Potential financial split

Hi,
Could you give me an idea of what the potential split would be for us in court. My wife has applied to court as we were too far apart. We have two children, a 14 year old boy going to a specialist school for autistic boys and a 2 year old boy. Both children live full time with my wife, I see the oldest every second weekend but he also boards 3 days a week. I dont see the 2 year old currently. Wife earned very well before split at around 200k as a medical consultant but has been signed off work for 3 years due to mental health and now looks after our infant son full time. I dont work and have not for 10 years as I looked after oldest historically after Childminders and nursery were finished. So income for both of us is derived from benefits and wife also gets disability premium from DWP and high pip living. Our home equity is 1m with maybe 100k pension. She wants 600k to house children in 3 bed but I think my earning capacity is much lower so I should get 60 percent and she can upgrade once she goes back to work at some point when the youngest goes to school. She could make due with a smaller property until then. Childcare would be very expensive as she would need a nanny due to working hours and part time doesn't really exist for her. I am older than her and already 55. She is 41. How would court look at this?

>>She wants 600k to house children in 3 bed but I think my earning capacity is much lower so I should get 60 percent and she can upgrade once she goes back to work at some point when the youngest goes to school. <<

Frankly, I think you would be lucky bearing in mind the children live with your wife, the age of the younger and the autism of the elder If anyone has to make do with a smaller property it is likely to be you. Your wife's proposed division doesn't look particularly unreasonable when these facts are taken into account,

But isn't it unfair that she had high earnings in the past? OK, she looks after the kids now but I am older and will need to go back to work now, too. Before separation, my mum was looking after the eldest so would a judge not think I was primary carer often organising this and doing doctor runs etc? When the youngest goes to school she could likely get a nanny half the time and thus afford childcare and a mortgage to upgrade. She has offered 40 percent of the equity to me which could afford a 2 bed outright for myself but I feel it is not fair that she would get a 3 bed. At some point, I might have my small son over, too. She also offered 70 percent of pension to me stating I could access it earlier than her but I am not worried about pension only home equity. How much will a judge impute earnings on her if she looks after the kids? Can they use imputed earnings for her mortgage capacity?

I have told you what I think of your chances. You want more of the equity than the mother with the care of two children - one of which has autism and the other of which is two years old. I don't think it is going to happen. And bearing in mind that your wife is on benefits and that she has offered you more of the pension to help make up for the difference in equity hers is not an unreasonable position.

I will say something else which is that I am sure you will find a solicitor who tells you what you want to hear - that your wife has a high earning capacity, that you are older than she is, that the starting point for any division is equality etc etc. I am aware of all that. My point is that when you have found yourself a solicitor who tells you what you want to hear and you then throw thousands (perhaps many thousands) in pursuit of this goal my view is that you are unlikely to do better than your wife is offering so the end result is that you spend a lot of money for nothing. I have seen this happen so many times. There are many solicitors willing to take your money in circumstances like these. You need to be aware of that.

Obviously there are situations where it is perfectly justifiable to spend significant money on legal costs. Typically that is where the other spouse is being totally unreasonable and so it makes economic sense to spend significant money on legal costs rather than accept an offer which is derisory. This is not one of those situations. Spending money on legal costs is a matter of economics. You are in a position where your wife's offer is not unreasonable so throwing money at contesting it is a big gamble which could easily backfire. Ultimately these decisions are for you alone but do not assume that a solicitor who tells you what you want to hear can necessarily achieve the result you want.

Yea she offered 50 percent initially but I thought I could get more. Not great really. Thank you for the advice though.