Ex-husband applied for Ancillary Relief and first meeting this week. Contact order in place for 2 children, age 10 & 7. He has them 1 overnight in week and alternate weekends and share of school holidays.
Property title deeds and mortgage in my sole name due to ex-husband poor credit rating at start of relationship.
Marriage of 11 years and 2 years co-habiting. Ages: Me 41, Him 45
I have proposed - 40% equity & 15% pension in his favour.
He has countered with 1. 50% equity & 50% pension, with me paying towards pension sharing order or 2. 60% equity & 30% pension, with me paying towards pension sharing order.
Ex-husband has contributed fixed sum equal to 30% of household expenditure throughout relationship. He is in receipt of public funding and approach has been to go straight to court for kids & finances.
He has little pension, however was invited to join scheme in 2002 and we had had conversations for him to review and get sorted.
He claims that he modified his work to take more responsibility for the children to enable me to progress career. His net working week remained the same(40h). He adjusted his start/end time to enable him to take children to school. All other pastoral care was managed by me. Children fed, clothed, leave due to illness, holidays etc etc.
I took extended maternity leave for each of the children and also reduced hours on return to work. My hours increased to 35h when children started school.
There is a disparity in income and pension, however I have ongoing financial responsibility for the children as he has made no provision for their future. eg university. He pays £196 CSA each month which discharges his financial obligation, hence I have to continue to fund everything else the children and I need. form E''s his was 3weeks late), questionnaire, statement of issues have been exchanged. I am aggrieved that potentially he could walk away with much of the equity and my pension despite me carrying him. There has been a fixed sum payable to me for his contribution to the household and I encouraged him to seek alternative employment, improve his education and review his pension throughout the marriage however he is painting the picture that his career () was impacted by his change in work pattern to enable me to progress in mine which should afford him a share of MY pension also as his earnings are less, his mortgage capacity is lower, therefore needs a greater share of the equity to buy a property. I have the greater salary, therefore mortgage capacity, however I have ongoing responsibility for the children, therefore believe my mortgage capacity in reality is reduced as I need more to support their financial needs.
His conduct throughout the divorce proceedings has been appalling and I have cause to contact the police several times in relation to harrassment, however I am led to believe that this will have no bearing on the outcome.
Incidentally, he has failed to disclose overtime worked, this is also omitted from his payslip !! Also, he has the use of a company vehicle which has also not been disclosed !!
Does anyone have a view on how the court will direct financial settlement?
I wouldn''t rely on the calculator. I have a feeling that it always comes out as 60:40 to the person with the children, which is just rubbish.
In my case I also earn more than my ex and have a much larger pension, more than half of which was accrued either before we married or after separation. I have the children full-time (much less contact than your ex has and very irregular).
He got about 45% of the property and 27% of my pension by agreement at the FDR. The property deal was partly simply so that the children and I could stay in the house - I think he realised the damage it would do to their relationship if we were forced to move. If I had been able to raise a larger mortgage he would have got a higher percentage. He was also not able to make much of a claim for having to house the children as they rarely stay over and never do so together - your husband will be able to make a stronger claim in this respect.
I didn''t think it was fair either, but I got used to things in the end - it wasn''t worth fighting to the bitter end as I might have lost a lot more. I was particularly fed up about the pension as he earned well during our marrige but spent his money on things for himself rather than putting it into his pension, despite my urging.
He also tried to claim that he had been the main carer for the children. He didn''t get very far with this, though, and his barrister didn''t push it, probably because he realised that I could show that I had paid for childcare during the times my ex claimed to have been looking after them himself.
I suppose what I am saying is that you have to be realistic about what you are likely to get and negotiate from there. Being hung up on fairness frequently just costs you a lot of lawyer money. What happened in practice was that we offered as little as we could, they asked for quite a bit more, and we split the difference. That is not uncommon at FDR, and I had worked out beforehand that I could live with that outcome.