Well, let''s try and put the present situation to one side for the time being and let us look at the medium term, when the divorce is through, and you are no longer married.
The House is in negative equity. There is nothing to stop you, or him, living in a house with negative equity - if you can afford the repayments. But you have no job, so would you have the resources to live there, if you were given the right to do so by a Court, to the exclusion of your husband ?
Because if you can''t afford to live there, with the aid of such resources as you have or might acquire, which would include spousal/child maintenance
, tax credits, etc etc. then the Court would not be likely to '' award '' you the house or the right to live there. In that case the answer would be for you to rent, when housing benefit can come into the picture.
Your husband could, in these circumstances, be '' awarded '' the house outright because in many respects it is a liability.
You cannot exclude your husband in normal circumstances because he is a joint owner, and only the Court can do that. However, I''d say that it is unlikely that there would be grounds on which the Court could exclude him.
I think the chances are that you would end up as the primary carer. You would be entitled to child support, up to 20% of his net income, as a minimum. On top of this you could have benefits like income support, child benefit, tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Whether you would get spousal support depends on whether he could afford to pay you more than the child support alone. I''d say it was a strong possibility that you would get some order for SM, but I have no idea as to the figures.
Does this sound like something which, in principle, you could live with ?
Does this offer a way forward which both of you can live with ?
Because if you can you may be able to settle the financials without breaking the back - for either of you.