My ex-wife and I have shared custody of our two school-aged children since our divorce three years ago. At the time I was working just three days a week in the office at a bank in the City, but I’ve now been mandated to come in five days a week. My ex-wife says this breaches our custody arrangements, as I’ve had to organise wraparound childcare when I’m in the office. This is also an added expense when I’m already supporting my ex-wife financially. How can we resolve this amicably while continuing to share custody?
Sophie Chapman, a partner in the divorce and family team at Stewarts, a law firm, says arrangements for children often need to be revisited and evolve over time, whether because of changes to schedules and commitments or changes to parents’ circumstances. Separated parents who share childcare responsibilities should remain flexible and willing to work together to adjust arrangements as needed.
Balancing professional and childcare commitments is a challenge for all working parents. While more flexible working practices following the pandemic have made this balance easier, recent return to office mandates have forced many parents to revisit their current arrangements, which can be a point of contention.
Many working parents rely on after-school clubs or wraparound childcare, and this does not necessarily mean that child arrangements should be changed. However, if children are spending significant time in third party care while the other parent is available and able to care for them, it may be in the children’s best interests to amend the arrangements.
The central focus must always be on the best interests of the children. Where it is safe and possible to do so, it is widely accepted that it is in a child’s best interests to enjoy a meaningful and loving relationship with each parent, and to have both actively involved in their day-to-day lives. Parents should keep these principles in mind when a disagreement arises and make every reasonable effort to discuss the issue and reach a mutual agreement. If an agreement is reached, amendments to existing child agreements can often by implemented swiftly and with minimal complexity or cost.
Spousal and child maintenance payments are variable in the event of a material change in circumstances (for example a loss of job). Parents are encouraged to resolve any disputes as to the appropriate level of maintenance directly or through mediation (where appropriate), as the cost of resolving this issue through arbitration or court proceedings can often exceed the amount in dispute.
If an amicable agreement cannot be reached, parents should consider engaging a specialist family mediator to facilitate constructive discussions and help them to work together to find a resolution.
Evidence shows that amicable arrangements are more likely to endure than those imposed by an arbitrator or judge. So it is essential that every possible avenue for reaching an agreement is explored before resorting to formal legal intervention. Parents should also remain mindful of the emotional and financial cost associated with court proceedings, as well as the potential impact on both themselves and their children, whether directly or indirectly.
Can I challenge bank’s redundancy threat?
My bank has announced a restructuring. I am a woman who has been told I am at risk of redundancy, but I generate more revenue than my male colleagues, including one who joined recently. Can I get the bank to reconsider? What can I do?
Caroline Doran Millett, a partner in the employment team at RWK Goodman, a law firm, says it is troubling that you have been selected for redundancy if you generate more revenue that your male colleagues. While great strides have been made in the City in terms of diversity and inclusion, my experience advising senior executives suggests that women are sometimes selected for redundancy in preference to their male counterparts.
When choosing employees for redundancy, employers must use fair and objective selection criteria, which usually prioritises financial performance or fee generation. Redundancy selection should not be based on the personal opinion of a manager, such as attitude, client relationship strength or ability to lead. Such subjective standards are clearly open to biased or prejudiced assessments, even if this is inadvertent or unconscious.
While you could well have a claim for sex discrimination, and unfair dismissal if you have been employed for more than two years, your strategy and approach will depend on your long-term professional aims and approach to risk. Since you are keen to get your employer to reconsider, the priority is likely to be constructively engaging with your manager and human resources so that any misunderstanding or error is quickly corrected.
It will be important to understand whether the male colleagues are performing the same role and day-to-day activities as you. If they are on the same desk or in the same team, and at the same seniority, these would all be strong indications that they should be all in the same “selection pool”. You should ask for the redundancy selection criteria and use empirical evidence that you have legitimate access to or otherwise request it. You should be provided with the criteria in full, your scores and be told on an anonymised basis the next lowest score to yours.
If there has been an error and your bank refuses to correct it by removing you from the selection process or adding your male colleagues, your options include appealing the redundancy decision, making a subject access request to see your personal data in relation to scoring process, and raising a formal grievance about discrimination. There may be wider whistleblowing and regulatory considerations for both you and the bank depending on the circumstances.
In terms of external options, the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal award is the lower of 52 weeks’ pay or a current numerical cap of £115,115. Often, the enhanced redundancy packages offered by banks will make the litigation risk on such a capped unfair dismissal unattractive, particularly as you will usually bear your own legal costs.
Our next question
I’m building a property investment business and want it to be left to my three children and their descendants. Will a family office be the right route?
In contrast, discrimination claims are uncapped. The highest sex discrimination award in 2023-24 was £995,000 which makes it more likely that a senior executive would consider litigating if there is evidence of discrimination. Given the potential financial consequences alone, the bank should be willing to remedy its mistake as otherwise it will understand you can bring an employment tribunal for significant uncapped financial losses, including bonuses, incentive schemes, pensions, injury to feelings as well as significant reputational implications.
The opinions in this column are intended for general information purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for professional advice. The Financial Times Ltd and the authors are not responsible for any direct or indirect result arising from any reliance placed on replies, including any loss, and exclude liability to the full extent.
Do you have a financial dilemma that you’d like FT Money’s team of professional experts to look into? Email your problem in confidence to money@ft.com.
