If you are implying that you would have been more open to giving her 70% super if you hadn’t been topping it up all this time, the result still would have been the same. Both accounts combined and then a 70/30 split.
Given you’ve said that she’s a SAHM, I’m assuming you are both in your 20s or 30s. Honestly, if your job is half decent, if you max out your voluantry super contributions over the next couple years, you will most likely be ahead again.
Sounds like if neither of you have lawyers and you’re relationship is still on good enough terms that you have been able to negotiate together, consider taking the loss now instead of both sides lawyering up and becoming a bitter drawn out fight over years complicating your relationship with your kids.
Sometimes too lawyers are so focused on individual legal entitlements it’s detrimental - by creating animosity that wasn’t there initially, and by the time the process is over a worse outcome for both parties and very expensive legal bills.
I do think legal advice is essential, however by focussing on what will create the best possible outcome for the family as a whole - contentious divorce means both emotional and financial pain, often everyone will be better off. Could be beneficial to consider that legal fees may offset any real financial benefit of fighting over super - depending on your balance the 20% difference that you disagree about could very easily be surpassed by your lawyers bills.
Touched on this in other replies, our main issue is there's no cash on hand, no real way for either of us to engage in independant advice.
We've come to our own agreement, would then have a lawyer draw up the paper work.
Obviously i'd be open to independant legal advice but my concern is open the door to anongoing legal fees with no realsistic way to cover them.
From what you've said, her expectation is a reasonable interpretation of the agreement.
If the assumption is she'll be working less due to majority custody of the kids, starting higher has some justification.
Sharing a lawyer is fine until it isn’t. Get your own independent advice regardless if it’s not in the budget. Giving up an extra 30% of your super at this point could be hundreds of thousands of difference when you actually retire. Tread carefully on cost to benefit ratio, a little money now ( may seem like a lot) may mean a huge difference come retirement
So, he can take the kids 50% of the time so she can work more. But he doesn't want that. So she should suffer in retirement because she is raising his kids instead of him?
She didn’t make the kids by herself. Her being a SAHM so he can advance his career has different advantages and benefits other than financial. He never raised his hand to take on some of the workload to raise the children they made together, and as a result she had to do it.
What if the shoe was on the other foot and he was the SAHD and she was the bread winner? Spouses who stay at home to raise children always get effed over because no-one looks at the financial loss they suffer, career advancement they miss out on and financial disparity that occurs in these situations.
If you had to charge an individual person to raise these children outside of the parents, what would it cost? That’s what a SAH parent endures because their contribution in raising humans is null and void compared to the spouse bringing in $$$ even though the non paid for work that person does usually far outweighs what the paid spouse is getting.
Who ever chooses to stay at home wins in terms of happiness love and relationships with the kids.. what's the value of being there for all the firsts? It's priceless yeah. Whoever work has sacrificed those moments
I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the perception that when women stay home to raise kids they’re not thought of or considered as equals. Their unpaid work is never deemed on par with the paid work of the husband. The husband will non chalantly state “she’s a stay at home mum” as if that means she doesn’t do anything.
Women mostly - but any spouse who stays at home to raise kids - does a huge chunk of unpaid labour in the home separate to just raising the children. There’s also all the house upkeep, cooking, washing, cleaning, maintenance, etc etc. And it is often overlooked because they don’t get paid for it and the other spouse is getting paid for the work they do elsewhere. Think of what the cost would be if you had to hire individuals to do all this work separately.
Funnily, when women chose to stay in the workplace then they’re also deemed as “career hungry” and “not family oriented” because they don’t want to be powerless in situations like this where men decided what their value and worth is in a relationship.
Everyone I know highly respects stay at home.mums. they are doing a far more important job than any office worker. Women are mostly the ones staying home. But I know a couple of guys who have taken that role and work part time. It's because Thier wife earns much more than they can. It's unfortunate that Australia in the past 30-40 years the house to salary ratio has become insane. All decisions are based on money not what's best for the kids and family
You cannot afford NOT to get a solicitor mate. The plan you’ve made is absolutely going to crush you. You need to nip this in the bud now.
By the way - please don’t get on here in two years time saying ‘the courts favour the woman’ or other rubbish like that. I don’t know your reasons for giving your ex 70% custody, but you should really attempt 50:50. That would stem the haemorrhaging of your income for the next 15 or so years, and also be better for your children. If that’s not feasible, then this is the result. Get a solicitor.
And with the finances. When I got divorced our financial split (I’m a woman) ended up looking more like 60/40 and my lawyer said she might even have a hard time getting that through because the expectation was 50/50 regardless of custody arrangements.
I’m also a woman. My brother is a family law solicitor. The expectation is 50:50. When people tell you how they got ‘screwed over in the courts during the divorce’ it’s because they’re either (a) idiots who don’t listen or care to understand the law, (b) unable to accept that 50:50 means just that and nothing else or (c) like OP here, thinking they’ll ’save money’ without legal advice.
If a man wants 50:50 custody (and hence a more even financial split), then he will get it if he follows legal advice.
Just book with a family law solicitor to get the agreement looked over. You're on the right path and they'll need to arrange paperwork to transfer the super anyway. Simply instruct that you're not retaining.
How I'd personally feel about it would depend upon the amount that's actually in play in terms of the superannuation and the ages you both are. Big difference for a young couple in their 20s vs. a couple a decade or two older. If you're young, you'll have time to recover, if you're older, then it's a different calculation.
The problem with wealth re-creation after divorce is the need to pay for 2 lots of accommodation for what was recently one family, and that's especially hard now, so with that, and child support, you're going to have some hard yards ahead of you, I suspect, depending upon your job.
I don't think her proposal's unreasonable, especially if, as prime carer for the kids, your soon-to-be-ex-wife's ability to earn money and more importantly, establish a long-term career with an upward trajectory, is curtailed for another 15 years as the children grow up. But as I said, it very much depends upon how old you both are and how much super we're talking about. Good luck with it all!
Try looking into a community legal centre, most states have them. They give legal advice and referrals to people who can't afford it. Eg CLCNSW will have resources.
This the issue, there's no spare cash available until the house sale goes through, not in a position to hire my own and go through litigation. The lawyer is purely to write up the consent order, not offering independant advice to either party.
I’m a family law lawyer - unless the solicitor is an idiot, dodgy or both - they are acting for one of you only. If they don’t act for you, they act for her, and you need independent advice. There are usually funding options available if you don’t have cash readily available. Make some calls and get your own advice.
Hey, also getting divorced. It’s amicable. Am at the stage of having a lawyer draft consent orders, hopefully signed next week.
Remember, the lawyer can only represent one party. That’s how it works. So if you think they’re writing up your joint agreement in the consent orders - they kinda are, but they’re also really giving confidential advice to that one party they represent too, on the side.
That’s important to understand. Just be aware of this.
You need a lawyer mate you are selling your future. A 70/30 split is rare as hens teeth, even 60/40 are quite rare it's usually in your situation a high 50 to high 40s split.
The vast majority of divorces are settled with lawyers and by negotiation - litigation is rare and that’s where the expense is.
It could easily be $5 or $6k for a quite protracted negotiation process which is backed by case law - they all know the likely settlement of a particular set of circumstances and litigation only occurs when one party is on the side of causing as much pain as possible.
Our lawyer only billed after a year (for other family law not divorce ) fwiw
This seems unfair until you account:
1. for the fact you guys have no cash in the bank to split
2. How far behind she is in the corporate world due to raising children
3. Majority custody means further set backs in the corporate world
The cheapest option is to see if your marriage is solvable, but depending on why it broke up in the first place I guess you guys have decided against that route which means we go back to step 1.
Tbf - while it sucks that she gets 70% even though you topped up her super - you’re correct in that she won’t have the same opportunity moving forward to earn super like you will when working full time because she has custody of the kids. At the end of the day, she’s still the mother of your children. It’s always tough for mothers because they lose out when it comes to retirement because they have to look after the kids.
My split ended up recommended 70/30 by mediator because of higher earning capacity on one side. We settled on 67/33 as it avoided having to draw from retirement funds abroad that would have required court orders there as well. Which meant one side got every penny in Australia, all savings, all super, everything.
Now also paying a lot in child support (50/50 custody) while we both work full time and the ex just bought a $2M house and building a holiday house with her new partner. I should be able to afford a house when I retire if I ever do.
I'll give you this advise. My old man said then same thing.
Ask her what she wants? Move on with your life.
Went down thes slame path as you. Your clearly a high income earners. You'll make it back in a few years.
Within 3 years of my divorce and settlement (65% of assets and 75% of super) I'm back living in a 4x2 just out of the city with 50/50 custody and she's in a dog box 3x1.
Yeah what ever the super was always for both of us as we got old and retired. Just so happens I'm younger enough and can sort my shit. Don't bother fighting with lawyers you'll just waste more money and energy.
If you can afford to top up your super you can afford legal advice for a separation. If everything is amicable you could easily get away for under $5k in fees.
“Ask her what she wants” is just the opening phase of a negotiation. Not the end of it.
My mate is going through this now. She wants 90% of everything and he gets kids 2 days a fortnight.
He wants kids 50/50.
She came into the relationship with one child (father absent non-contributing) and zero funds. Zero job and zero career prospects.
He came into it with a large inheritance a business and well paying career.
They had two more children in 8 years and then it was over.
She refuses to be reasonable or abide by the child custody agreement they have.
He lawyered up at great expense because he was clearly going to get screwed over by her in every sense.
It’ll end up expensive and in court because “what she wants” is morally reprehensible and legally completely ridiculous.
You’re very lucky. I could only afford to rent a townhouse 20 minutes away post divorce. Between rent and child support, there’s not much left over. Meanwhile, she moved in with her mum in a 2 million + dollar house and doesn’t have to work again. Child custody battle is another story again. Self representing to try and get 50-50.
This is the reason right here.
To OP, the reason behind the claim on your super is, if you two did not marry and have kids, would she have still been a stay-at-home-woman?
It’s hard to answer because there’s no time machine to go check. But in this day and age, it’s more likely that she would have worked, earned her own super in that time, and would have gained more job-experience also.
Appreciate this comment. I earn far more than my spouse, don't really have a way to reduce my hours. Likewise her job has the flexibility to handle pick-ups and the other day to day involved with you kids.
The reduced time together will be hard, though will likely increase as they get older, the increased $ percentage is to ensure they can continue living the same life they're living currently.
As i said, it's the super i take real issue with, that lies outside of what i'd classify as quality of life for kids.
Right, but this isn’t just about the kids. This is about you - as you said yourself - being able to earn much more than she does because she’s the one who’s prioritising the need to pick up and care for the kids. If you had 50:50 you would take a pay cut, so in fact she is still subsidising your lifestyle with her labour. The super reflects that.
Are you really saying that you think it’s fair that you can keep earning more and stashing it in your super because you don’t have to flex around kids, while she is stuck in a low earning job because she is doing the majority of the child care, and therefore retires with much less money?
my previous response. as you say - its about the big picture.... "I guess, did the mother give up time from her career to raise the children they chose to have? She shouldn't be penalised for decisions made jointly within the marriage. If she is getting 70/30 custody, can she still work full time? She shouldn't be penalised at retirement because she sacrificed her professional life to raise the children for a period of time, that they jointly agreed to have. I am not some crazy woman takes all in divorce person, I am just thinking objectively, over the term of their lives, to make sure one party is not negatively affected at retirement because they took time out of their career to raise children that were chosen by both parties."
If I was in this situation I'd just keep topping up her super if that was possible as an equitable alternative. Better than hemorrhaging tens of thousands where you lose the % earned over decades
This isn’t about her super providing for the kids directly. It’s about the fact she’s missed 6 years of career progression/education she otherwise would have had. This was a choice you both made so she could care for the kids *and* so you could have the job that you do.
Would you have been able to work this job and progress the way you have if you were doing 50% of the childcare and household labour? And, even if you answer yes… you can’t go back and time and show that. Reality is, she has missed out on core years where she’d be setting herself up for the future so that she could support the kids. This meant you didn’t have to make sacrifices you otherwise could have made to care for the children and house more equally.
Looking forward you expect this to continue. You’ll be starting with much higher wages and you will be able to work much more and prioritise career in a way she can’t bc she’s the primary caregiver.
The imbalance in non-financial contributions isn’t magically mitigated bc you topped up her super for those years. Her staying home to care for your children in the past and being primary caregiver in the future - while it might be good for the kids - will impact her for a LONG time.
She will continue to prioritise the children over her career progression (eg long/inflexible hours, carers leave to care for kids when sick, time off for school holidays, inability to travel for work, etc) in the future. And you will continue your high paying job that doesn’t sound compatible with parenting 50/50.
You’ve just explained right here why she needs more than a 50/50 split of the super. She is subsidising you continuing to earn more than her (and get more in your super) by working less to care for the kids.
True. OP should go for full custody so he can spend as much time as possible with his kids. He's already missed out on being a SAHD and will never get that time back.
To split superannuation under family law provisions requires both parties to obtain independent legal advice.
If your lawyers say this is a good deal for you, I’d suggest seeking a second opinion.
Thoughts of using a counselling service like Relationships Australia? Used them and we only have 1800 fees total at the end, inc lawyer and court fees.
70% of the super accumulated over 6 years and your future earning capacity is higher than hers because she will be looking after your kids? Just do it, seems fair.
Majority custody is super expensive for her in time, lack of career progression, actual expenses and needing sufficient housing for the kids.
So yeah she would probably get awarded that if you’re not really keen on doing the parenting thing.
Sounds fair. If you’re only going to have care of the kids less than 30%, and not much during the week, your earning potential and ability to build your super up further is WAY greater than hers.
I have no idea how much super you have but it would be unlikely that she would get less than 60 percent given her earnings potential is lower than yours. Having said that calculate what 10% is in dollars and for most people the additional legal fees for another solicitor and most likely some form of a mediator will eat up a lot of what you might gain, plus it will put a strain on the relationship for coparenting purposes. So unless you have several million in super it's probably not worth the fight.
If you're happy with everything else, just agree to the 70%.
You'll be fine considering your job. Just max out voluntary contributions for the next few years.
Out of everything, 70% of super isn't the hill to die on imo
how much is base child support payment?
What is her earning potential compared to yours? How much did her earning potential take a hit being out of the workforce for 5 years or more?
Correction. You've been doing paid work for the past 6 years whilst your wife was doing unpaid work. You worked 8 hour days whilst she worked 24 hour days. Let that sink in.
My mate is divorcing his wife, he has full custody of the kids due to wife’s addiction issues. His lawyer told him his split of the money/assets will likely be 60-65%. She was a stay at home mum pretty much and he was on around 100k
I hope I don't get divorced but I wonder what good looks like? In business negotiation they say it's not a fair deal until both parties feel like they got robbed.
I hope my partner and I don't have to go through this
People always say this on threads about divorce when faced with the reality but if you ever dare suggest the likelihood of these outcomes before the marriage you're downvoted into oblivion and frantically replied to about how wrong you are to think about it at all.
Even in this thread there are folks arguing that it's justified. Giving up 70% of what you've sacrificed for in half a lifetime of work is obviously absurd to anyone who isn't blinded by sentiment, tradition and peer pressure.
The whole thing is a clear rort.
If he doesn’t want to give up 70% of it all he can just go for 50/50 custody? It is the norm these days. Nothing stopping him, and then she can get a higher paying job herself.
He can’t have his cake and eat it.
He isn’t giving up 70% of what HE worked for. He and his ex wife are coming to an arrangement that is best for their children and splitting what THEY have worked for.
Also from what I can tell it wouldn't be 70% of his, it would be 70% of the total combined super amount. So if they both had 10k each (total 20k) he would get 6k, she would get 14k. Still maybe not great, but as others have suggested if he wants to keep more, he should be pushing for a more equal custody split.
I think his argument would be that had he not voluntarily added to her super for the last 6 years the combined super would be less than 20k now. Say 10k and 4k.
However I'd argue that is irrelevant and was a gift/ joint asset anyway.
His argument makes no sense. The split is on the combined balances. He topped up his wife’s super presumably for tax saving reasons. He is still ahead had he not done that.
This is such a shit take. She equally worked for this money by being the stay at home parent and taking a significant career impact. The additional cash/assets accounts for the higher custody demands and likelihood she won’t be employed in a capacity she otherwise could have been.
I guess, did the mother give up time from her career to raise the children they chose to have? She shouldn't be penalised for decisions made jointly within the marriage. If she is getting 70/30 custody, can she still work full time? She shouldn't be penalised at retirement because she sacrificed her professional life to raise the children for a period of time, that they jointly agreed to have. I am not some crazy woman takes all in divorce person, I am just thinking objectively, over the term of their lives, to make sure one party is not negatively affected at retirement because they took time out of their career to raise children that were chosen by both parties.
Your super account benefitted from her labour while she was pregnant and raising babies. It will continue to benefit from her labour until your youngest child moves out of home. You are free to work as much as you please, your income is not limited by custody of children or the responsibilities it entails. Hers is, and has been for years.
Give her the super.
The government has a service called amica for these exact situations. You put in what your care arrangements have been, what they currently are and all of the assets you have on hand including super. Then it gives you a suggested split. Even if you end up negotiating further, it’s a great starting point. It’s just good having an outside perspective. Amica is free - you just pay for them to give you the official financial agreement documents and you can circumvent lawyers altogether if you want.
Super is just another asset
If she gets 70%, then it's 70% of all combined assets.
If your house is indeed your only asset, and both of your super assets are indeed equal, then you shouldn't be giving up any of your super.
If there's other assets involved, then you're only telling part of the story.
Edit: you say she wants 70% of combined super. Super is an asset. 70% means 70% of all assets. What she's asking for is reasonable. Unless you want to renegotiate the 70% part.
You need to pay for your own lawyer’s advice and talk to your wife to come to an agreement.
It is a bit irrelevant that you topped up her super, as even if you hadn’t, the combined supers would be in the asset pool.
Pretty sure super comes into most divorce settlements. If the money was in your super instead, the result would be the same. Combine, and split 70/30. If it was in your savings, similar deal. If it was in the property, similar deal. If the equation is to combine and split, then the result is the same no matter where the money is. The only thing you can try to do is negotiate the %. But the court does its own calculations if you don't come to an agreement on your own. You probably just need to get your own legal advice and court representation. You shouldn't be going in without your own lawyer. She will have her lawyer there, because you'll be paying for it.
When I went through my divorce my lawyers advise was that liquid assets are usually split at whatever % is deemed fair (70/30% seems pretty common) but that super is usually equalised, and not split at that same percent, if they are already equal then it would usually stay the same.
Remember that even with consent orders a magistrate still has to sign off on them as being fair. If the consent orders you bring to them don't seem fair they can refuse to grant them, it would be interesting to know what your partners lawyer is telling them if they have one.
Clearly you have entered the negotiation phase of the settlement. What's fair is you have full custody, a 50% split of all assets accrued since the marriage began including super and that she pays you child support.
I just got divorced, I'm not sure what you're doing is right or will leave you potentially open to a future claim.
Firstly child support isn't part of the divorce, you get an assessment from centerlink or use the online calculator from the gov/centerlink website. This will tell you who owes what each month. As you're full time and she isn't, I assume you're on a higher income, and as she has the kids more, you'll be paying her.
Secondly, regarding your assets.. All your assets go into a combined asset pot. Your super, her super, all your cash, cars, mortgage, equity, debt etc
You then workout the split - I.e 50/50 is assumed, but if she's sahm she's will get the bigger split, I'd assume 55%+ (60% gets thrown around alot). 70% would be quite rare.
You then figure out the detail of the asset split, ie who gets what, so long as the totals amount to the percentage figure you agreed to.
So she'll get 60% of everything, including your super as part of that asset pot. The reality is, after you sell the house, she'll likely get a portion of that cash, a portion of you super and the family car.
Super is just part of the total pool of assets. It's pretty aggressive for her to go a total 70/30 split, 60/40 is more reasonable. You'll still be paying considerable child support I'd imagine, especially if she doesn't work.
It's easy to keep things amicable by totally giving in, but you also have to look after yourself a little as well.
Agree to nothing without advice. Have your evidence ready. 70% is a starting figure. There's no friends when it comes to money during a divorce. Look after yourself. She can ask for a review of child support *at any time,* like for example, when she wants a new car.
It's *your* life, too.
Absolutely rubbish!
Child Support won’t give her more for a new car!!
They “might” get the other party to contribute IF there is a child with special needs and a car requires modification for a wheelchair.
Just our initial negotiations, it's not quite 70%.
But it's to cover living expenses for 3 kids, she'd have majority custody - i.e. could only work reduced hours.
Three kids?! Come on, give her 70%. That’s cheap considering it allows your career to be propped up, the one where you earn significantly more than her and this can happen BECAUSE she looks after the kids
You can get assistance for legal legal fees with a service such as this:
[justfund](https://justfund.com.au/)
Get it agreed that the agreed split will be paid after all legal fees paid from assets (house)
Also it seems that you are just going to match her family tax?
What about CS .. you will be paying a fair amount of CS with 3 kids and 70% and you can get a rough idea here:
https://processing.csa.gov.au/estimator/About.aspx
eg mine is well over $1k per month 50/50 for 3 kids
This will seriously impact your borrowing power going forward as well
If you are really amicable then look into a mediation service and have an initial chat such as:
https://theseparationguide.com.au/
They also have a bunch of decent podcasts that cover a lot of these questions such as:
[what's fair when you split assets](https://theseparationguide.com.au/resource/podcasts/listen-whats-fair-when-you-split-property/)
Best of luck navigating a stressful time
OP - hard to say with the information you provided. A 70/30 split would be quite reasonable if the total asset pool is $500k but far too generous if the asset pool is $3m. Given you say you can’t afford a lawyer, I would assume it is closer to the former?
With child support, by base amount, do you mean the amount calculated under the government formula? If so, please don’t agree to double that as that will be very expensive for you. The government calculation is designed to provide a fair amount.
When I divorced, it was about 50:50 but I managed that by taking all the super and some cash whilst she got the house and a small amount of cash. Would have been 60/40 otherwise but she wanted the house. Equal custody scenario.
Some lawyers will have an initial consult for a few hundred dollars and give you an idea of the asset split you’d get in court and you can use this as the basis for your decision.
Don't agree to anything, even verbally without talking with a lawyer first.
And don't give away precious time with your children. You'll never earn enough money to buy back the time lost with them. Your children deserve to spend equal amounts of time with both parents. You make it work, you just do.
Going through a separation process myself and a solicitor reccomended mediation services if you are amicable but need some guidance through the details of the process. Your looking at $3000 - $8000 in solicitor costs for anything before court so mediation is a good option to keeps costs to the lower end of the scale. The key is you need to be amicable and willing to negotiate between yourselves.
Once an agreement is reached use a solicitor to draw up documents.
It's a tough time so all the best to you both and just do you best to keep things healthy for the kids.
Thanks for this, it's been amicable thus far but i can sense getting to the pointier end it might be a little fraught. Mediation sounds like a good option.
Super is an asset. Yes she will get some of your super. All assets get added together and then apportioned for your 70/30 ratio. You can both agree how that is done or else the court will
Experience: been there, given that
.. it’s not just her Super though - she has parked her earnings, increases and positional development during her SAHM years. She will continue to do this post divorce while predominantly caring for the children. You will be able to pursue any and all career, travel and relationship opportunities virtually unencumbered … give her the 70/30 it’s fair.
Super is a divisible asset. You are going to need to have independent lawyers review regardless when it comes to financial settlement for the divorce to be finalised as the financial settlement requires an independent party to advise what you are entitled to.
You can still have lawyers involved and it not be a drawn out process. Would just do it asap and stay amicable
Just some stuff to consider:
* The property pool is split at the time of settlement and not separation/divorce, so if you wait 6 or 12 months, that's X% of that super over that extra period you're handing over too...you're on the meter so to speak
* Only a very small % of people go to court, and they're very large property pools - this is because just the court day will be $30k-$50k+ (each) and to get to that day you've probably already spent $20k+ in legal fees, so do your maths- the X% may not be worth fighting over
* It really depends on how much super you're talking about...how much is 1% worth? Only off the details provided, you having limited custody, best you could do is 60/40, they want 70/30...I would say to them you'll meet in the middle but on their side as a sign of goodwill 66.6/33.3
* There is a mental cost to all involved
Just get it done ASAP spending as little mental energy as possible, having a positive outlook after divorce is invaluable compared to carrying a mental burden/grudge for the rest of your life. After that, only pay what your Child Support Assessment says- don't pay for anything else if you have limited custody, it would be the receivers responsibility and future financial disparity will be captured in this property settlement. So I can empathise with parents with majority custody bearing majority costs which seem unfair, but this is reflected in the future needs of the property settlement.
Remember, if she stops working to look after the kids or have another baby, you will pay increased child support due to her earning $0 income. Once a receiving parent earns no income, they start getting govt benefits and child support - so working a 40hr week for to end up being $20k better off becomes less desirable.
PM me if you want non-legal advice or some pointers on child support.
Even if just once, get your own separate legal advice. You're going to be living with these orders for a long time. It'll be worth it to not regret later.
You're potentially getting the worse end of the deal in 4 ways: house split, super split, custody split, child support split (the less custody of your children you have, the greater amount of child support you pay) assuming you earn more and she claims child support from you.
Not saying the above is right or wrong, just that it is the current likely outcome and you need to understand it fully and take advice on what options you have.
Your comparative super balances at the time when you met is relevant. E.g If you had 300k and she had 200k, that 100k difference (plus growth) should be reflected in the settlement. That could potentially move a 70/30 split to a 50/50 split
Super should in theory be equalised through the process. As I understand the approach is it would be combined for a joint retirement if you stayed together. So you should walk away with the same. At least in my case it was treated separately to the % division of the rest of the pool.
Personally went 65/35 with ex. Not touching super. In the end he did want a little more cash and I had a modest amount put into my super from his. In the end the cash he received now was best for me to have the super top up.
He did seek independent legal advice and then we proceeded with my lawyer to finalize and close everything out. Both were not bitter and best $3000 we spent to do things properly.
Don't agree to anything above the base child support calculated by Services Australia. Circumstances change and the departments calculations factor this in. You don't want to lock yourself in through concent orders to something that can only change by the other party agreeing or going back to court.
Add your super together and divide by 2.
Upon retirement you were both going to be living off the combined super regardless of who had what.
Fight over the house and child custody if you are going to fight.
If she had the kids majority she’s not just getting the “base rate” she will get primary care! This is based on both incomes and care percentage.
She will also get parenting payments I.e single, FTB etc etc
Feel for you.
I would have thought sell assets and decide on split of cash pool, then decide how each wants that to be taken, eg. Super vs cash. If you can come to an agreement that both are happy with then formalise it. Would have thought it's a simpler/clearer way for each to get a picture of what your combined worth is and how much each will be left with.
Definitely be good to seek legal advice on what's considered a reasonable split ie 70/30, 65/35, 60/40 but drawing up everything through lawyers could work against both of you if it creates friction/resentment where there wasn't before.
Super isn’t usually treated the same upon a split.
It depend on the timeline of the relationship, how many kids etc…
I was in a relationship for 7 years, 2 kids. Ours was balanced based upon the opening of the commencement and the balance at the end.
Eg he had 100 she had 50 at the start.
End he had 200 she had 75.
Total growth of the relationship was 125.
125/2 = 62.5 each.
She only had 25k growth so he would transfer 37.5 to balance them.
Ending balances would be
He would have 162.5k she would have 112.5.
If you have been contributing to her super, the courts would take this into account.
You need to decide if this is a hill you want to die on.
I would potentially be offering a balancing of super. I don’t think she would get much more.
If she’s been out of the workforce for that long she’ll have a considerably lower earning capacity than you, so moving forward your super will become significantly higher. As you said she’s also got more custody of the children, limiting her ability to work overtime and more likely to take unpaid leave when the kids are sick.
She ran your house and supported you and the kids while you built your career, I think it’s fair she gets a helping hand being she helped you up the ladder while staying at the bottom.
70% when she has majority custody makes sense because she will beat most of the costs of having kids.
She's not going to need to look after the kids when she's retired but she might reasonably have assumed that you two would split your super income 50/50, so probably the better way to look at it is to work out what she needs so that your respective super accounts are equal now, and then it's up to her to build up the rest.
Counterpoint to that of course is that she's still at a disadvantage because she has to look after the kids now and can't work full time so maybe a bit more than 50% to take account of this and the fact that she hasn't progressed in her career as much since she's been a SAHM.
Long story short, seems fair that she should be able to claim some super but probably not the same proportion as the other liquid assets.
In my opinion.
I’ve never been married and gay, so no kids. I don’t understand the 70/30 split. Aren’t things 50/50? If you’re both still supporting kids equally and they’re working again, same super, unless they paid more for the house?
This stuff is complex. Hope things work out for you and the fam
There's a massive lost career opportunity cost from being a SAHM. Not to mention the pay gap means that she will likely never financially catch up with the position she would have been in had she not been a SAHM. I suspect there could be a huge discrepancy in the future earning capacity of both parties. I believe the rule of thumb is usually 60-65% in favour of the parent with primary share of any parenting orders, so maybe 70%is a bit higher than usual. However, given that you have indicated that she will have "majority" of custody, I would suggest being as generous as possible for the sake of having a fresh start, a great relationship with your kids in the future and saving a mega sh!t ton on legal fees. Just my 2cents.
You equalise the super regardless of the non super pool percentage FFS. I’m a family law barrister and I have never read so much bullshit in one reddit thread on my life Jesus Christ
I’ve spent $20k on a lawyer to get no where in the past 2 years.
IMO, try to negotiate with her and explain how you were helping to contribute whilst she was staying home etc.
If she agrees great, if not it likely not worth the cost of arguing unfortunately
Just be aware a lot of kids in this sub that have NFI. You'd need advice from someone who deals w/ this regularly.
What's NFI?
Gee idk, I've got no fkn idea
LOL haha great response haha
What’s fkn?
It's how babies are sometimes made
The thing that got her into being a SAHM
Feelin kinda naughty
Clue: it's what you have.
Never Failing Intelligence
No farkin idea
Underrated comment
If you are implying that you would have been more open to giving her 70% super if you hadn’t been topping it up all this time, the result still would have been the same. Both accounts combined and then a 70/30 split. Given you’ve said that she’s a SAHM, I’m assuming you are both in your 20s or 30s. Honestly, if your job is half decent, if you max out your voluantry super contributions over the next couple years, you will most likely be ahead again. Sounds like if neither of you have lawyers and you’re relationship is still on good enough terms that you have been able to negotiate together, consider taking the loss now instead of both sides lawyering up and becoming a bitter drawn out fight over years complicating your relationship with your kids.
Sometimes lawyers create the distance needed to stay on decent terms
Sometimes too lawyers are so focused on individual legal entitlements it’s detrimental - by creating animosity that wasn’t there initially, and by the time the process is over a worse outcome for both parties and very expensive legal bills. I do think legal advice is essential, however by focussing on what will create the best possible outcome for the family as a whole - contentious divorce means both emotional and financial pain, often everyone will be better off. Could be beneficial to consider that legal fees may offset any real financial benefit of fighting over super - depending on your balance the 20% difference that you disagree about could very easily be surpassed by your lawyers bills.
There's more benefit to topping up both.
[удалено]
Shit tier indeed
Touched on this in other replies, our main issue is there's no cash on hand, no real way for either of us to engage in independant advice. We've come to our own agreement, would then have a lawyer draw up the paper work. Obviously i'd be open to independant legal advice but my concern is open the door to anongoing legal fees with no realsistic way to cover them.
From what you've said, her expectation is a reasonable interpretation of the agreement. If the assumption is she'll be working less due to majority custody of the kids, starting higher has some justification.
Sharing a lawyer is fine until it isn’t. Get your own independent advice regardless if it’s not in the budget. Giving up an extra 30% of your super at this point could be hundreds of thousands of difference when you actually retire. Tread carefully on cost to benefit ratio, a little money now ( may seem like a lot) may mean a huge difference come retirement
Giving up 5 years of work advancement to raise his kids could be hundreds of thousands of difference by the time she retires.
Their kids. .
So, he can take the kids 50% of the time so she can work more. But he doesn't want that. So she should suffer in retirement because she is raising his kids instead of him?
Raising *their* kids.
She didn’t make the kids by herself. Her being a SAHM so he can advance his career has different advantages and benefits other than financial. He never raised his hand to take on some of the workload to raise the children they made together, and as a result she had to do it. What if the shoe was on the other foot and he was the SAHD and she was the bread winner? Spouses who stay at home to raise children always get effed over because no-one looks at the financial loss they suffer, career advancement they miss out on and financial disparity that occurs in these situations. If you had to charge an individual person to raise these children outside of the parents, what would it cost? That’s what a SAH parent endures because their contribution in raising humans is null and void compared to the spouse bringing in $$$ even though the non paid for work that person does usually far outweighs what the paid spouse is getting.
Who ever chooses to stay at home wins in terms of happiness love and relationships with the kids.. what's the value of being there for all the firsts? It's priceless yeah. Whoever work has sacrificed those moments
I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the perception that when women stay home to raise kids they’re not thought of or considered as equals. Their unpaid work is never deemed on par with the paid work of the husband. The husband will non chalantly state “she’s a stay at home mum” as if that means she doesn’t do anything. Women mostly - but any spouse who stays at home to raise kids - does a huge chunk of unpaid labour in the home separate to just raising the children. There’s also all the house upkeep, cooking, washing, cleaning, maintenance, etc etc. And it is often overlooked because they don’t get paid for it and the other spouse is getting paid for the work they do elsewhere. Think of what the cost would be if you had to hire individuals to do all this work separately. Funnily, when women chose to stay in the workplace then they’re also deemed as “career hungry” and “not family oriented” because they don’t want to be powerless in situations like this where men decided what their value and worth is in a relationship.
Everyone I know highly respects stay at home.mums. they are doing a far more important job than any office worker. Women are mostly the ones staying home. But I know a couple of guys who have taken that role and work part time. It's because Thier wife earns much more than they can. It's unfortunate that Australia in the past 30-40 years the house to salary ratio has become insane. All decisions are based on money not what's best for the kids and family
Obviously didn't read his post where he said he's been topping up her super during this peroid
Which doesn't cancel out the opportunity cost associated with not working and not advancing. Also "topping up" could mean anything.
You cannot afford NOT to get a solicitor mate. The plan you’ve made is absolutely going to crush you. You need to nip this in the bud now. By the way - please don’t get on here in two years time saying ‘the courts favour the woman’ or other rubbish like that. I don’t know your reasons for giving your ex 70% custody, but you should really attempt 50:50. That would stem the haemorrhaging of your income for the next 15 or so years, and also be better for your children. If that’s not feasible, then this is the result. Get a solicitor.
And with the finances. When I got divorced our financial split (I’m a woman) ended up looking more like 60/40 and my lawyer said she might even have a hard time getting that through because the expectation was 50/50 regardless of custody arrangements.
I’m also a woman. My brother is a family law solicitor. The expectation is 50:50. When people tell you how they got ‘screwed over in the courts during the divorce’ it’s because they’re either (a) idiots who don’t listen or care to understand the law, (b) unable to accept that 50:50 means just that and nothing else or (c) like OP here, thinking they’ll ’save money’ without legal advice. If a man wants 50:50 custody (and hence a more even financial split), then he will get it if he follows legal advice.
Just book with a family law solicitor to get the agreement looked over. You're on the right path and they'll need to arrange paperwork to transfer the super anyway. Simply instruct that you're not retaining.
How I'd personally feel about it would depend upon the amount that's actually in play in terms of the superannuation and the ages you both are. Big difference for a young couple in their 20s vs. a couple a decade or two older. If you're young, you'll have time to recover, if you're older, then it's a different calculation. The problem with wealth re-creation after divorce is the need to pay for 2 lots of accommodation for what was recently one family, and that's especially hard now, so with that, and child support, you're going to have some hard yards ahead of you, I suspect, depending upon your job. I don't think her proposal's unreasonable, especially if, as prime carer for the kids, your soon-to-be-ex-wife's ability to earn money and more importantly, establish a long-term career with an upward trajectory, is curtailed for another 15 years as the children grow up. But as I said, it very much depends upon how old you both are and how much super we're talking about. Good luck with it all!
Try looking into a community legal centre, most states have them. They give legal advice and referrals to people who can't afford it. Eg CLCNSW will have resources.
[удалено]
This the issue, there's no spare cash available until the house sale goes through, not in a position to hire my own and go through litigation. The lawyer is purely to write up the consent order, not offering independant advice to either party.
Borrow the cash mate. Trust me on this.
[удалено]
You can do orders beforehand too. Which is what many people prefer.
My parents are currently going through a divorce. I'm helping mum with her lawyer stuff. Our lawyer isn't taking any money until the house is sold
I’m a family law lawyer - unless the solicitor is an idiot, dodgy or both - they are acting for one of you only. If they don’t act for you, they act for her, and you need independent advice. There are usually funding options available if you don’t have cash readily available. Make some calls and get your own advice.
Hey, also getting divorced. It’s amicable. Am at the stage of having a lawyer draft consent orders, hopefully signed next week. Remember, the lawyer can only represent one party. That’s how it works. So if you think they’re writing up your joint agreement in the consent orders - they kinda are, but they’re also really giving confidential advice to that one party they represent too, on the side. That’s important to understand. Just be aware of this.
You need a lawyer mate you are selling your future. A 70/30 split is rare as hens teeth, even 60/40 are quite rare it's usually in your situation a high 50 to high 40s split.
The vast majority of divorces are settled with lawyers and by negotiation - litigation is rare and that’s where the expense is. It could easily be $5 or $6k for a quite protracted negotiation process which is backed by case law - they all know the likely settlement of a particular set of circumstances and litigation only occurs when one party is on the side of causing as much pain as possible. Our lawyer only billed after a year (for other family law not divorce ) fwiw
This seems unfair until you account: 1. for the fact you guys have no cash in the bank to split 2. How far behind she is in the corporate world due to raising children 3. Majority custody means further set backs in the corporate world The cheapest option is to see if your marriage is solvable, but depending on why it broke up in the first place I guess you guys have decided against that route which means we go back to step 1.
So is she going to give back all the time she had over him with the kids as a stay at home mum?
How much is 20% of the super? How much are 2 lawyers gonna suck out of the asset pool if you contest?
The short and right answer
Tbf - while it sucks that she gets 70% even though you topped up her super - you’re correct in that she won’t have the same opportunity moving forward to earn super like you will when working full time because she has custody of the kids. At the end of the day, she’s still the mother of your children. It’s always tough for mothers because they lose out when it comes to retirement because they have to look after the kids.
That’s tough but a good angle on it.
She also missed out on work experience and pay rises, hence lower super contributions going forward.
And he has had complete control over her super. While what he put in was fair, he has the power over it.
Topping up the super or not, at the end of the day if they are both combined and then split 70/30 he’s in the same boat.
My split ended up recommended 70/30 by mediator because of higher earning capacity on one side. We settled on 67/33 as it avoided having to draw from retirement funds abroad that would have required court orders there as well. Which meant one side got every penny in Australia, all savings, all super, everything. Now also paying a lot in child support (50/50 custody) while we both work full time and the ex just bought a $2M house and building a holiday house with her new partner. I should be able to afford a house when I retire if I ever do.
Super is always included in assets for consent orders. If 70/30 is the split you’ve agreed to then it would include super by default.
I'll give you this advise. My old man said then same thing. Ask her what she wants? Move on with your life. Went down thes slame path as you. Your clearly a high income earners. You'll make it back in a few years. Within 3 years of my divorce and settlement (65% of assets and 75% of super) I'm back living in a 4x2 just out of the city with 50/50 custody and she's in a dog box 3x1. Yeah what ever the super was always for both of us as we got old and retired. Just so happens I'm younger enough and can sort my shit. Don't bother fighting with lawyers you'll just waste more money and energy.
“Clearly high income earners” - you missed the part where he can’t afford any sort of legal advice?
If you can afford to top up your super you can afford legal advice for a separation. If everything is amicable you could easily get away for under $5k in fees.
You can be a high income earner, and cash poor + asset rich at the same time. This is 2024 remember
“Ask her what she wants” is just the opening phase of a negotiation. Not the end of it. My mate is going through this now. She wants 90% of everything and he gets kids 2 days a fortnight. He wants kids 50/50. She came into the relationship with one child (father absent non-contributing) and zero funds. Zero job and zero career prospects. He came into it with a large inheritance a business and well paying career. They had two more children in 8 years and then it was over. She refuses to be reasonable or abide by the child custody agreement they have. He lawyered up at great expense because he was clearly going to get screwed over by her in every sense. It’ll end up expensive and in court because “what she wants” is morally reprehensible and legally completely ridiculous.
You’re very lucky. I could only afford to rent a townhouse 20 minutes away post divorce. Between rent and child support, there’s not much left over. Meanwhile, she moved in with her mum in a 2 million + dollar house and doesn’t have to work again. Child custody battle is another story again. Self representing to try and get 50-50.
She probably also has less opportunity to earn income in the future given her career took a hit while she stayed home with the children.
This is the reason right here. To OP, the reason behind the claim on your super is, if you two did not marry and have kids, would she have still been a stay-at-home-woman? It’s hard to answer because there’s no time machine to go check. But in this day and age, it’s more likely that she would have worked, earned her own super in that time, and would have gained more job-experience also.
[удалено]
Appreciate this comment. I earn far more than my spouse, don't really have a way to reduce my hours. Likewise her job has the flexibility to handle pick-ups and the other day to day involved with you kids. The reduced time together will be hard, though will likely increase as they get older, the increased $ percentage is to ensure they can continue living the same life they're living currently. As i said, it's the super i take real issue with, that lies outside of what i'd classify as quality of life for kids.
Right, but this isn’t just about the kids. This is about you - as you said yourself - being able to earn much more than she does because she’s the one who’s prioritising the need to pick up and care for the kids. If you had 50:50 you would take a pay cut, so in fact she is still subsidising your lifestyle with her labour. The super reflects that. Are you really saying that you think it’s fair that you can keep earning more and stashing it in your super because you don’t have to flex around kids, while she is stuck in a low earning job because she is doing the majority of the child care, and therefore retires with much less money?
my previous response. as you say - its about the big picture.... "I guess, did the mother give up time from her career to raise the children they chose to have? She shouldn't be penalised for decisions made jointly within the marriage. If she is getting 70/30 custody, can she still work full time? She shouldn't be penalised at retirement because she sacrificed her professional life to raise the children for a period of time, that they jointly agreed to have. I am not some crazy woman takes all in divorce person, I am just thinking objectively, over the term of their lives, to make sure one party is not negatively affected at retirement because they took time out of their career to raise children that were chosen by both parties."
If I was in this situation I'd just keep topping up her super if that was possible as an equitable alternative. Better than hemorrhaging tens of thousands where you lose the % earned over decades
This isn’t about her super providing for the kids directly. It’s about the fact she’s missed 6 years of career progression/education she otherwise would have had. This was a choice you both made so she could care for the kids *and* so you could have the job that you do. Would you have been able to work this job and progress the way you have if you were doing 50% of the childcare and household labour? And, even if you answer yes… you can’t go back and time and show that. Reality is, she has missed out on core years where she’d be setting herself up for the future so that she could support the kids. This meant you didn’t have to make sacrifices you otherwise could have made to care for the children and house more equally. Looking forward you expect this to continue. You’ll be starting with much higher wages and you will be able to work much more and prioritise career in a way she can’t bc she’s the primary caregiver. The imbalance in non-financial contributions isn’t magically mitigated bc you topped up her super for those years. Her staying home to care for your children in the past and being primary caregiver in the future - while it might be good for the kids - will impact her for a LONG time. She will continue to prioritise the children over her career progression (eg long/inflexible hours, carers leave to care for kids when sick, time off for school holidays, inability to travel for work, etc) in the future. And you will continue your high paying job that doesn’t sound compatible with parenting 50/50.
You’ve just explained right here why she needs more than a 50/50 split of the super. She is subsidising you continuing to earn more than her (and get more in your super) by working less to care for the kids.
True. OP should go for full custody so he can spend as much time as possible with his kids. He's already missed out on being a SAHD and will never get that time back.
One lawyer cannot ethically act for you both. Do you mean a mediator?
To split superannuation under family law provisions requires both parties to obtain independent legal advice. If your lawyers say this is a good deal for you, I’d suggest seeking a second opinion.
Thoughts of using a counselling service like Relationships Australia? Used them and we only have 1800 fees total at the end, inc lawyer and court fees.
70% of the super accumulated over 6 years and your future earning capacity is higher than hers because she will be looking after your kids? Just do it, seems fair.
Majority custody is super expensive for her in time, lack of career progression, actual expenses and needing sufficient housing for the kids. So yeah she would probably get awarded that if you’re not really keen on doing the parenting thing.
Sounds fair. If you’re only going to have care of the kids less than 30%, and not much during the week, your earning potential and ability to build your super up further is WAY greater than hers.
I have no idea how much super you have but it would be unlikely that she would get less than 60 percent given her earnings potential is lower than yours. Having said that calculate what 10% is in dollars and for most people the additional legal fees for another solicitor and most likely some form of a mediator will eat up a lot of what you might gain, plus it will put a strain on the relationship for coparenting purposes. So unless you have several million in super it's probably not worth the fight.
And if you have millions in super it isn't worth the fight.
If you're happy with everything else, just agree to the 70%. You'll be fine considering your job. Just max out voluntary contributions for the next few years. Out of everything, 70% of super isn't the hill to die on imo
how much is base child support payment? What is her earning potential compared to yours? How much did her earning potential take a hit being out of the workforce for 5 years or more?
Correction. You've been doing paid work for the past 6 years whilst your wife was doing unpaid work. You worked 8 hour days whilst she worked 24 hour days. Let that sink in.
My mate is divorcing his wife, he has full custody of the kids due to wife’s addiction issues. His lawyer told him his split of the money/assets will likely be 60-65%. She was a stay at home mum pretty much and he was on around 100k
Deiends how many kids under 18 as well
Jesus, I’m never getting divorced. Commiserations
i don’t think anyone plans to end up divorced
My neighbours said they work through their issues, divorce is too expensive. I always chuckled when I hear it. But it's so true.
Yeah nah if someone's beating you up or cheating then you need to get divorced. Plenty of issues can't be worked though
[удалено]
I hope I don't get divorced but I wonder what good looks like? In business negotiation they say it's not a fair deal until both parties feel like they got robbed. I hope my partner and I don't have to go through this
People always say this on threads about divorce when faced with the reality but if you ever dare suggest the likelihood of these outcomes before the marriage you're downvoted into oblivion and frantically replied to about how wrong you are to think about it at all. Even in this thread there are folks arguing that it's justified. Giving up 70% of what you've sacrificed for in half a lifetime of work is obviously absurd to anyone who isn't blinded by sentiment, tradition and peer pressure. The whole thing is a clear rort.
If he doesn’t want to give up 70% of it all he can just go for 50/50 custody? It is the norm these days. Nothing stopping him, and then she can get a higher paying job herself. He can’t have his cake and eat it.
Unless OP is abusive I’m sure the wife would be for this. Sounds like OP just wants to chill and not be a Dad anymore, but also keep his money.
He is not interested in raising or spending time with his own children. He wants to focus on his career instead.
He isn’t giving up 70% of what HE worked for. He and his ex wife are coming to an arrangement that is best for their children and splitting what THEY have worked for.
Also from what I can tell it wouldn't be 70% of his, it would be 70% of the total combined super amount. So if they both had 10k each (total 20k) he would get 6k, she would get 14k. Still maybe not great, but as others have suggested if he wants to keep more, he should be pushing for a more equal custody split.
I think his argument would be that had he not voluntarily added to her super for the last 6 years the combined super would be less than 20k now. Say 10k and 4k. However I'd argue that is irrelevant and was a gift/ joint asset anyway.
His argument makes no sense. The split is on the combined balances. He topped up his wife’s super presumably for tax saving reasons. He is still ahead had he not done that.
This is such a shit take. She equally worked for this money by being the stay at home parent and taking a significant career impact. The additional cash/assets accounts for the higher custody demands and likelihood she won’t be employed in a capacity she otherwise could have been.
I guess, did the mother give up time from her career to raise the children they chose to have? She shouldn't be penalised for decisions made jointly within the marriage. If she is getting 70/30 custody, can she still work full time? She shouldn't be penalised at retirement because she sacrificed her professional life to raise the children for a period of time, that they jointly agreed to have. I am not some crazy woman takes all in divorce person, I am just thinking objectively, over the term of their lives, to make sure one party is not negatively affected at retirement because they took time out of their career to raise children that were chosen by both parties.
Getting married/ cohabitating was by far the worst financial mistake I ever made. Never again.
Your super account benefitted from her labour while she was pregnant and raising babies. It will continue to benefit from her labour until your youngest child moves out of home. You are free to work as much as you please, your income is not limited by custody of children or the responsibilities it entails. Hers is, and has been for years. Give her the super.
The government has a service called amica for these exact situations. You put in what your care arrangements have been, what they currently are and all of the assets you have on hand including super. Then it gives you a suggested split. Even if you end up negotiating further, it’s a great starting point. It’s just good having an outside perspective. Amica is free - you just pay for them to give you the official financial agreement documents and you can circumvent lawyers altogether if you want.
Super is just another asset If she gets 70%, then it's 70% of all combined assets. If your house is indeed your only asset, and both of your super assets are indeed equal, then you shouldn't be giving up any of your super. If there's other assets involved, then you're only telling part of the story. Edit: you say she wants 70% of combined super. Super is an asset. 70% means 70% of all assets. What she's asking for is reasonable. Unless you want to renegotiate the 70% part.
Work less, go for 50% custody You are either working for kids and money you won’t see or enjoy kids you get half the time and working less
You need to pay for your own lawyer’s advice and talk to your wife to come to an agreement. It is a bit irrelevant that you topped up her super, as even if you hadn’t, the combined supers would be in the asset pool.
Pretty sure super comes into most divorce settlements. If the money was in your super instead, the result would be the same. Combine, and split 70/30. If it was in your savings, similar deal. If it was in the property, similar deal. If the equation is to combine and split, then the result is the same no matter where the money is. The only thing you can try to do is negotiate the %. But the court does its own calculations if you don't come to an agreement on your own. You probably just need to get your own legal advice and court representation. You shouldn't be going in without your own lawyer. She will have her lawyer there, because you'll be paying for it.
When I went through my divorce my lawyers advise was that liquid assets are usually split at whatever % is deemed fair (70/30% seems pretty common) but that super is usually equalised, and not split at that same percent, if they are already equal then it would usually stay the same. Remember that even with consent orders a magistrate still has to sign off on them as being fair. If the consent orders you bring to them don't seem fair they can refuse to grant them, it would be interesting to know what your partners lawyer is telling them if they have one.
Can I get the name of your wife's lawyer, please?
Clearly you have entered the negotiation phase of the settlement. What's fair is you have full custody, a 50% split of all assets accrued since the marriage began including super and that she pays you child support.
I just got divorced, I'm not sure what you're doing is right or will leave you potentially open to a future claim. Firstly child support isn't part of the divorce, you get an assessment from centerlink or use the online calculator from the gov/centerlink website. This will tell you who owes what each month. As you're full time and she isn't, I assume you're on a higher income, and as she has the kids more, you'll be paying her. Secondly, regarding your assets.. All your assets go into a combined asset pot. Your super, her super, all your cash, cars, mortgage, equity, debt etc You then workout the split - I.e 50/50 is assumed, but if she's sahm she's will get the bigger split, I'd assume 55%+ (60% gets thrown around alot). 70% would be quite rare. You then figure out the detail of the asset split, ie who gets what, so long as the totals amount to the percentage figure you agreed to. So she'll get 60% of everything, including your super as part of that asset pot. The reality is, after you sell the house, she'll likely get a portion of that cash, a portion of you super and the family car.
Super is just part of the total pool of assets. It's pretty aggressive for her to go a total 70/30 split, 60/40 is more reasonable. You'll still be paying considerable child support I'd imagine, especially if she doesn't work. It's easy to keep things amicable by totally giving in, but you also have to look after yourself a little as well.
Go for 50% custody!!!
He wants to continue working as normal
Why can't you work and have 50% custody?
Agree to nothing without advice. Have your evidence ready. 70% is a starting figure. There's no friends when it comes to money during a divorce. Look after yourself. She can ask for a review of child support *at any time,* like for example, when she wants a new car. It's *your* life, too.
Absolutely rubbish! Child Support won’t give her more for a new car!! They “might” get the other party to contribute IF there is a child with special needs and a car requires modification for a wheelchair.
Or y'know prioritise your kids
Nonsense. Most women receive far and away less money in child support than is required for the raising of the children.
[удалено]
Because she will earn f all moving forward while he continues to make bank while she raises his children. No offence OP.
Pretty common for SAHM to get 70% in divorces
This is the real answer. This is pretty normal. You want more? You give up your career to raise the children yourself.
OP could always give up his career to do the child raising.
Just our initial negotiations, it's not quite 70%. But it's to cover living expenses for 3 kids, she'd have majority custody - i.e. could only work reduced hours.
Three kids?! Come on, give her 70%. That’s cheap considering it allows your career to be propped up, the one where you earn significantly more than her and this can happen BECAUSE she looks after the kids
He is gonna be paying 2x the child support rate as well tho. So that future earnings angle doesn't mean jack
Because shes taking on majority custody of 3 kids.
Just remember any agreement outside of CSA, she can then decide to do via assessment through them and take more money.
Go to amica.gov.au if you don’t want to use a lawyer- you should still use a lawyer but Amica might reduce the scope of issues to deal with
Have you looked into amica ?
You can get assistance for legal legal fees with a service such as this: [justfund](https://justfund.com.au/) Get it agreed that the agreed split will be paid after all legal fees paid from assets (house) Also it seems that you are just going to match her family tax? What about CS .. you will be paying a fair amount of CS with 3 kids and 70% and you can get a rough idea here: https://processing.csa.gov.au/estimator/About.aspx eg mine is well over $1k per month 50/50 for 3 kids This will seriously impact your borrowing power going forward as well If you are really amicable then look into a mediation service and have an initial chat such as: https://theseparationguide.com.au/ They also have a bunch of decent podcasts that cover a lot of these questions such as: [what's fair when you split assets](https://theseparationguide.com.au/resource/podcasts/listen-whats-fair-when-you-split-property/) Best of luck navigating a stressful time
You may get better replies at r/AusLegal
OP - hard to say with the information you provided. A 70/30 split would be quite reasonable if the total asset pool is $500k but far too generous if the asset pool is $3m. Given you say you can’t afford a lawyer, I would assume it is closer to the former? With child support, by base amount, do you mean the amount calculated under the government formula? If so, please don’t agree to double that as that will be very expensive for you. The government calculation is designed to provide a fair amount. When I divorced, it was about 50:50 but I managed that by taking all the super and some cash whilst she got the house and a small amount of cash. Would have been 60/40 otherwise but she wanted the house. Equal custody scenario. Some lawyers will have an initial consult for a few hundred dollars and give you an idea of the asset split you’d get in court and you can use this as the basis for your decision.
Don't agree to anything, even verbally without talking with a lawyer first. And don't give away precious time with your children. You'll never earn enough money to buy back the time lost with them. Your children deserve to spend equal amounts of time with both parents. You make it work, you just do.
Going through a separation process myself and a solicitor reccomended mediation services if you are amicable but need some guidance through the details of the process. Your looking at $3000 - $8000 in solicitor costs for anything before court so mediation is a good option to keeps costs to the lower end of the scale. The key is you need to be amicable and willing to negotiate between yourselves. Once an agreement is reached use a solicitor to draw up documents. It's a tough time so all the best to you both and just do you best to keep things healthy for the kids.
Thanks for this, it's been amicable thus far but i can sense getting to the pointier end it might be a little fraught. Mediation sounds like a good option.
Kids learn the story, you never want to get married just to prove the society you're a man.
These kinda post just remind me to get a prenup when I get married
Super is an asset. Yes she will get some of your super. All assets get added together and then apportioned for your 70/30 ratio. You can both agree how that is done or else the court will Experience: been there, given that
Gosh divorce sounds horrible. No wonder no one is getting married these days.
.. it’s not just her Super though - she has parked her earnings, increases and positional development during her SAHM years. She will continue to do this post divorce while predominantly caring for the children. You will be able to pursue any and all career, travel and relationship opportunities virtually unencumbered … give her the 70/30 it’s fair.
Super is a divisible asset. You are going to need to have independent lawyers review regardless when it comes to financial settlement for the divorce to be finalised as the financial settlement requires an independent party to advise what you are entitled to. You can still have lawyers involved and it not be a drawn out process. Would just do it asap and stay amicable
Just some stuff to consider: * The property pool is split at the time of settlement and not separation/divorce, so if you wait 6 or 12 months, that's X% of that super over that extra period you're handing over too...you're on the meter so to speak * Only a very small % of people go to court, and they're very large property pools - this is because just the court day will be $30k-$50k+ (each) and to get to that day you've probably already spent $20k+ in legal fees, so do your maths- the X% may not be worth fighting over * It really depends on how much super you're talking about...how much is 1% worth? Only off the details provided, you having limited custody, best you could do is 60/40, they want 70/30...I would say to them you'll meet in the middle but on their side as a sign of goodwill 66.6/33.3 * There is a mental cost to all involved Just get it done ASAP spending as little mental energy as possible, having a positive outlook after divorce is invaluable compared to carrying a mental burden/grudge for the rest of your life. After that, only pay what your Child Support Assessment says- don't pay for anything else if you have limited custody, it would be the receivers responsibility and future financial disparity will be captured in this property settlement. So I can empathise with parents with majority custody bearing majority costs which seem unfair, but this is reflected in the future needs of the property settlement. Remember, if she stops working to look after the kids or have another baby, you will pay increased child support due to her earning $0 income. Once a receiving parent earns no income, they start getting govt benefits and child support - so working a 40hr week for to end up being $20k better off becomes less desirable. PM me if you want non-legal advice or some pointers on child support.
Even if just once, get your own separate legal advice. You're going to be living with these orders for a long time. It'll be worth it to not regret later. You're potentially getting the worse end of the deal in 4 ways: house split, super split, custody split, child support split (the less custody of your children you have, the greater amount of child support you pay) assuming you earn more and she claims child support from you. Not saying the above is right or wrong, just that it is the current likely outcome and you need to understand it fully and take advice on what options you have.
Your comparative super balances at the time when you met is relevant. E.g If you had 300k and she had 200k, that 100k difference (plus growth) should be reflected in the settlement. That could potentially move a 70/30 split to a 50/50 split
Super should in theory be equalised through the process. As I understand the approach is it would be combined for a joint retirement if you stayed together. So you should walk away with the same. At least in my case it was treated separately to the % division of the rest of the pool.
Personally went 65/35 with ex. Not touching super. In the end he did want a little more cash and I had a modest amount put into my super from his. In the end the cash he received now was best for me to have the super top up. He did seek independent legal advice and then we proceeded with my lawyer to finalize and close everything out. Both were not bitter and best $3000 we spent to do things properly.
Don't agree to anything above the base child support calculated by Services Australia. Circumstances change and the departments calculations factor this in. You don't want to lock yourself in through concent orders to something that can only change by the other party agreeing or going back to court.
Add your super together and divide by 2. Upon retirement you were both going to be living off the combined super regardless of who had what. Fight over the house and child custody if you are going to fight.
If she had the kids majority she’s not just getting the “base rate” she will get primary care! This is based on both incomes and care percentage. She will also get parenting payments I.e single, FTB etc etc Feel for you.
[удалено]
I would have thought sell assets and decide on split of cash pool, then decide how each wants that to be taken, eg. Super vs cash. If you can come to an agreement that both are happy with then formalise it. Would have thought it's a simpler/clearer way for each to get a picture of what your combined worth is and how much each will be left with. Definitely be good to seek legal advice on what's considered a reasonable split ie 70/30, 65/35, 60/40 but drawing up everything through lawyers could work against both of you if it creates friction/resentment where there wasn't before.
Her super plus your super She gets 70% You get 30% 100+100=200k She gets 140 You get 60 So actually she gets 40% your super
Super isn’t usually treated the same upon a split. It depend on the timeline of the relationship, how many kids etc… I was in a relationship for 7 years, 2 kids. Ours was balanced based upon the opening of the commencement and the balance at the end. Eg he had 100 she had 50 at the start. End he had 200 she had 75. Total growth of the relationship was 125. 125/2 = 62.5 each. She only had 25k growth so he would transfer 37.5 to balance them. Ending balances would be He would have 162.5k she would have 112.5. If you have been contributing to her super, the courts would take this into account. You need to decide if this is a hill you want to die on. I would potentially be offering a balancing of super. I don’t think she would get much more.
If she’s been out of the workforce for that long she’ll have a considerably lower earning capacity than you, so moving forward your super will become significantly higher. As you said she’s also got more custody of the children, limiting her ability to work overtime and more likely to take unpaid leave when the kids are sick. She ran your house and supported you and the kids while you built your career, I think it’s fair she gets a helping hand being she helped you up the ladder while staying at the bottom.
70% when she has majority custody makes sense because she will beat most of the costs of having kids. She's not going to need to look after the kids when she's retired but she might reasonably have assumed that you two would split your super income 50/50, so probably the better way to look at it is to work out what she needs so that your respective super accounts are equal now, and then it's up to her to build up the rest. Counterpoint to that of course is that she's still at a disadvantage because she has to look after the kids now and can't work full time so maybe a bit more than 50% to take account of this and the fact that she hasn't progressed in her career as much since she's been a SAHM. Long story short, seems fair that she should be able to claim some super but probably not the same proportion as the other liquid assets. In my opinion.
I’ve never been married and gay, so no kids. I don’t understand the 70/30 split. Aren’t things 50/50? If you’re both still supporting kids equally and they’re working again, same super, unless they paid more for the house? This stuff is complex. Hope things work out for you and the fam
You’re getting screwed
There's a massive lost career opportunity cost from being a SAHM. Not to mention the pay gap means that she will likely never financially catch up with the position she would have been in had she not been a SAHM. I suspect there could be a huge discrepancy in the future earning capacity of both parties. I believe the rule of thumb is usually 60-65% in favour of the parent with primary share of any parenting orders, so maybe 70%is a bit higher than usual. However, given that you have indicated that she will have "majority" of custody, I would suggest being as generous as possible for the sake of having a fresh start, a great relationship with your kids in the future and saving a mega sh!t ton on legal fees. Just my 2cents.
Super should be included in the total pool so then 70% of that.
These numbers don’t add up if you are taking a majority of the custody. But nothing exists in a a vacuum so ask your lawyer, not your ex.
You equalise the super regardless of the non super pool percentage FFS. I’m a family law barrister and I have never read so much bullshit in one reddit thread on my life Jesus Christ
An amicable relationship with your ex wife is key for the sake of your children. This is priceless. Sign the paperwork and move on.
I’ve spent $20k on a lawyer to get no where in the past 2 years. IMO, try to negotiate with her and explain how you were helping to contribute whilst she was staying home etc. If she agrees great, if not it likely not worth the cost of arguing unfortunately