Been married over 10 years, separated 12 months, Decree Nisi granted.
Have two kids, under 8, youngest has special needs. Been to court a few times over residence issues , I want joint 50 -50, but she is fighting me all the way. The latest is that I have them 5 nights out of 14. Oh and we are still living together. The judge says he will not sort out residency until finances are settled as she will move out of marital home . I have 2 companies that I run, she up until now has worked as a secretary in one. I know that I will have that issue to deal with also, but I don't want her actually working for me as she will have knowledge of my business which has nothing to do with her anymore.
I sold a company in 2000 for a sixfigure sum, and invested the money in property and also in offshore investments.I know we were married at the time but only for 4 years before the sale.One of the properties I invested in has substantial equity and it is the one we live in at the moment.
My question is our FDR is in 6 weeks, and we are expected to come up with some offers, so my soliciotor says. I feel that she is not entitled to half, and argue that as long as her needs are met that is OK.If she did get granted 50% I would have to refinance as my liquid assets are not enough. Also am afraid that if she asks for maintenance it will be for a ludicrous figure, as she is a real life WAG !
She has 3 kids, but only 2 are mine, the eldest is 18 and works full time. I say she only needs a 3 bed house,and she maintains that she needs at least 4 beds as her son lives with her. My arguement is that he can get his own place as I did at 18! Even though he has always lived with us I never formally adopted him.
My other question is can she have any claim over my other business? It is worth on paper approx 200K , but has business debts of about 70K. I have had that business for 15 years.She also has debts of around 50K as she says I always kept her short !! Unbelievable!
She is saying that she cannot get a job as the kids are young, but if I get them 50% of the time why not?
Please can you give me any opinions or advice as the clock is now ticking .
I can only speak from experience as I too wanted my children on a 50-50 basis. My circumstance was that I was married for 13 years and during this time my ex suffered post natal depression, self harm, suicidal attempts, social service involvement, eating disorders to name but a few !! I supported her through all of this, stood in as both mother and father to my children and still didn't manage to get 50/50 custody. To add insult to injury she divorced me on grounds on unreasonable behaviour and took me to the cleaners !! Out of a pot of £100k (net of all debts owed by either or both of us) she got £85k with me getting the endowment, isa,peps and £400. I also took a legal charge over the propety she moved into after my solicitor fought my corner which will be released when certain conditions are met. My solicitor advised that any court in the land always sides on the side of the mother in whatever circumstance and that in only severe instances do men come out better. I was amazed.. (she was a female herself).I agreed 5 nights out of 14 like you, but wasn't happy. Each case is different I know but I hope this helps
As a mother whose settlement was in my ex's favour I can assure you the law treats people in the same circumstances in the same way. The biggest obstacle to shared parenting after separation is the absence of shared parenting before separation. This is hardly surprising given that 95% of men with dependent children are in full time, inflexible jobs and father's work longer hours than any other group of men. I think if society wants a fairer balance between work and family, working practices for men needs to change otherwise shared parenting just means less parenting overall.
Going back to the topic of the thread usually all assets (and debts)owned by both parties at the time of divorce go into the pot for sharing. Since 2001 the precedent for the capital division of matrimonial assets is the case of White v White. The key points were (1) that in seeking to achieve a fair outcome in sharing assets there was no place for discrimination between husband and wife and their respective roles, and (2) that the courts could order an unequal division of assets, but should only do so if there were good reasons. Since then case law has developed in such a way that when there are sufficient resources the emphasis moves away from need to sharing so both parties can benefit from assets surplus to what is required to meet both their needs.