Separating PPR and Maintenance

How about shared custody 50:50. You overnight at the mortgage property every second week, stay at parents when your ex has the kids. She can stay at her parents/new partner when she is not the care giver. Maintenance will be just usual expenses as per now.
 
You purchased property is it in your sole name ? If so why didn’t you add your wife to the mortgage?
I’m currently in this situation my ex bought pre marriage but committed adultery and left in 2018 I’m still here I pay all utilities and maintain the house he can be difficult my spousal support is paying towards the mortgage but my names not on the mortgage which I’m challenging in court as I’m left to maintain all the plumbing electrical work etc regardless I own equity I’m living here 10 years but my circumstances are different there’s abuse involved and coercive control
Have you looked into housing for all scheme ?
 
I’ve been advised legally that purchasing the property pre marriage and in my sole name makes little difference once married . The spouse has a beneficial interest in the property and is protected by family law . I will be paying the full mortgage until the property is sold / terms agreed within the divorce.
 
I'd move back in. The law and the way things go , it's nearly always weighted in favour of the mother, stay there, make her move out. As you say yourself she'll be better off than you, 65K won't go far when a Judge whittles it down. Is she going to go through the courts for maintenance? Best of luck, it's far from easy.
 
i like that idea.
 
Purple said:
That scenario traps both parents in that they cannot move on and the "significant other" with the most influence on their life remains their ex-partner with whom they at odds.
Click to expand...
there is no ideal solution, but as for always put the children first, what about the poor chap forced out of his house...I'd refuse to move and send her packing to a 1 bed flat.
 
Lone Star said:
there is no ideal solution, but as for always put the children first, what about the poor chap forced out of his house...I'd refuse to move and send her packing to a 1 bed flat.
Click to expand...
There is no ideal solution but sharing a PPR for the next few decades puts both parents in a state of limbo and will probably result in a constant state of acrimony which will hurt the children.
What happens if one parent meets someone else and wants to start another relationship?
What is best for the children is two reasonably happy and reasonably functioning parents. That won't happen if one parent gets the house and the other gets nothing but it won't happen either if there is a constant turf war over a shared house.
 
I agree, but I thinks it's a dire consequence that it's more often the father that has to move out, then the mother gets the court's sympathy...

I'm a stubborn mule, I'd stay my ground and I would pay for my own kids myself.
 
DannyBoyD said:
In family law, the focus is on the welfare of the children. Nothing to do with "sympathy".
Click to expand...
In theory.
When I was in court getting divorced I was the only male in the room. The Barristers, Solicitors, Judge and Clerk were all women. The whole narrative is that the woman has to be protected and the man is the bad guy. Even in law "Gender based violence" is "violence that is perpetrated against a woman because she is a woman". That means that there is an assumption under law that in an abusive relationship the woman is the victim. Until recently a man had no automatic legal rights as a parent unless he was married to the child's mother and still when a couple divorce the mother gets an additional tax free allowance that the father does not. I was in the position where by ex received children's allowance even though the children lived with me. So yes, there is a strong bias under law against fathers, though thankfully less than there was. The upcoming Referendum may equalise things a bit.
 
We've been around this loop before.

You've stated that you did not follow up on the remittance of children's allowance for what were doubtless good reasons at the time.

This does not mean that others are precluded from doing so.

Additional tax credits follow the primary carer; its not gender based.

The credit used to be available to both separated parents & was removed several years ago, a mistake in my view.
 
The Tax Credit goes to whomever gets the Children's allowance and that's the mother unless the court decides otherwise. That might change after the upcoming referendum.
DannyBoyD said:
The credit used to be available to both separated parents & was removed several years ago, a mistake in my view.
Click to expand...
Yep, Joan Burton took it from separated fathers.
 
DannyBoyD said:
Show me the legislation where it states the tax credit is gender based.
Click to expand...
Mothers automatically get the children's allowance. The person who gets the children's allowance is assumed to be the primary carer.
Are you saying that is incorrect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register