serving couple with kid(s) seperation

#1
do any of you kind gents and ladies have any knowledge of what would happen if I seperated with my wife, also serving.

there is no adultery etc, reasons are personal

what would be the score with custody, I want it, but I think she would fight it.
also where would I stand with regards to my pension? been married 4 yrs, no major assets

cheers guys
 
#2
she gets half of everything and she gets the kids and anything else she wants. Quite biast but thats how it is.
 
#3
zubrzycki said:
she gets half of everything and she gets the kids and anything else she wants. Quite biast but thats how it is.
want some advice? well, yer getting it anyway. Give her everything and walk away unless you want a permanent headache for the next two years and to spend shit loads of cash on leeches sorry solicitors.

Edited to add: Bitter me? yes very so it probably effects my views on the matter.
 
#4
Actually thats not strictly true...she goes for your pension and gratuity, you go for hers. However, Biscuits is right about the legal fees. And it doesnt just go one way - Im proof of that! There are several threads about this but get in with a solicitor who knows what they are talking about, not just what you want to hear.

Ref the kids you need to get some serious advice. Do you have them now?
 
#5
armr617 said:
do any of you kind gents and ladies have any knowledge of what would happen if I seperated with my wife, also serving.

there is no adultery etc, reasons are personal

what would be the score with custody, I want it, but I think she would fight it.
also where would I stand with regards to my pension? been married 4 yrs, no major assets

cheers guys
Hold on, its not as bad as the first two replies suggest.

First, custody. There is certainly a perception about that mother's have an advantage over fathers in this field. I'm guessing that the children are very young, as you say you've only been married 4 years. Did the wife take maternity leave? The chances are that she would argue that she has been their "primary" carer, and that their primary attachment is to her. Therefore she should have custody (the correct term nowadays is "residence").

What would you both intend to do in terms of work etc in the future? Who would be in the better position to meet the needs of the children?

You give very little information, so it is hard to forecast a result.

Second, Money. You were only married 4 years. I assume that there was no period of pre-marital cohabitation. If there was it would make a difference. However, she is only really entitled to a fair share of the "matrimonial acquest" - that is what you built up while you were together. So if your pension was built up over a longer period, you wouldn't expect her to get 50%.

The court has a wide discretion to produce a "fair" result. Much will depend on who has the kids, because their welfare (while they remain minors) is the first consideration of the court. So catering for their needs will be important. However if you both remain serving, I presume that you will each be entitled to married service quarters? Therefore housing needs are met, and the court would not need to worry about that.

If the pension is the only thing, and she's got one too, you might find that in fact it is of relatively little importance after a marriage of only 4 years.

See a solicitor.
 
#6
Geezer, legal advice required, not just the gool old arrse advice, although some will be true. I served in a Battalion where a LCPL in a rifle company had custody of the children, it was hard for him, he was cut not a great deal of slack, missed out in both CPLS and later, SGTS mess life, but managed to get a balance. Hats off to the guy, must have been hard work, but he managed it. Support of his family and CSM meant he managed to get a few tours under his belt. Good Luck.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
schweik said:
First, custody. There is certainly a perception about that mother's have an advantage over fathers in this field. I'm guessing that the children are very young, as you say you've only been married 4 years. Did the wife take maternity leave? The chances are that she would argue that she has been their "primary" carer, and that their primary attachment is to her. Therefore she should have custody (the correct term nowadays is "residence").

What would you both intend to do in terms of work etc in the future? Who would be in the better position to meet the needs of the children?

You give very little information, so it is hard to forecast a result.

Second, Money. You were only married 4 years. I assume that there was no period of pre-marital cohabitation. If there was it would make a difference. However, she is only really entitled to a fair share of the "matrimonial acquest" - that is what you built up while you were together. So if your pension was built up over a longer period, you wouldn't expect her to get 50%.

The court has a wide discretion to produce a "fair" result. Much will depend on who has the kids, because their welfare (while they remain minors) is the first consideration of the court. So catering for their needs will be important. However if you both remain serving, I presume that you will each be entitled to married service quarters? Therefore housing needs are met, and the court would not need to worry about that.

If the pension is the only thing, and she's got one too, you might find that in fact it is of relatively little importance after a marriage of only 4 years.

See a solicitor.
All of the above, with the addition of making sure that the solicitor is a specialist in Family Law.

And if you can, present your solicitor with an agreement that you and your wife have reached, or as much as you can agree together. A good solicitor will tell you they have failed if you end up in court screaming at one another, and will encourage you to negotiate and compromise.

As to residence, it may become more of an issue when the children start school; again you, your wife, lawyers and the courts will need to put their needs first.

Good luck.
 
#8
Grownup_Rafbrat said:
All of the above, with the addition of making sure that the solicitor is a specialist in Family Law.
Thanks, I forgot that bit.

Your local law society should be able to supply a list (Google or Yellow Pages), as could your local county court (county, not crown, although they may be in the same place - but they may not)

Word of mouth recommendations are also very valuable.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#9
Why would she get any of your occupational pension if she has her own? I don't quite follow how she would be able to claim that, if she's going to stay in. By the time you both reach penionable age, your kids will have kids of their own, if you are both on the new scheme.
 
#10
BiscuitsAB said:
zubrzycki said:
she gets half of everything and she gets the kids and anything else she wants. Quite biast but thats how it is.
want some advice? well, yer getting it anyway. Give her everything and walk away unless you want a permanent headache for the next two years and to spend s*** loads of cash on leeches sorry solicitors.

Edited to add: Bitter me? yes very so it probably effects my views on the matter.
Well lets hope you remembered the financial clean break order - no financial transactions by this i mean This is intended only for dismissing any future claims by one party against the other.If you want to be absolutely sure that neither of you will have any future claim against the other, the only way of doing this is to apply for a Financial Clean Break Order in the final stages of your divorce proceedings.
 
#11
zubrzycki said:
she gets half of everything and she gets the kids and anything else she wants. Quite biast but thats how it is.
Sorry, but you are VERY wrong....in fact could not be further from the truth. I am curious as a Solicitor where these rumours start and how comes this 50/50 rule is in circulation and has been like forever?
 
#12
BiscuitsAB said:
zubrzycki said:
she gets half of everything and she gets the kids and anything else she wants. Quite biast but thats how it is.
want some advice? well, yer getting it anyway. Give her everything and walk away unless you want a permanent headache for the next two years and to spend s*** loads of cash on leeches sorry solicitors.

Edited to add: Bitter me? yes very so it probably effects my views on the matter.
So you think every Solicitor is a leech do you? And that decision is not based on your personal life and the acrimony YOU and YOUR partner had and was solely based on how badly the Solicitors treated you personally is it?

jeez
 
#13
schweik said:
Grownup_Rafbrat said:
All of the above, with the addition of making sure that the solicitor is a specialist in Family Law.
Thanks, I forgot that bit.

Your local law society should be able to supply a list (Google or Yellow Pages), as could your local county court (county, not crown, although they may be in the same place - but they may not)

Word of mouth recommendations are also very valuable.
schweik

Your comments on this thread are very switched on! .....you a lawyer ?

Only one thing I would pick you up on (but everything else was pretty much bang on ) is that the local County Court cannot recommend Solicitors they usually just fob punters off from my experience.
 
#14
Read my 2 articles on Children and Finances in this section and if that does not help feel free to ask a specific question or two and I will try to help.

Your question is so generic that it will be hard to answer fully and effectively, schweik did a damn good job of giving you a pretty comprehensive answer in general terms in that respect anyway.

There is also a thread of how to choose a good Solicitor in this section, that should help too. I wrote those artiles specifically with that in mind.
 
#16
schweik said:
The court has a wide discretion to produce a "fair" result. Much will depend on who has the kids, because their welfare (while they remain minors) is the first consideration of the court. So catering for their needs will be important. However if you both remain serving, I presume that you will each be entitled to married service quarters? Therefore housing needs are met, and the court would not need to worry about that.
Not quite true. The Parent With Care (PWC) is entitled to the quarter. The Non-Resident Parent (NRP) is able to apply for a surplus quarter, however due to a shortage of SFA the NRP is unlikely to get one. Your chances of getting one will be dependent on your location and the number of quarters available at the time, it will also be influenced by the amount of time the NRP has access to the kids in particular the number of planned overnight stays. It is also worth bearing in mind that as the quarter would be surplus the NRP could in theory be turfed out to make space for an entitled family.

schweik said:
See a solicitor.
As there are kids involved this is the best advice.
 
#17
Horridlittleman said:
schweik said:
The court has a wide discretion to produce a "fair" result. Much will depend on who has the kids, because their welfare (while they remain minors) is the first consideration of the court. So catering for their needs will be important. However if you both remain serving, I presume that you will each be entitled to married service quarters? Therefore housing needs are met, and the court would not need to worry about that.
Not quite true. The Parent With Care (PWC) is entitled to the quarter. The Non-Resident Parent (NRP) is able to apply for a surplus quarter, however due to a shortage of SFA the NRP is unlikely to get one. Your chances of getting one will be dependent on your location and the number of quarters available at the time, it will also be influenced by the amount of time the NRP has access to the kids in particular the number of planned overnight stays. It is also worth bearing in mind that as the quarter would be surplus the NRP could in theory be turfed out to make space for an entitled family.

schweik said:
See a solicitor.
As there are kids involved this is the best advice.
All excellent points IMHO. Just to add, ref the NRP in theory being turfed out to make space for an entitled family, to my knowledge that has actually happened.
 
#19
chocolate_frog said:
Sod the lawyer... get a hitman :D
That's what I feel like saying sometimes.....! And I am a lawyer. The law can be an ass sometimes, scrub that, often.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top