Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Divorce related question - family living in extended family scenario with in-laws. th

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Divorce related question - family living in extended family scenario with in-laws. th

    Hello. Asking for my friend. She has been married for over 15 years, has 2 kids. This is a traditional Indian extended family set up where she lives with the inlaws. The inlaws own a large house lots of other property have great jobs and lots of money. They have all lived in the same house from the start of the marriage. Their marriage has been declining for years and is now at the point where lawyers are involved to get legal separation underway and eventually divorce. He said to her, I will help you find a place and get you moved in, she consulted a lawyer who stated that she needs to remain in that house until all agreements, money, kids property is worked out unless she is in any danger. Kids are still minors. Her lawyer has said she has to remain in the house until an agreement on custody of the kids is reached. She is safe in the house and has moved to the guest room but No one talks to each other and it is very uncomfortable. He is hiding his money and finances and trying to delay an attempt at negotiation. My friend wants to move this along but doesn't want to jeopardize her position. She wants to have the kids at least 60% and whatever money is right fully hers. It has been 3 months now her lawyer has been waiting for his lawyers to submit his financials. Any advice we can get please?

  • #2
    The main problem with leaving the house before a custody agreement is signed is that you can't take the kids with you. Which generally leads to setting up a status quo of not having much time with the kids, which ultimately leads to a poor access arrangement when the custody agreement is finally signed.

    If the ex-husband is willing to do the custody/access part of the agreement and start paying appropriate CS immediately, she could move out, but from what you describe of his behaviour, it seems unlikely. Without financial disclosure, she's not going to have proper equalization to have money to start over with, no guarantee she'll be receiving appropriate CS, and little chance of fair SS either (I am guessing she doesn't work by your description of 'traditional' family).

    Why does she want the kids at least 60% of the time? The only reason to do that is to be greedy for CS money.

    Also, it sounds like her ex's parents are quite wealthy, but this might not translate to her ex being wealthy himself. If his name isn't on the title for the home they live in, there's no matrimonial home to divide.

    If she wants his financial disclosure, she's going to have to get her lawyer to start exerting some pressure. Get a court date at which a judge can order him to disclose. She could also try looking around the house for his financial documentation to try to prepare his disclosure herself.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Rioe View Post
      The main problem with leaving the house before a custody agreement is signed is that you can't take the kids with you. Which generally leads to setting up a status quo of not having much time with the kids, which ultimately leads to a poor access arrangement when the custody agreement is finally signed.

      If the ex-husband is willing to do the custody/access part of the agreement and start paying appropriate CS immediately, she could move out, but from what you describe of his behaviour, it seems unlikely. Without financial disclosure, she's not going to have proper equalization to have money to start over with, no guarantee she'll be receiving appropriate CS, and little chance of fair SS either (I am guessing she doesn't work by your description of 'traditional' family).

      Why does she want the kids at least 60% of the time? The only reason to do that is to be greedy for CS money.

      Also, it sounds like her ex's parents are quite wealthy, but this might not translate to her ex being wealthy himself. If his name isn't on the title for the home they live in, there's no matrimonial home to divide.

      If she wants his financial disclosure, she's going to have to get her lawyer to start exerting some pressure. Get a court date at which a judge can order him to disclose. She could also try looking around the house for his financial documentation to try to prepare his disclosure herself.
      Yup sounds like greed.

      You should tell her that 50/50 is in the best interest of the children and that's what the courts will make the decision based on.

      Does she work?

      Comment


      • #4
        I would suggest that your friend stay where she is until a proper separation agreement is signed. It may be uncomfortable (get used to it, divorce is extremely uncomfortable and may take years) but in light of the situation it would be best for all concerned. Same thing for 50/50 custody - best for the children to have access with both parents.

        She is not in any danger and having the extended family close-by will help the children during this difficult transition period.

        Comment


        • #5
          Might not be her choice to stay....it isn't her house from the sounds of it. Not even the matrimonial home given no ownership by her or hubby?

          50/50 is best.

          She likely doesn't work and likely no skills if this is a traditional Indian arrangement...

          Comment


          • #6
            The attached is a recent case from B.C. regarding a traditional Indian marriage/divorce:

            Rana v. Rana, 2014 BCSC 530 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/g6bw

            We're in Canada. If she wants to move out she can go get help to do this. Perhaps if she goes to social services agency the family will be shamed into putting pressure on her husband to accept his financial responsibilities according to Canadian law.

            No one should have to stay in a situation which is intolerable just to keep the lawyers happy. If she has a half decent lawyer he would get an Interim Order for immediate support for her to be able to move into her own place.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Rioe View Post
              Why does she want the kids at least 60% of the time? The only reason to do that is to be greedy for CS money.
              You should tell her that 50/50 is in the best interest of the children and that's what the courts will make the decision based on.
              poppycock. I can think of a gadzillion reasons why 50-50 isn't always in the best interests of the child in every relationship that is dissolving. Nor is it what the courts make the decision based on.
              Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                poppycock. I can think of a gadzillion reasons why 50-50 isn't always in the best interests of the child in every relationship that is dissolving. Nor is it what the courts make the decision based on.
                And I can think of a gadzillion reasons why an equal, shared parenting arrangement is more often than not in the children's best interests, and should be the starting point in negotiating any parenting arrangement. This is especially true when the children have formed a primary bond to both parents.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                  poppycock. I can think of a gadzillion reasons why 50-50 isn't always in the best interests of the child in every relationship that is dissolving. Nor is it what the courts make the decision based on.
                  I would normally agree with you that it's best left to each situation. But the way the woman in question zeroed in on the exact magic 60% figure for table CS makes me pretty sure greed is the motivation in this case.

                  Frankly, on my quick read of this situation, I think the best interest of the children would be to spend most of their time living in their existing house with their father and extended family than be abruptly yanked out of it to a small home with just their mother. They can transition slowly to a 50-50 arrangement over time once they adjust to the idea of their parents separating. But it's not politically correct to suggest that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                    I would normally agree with you that it's best left to each situation. But the way the woman in question zeroed in on the exact magic 60% figure for table CS makes me pretty sure greed is the motivation in this case.

                    Frankly, on my quick read of this situation, I think the best interest of the children would be to spend most of their time living in their existing house with their father and extended family than be abruptly yanked out of it to a small home with just their mother. They can transition slowly to a 50-50 arrangement over time once they adjust to the idea of their parents separating. But it's not politically correct to suggest that.
                    I agree with everything you said. The magical 60% means that the woman knows that in order to get the most from the ex that she needs that percentage.

                    Giving the kids time to get use to the whole idea and the change in lifestyle is a good idea. Make it easier on them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Why did you guys alert her to the 60% thing?

                      It would have been wonderful to have her go to court say I want to have my kids 61% of the time and have the judge understand what she wants.

                      I hope your friend gets what she deserves - 59% custody and a kick in the ass to get a job.

                      Your friend is lucky, the ex's husband seems to be stupid making promises to help her etc.... the judge or separation agreement will help your friend and that will be ON TOP of whatever promises he makes (get those promises in writing).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wow! thank you for the messages.

                        Whats disturbing is how you all assume she has no job and is a leech.

                        Let me be clear on a few things, she has a job and works full time. When I said traditional indian family, I meant the couple lives with the husbands parents.
                        They're wealthy.

                        If you can continue to help, I appreciate it.

                        - She wants full custody of the children and for him to have visitation. The father has generally been un-involved with the kids up to this point. Her point is, if she doesn't arrange for kids drop off/pick up/lunches/homework etc, they kids get passed off to the Mother in law who then passes them on to her daughter and so on.
                        - Father works and is out mostly.
                        - Father and Father in law want to get her out without paying her anything.
                        - She wants her kids. First and foremost.

                        - Then she wants to be able to live within the same lifestyle

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ongoingstems View Post
                          Wow! thank you for the messages.

                          Whats disturbing is how you all assume she has no job and is a leech.

                          Let me be clear on a few things, she has a job and works full time. When I said traditional indian family, I meant the couple lives with the husbands parents.
                          They're wealthy.

                          If you can continue to help, I appreciate it.

                          - She wants full custody of the children and for him to have visitation. The father has generally been un-involved with the kids up to this point. Her point is, if she doesn't arrange for kids drop off/pick up/lunches/homework etc, they kids get passed off to the Mother in law who then passes them on to her daughter and so on.
                          - Father works and is out mostly.
                          - Father and Father in law want to get her out without paying her anything.
                          - She wants her kids. First and foremost.

                          - Then she wants to be able to live within the same lifestyle
                          There is no way for her to get full custody of the kids without finding a way to declare the husband unfit for some medical or other reason, unless he consents to it. 50/50 or 60/40 is deemed to be in the best interests of the children. If the father can parent, and wants to, he will very likely be granted, no matter how involved he was or was not with the kids before.

                          When the kids are on their father's time, it doesn't matter who takes care of them, again as long as the kids are safe.

                          Living in the same lifestyle is a dream, I'm sorry to be blunt. You can't split a household up and increase the costs of living (housing etc) and expect to have both parties maintain their standard of living.

                          The marital assets will need to be split. All the assets of both parties will need to be valued as of the date of separation, then if any of those assets existed on the wedding day, the value on the wedding day will be deducted. It sounds like they don't have equity in the home they live in, so that makes it easier.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This could be an interesting case if shares of a family-owned business are involved. That could be substantial asset under "marital assets."

                            Presumably the husband/wife/children do not have housing expenses because they live with in-laws.

                            Financial disclosure will be the real kicker, particularly if assets are shielded by family.

                            Lawyer's love these sort of cases. Makes for extensive billable hours.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              So let me ask you this.

                              Is the husband required by law (or can the court make him) disclose his finances? He can move his assets around and hide them and claim to be broke.

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X