The interpretation of the Protocol methods parents appreciate kids family

administrator No comments

Please forward this error screen to sharedip-10718032152. Maintenance payment is one of the interpretation of the Protocol methods parents appreciate kids family most divisive issues in family law. Over the course of two posts I’m going to consider why maintenance orders exist and the emerging case law which means they might be more readily challenged in the future.

Maintenance therefore remains payable by an ex-husband to his ex-wife, often with an automatic uplift linked to the Retail Prices Index, until the wife remarries, dies or the court makes a further order. Until then she receives tax free maintenance, which she regards as the income earned as a result of their marriage. This doesn’t happen in mainland Europe, there maintenance is not payable to an ex-wife. She is expected to manage with an equal split of matrimonial assets and if necessary go to work. The husband keeps his income intact save for child support payments. There is no doubt that this causes great financial hardship, and in England the law recognises this fact and provides accordingly. But suppose both parties move on with their lives and they both acquire different partners?

Let’s suppose that an ex-wife now has a boyfriend. She could be more or less living with him full time and gives him free rein of her house. He keeps his clothes in her wardrobe and his razor and toothbrush in the bathroom. To all but the keenest eye they are living together as man and wife. Yet they have decided not to marry, not now, or perhaps not ever. On his part this could be because he is already married or can’t afford to get married.

The wife’s reasoning may also be straightforward. She is desperate not to lose the hard won maintenance payments from her ex-husband, which she considers to be earned by virtue of her contribution during the marriage. The ex-wife therefore rejects an approach from her increasingly frustrated ex-husband to vary the court order and reduce or even stop her maintenance because she is in a relationship with another man. She fears that she might have no long-term security with her new partner and hangs on grimly to her maintenance cheques. The original court order will usually provide no automatic cut off point in the event of cohabitation.