Should an ex husband carry on supporting his ex wife when they have both moved on?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/31/cambridge-lecturer-defeats-ex-husband-tried-halt-maintenance/

"A Cambridge University lecturer has won a court battle against her lawyer ex-husband who claimed he should not have to pay her maintenance because she is too hardworking.
Three judges have refused "belligerent, unhelpful and dictatorial" London solicitor Goran Mickovski's bid to stop payments to his ex-wife, Kathleen Liddell.
The former couple shared a £1.2m family fortune when they split in 2011 after 11 years of marriage.
After they broke up, 40-year-old Mrs Liddell moved from part-time to full-time hours despite having "tiny children" to care for, saying she needed to work "as hard as she can" to "survive financially".
I understand and accept her decision to work full time... she is working as hard as she can and she can't earn any more
Judge Markanza Cudby

But her 43-year-old ex-husband later took her to court, asking Judge Markanza Cudby to stop the £723-a-month maintenance he had been paying her because his ex-wife's wages had increased. However, Mrs Liddell was "congratulated" by the divorce judge for her strong work ethic.
The judge went on to order her ex-husband to pay her the whole sum of the maintenance she was due for the next four years at once in a £34,000 lump sum.

Two more judges at London's Court of Appeal heard Mr Mickovski challenge that order, arguing that his ex-wife had been left in a financial position that "exceeded her needs".
Lady Justice Macur and Lady Justice Eleanor King heard that the former couple lived in an £800,000 home in Islington, north London, which made up the bulk of their £1.2m wealth.
As well as the maintenance payments, Mrs Liddell received a £555,000 lump sum when the marriage broke down and, in return, signed her half of the house over to her ex, who still lives there.
The academic used the money to buy a five-bedroom property in Cambridgeshire near her £53,000-a-year job at the University's law faculty.
She now shares the house with her new partner, a chartered accountant, while Mr Mickovski, who is also required to pay child support, has re-married a businesswoman working for British-American Tobacco."



I think the judges were wrong.
Why should a man have to carry on supporting his ex long after they have divorced when they have both found new partners and lives?

Is the payment for the children though? It might be child support in which turn, then yes, he should continue to pay the percentage he is legally obliged to pay in childcare.
If it's not for child maintainence, then no, why should he have to pay for her personal costs?

Well it says in the article he is ALSO required to pay child support....so the money mentioned is separate to any he must (rightly) continue to pay for the children.

Syl wrote:Well it says in the article he is ALSO required to pay child support....so the money mentioned is separate to any he must (rightly) continue to pay for the children.

Then it's madness. I don't get it at all. Do you know, I'd not want to take any money from someone I'm no longer in a relationship with! Morally I couldn't do it and I simply wouldn't want an ex still in my life in that way. I like a clean break.

I am all for the sisterhood, but tbh women who carry on bleeding their exes long after they have split and moved on.....piss me off.

She's a greedy bleeder.

nicko wrote:She's a greedy bleeder.

Short and sweet Nicko....I don't get why she won her case.

Syl wrote:

nicko wrote:She's a greedy bleeder.

Short and sweet Nicko....I don't get why she won her case.

Because the judge hates lawyers?

Likely, it all goes back to the original decree.  What were the support payments for?  Were they to provide a decent living standard for the mother while she raised the children?  If so, the ultimate rationale goes to the welfare of the children.

Child support payment is for the direct feeding, clothing and support of the children.  One who conducts the service of care-taking the children, however, is also deserving of compensation/support (called 'maintenance') so that s/he is free to take care of the children, according to legal reasoning.  Maintenance is a separate matter from child support.

Now, over in the realm of maintenance, the wife/mother has found the previously awarded amount insufficient to provide a house and home for herself and the children. Maybe the amount was adequate from the beginning; maybe the cost of living has risen greater than anticipated.  Mother is faced with a choice: either move to make father pay more; or go to work herself.  She has chosen to take on the burden herself.  

Father has taken advantage of the situation of changed circumstances to claim--so far from mother needing more maintenance--that mother is now self-sufficient.  But mother went back to work, not because she didn't need money, but in order to relieve the father from paying more.  Ingrate!  Lol.

The fact that mother has gone back to work was likely not considered an equivalency of support payments--hence doing away with maintenance altogether--but in lieu of moving the Court to raise the support payments.  Most likely, that's the reason why "Mrs Liddell was 'congratulated' by the divorce judge for her strong work ethic."  That's an acknowledgement that she chose to undertake the additional burden herself and not burden the father.

I'd say it wasn't a bad decision.

I bet most men would disagree with the decision though, and tbh I wouldn't blame them.
I tend to think a lot of women would find this unfair too....especially women who don't want to use an ex to bleed him dry for the rest of his working life.

The children will have been well provided for. The ex wife received half a million payout to buy another family home. She has remarried, no doubt her now husband is working and paying into the household.

I agree with you on this Syl.

eddie wrote:I agree with you on this Syl.

Thank you Eddie, I think I would make a fairer lawyer than Quill.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:I agree with you on this Syl.

Thank you Eddie, I think I would make a fairer lawyer than Quill.

He's gonna bash you now.

Syl wrote:I bet most men would disagree with the decision though, and tbh I wouldn't blame them.

Of course.  It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.  But the real question is whether the changed circumstances is based upon need, or is it, as father alleges, because mother is no longer raising the children.

Syl wrote:I tend to think a lot of women would find this unfair too....especially women who don't want to use an ex to bleed him dry for the rest of his working life.

Indeed, with changing work and gender roles, many women are finding themselves in this father's position.  Some mothers don't want to raise the children, and are key breadwinners; conversely, some fathers accept the role willingly.  Keep in mind, the needs of the children are uppermost in mind.  Even if the custodial parent doesn't want to accept money, a court may award it 'for the good of the children'.

Syl wrote:The children will have been well provided for. (1) The ex wife received half a million payout to buy another family home. (2) She has remarried, no doubt her now husband is working and paying into the household.

How much is 'well provided for'?  (1) Wasn't the half-million compensation for half the home, to which she is separately entitled?  (2) And, should the new husband pay for the old husband's obligations...the children?  

Moreover, the amount of money is not the important thing.  The children are entitled to the 'standard of living' that the parents would have otherwise provided were they still together.  If either or both of the parents have a higher standard of living, the children are entitled to share in that standard.  That's all worked out in the decree.

To be fair, when it's laid out like that it makes sense but I still, morally, wouldn't feel right. But then, I hate taking money from people and I like my own independence.

She's still a greedy bleeder.

Syl wrote:I bet most men would disagree with the decision though, and tbh I wouldn't blame them.
I tend to think a lot of women would find this unfair too....especially women who don't want to use an ex to bleed him dry for the rest of his working life.

The children will have been well provided for. The ex wife received half a million payout to buy another family home. She has remarried, no doubt her now husband is working and paying into the household.

She hasn't remarried. If she had, all maintenance for her would stop anyway.

She lives with someone though, so it all seems a bit silly to be still expecting maintenance.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:I bet most men would disagree with the decision though, and tbh I wouldn't blame them.
I tend to think a lot of women would find this unfair too....especially women who don't want to use an ex to bleed him dry for the rest of his working life.

The children will have been well provided for. The ex wife received half a million payout to buy another family home. She has remarried, no doubt her now husband is working and paying into the household.

She hasn't remarried. If she had, all maintenance for her would stop anyway.

She lives with someone though, so it all seems a bit silly to be still expecting maintenance.

Well, you're ignoring the reason for maintenance. If she'd remarried, the only thing that would be different would be that part of the income attributable to her second husband would be half hers...at least under community property laws. That would increase her contribution, and so reduce her ex's obligation.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She hasn't remarried. If she had, all maintenance for her would stop anyway.

She lives with someone though, so it all seems a bit silly to be still expecting maintenance.

Well, you're ignoring the reason for maintenance.  If she'd remarried, the only thing that would be different would be that part of the income attributable to her second husband would be half hers...at least under community property laws.  That would increase her contribution, and so reduce her ex's obligation.

No - in this country, all spousal maintenance stops when the person receiving it gets remarried.

A new partner would also reduce maintenance payments because he would be paying half the bills at least - in theory anyway. In any case, she seems to earn good money, but what they will look at is if she actually needs the maintenance.

down here it is even more sensible (UK is more sensible that the US on this issue)
there is no spousal maintenance (which seem really fucked up) only child support. Children always create child support payments.
But people don't need to be married to claim a one time splitting of assets, just 'de factos' which only takes 6 months of cohabitation to claim.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, you're ignoring the reason for maintenance.  If she'd remarried, the only thing that would be different would be that part of the income attributable to her second husband would be half hers...at least under community property laws.  That would increase her contribution, and so reduce her ex's obligation.

No - in this country, all spousal maintenance stops when the person receiving it gets remarried.

Ahaa...but not child support. That continues until age of majority, sometimes beyond.

Raggamuffin wrote:A new partner would also reduce maintenance payments because he would be paying half the bills at least - in theory anyway. In any case, she seems to earn good money, but what they will look at is if she actually needs the maintenance.

The reason why the courts don't apply the arrangement to cohabitation is because he could leave at any time. There's no legal permanency to the relationship, and thus no jurisdiction to enforce the contribution of the move-in. Cohabitation has no legal basis like marriage or parental relationships.

She was awarded the custody of children... because we still have the outdated and sexist presumption that the mother will be at home all the time looking after them... and the father is awarded the bill because again the same outdated sexist presumption that he will be the only one working and earning money etc...


Here both worked full time... both good jobs and good money... so why shouldn't he have got the kids and she got the bill instead...!!!???


All in the name of equality mind...


And before some of you try saying that the children need a mother more etc... do you also think a child should be denied a mother when being given to a couple of homosexuals through adoption too...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:She was awarded the custody of children... because we still have the outdated and sexist presumption that the mother will be at home all the time looking after them... and the father is awarded the bill because again the same outdated sexist presumption that he will be the only one working and earning money etc...

Also because fathers don't want to be the custodial parent. Society is arranged that way. Until you change society, it's going to be the same.

Tommy Monk wrote:Here both worked full time... both good jobs and good money... so why shouldn't he have got the kids and she got the bill instead...!!!???

All in the name of equality mind...

Can't argue with you there. They are just another couple caught in the social trap.

Tommy Monk wrote:And before some of you try saying that the children need a mother more etc... do you also think a child should be denied a mother when being given to a couple of homosexuals through adoption too...!

I was with you until you started with the homophobic crap.

There's no reason why a mother should be given parental rights over the father, except the way society raises people. Men are not taught to be parents, women are. And frankly, the well-being of the kids comes even before equality. Most mothers know at least how to care for children' it's a rare father that knows even the minimum. The problem is deeper than equality, tommy.

I think its wrong - once there is a split only the children should be considered . What if this guy wants to start a new life - he is going to keep supporting his ex wife ? seems he is being punished .

Tommy Monk wrote:She was awarded the custody of children... because we still have the outdated and sexist presumption that the mother will be at home all the time looking after them... and the father is awarded the bill because again the same outdated sexist presumption that he will be the only one working and earning money etc...


Here both worked full time... both good jobs and good money... so why shouldn't he have got the kids and she got the bill instead...!!!???


All in the name of equality mind...


And before some of you try saying that the children need a mother more etc... do you also think a child should be denied a mother when being given to a couple of homosexuals through adoption too...!?

I think you make some good points Tommy.

The man is financially supporting his children from the marriage....just as he should, there is no question of that.

Surely, morally, he should not be held responsible for paying his ex wife a huge amount of monthly alimony, for herself, not the children, years after they split up, when they have both moved on and found new partners.
The money and property they had accumulated when they were married was split fairly when they parted,  she doesn't need his financial help and I don't think it's fair he still has to pay her £723 pm six years after they divorced.

This will impact on his present marriage, whilst she is still benefiting financially from it.

I wouldn't pay it, i'd emigrate

Why shouldn't he have been awarded the kids and her awarded the bill?

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:She was awarded the custody of children... because we still have the outdated and sexist presumption that the mother will be at home all the time looking after them... and the father is awarded the bill because again the same outdated sexist presumption that he will be the only one working and earning money etc...


Here both worked full time... both good jobs and good money... so why shouldn't he have got the kids and she got the bill instead...!!!???


All in the name of equality mind...


And before some of you try saying that the children need a mother more etc... do you also think a child should be denied a mother when being given to a couple of homosexuals through adoption too...!?

I think you make some good points Tommy.

Thank you eddie!

Tommy Monk wrote:Why shouldn't he have been awarded the kids and her awarded the bill?

No reason at all. In many cases in the US, that is the outcome. In fact, when I first started practicing that was the issue more than it is today. There were several cases bouncing around in which highly placed or wealthy women, were ending up with that losing hand, while their docile husbands were awarded children and the money.

But the general feeling today is that children are better off with their mothers...at least during the early years.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Why shouldn't he have been awarded the kids and her awarded the bill?

No reason at all.  In many cases in the US, that is the outcome.  In fact, when I first started practicing that was the issue more than it is today.  There were several cases bouncing around in which highly placed or wealthy women, were ending up with that losing hand, while their docile husbands were awarded children and the money.

But the general feeling today is that children are better off with their mothers...at least during the early years.

Yes... interesting choice of phrase to describe the outcome... men here are almost exclusively 'ending up with that losing hand' while so many see it as 'fair'...


And your argument that a child needs a mother totally undermines the case for gays adopting.

Tommy Monk wrote:Why shouldn't he have been awarded the kids and her awarded the bill?

Courts will always decide in the best interests of the children.
We don't know his circumstances when he split from his first wife....maybe he wasn't in the best position to look after them.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No reason at all.  In many cases in the US, that is the outcome.  In fact, when I first started practicing that was the issue more than it is today.  There were several cases bouncing around in which highly placed or wealthy women, were ending up with that losing hand, while their docile husbands were awarded children and the money.

But the general feeling today is that children are better off with their mothers...at least during the early years.

Yes... interesting choice of phrase to describe the outcome... men here are almost exclusively 'ending up with that losing hand' while so many see it as 'fair'...

And your argument that a child needs a mother totally undermines the case for gays adopting.

It's not my argument, tommy.  I've argued many cases from the man's perspective.

And I call it a "losing hand" because it is not equal.  That's because the courts say there is something more important that equality between the spouses: the welfare of the children.

Until you convince the courts that the father will care for the kids as well as the mother, it's gonna be like that.  Women in our society have a big head start because for centuries the man was free to go about his random ways, while the woman met the responsibilities of the home.

Now, today, the institutions of civil society recognize that the woman has demonstrated her worth, you are crying foul!  The courts have an awesome responsibility with kids, and they are going to be conservative and bet on the demonstrated winner...the woman.  You're a conservative...how come you don't recognize that the conservative way is to go with the establish achievers?  Where do you put your investments...with the untried and untested?  Figure it out.  

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:She was awarded the custody of children... because we still have the outdated and sexist presumption that the mother will be at home all the time looking after them... and the father is awarded the bill because again the same outdated sexist presumption that he will be the only one working and earning money etc...

Also because fathers don't want to be the custodial parent.  Society is arranged that way.  Until you change society, it's going to be the same.

Tommy Monk wrote:Here both worked full time... both good jobs and good money... so why shouldn't he have got the kids and she got the bill instead...!!!???

All in the name of equality mind...

Can't argue with you there.  They are just another couple caught in the social trap.

Tommy Monk wrote:And before some of you try saying that the children need a mother more etc... do you also think a child should be denied a mother when being given to a couple of homosexuals through adoption too...!

I was with you until you started with the homophobic crap.

There's no reason why a mother should be given parental rights over the father, except the way society raises people.  Men are not taught to be parents, women are.  And frankly, the well-being of the kids comes even before equality.  Most mothers know at least how to care for children' it's a rare father that knows even the minimum.  The problem is deeper than equality, tommy.

I disagree with the bolded parts
I know most of my friends with kids are perfectly capable and those that are unfortunately separated Fight hard and very much want 50/50

My uncle (only divorced person in my family) had a 50/50 split and that was over like 16 years ago.

I think our system is much fairer just by the fact you see 50/50 custody a reasonable amount now (still not majority through) and the is no spousal support payment once separated too.