Assuming that the child is under 18 years, or not in full time education, as a minimum he needs to pay you child support of 15% of his nett pay, and your combined assets will need to be split. Your combined assets are the house, the car(s), any savings, pensions etc.
After 9 years of marriage the general starting point would be a 50:50 split of the assets.
Depending on all sorts of factors about your and his income, who will be looking after the child etc etc, the split of assets may be 60:40, 70:30, 75:25 - who knows?
You need to post a bit more information before anyone can give you a better answer.
Value of house
Your and his income
Any savings or investments
Any outstanding loans, debts or other liabilities
Any pensions - you or him
How old is the child
Does the child have any special needs
You will be taken care of by the law. It is a tough time, and lots of people here have a lot of experience and will help you.
People involved in divorce proceedings almost always want to know on what basis the Courts divide up the matrimonial assets between husband and wife if the Courts have to decide the issue. Indeed, this is what is at the heart of most divorce cases. If there is a dispute it is more likely than not to be about money. In fact, the relevant principles are set out in Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which, essentially, reads:-
"25 (1) It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers .... to have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the following matters, that is to say -
the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(b) the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(c) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;
(d) the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;
(e) any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;
(f) the contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family;
(g) ...the value to either of the parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension) which ... (by reason of the divorce) ..that party will lose the chance of acquiring;..."
It should be emphasised that each case is different and that the rules are not mechanically applied. It takes knowledge of the decisions of the courts and experience to acquire a "feel" for the sort of decision which a court is likely to make in any particular case.
For that reason there is no really substitute for professional advice. The procedure by which financial issues (transfers of property, maintenance etc) are resolved within the context of divorce is known as "ancillary relief" and if there are any significant assets involved it is sensible to take sound legal advice about this hopefully when you have a picture of the extent of the assets.
A layperson who has no experience of other divorce cases and who is personally involved in a divorce is always likely to seize upon the particular words of the above section which seem most favourable to his or her own case.
This is an entirely understandable phenomenon (and one to which lawyers themselves are as prone as anyone else when personally involved in divorce) but the court must always look at matters in the round.
Arriving at the the "right" answer in a given case is precisely why it is wiseto get professional expertise which could be say a 1 hour meeting with a solr for a fixed fee if costs are a concern.
If one takes the very common situation where, for example, a marriage has lasted ten years and there are young children it is quite likely that the wife and children will remain in the former matrimonial home and that the property may be transferred into the wife's sole name. The reason this happens is that the "needs" of the children to have a roof over their heads tend to outweigh most of the other factors.
There is no way of knowing this from a simple reading of the words of the section but that is very often what happens because any other options are very limited.
If the home is very large and there is lots of equity then a sale may be necc to house both parties.
He will argue a contribution re house owned before marriage but it is only 1 argument..."Needs" tends to outweigh those sort of issues.
Put simply the answer is YES. His form E should specify the other house as an asset and this will be offset by the joint liabilities. The starting point is 50:50 and this starts to move further into your favour giving your other responsibilities. IE number of children etc.
if the stbx is living with her new bloke in his house and me and the kids live in the FMH. if it is sold i cant afford to buy/rent anywhere else. there is only £25000 in equity so even if i get 100% i cant afford to live anywhere else as that amount of money wont last long when you are renting.i cant down size as i live in a small cheap house. i am basically on the bottom rung of the housing market.is my needs already met and are hers, she says hers isn't