Where there are children, the court will always encourage parties to reach a financial settlement so that the children's housing needs are met. If it is financially possible to retain the house for their benefit then this may be done. It rather depends on the size of the matrimonial pot now and in the near future. It also depends on whether the children 'need' to be in that very house and at 2 and 10 months that doesn't seem to be the case.

In many one income households, retaining the house is not possible because as you have said, you cannot afford to finance the house for the next 14 years in addition to housing yourself on a single income.

If your wife is working or has the prospect of getting a reasonable income in the next few years and if she can take over the running costs of the house without much assistance from you, it is a possibility. If the house is retained, you would negotiate a share division and a time for you to receive your share. The triggers may include her re marriage, cohabitation, agreement or the youngest child attaining majority.

If the running costs are too high and there is no prospect of your wife contributing AND if your income/savings position is not such that you can re house reasonably, it's probably not sensible to retain the house. Also, if you are looking at 'sharing care' of the children, you too will need somewhere for them to stay overnight with you. The worst case scenario is selling and both renting if there is not enough for two houses. Could she downsize?

Ultimately, financial settlements have to be fair for both parties and provide adequately for the children. Some would say that having somewhere smaller to stay during Mommy time and Daddy time is better than having a great house with Mommy but a small bedsit with Daddy?

If you don't think that your wife will be amicable then mediation may not be appropriate although you may be surprised. Try and suggest it as a start.

Best regards