Pension in payment question.

Angelheart1962 wrote:

I would pay for the children to come back to the UK, but if my ex goes back to work, as is his plan, I dont think its unreasonable for him to help with expenses in the future.

Sorry i'm not trying to be harsh but when he goes back to work the csa claim will then kick in against his salary so if you've got a bigger claim in against assets on the strength of him not paying any cm (front loaded) the split becomes unfair as the csa will not apply the front loading to any claim further down the road.

So essentially you'll expect him to pay csa, pay towards contact expenses and also claim a bigger share of assets up front on the strength that you've had little to date for cm because his is an ill health pension.

The chances of him obtaining a loan/remortgage based on an income of an ill health pension would be remote which if the house is the only asset would mean he would be forced to sell to provide you with the settlement up front leaving him forced to rent.

I'm not even a solicitor and i can see potential problems with your arguement, so imagine what will be made of it in court?

T

One asset can be offset against another. Emotion doesn't come into it, financial settlements are just a number crunching exercise and are treated separately from children proceedings. As long as court rules and procedures are adhered to the object of financial orders is to settle, not punishment.

Your "needs" to provide a home for your children for several years to come without your ex-husband contributing much CM (but your new husband contributing towards joint expenses) and the fact you are unlikely to obtain a job that will generate the same income and pension that could have been expected if there were no children, has to be balanced against your ex-husband's needs to house himself, any expenses related to contact, his income and potential earning capacity.