Im sure I sound like a jerk to a lot of you but dont the courts take into account that the children will grow up one and all other factors that determine the original order?
As this went all the way to final hearing her illness would have been highlighted and would have been taken into consideration.
My point is her children are adults and as they are living there they should be expected to contribute financially. Why should her ex continue to support them when they are well and truly capable of earning an income. Children are for life- but at some point they need to learn to stand on their own two feet.
Does anyone know of an SM case review that was successful and on what grounds? I cant seem to find anything on here?
I do not think that £5 nominal maintenance when WTC and CTC and child benefit comes to an end is support.
I do realise that maintenence is for the wife but circumstances are changing very quickly and someone whether that be the tax payer or the father and mother collectively needs to give the children of the family some support.
I do not think you sound like a jerk by the way, this is a forum where we are at liberty to discuss and express our views. That is why Wikivorce is such a great place isn''t it?
Im just trying to understand what exactly has ''unexpectedly'' changed
The kids grew up- that was always a given so that doesnt justify a change is circunstance as that would have been considered.
Her illness- she has had for 30 years so again that should have been considered at the time of divorce.
Her retirement- unless it states that she had to retire due to illness, i cant see this being monumental enough to go back to court?
The only other part that has changed is that he is now making better money, and has a partner who earns. How much is a ''significant'' increase in pay= and is that alone justification for her to go back and ask for more money.
Also I would think as the kids are out of school they should either contribute to the house they live in, or she should downsize so that she isnt as stretched.
Young adults need somewhere to live and the problems that young adults face now are immense. The issue is that the original posters support is ending due to the children reaching majority but the issue for me is that the responsibility for housing does not end either for the parents and the state cannot house everyone.
It is something that I get into discussions with my middle child who is 17 and whose friends range from her age to about 22. Young people struggle in a way that our generation did not.
You do not get the "dole" until you are 18, if you choose not to go into A level or further education there is no financial support from the state.
Also if you become homeless either because you are thrown out of home or for another reason it is not that straightforward for a young person to get state help, you really have to show that you are a victim of your parents refusal to house you.
It really is very difficult for the young generation and I personally cannot see it getting any easier.
Also teenageers and people in their 20''s eat like wolves - remember that?
I also think that it is not what unexpectedly changed it is more a question of suddenly realising that D day has arrived and no cavalry are in sight.
Downsizing is a great idea in principle but if it means that you have to go through the expense of selling a house or finding somewhere cheaper to rent you still have the issue as to where everyone is going to sleep - all good and fine putting young children in the same room but are you supposed to expect adults to bunk up and share their living space?
I don''t think the third degree is necessary or helpful. The courts have the discretion to grant a variation to SM and sometimes award an increase or extend the term when the payer''s income increases and the it is accepted the payee is without an earning capacity or needs more money to meet their own and the children''s needs. Examples include Hovorostovsky v Hovorostovsky  EWCA Civ 79, North v North  EWCA Civ 760 and McFarlane v McFarlane  EWHC 891.
When considering a variation the courts consider the particular circumstances and refer back to s25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 again.
There is always a risk a variation to increase SM will fail but if there isn''t a great deal to lose when the order was for a nominal amount. It used to be that the unsuccessful party paid the successful party''s cost in variation cases, but the Family Proceeding Rules 2010 changed that and now the usual rule for financial orders that each party pays their own costs applies.