and something net. He will have to pay at least half a mortgage on a house he no longer lives in, if not more given he pays more than half now, and maintenance to pay, and if he has to move out he will also have rent to pay elsewhere. Rent is very expensive. He will be really broke and that does not seem very fair. Especially since this is not his choice.

raclle

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing has been decided regarding how they will split their up-to-now combined income yet. Separating combined finances after a 10+ year relationship does not happen overnight and in the interim the household bills still have to be paid, the mortgage paid, groceries bought. Again, this is where mediation comes in.

But the OP mentioned she's spending crazy money which suggests money spent outside their means

occupied

Gruffalux wrote: »

I can understand your story, and it seems to have worked out grand for you guys. But this OP is on 35000 per annum, that is 673 euros before tax a week, probably 500 and something net. He will have to pay at least half a mortgage on a house he no longer lives in, if not more given he pays more than half now, and maintenance to pay, and if he has to move out he will also have rent to pay elsewhere. Rent is very expensive. He will be really broke and that does not seem very fair. Especially since this is not his choice.

Yes I understand that. Especially now where rents are astronomical. I was just trying to point out that it's best to move forward with the intention of working together to find a solution without letting hurt colour decisions. I have been stoney broke since ending the relationship and that's just the reality of making one household into two. That's the risk that people take when they have kids together, that one day the joint resources will have to be stretched to accomodate two homes. There's no way to come out of this financially better off.

He chose to have kids with this woman. Now they both need to figure out how to proceed where they both have a reasonable standard of living. It won't be what either of them are used to for sure, how could it be?

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

Agreed, that could be a solution. But the equity remaining after the mortgage is paid can only be split equally if custody of the children is also equally split.

Equity would usually be divided based on what they had each put in, over the years of their relationship, and would be a once off settlement.

If you meant child maintenance after the separation, then yes, I'd agree with that.

e.g. 50/50 shared custody would result in minimal child maintenance, if any (there will always be some shared costs).

Gruffalux

occupied wrote: »

Yes I understand that. Especially now where rents are astronomical. I was just trying to point out that it's best to move forward with the intention of working together to find a solution without letting hurt colour decisions. I have been stoney broke since ending the relationship and that's just the reality of making one household into two. That's the risk that people take when they have kids together, that one day the joint resources will have to be stretched to accomodate two homes. There's no way to come out of this financially better off.

He chose to have kids with this woman. Now they both need to figure out how to proceed where they both have a reasonable standard of living. It won't be what either of them are used to for sure, how could it be?

I agree people should try to make it harmonious, totally. Otherwise it is awful for kids.
I just genuinely also think that all else being normal - ie no violence etc - that the distribution of both custody and the financial burden should be equal among the sexes after break up.
If the mother can afford to earn to contribute to the mortgage of the house she should do it as soon as possible to make things fair. So that he also can have a fresh start and not be financially knackered for a couple of decades. She also chose to have kids with him. Both have agency and should step up.
My position comes from seeing too many shattered fellas living in damp cottages and flats and not having seen their kids in ages. There is something truly terrible in making it hard for a parent to maintain a close relationship with their child - it is knife in the heart stuff.

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

Equity would usually be divided based on what they had each put in, over the years of their relationship, and would be a once off settlement.

If you meant child maintenance after the separation, then yes, I'd agree with that.

e.g. 50/50 shared custody would result in minimal child maintenance, if any (there will always be some shared costs).

That sounds even fairer than what i proposed, so I am all for it.

glen123

Dave46 wrote: »

I dont intend on moving out at all im in the spare bedroom and have a room to go into on my own when i get back from work.
I spoje to a solicitor and he advised me to stay and also because we have joint bank account where my wages and her jsa goes he kind of agrees with my 65% for the bills and her 35%.
Need to maybe talk to her this evening about that although not looking forward to it

OP, with your 35к she would only qualify for around 62eur per week of Jobseekers according to the means test calculations.

After tax etc you should be on 2556eur per month, she shouldn’t be getting more than 268ur per month in Jobseekers. Even if we add 280 Child benefit for 2 kids, it’s only 508eur per month her income should be.

Her part in your household income is not even close to 35%, more like 17%.

Unless you were not part of the means test and she never declared she is living with you and is claiming the full Adult rate + 2 kids which would then be 1209 per month. If this is the case, it would be in her own interests to come to an agreement with you, I think.

occupied

My views might be coloured by the fact that I am the one living in a damp house! My ex has a much better lifestyle and more disposable income. But I accept that for the sake of peace.

Only the couple will know what is best for them. Of course both parties should contribute. For some that will be one parent taking the role of primary carer, for others 50/50 care with both parents working is a better solution. There are no easy answers but starting a war because one of you is hurt over being dumped is a recipe for disaster!

Dave46

Yes she gets 247 per week and 280 per month childrens allowance

Dave46

Dave46 wrote: »

Yes she gets 247 per week and 280 per month childrens allowance

Is she currently on Jobseekers Benefit? It sounds like she is, if your income is not being means tested.

However, it will be a different scenario when her stamps will run out...

Dave46

No its jobseekers allowance + 2 half rates for kids, i come out with 560 per week after tax