Post-divorce financial inequality and its impact on parenting

Divorce or separation inevitably reshapes family life. When children are involved, the process extends beyond the dissolution of the adult relationship into ongoing negotiations about parenting, living arrangements, and finances. One of the most contentious issues that emerges is financial inequality between separated parents where the financial and emotional implications of inequality remain complex and often under-discussed.

Here, we explore how financial disparity between separated parents affects children and their relationships with both parents. It considers scenarios such as one parent being able to spend more on their children, the perception of “spoiling,” disputes about whether money is being used to buy affection, and the potential role of financial abuse. It also addresses what family law does and does not allow in these situations, and how parents can practically and legally manage the tensions that arise.

Why financial inequality after divorce matters

After separation, it is common for one parent to have greater financial resources than the other. This may arise from higher earnings, retained assets, remarriage to a wealthier partner, or simple differences in lifestyle and spending priorities. While child maintenance arrangements are designed to ensure a minimum level of financial support for children, they do not create parity between households.

For children, this can mean that time with one parent feels materially different to time with the other. For example, one household might involve modest living conditions, budget holidays, and limited spending on leisure, while the other provides designer clothes, regular trips abroad, and the latest technology.

This disparity can cause:

• Emotional strain on children, who may struggle to reconcile the different lifestyles
• Resentment from the less wealthy parent, who may feel undermined or excluded
• Potential damage to the parent–child relationship if children begin to prefer the wealthier parent’s household for material reasons

Family courts recognise that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. However, the law rarely intervenes in how parents spend their money on children unless welfare is demonstrably harmed.

Spoiling the children: Perceptions and realities

One common complaint is that the wealthier parent is “spoiling” the children—lavishing them with gifts or experiences to gain affection or to elevate their household above the other’s. From the perspective of the less wealthy parent, this may feel manipulative, even coercive, as it skews the child’s perception of what normal family life should look like.

However, from the legal standpoint, the mere act of buying gifts, paying for holidays, or providing luxuries is not considered harmful unless it can be shown to damage the child’s welfare in a serious way. For instance, if a child is being given inappropriate amounts of money, exposed to unsafe or age-inappropriate activities, or is being taught to disrespect the other parent, then a case might be made. But the threshold is high.

In most cases, spoiling is more a matter of parenting style, and family courts are reluctant to micro-manage spending, particularly since each parent has the right to exercise parental responsibility during their own contact time, provided it does not harm the child.

Can spending be restricted by court?

Parents often ask whether they can force the other parent to stop certain types of spending. For example, can a mother prevent the father from buying the child an iPhone if she believes it undermines discipline or creates pressure to match that standard in her own home?

In practice, the answer is usually no. The courts do not restrict how parents spend money on their children unless there is evidence of harm. Parenting disputes about material spending are considered lifestyle differences, not legal matters.

That said, there are a few limited scenarios where spending might be restricted:

• When spending causes welfare concerns – e.g., a parent giving a child large sums of cash leading to unsafe behaviour.
• When gifts undermine court orders – e.g., a parent bribing the child to refuse contact with the other.
• When financial control is linked to abuse – e.g., using money to manipulate or coerce the other parent, which could fall under financial abuse (discussed below).

But absent these extreme situations, the courts do not intervene in routine spending disputes.

The “Disney Parent” effect and relationship damage

A frequent worry is that children prefer the wealthier parent simply because life is more fun or glamorous in their household. This is sometimes referred to as the “Disney parent” problem—one parent focusing on entertainment, treats, and indulgence, while the other carries the burden of day-to-day routines, homework, and discipline.

From a psychological perspective, this dynamic can indeed put strain on the child’s relationship with the less wealthy parent. Children may express a preference to spend more time with the parent who provides material advantages, leading to conflict and hurt.

Family courts, however, base residence and contact arrangements on the child’s welfare, not on parental fairness. A child’s expressed preferences are taken into account, especially as they grow older, but judges are alert to the fact that preferences can be influenced by material rewards. If it is clear that a parent is using money to manipulate the child’s wishes, this may be considered contrary to the child’s best interests. In some cases, a court might even adjust contact arrangements to ensure balance and prevent alienation.

Can gifts or items be shared across households?

Another common issue arises when one parent buys expensive items for the children—such as laptops, bicycles, or musical instruments—and keeps them in their home, meaning the child cannot enjoy them during time with the other parent. Understandably, the less wealthy parent may feel this creates imbalance and restricts the child’s development or enjoyment.

Unfortunately, the law does not require the wealthier parent to share items across households. Parents are encouraged to agree informally, but courts rarely impose such conditions unless the item is essential (for example, school equipment that the child needs at both homes).

Practical solutions could include:

• Setting agreements in a parenting plan that major items (e.g., school laptops) travel with the child
• Joint purchases, where both parents contribute and agree on shared use
• Mediation, which can be used to resolve disputes about possessions without litigation

Ultimately, unless both parents cooperate, children may experience inconsistency in access to possessions and family law offers little recourse beyond encouraging compromise.

What parents can do in practice

While legal avenues are limited, there are strategies parents can adopt to manage the emotional fallout of financial inequality:

• Focus on emotional connection – Research consistently shows that children value love, stability, and time with parents more than material goods. The less wealthy parent can strengthen their bond by prioritising quality interactions.
• Communicate openly with children – Age-appropriate conversations can help children understand that financial differences do not reflect love or value.
• Use mediation – If spending disputes escalate, family mediation can provide a neutral forum to agree on ground rules.
• Parenting plans – Written agreements about how to handle major expenses or items can reduce conflict.
• Seek legal advice if abuse is suspected – If money is being used coercively, legal remedies may be appropriate.

Ultimately, the key lies not in trying to control the other parent’s spending but in fostering resilience, emotional connection, and cooperation. Parents who prioritise love, consistency, and communication can help children navigate the inequality and build secure, balanced relationships, regardless of material differences.