Spousal Support for Men

[dad43]

Just wondered if there was anybody who could provide info on spousal support for men?
My wife and I are splitting up after 20 years of marriage. She earns significantley more money per year than me ($144,000 vs. $41,000), we have four kids, 3 still in school. We are sharing custody of the kids 50/50. She will be paying about $900.00/mo. to me in the offset of Child Support. She is staying in our home and buying out my equity in the home (which I will use to find a home I can afford).
She states that there is NO way she is paying me any Spousal Support and that I'm crazy for even thinking that....
Anybody had any experience close to this?? Or care to comment??

Thanks,
Dad43

[dadtotheend]

The rules are the same for men and women. You, and your children, are accustomed to a lifestyle built on an income of $185K/year and she provides over 75% of that.

The fact that you have children, and it seems that you are entering into a shared parenting arrangement, will bolster your claim for SS becuase you will have to maintain a home for them that will maintain their lifestyle.

In my view you have a case for SS, for at least as long as the kids are in school, and based on the length of your marriage, even beyond.

[representingself]

Gender is irrelevant. You are as entitled to spousal support as she would be, if the financial tables were turned. Judging by the little bit of information you have provided, you would be entitled to a pretty substantial amount and for an extended period of time.

Don't let gender biases and stereotypes stop you from pursuing what you are entitled to if you "need" it and she has the "means" to provide.

[billiechic]

yes, you are entitled and deserving. Apply!

[dad43]

Thanks to those that replied. Great source of help on here!

Dad43

[singledad99]

A word of caution. Court should be the last resort in family matters. She, with her income, can probably afford the best lawyer in town. You, on the other hand, will be tight for the money and you don't qualify for legal aid either. Try everything possible to settle it out of the court. Going to court right away might (and will) ruin the shared custody arrangement that you have for the children.

Also keep in mind the bias in the courts. Regardless of what the law says, men are generally not seen as dependents on their wives no matter how much the income difference is.

Try to negotiate using other means such as mediation, arbitration or combination of both. Also try to do all negotiations in writing so you have proof of your attempts to resolve the dispute out of court.

[billiechic]

good point singledad. I would recommend mediation first as well. It really can avoid a huge headache

[dad43]

So an update....... Her lawyer is saying to my lawyer that he sees no entitlement?? How do they determine that?? I thought it was an "income splitting? The difference in income is $144,000/year to $41,000/yr.
Thoughts?

[dadtotheend]

How do they determine that? Because it suits your ex's purpose.

Get ready for a s**tload of outrageous claims to be made. Politely tell the lawyer to tell it to the judge. You are DEFINITELY entitled to SS. If they refuse to be reasonable, schedule a case conference and continue to push towards trial. That's the only way to deal with it, until they become reasonable.

One more thing -----> don't let the outrageous claims goad you into saying/doing something that will make you look bad to the court. That is one of the lawyer's objectives and making such asinine claims.

[dad43]

So it seems that we are pushing this thru court now as she will not pay me for my portion of the house until I sign off saying I won't go after any spousal support.... she's holding my money ransom till I sign off. So, off to court we go! Seeking interim equalization of assets and interm spousal support. Her lawyer is still telling her I am not entitled to spousal support. My lawyer says there is entitlement.....How does this get decided in court? (the incomes are 146,000 vs. 41,000 per year and we have the kids split 50/50 (which is working out fine). ?????

[dadtotheend]

You're going to succeed FOR SURE. They will try to smoke you out by delaying. Bring a motion for interim support, both CS and SS. And push for equalization. She's screwed and she knows it. She and her lawyer are bluffing you.

Start crying a river to the court about how she has drastically reduced the lifestyle to which you AND YOUR CHILDREN are accustomed. I can't stand it when people are so unreasonable that they deserve to have it stuck to them.

And tell your lawyer to move it along. The lawyers love to drag it out. If you haven't scheduled a case conference already, schedule one NOW. You can't have a motion until there has been a case conference. If you don't get anywhere at the case conference (which you probably won't) schedule the motion ASAP afterward, and make sure your ex - and your lawyer - knows that to be your intention.

[billm]

Did the marriage effect either of your earning potential (up or down)?

It seems to me that in this thread people are trying to claim your entitlement for SS via the needs of the children. That should be covered in CS, not SS. Also the CS numbers you quote seem low (146k/41K = $900 CS monthly), but with the tables and the straight set off method for Ontario it would be $2054 monthly.

Would you get SS if you had no children I wonder? What do you think would be a justification for your receiving SS in the situation that you had no children, everything else remaining the same?

Here is some math and numbers for those inclined to read more....

If the cost is actually 1.5x the total table amounts to raise the kids in two houses rather than one, then the cost to raise the kids is $2949 in each house. She gives you $2054 and spends $2949 = $5003/month out of her pocket (plus her share of section 7), and you spend $2949 - $2054 = $895/month out of your pocket. So that is about $10K of your $41K for child care, and $60K of her $144K. This leaves you with non child care incomes of 31K and 84K. Then there are her considerably higher taxes, and section 7 and the gap closes. Then she is supposed to pay for a significantly greater portion of education for the four kids (and save for that during that time she is paying CS) ..... A lot of numbers, but some (fairly) simple math needs to be done rather than just saying she makes $146k and you only make $41k before one can see the true impact of the CS payments, section 7, and education....

[dadtotheend]

Did the marriage effect either of your earning potential (up or down)?

That doesn't really matter insofar as he and the children became accustomed to a lifestyle that included her income.

It seems to me that in this thread people are trying to claim your entitlement for SS via the needs of the children. That should be covered in CS, not SS.

CS covers the cost of the children's needs, but it doesn't put a roof over their head that is one to which they have become accustomed. And that is why the presence of children will augment a claim for SS even when CS is present. That is also why the duration of SS (in the case of young children especially) can be significantly affected.

[billiechic]

There is NO WAY that a parent with an income of 41K is going to be able to provide a proper sized home for 4 kids, at least in the lifestyle then were accustomed to or anywhere close to it. Yes, there are a LOT of things that need to be calculated, but it is a FACT that this man is entitled to some SS.

[billm]

There is NO WAY that a parent with an income of 41K is going to be able to provide a proper sized home for 4 kids, at least in the lifestyle then were accustomed to or anywhere close to it. Yes, there are a LOT of things that need to be calculated, but it is a FACT that this man is entitled to some SS.

Sure sounds like child support to me when the children's needs are used to justify it.

I really am growing to dislike the term 'lifestyle accustomed to' and how people use it. How is it possible to break up a family from one home to two and maintain the same lifestyle? I agree the kids should have similar lifestyles in both houses, but I don't see how it can be the same lifestyle as before. I don't agree that former spouses are entitled to anything other than what would happen if the marriage was treated purely as a business with equal ownership. When the marriage is over you split up the assets and debts and consider compensation based on what happened in the marriage (career loss etc (which may have permanent consequences but not always), not what may happen after the marriage (like splitting NDI), after all - not only are you no longer married, you probably don't even consider yourself friends, but your FUTURE success/failures are still economically tied together??? - a strange and stressful concept in my opinion.