Length of agreement and maintenance

Hi,

Any advice greatly appreciated. I no longer have a solicitor due to lack of funds so now dealing directly with stbx.

My stbx has proposed to pay child maintenance until my son youngest son is 18 but I have requested that it is reduced to 50% when he is 18 and paid until he is 21. This is becaue my sons are likely to base themselves with me while at uni, between 18-21 and I will therefore need on -going support for additional costs during holiday vacation, etc (my previous solicitor said this would be the usual arrangement ordered by the court).

My stbx has refused this request and has put a clause in the draft order (yet to be agreed) for me to seek an extension of the term beyond my son turning 18. This could be done at any time before the end of the agreement, if I can show a change in financial circumstances since the order was made.

My stbx states that this is a very important concession made by him, because most of the time, courts will want a Clean Break, but the order allows me to extend the term, it is a key safeguard for me. On the basis of this, my stbx wants to justify why he should keep 100% of all assets, including the joint savings and the pension. The house is being split between us, though I will continue to live in the house with my sons until the youngest is 18, at which point the house is sold and split.

I want to know if it is in fact useful for me to have this right to apply for an extension? My understanding is that I am unlikely to make use of it, as it will be a hassle making the application to the court, so it is in affect not worth it. Could I ask him to pay me a lump sum now of the equivalent of what that extension is likely to be worth - which is actually only likely to be about £5k? Or should I let it go, in order to make the more important proposal to share the pension? He has throughout refused to share his pension and is unlikely to shift his position, but that is another fight I need to have with him.

Thanks in advance!

I see you haven't had a reply. I'm not sure I can give you the detailed answer you want ; but here goes -

Your husband's liability to pay child support stems from the Child Support Act. It does not depend a Court order ; that was precisely the intention behind the Child Support Act 1991. Issues relating to child maintenance are dealt with by what used to be the now defunct and little lamented Child Support Agency - and now its successor, CMEC.

A rose by any other name - - - - -

Normally issues relating to child maintenance are dealt with by
the 1991 Act. The liability to pay child maintenance is governed by statute, not the Courts.

Child maintenance under the 1991 can't be extended beyond the majority of the child. However the Court has powers to extend child maintenance in the circumstances set out in CSA section 8. These
could include further education or cases where a child has special needs.

A clean break between the spouses may still involve payment of child maintenance.

It is true that the Courts are directed to give consideration to the
possibility of a clean break, but that duty is to consider, no more.
Clean breaks are not always possible.

As to his getting 100% of the assets, well, I'd tell him to leave la-la land and start getting real. I've heard of some awards that run pretty close. ( the h highest I've seen is 90% ) Without wishing to get sexist, women tend to be the weaker party ( though obviously there are exceptions ) and in my
experience, such as it is is, an award of 100% of the assets would be absolutely unprecedented.

I'm afraid this is much as I dare tell you.

LMM

Thanks, LittleMrMike, very useful.