|
Forum
Started Nov 09 2012, 05:42
|
Nov 09 2012, 05:42
I have been separated from my wife for about 6 months. We have 3 young children. She is and has been a full time parent since the first child was born, whereas I
am a PhD student with funding from various sources.
I'm currently supporting the family except that she receives a separated parent allowance (which is quite generous I think) from Centrelink. There is no formal
parenting agreement in place although she wants to go to mediation, I'm not sure if this is mainly about settlement issues or parenting issues or both, but I guess
that mediation cannot hurt.
At the moment the children live with their mother and I have access about 2 days a week, sometimes more. On the other hand, sometimes I am away, mainly this
is due to work trips but there has been some personal travel as well, because I'm in a long distance (new) relationship.
I am reasonably happy with the parenting arrangements as they are, my wife appears to make it a priority to give me decent access, even though there are many
points on which we disagree about raising the children etc. I have offered to change my studies to part time and have equal care of the children but she doesn't
want me to. I might have pushed the issue, except that I would prefer to be free to travel if need be.
Settlement is a much more difficult issue since we own the house she lives in. This was inherited by me from my grandfather (although in fact not through his will, it
was purchased for me by my grandmother after his death). The house is in my name, and the inheritance predates the relationship. I am happy for her and the
children to live in the house, which is why I elected to move out when we separated. I am not happy for her to own the house, because I consider it to be my
asset.
My understanding is that the court would in general return pre-existing assets to their former owners except when there is a future need. I think my wife could
convincingly argue a future need, since the children are living with her. She also said that she would oppose any effort to change this arrangement, as she believes
they need to live with her.
My position is basically that her future needs will be met, as I am happy to pay maintenance while she is raising my children, essentially I want her and my children
to be able to enjoy roughly the same living standard as I do (or better), so out of my PhD funding or future salary I am certainly willing to support the family. I
would probably prefer to have some of the care of the children and my wife to work to support her/us during that time, but I'm willing to be the sole breadwinner.
So given this, is it reasonable that she also walk away with, say, half my house? I think she wants to have security, that is, she feels that if I simply agree to pay
her maintenance I can renege on the agreement at any time, whereas if she has half the house then she does not have to rely on me to keep my word. Or maybe
she will repartner and I will not want to support the new partner by providing a house, whereas she might.
She would not rule out asking for MORE than half the house, I think she believes that once married all assets are evenly owned and should be split in half except
that since she has no income she should get MORE than half. That isn't my understanding of how the court sees it though. On the other hand she's been receiving
advice from various sources, so maybe there is some basis in what she says? If her advice is reliable?
I have asked to delay a settlement while I think about things. She wants a quick settlement, which I believe is because she's been advised that any generous
sentiments on my part could evaporate with time (standard advice). I'm not really sure if that's the case though, my motivations are genuine and I think I have the
kids' interests first. I just don't really want to lose control, that is, I want to maintain ownership of the house, to ensure I can put a roof over their heads.
Please let me have your thoughts.
ID#12565671
|
|
|
We Speak Your Language
|
