Am I being completely selfish and cruel?

[sipofwine]

OK - my DP and I have been round and round in circles for many years trying to sort out our relationship but essentially we are incompatible. I have always felt optimistic that we can sort things out until about a year ago when something snapped inside me. He is incredibly hurtful and cruel in rows, he also has a terrible temper (verbal not physical). There again - I'm sure I'm not easy and he says I am controlling/arrogant/ etc so he certainly doesn't find me 'easy'. Anyway, the point is that I really feel we can't carry on like this. I want to know what people think about whether I'm being totally unfair re: finances/living if and when we do split up.

DP moved in to my house 5 years ago. We have three small children. I have approx £20k savings which we've been chipping in to over the last 18 months whilst I've been a SAHM but we have also spent all his salary on all house and living costs. Essentially we've contributed roughly an equal amount over the past year and a half.

Having seen a solicitor I'm told that he is not entitled to the house (mortgage in my name only) or savings but that i could give him a portion of money to make up for things he's contributed to over the years - nothing big just small furniture etc but then I always earned a lot more than him so he couldn't afford to.

He would want children to live with him 50% of time which I would contest but, ultimately, I do want what's best for the children so I guess I may have to go with that once he is sorted.

SO - basically what I'm asking is - does this sound incredibly selfish and brutal of me to keep house and most of savings for me and children? House has no equity but obviously mortgage has reduced since he has been paying towards our costs. I feel desperate to keep as much of savings as poss as not currently working so need a safety net until get a job.
Thanks for reading.

[joblot]

Sounds reasonable from what you've said, esp as you've done majority of childcare and contributed financially. And I'm scrupulously fair as a rule.

[ImperialBlether]

Sorry, I wouldn't let anyone have my children for 50% of the time. I know I'll get flamed for this but I just couldn't.

[sipofwine]

I know, Imperial, I'm brushing over that as if it's no problem. I am utterly heartbroken at the prospect and absolutely hate the idea - which is what's kept me here for so long. However, I just feel that I don't have the right to stop him in the end - he is the father and an equal parent to me. I'm trying to be logical about it but it's absolutely eating me up inside.

[MyLittleFireBird]

Sorry, I wouldn't let anyone have my children for 50% of the time
So what percentage of your children's relationship with one of their parents would you force them to give up to spare your own feelings? Going to 50% is brutal, I won't lie about that. But I am nearly 40, not a child who is going through a trauma of losing a significant amount of time with their parents. If it hurts me to lose 50% of my time with them, how many more times would it hurt them to lose 60/70/80% of their time with someone who is their world? Sorry, but I couldn't do that to my children.

[Teabagtights]

If you were the man posting you would have got a different response. If I was you I'd give him 10k to start again. He needs a decent home for the children to go to. This isn't about just what you want it's about the kids too,

[mrkidd85]

I have recently seen a thread about pretty much exactly the same thing but the gender was reversed and people were siding with the woman.

Why can't he see the kids 50% of the time? Is he a bad dad in any way? If not then stop being so selfish.

[sonofzod]

think of it in another way, if the house was in his name and you knew he had 20k stashed away and you were about to seperate would you be happy to not be entitled to any of the savings or house and then refused access to YOUR child for 50% of the time..


what would you expect in his shoes?

[TheFallenNinja]

I think your solicitor may have sold you a kipper, there is a difference between entitlement and claim.

He may get nothing but he may choose to challenge that legally, in court and send all the money to the Solicitors.

Nothing is black and white, everything can be challenged and that doesn't come cheap.

[ettiketti]

My brother has his son 50% of the time. It's what my nephew wanted too been going on for 5 years and works very well.

As for your finances I do think its very mean spirited to send him on.his way with nothing when you've used his money for years to run and upkeep your property, enabling you to stay home with the children. I realise you've dipped into your savings, but it doesn't sound like a huge amount. I'd give him £10k and some furniture if he needed it to help him build a second home to take the children to.

[cronullansw]

So assuming it's a 25 year mortgage, he has solely contributed around 20% of it, and aided you toward savings of 20k.

And he wants access to YOUR children?

How dare the bastard want anything off you Grrr.

You keep everything, send him off with a flea in his ear, go for 100% custody, or at worst, 1 hour supervised visits. After all, something has snapped inside you. Don't worry about the kids, they'll love not seeing him and they'll be just fine being brought up without a father, ignore what all those male orientated reports say to the contrary.

Oh. You've realised I'm being sarcastic have you?

Girl, if this were the other way around, MN would be in uproar about how shockingly behaved he is being toward you. He's lucky you want to leave him IMHO, if he's double lucky, he might find a nice person after this.

[Snog]

If as you say there is no equity in the house then there is nothing to give. However if your dh needs a helping hand financially to rent somewhere eg deposit etc i would definitely give him this so hehas somewhere to live.

[ledkr]

You need to be fairer tbh especially as its a mutual break and he's not cheated or anything. As for the children they are fifty percent his too and in the long run you will be glad. I was a lone parent for years and was glad the times dh had dc.
Don't forget you will need him for child care at some point as well.

[FamiliesShareGerms]

"you will need him for child care"??!! How about "he's entitled to be part of their lives and bring them up"?

[worsestershiresauce]

So essentially you want to keep all the assets and the kids? Poor bloke. I hope he gets his own legal advice as that is not fair by any stretch of the imagination.

[Hyperballad]

Bloody hell Cron! Bit harsh!

I agree with the couple of posters who say 10k as a start up.

[AThingInYourLife]

You should keep all of your assets.

I can't believe people are suggesting a SAHM with no job should give her earning partner £10K.

You would be out of your mind to do that.

And as the primary carer there is no reason why you must agree to 50% shared care.

That's not what the children are used to.

[Offred]

I have four children with two men. If we split up I'd happily share care down the middle with dh, I wouldn't even be worried if it worked out he had a little bit more than me, xp is a different matter though. I'm on pins when he has the older two even for 1 hour - it is based on actual fathering. Xp had dc for 1/2 hour once and managed to tell ds about some fight he had with someone in a pub that was meant to be education about being a man... It depends on what the reason for being reluctant to share care is.

[MrsCantSayAnything]

Its very hard about the children....but ultimately I would far rather mine were spending a good amount of time with both parents. It's not something one can say "I couldn't do that" about. It's very important for a child.

OP think about offering him something like 30% of time and think of 40% as being your limit.

The money....he needs to be given about 15k imo.

[Offred]

I don't think I would give him any savings either in this situation actually. With no job how will she live? 20k is only 2 years in a low wage job.

[MrsCantSayAnything]

Good point Offred. If he has no money at all, I would give him a couple of thousand towards setting up in rented accommodation though.

[AThingInYourLife]

He has a job. He can save/borrow money to set himself up in his own place.

[MoreBeta]

As he has less earning power than you - could he not try and succesfully argue it would be better for him to stop working to become SAHP and have them 100% of time with you having access? In essence exactly the reverse of what you are arguing for.

Careful what you wish for.

[ThereGoesTheYear]

Over the last 18 months you've been at home with 3 small children and he's been working? Sounds fair. And on top of that you've contributed from your own savings?
How will the new arrangement look? Will he work pt to allow him to have the small DC 50% of the time? And will you do the same? Or will he continue to work ft but have some evenings/overnights and hand the DC back to you when he goes to work?
I'm trying to establish whether you're going to be more e onomically disadvantaged by child-rearing. If so, it makes no sense whatsoever to gift him any of your savings.

[AitchDee]

If over the last 18 months you have contributed roughly the same - him from wages, you from savings - does that mean you started with around 50k in savings? You said he doesn't earn a lot so I am working on the basis of his salary being 20k per year.

I think you are being selfish, and if I were him I'd be getting myself a solicitor pronto. You'll be waving goodbye to 'your' savings pretty sharpest in legal fees I should think.

[AThingInYourLife]

"As he has less earning power than you - could he not try and succesfully argue it would be better for him to stop working to become SAHP and have them 100% of time with you having access?"



Argue to whom?

Do you really think the family courts would entertain an argument like that?

They will deal with the status quo, which is that one parent is a SAHM and the other works full time.

The potential earning power of each person is not a matter for them.

And also entirely a matter of conjecture at this point.