Advanced search

to think that if possible evrything should be shared 50/50 during a divorce

(100 Posts)
bladibla Thu 28-May-15 19:15:47

Hi I am divorcing and I have not yet resolved the finances of the divorce. I was surprised that I did not get 50% of the childcare. I can only put it down to ExH living in our house and court favouring children staying in their original environment.
I currently struggle to pay my rent and this may have an impact on me seeing the children which would break my heart. I would like to get my share of the house so I can be in a stable position.
Dcs are complaining that they do not get days out to family attractions with me as they do with dad. I really can not compete.
Maybe I should also ask for 50% of his retirement, compensation for half of the content of the house and a share proportional to the amount of time I have the DCs from the child tax credit.
I was a stay at home mum for 10 year, so I have no retirement.
I cannot afford anything and I dread the day my car or washing machine will pack up as I really could not replace it.

BackforGood Thu 28-May-15 19:40:16

It's never that straightforwards though, is it?
There are all sorts of factors that have to be taken into account - mainly what gives the dc the most stable lives.
No-one can comment on one particular case as we don't know all the ins and outs, and obviously you don't want to put that sort of information on the internet.
The arrangements for the best lives for the dc are not the same as the financial arrangements.

Littlemonstersrule Thu 28-May-15 19:59:53

This is why we need to encourage girls to aim high and always work. If you opt out of working it comes with many downsides. It's never wise to rely solely on another adult, the future is not guaranteed.

On the divorce front, I'd like to see pre nups made legal and starting point of contact being 50/50. So many lose assets they held previous or worked hard for during marriage. I know many women give their spouses no say in their decision to stop working. Children end up being used as pawns and NRP at the mercy of the PWC to see their women child.

FlabulousChix Thu 28-May-15 20:01:55

See kids don't cost that much. If you didn't have any you'd have to pay rent etc anyway. Costs for kids should be split half each. Your living costs for you don't come into it. Besides you can work.

Klayden Thu 28-May-15 20:04:16

How much time are you spending with your children at the moment?

WoodliceCollection Thu 28-May-15 20:46:17

YABU, at the point of divorce, the wellbeing of children rather than demands for 50/50 anything (contact, houses, money, whatever) should come first. Parents needs come after that, and idealised notions of 'fairness' even below those, as an abstract concept never trumps actual human suffering.

I do think parents who take time out of work to care for children should be entitled to half of spouse/partner's pension for the period they did this, though, as they enabled the other to work pretty much stress free (none of the panic about ill children, appointments, etc that single working parents have to manage, plus the possible bonus of housework done for them etc.) In general, there needs to be work towards equalising income by gender, and capping rents at affordable levels, so in an ideal society those wouldn't be an issue. 50/50 child contact, though, is disruptive and silly unless people live next door and children ask for this. You can have a good relationship with your kids without spending half the time with them (most working parents don't anyway- I only have decent time with mine at weekends or holidays), and if all they have to complain about is lack of fancy days out, you and your ex have clearly done well for them so far.

bladibla Fri 29-May-15 09:54:18

With less than 50% childcare you end up not having child benefit, child tax credit, being considered single when you apply for a council house and having to pay about a third of your salary in child maintenance. Now that's a massive impact and burden.

Charis1 Fri 29-May-15 09:58:38

I don't think your husband funding you taking a ten year holiday in the past means he is liable to hand over half his possessions now.

MissBattleaxe Fri 29-May-15 10:04:17

Charis- she didn't tale a 10 year holiday she was raising his kids so he didn't have to pay for childcare.

OP- I don't see why you are living in such poverty. If he has all the house, he should either buy you out or sell and split the profits. You made a sacrifice in taking a long career break to raise the children and you are paying the price.

PtolemysNeedle Fri 29-May-15 10:04:50

YABU. You are an adult that is responsible for housing yourself and furnishing your own home. You should get a fair share, but if you didn't contribute 50%, you don't deserve 50%, and you certainly don't deserve half of someone else's pension. It should be recognised that you did the bulk of the childcare for ten years, but the child benefits including tax credits should go the children's main residence. The mortage/rent to provide a roof over their heads doesn't go down just because they sleep elsewhere a couple of nights a week, and it is right that you should be considered single for housing and that you should pay maintenance. Can you imagine the impact on the already strained housing system if councils had to provide two homes for each set of children?

WinterOfOurDiscountTents15 Fri 29-May-15 10:08:24

YABU. IT doesn't work like that. It's not about what is fair and equitable to you personally, its about what is best for the children. Their needs are more important than yours or your husbands.
If you moved out of the family home and left your ex there with the children, that was an epic mistake. You can't have your share of the family home, because its the childrens home and will not be sacrificed to liquidate your interest in it.

Meechimoo Fri 29-May-15 10:08:28

A ten year holiday? Yeah, that's what being a long term sahm is. A holiday. hmm
And I'm sure that when she became a sahm it was a joint family decision.
I don't know what your beef is charis, but you seem incredibly bitter about alot of things, so I'm going to assume jealousy.

MissBattleaxe Fri 29-May-15 10:12:58

You should get a fair share, but if you didn't contribute 50%, you don't deserve 50%,

I disagree.

The OP was a SAHM- which supported the bread winner and the children and enabled the DH to do whatever he wanted with his career because he never had to leave early to pick the kids up from nursery/ a childminder or pay thousands of £££ a year. She is just being tossed aside. Her career has lost ten years and her career is probably non existent or back at entry level. Because of her contribution, he has been able to progress and presumably go for promotions and pay rises with no restrictions.

I agree she should be treated as a single occupant, but I don't agree that she is not entitled to 50% because she didn't "earn" it.

SoupDragon Fri 29-May-15 10:14:39

I don't think your husband funding you taking a ten year holiday in the past means he is liable to hand over half his possessions now.

Which 10 year holiday was that?

Charis1 Fri 29-May-15 10:17:58

she didn't tale a 10 year holiday she was raising his kids

We all raise our kids, most of us have to do it while working full time.

assume jealousy.

Yes, extremely jealous anyone lucky enough to fall into this lifestyle. No work AT ALL, just be with your children for 10 years!!! Fantastic. But I don't see why HE now owes HER anything for providing this luxury.

blueshoes Fri 29-May-15 10:18:02

OP, are you being advised by a divorce lawyer?

sparechange Fri 29-May-15 10:18:38

The OP was a SAHM- which supported the bread winner and the children and enabled the DH to do whatever he wanted with his career
That is an enourmous leap, and one that you don't know to be remotely true.

It might have stifled the DH's career for all we know. The 'SAHM's are there to support a working DH' is ONLY ever trotted out in threads about relationship breakdowns.
When a SAHM starts a thread about how her working DH isn't pulling his weight at home, there isn't a single reply that she should be supporting his career and not expecting him to look after ill children/help with shopping/do housework.

I know it is a view sometimes taken by the courts, but it isn't the automatic assumption. There are plenty of SAHM who do so because it is entirely their choice and it makes life harder, not easier for the working parent

Meechimoo Fri 29-May-15 10:19:33

Get some legal advice op. I agree with Miss.Battleaxe. I think you've been given some shocking advice from some people and the advice that you're not entitled to 50% is just laughably untrue. Even if a feckless Dad fucked off with his much younger secretary and didn't pay a cent in maintenance, he'd still be entitled to 50% from sale of house etc. Get some legal advice and take the advice here with a pinch of salt. Too many bitter wohms on here who seem to revel in sahms becoming unstuck because it allows them to feel they made the superior choice. hmm

Bilberry Fri 29-May-15 10:20:06

You are entitled to a share of his pension - make sure you get it. You are also entitled to money from the house and any other marital assets. Would you have preferred to have lived in the family house with the children?

Far from having a ten year holiday, you contributed to the family by being a SAHM, this saved all childcare costs and enabled your XH to build his career. In doing so, this not only prevented you from earning a wage over that period but also impacted on your earnings now as you have 10 years less experience to bring yo an employer. Presumably this was a joint decision at the time? This should also be recognised in your settlement. You need to see a lawyer.

Lonecatwithkitten Fri 29-May-15 10:21:02

Like blueshoes I am wondering if you have had legal advice. Yes his pension should be taken into account.
There are so many variables that go into each individual financial order that there is no one size fits all answer.

Meechimoo Fri 29-May-15 10:21:09

No charis, you're wrong.
Most Mum's don't work fulltime.
Most work part time.
You sound so very bitter.

ChickenLaVidaLoca Fri 29-May-15 10:21:28

We all raise our kids, most of us have to do it while working full time.

Got any stats for that one? For the record, I work and always have.

Meechimoo Fri 29-May-15 10:22:01

Bilberry speaks good sense.
Listen to her.

PtolemysNeedle Fri 29-May-15 10:22:25

MissBattleaxe, I did say it should be recognised that she did the childcare for 10 years, but that is a very long time to be a SAHM so she will have had personal benefits to that as well. And unless she was forced into being a SAHP and wasn't allowed to get a job, then there were always going to be consequences to being unemployed for a decade for the OP.

Charis1 Fri 29-May-15 10:24:58

I'm not bitter, I am happy with my life, that does not stop me looking at someone elses life and seeing that they are living in undreamed of luxury though.

This woman had 10 years off work, paid for by her husband.

How is that not fantastic? That would be just amazing. I do have a SIL in this position, and really, I can't be jealous of her, because she is so nice, but it is the equivalent of winning millions in life's lottery.

How can the op say, I was subsidised to take 10 years off work, and be with my children, now he owes me!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now