Real World Advice for Parties Divorcing

For the high-earner (often, but by no means always, the husband):-

1. Your spouse does have fixed costs relating to the child and is deemed to have the best interests of the child at heart in the financial decisions they take. So no, the court is not going to allow you to put child maintenance into a separate account that only you can oversee/administer.
2. If you appear too eager to reach a quick settlement, this will set alarm bells ringing with your spouse and their lawyer. It is not “clever” to bombard your spouse with settlement proposals or excel spreadsheets setting out how “fair” you are being. Lawyers are not always a “waste of money”.
3. Financial disclosure is required. It’s not optional, it’s not a waste of time. Both parties need to do it and the court needs to ensure even an agreed outcome is fair.
4. No, you can’t become a gardener just so you avoid paying maintenance. The court looks at your earning capacity and recent earnings. You’re not the first genius to ever suggest it. Friends at the pub don’t generally provide the sagest advice on how to deal with a divorce.
5. You paid yourself £12k last year through your own Ltd company, and because your spouse is also an employee, they were paid the same amount. Each of you also took £4k pcm in net dividends so the family’s income is not £1k pcm net, it’s £10k pcm net. Moreover, the company is not worth 2x a random figure you take from the P&L account.
6. Circling every outgoing by your spouse that you deem improper or excessive is unlikely to assist matters.
7. No, all of the family assets cannot be put into a Trust, with you as the sole Trustee and the children as beneficiaries. Your spouse is entitled to “own” assets and not just potentially benefit from them.
8. It is not the most persuasive argument that after being married for 25 years, with your spouse having forfeited their own career to bring up your children, that they should go work for minimum wage when you are making £300k per annum and can afford to help financially support them.
9. Yes, your spouse’s parents are in their seventies, and yes, their childless Aunt did have a fall last year. But that doesn’t mean inheritance is imminent or guaranteed. So, it doesn’t impact how the assets should be divided at this time.
10. The undocumented, unmentioned and unrepaid “loan” your parents gave you to buy the house in 1994, is highly unlikely to be considered as a genuine debt by the court.

For the lower earner (often, but by no means always, the wife):-

1. Even though your spouse sometimes uses a nanny when the children are in their care, it’s not right to criticise them excessively when they work 70-hour weeks to provide for the family.
2. The court can’t dictate what activities your spouse does with the kids. Although they can make activity directions, they aren’t designed to prescriptively control every hour they spend together.
3. Spousal periodical payments (maintenance) are meant to meet a shortfall in your income needs. The court is not going to simply “share their income” and entitle you to 50% of their bonus for life.
4. Your “income needs” are not a movable feast. You can obviously update the figure if there is a long period of time between providing your initial estimates and a trial, but it looks terrible when there’s a 200% uplift after realising that your husband actually earns a lot more than you thought!
5. It’s clear to the court, CAFCASS officer and ISW if a child above the age of 4 starts sleeping in your bed after your spouse has moved out, that there’s a reasonable chance you are not keen on the child having overnight contact with your spouse.
6. No, their new partner does not need a DBS check before they breathe the same air as your child.
7. Even if you feel your in-law’s malign influence was one of the reasons as to why the marriage failed, you can’t “stop” your spouse taking the kids to their parents for Sunday lunch. When often, they are loving grandparents who want to spend quality time with the children.
8. You both have the right to live in the family home until there is an order of the court, either relating to the finances or under the Family Law Act 1996 (injunctions). If you speak to a lawyer and they ask, “has your spouse ever been violent or made you feel afraid” and you say “no”, please don’t change your answer once you are made aware that this means it’s highly unlikely you can get an order relating to the interim use of the house.
9. No, messaging your spouse’s employer about their behaviour/perceived indiscretions/new partner is never acceptable. It puts their livelihood (and potentially yours) in jeopardy and is scorned upon by the court.
10. Escalating legal fees are not solely “their problem”, you actively need to protect yourself as well. Costs rules have become more stringent, and the fees are likely to reduce the overall pot. Don’t give your lawyers carte blanche to do/write whatever they want. There are some unscrupulous lawyers, and legal fees have generally gone out of control. The court is the worst forum to resolve the dispute – it is certainly the most expensive!

If you need practical family law advice from a lawyer who wants the best outcome for you at a sensible cost, please do contact Aziz Malik:: azizmalik@bexleybeaumont.com  |  07966 375115