This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Justice turned upside down(128 Posts)
When I married there was no such thing as pension sharing - it wasn’t in the “contract”....you know the contract we are never shown but apparently sign up to in a church service!!
Then it came in to protect women who were the old fashioned Stepford types and gave up work to support their dear hubby and stay at home baking apple pie for the cherubs. They found when they were divorced they had no pension... so the law changed.
Now it’s 2018. I am a woman and I am raising my kids plus have worked throughout in a difficult job with difficult hours - I juggled being home with the kids and working.
My hubby had an easier job and lower pay and longer holidays.
Cue the divorce. He wants to strip me of my pension and 65% of the assets. He resents paying child maintenance and has made it clear my DS at uni won’t get a penny from him.
The pension sharing was clearly aimed at protecting partners who had never worked. But I will lose out and will have my kids to support.
He has turned justice on its head. Or would you say it’s fair? I cannot begin to explain how unjust this seems to me.
He can ask but he won't necessarily get.
If he doesn't have the kids as the RP then he would never get 65% assets - start point is 50% and goes up from there in favour of the RP usually.
Basically you should come out of the relationship with 50% of the family assets adjusted for who is the RP.
Assets include savings and pensions, shares etc. If you have more in pensions the capital assets percentage maybe adjusted to account for the difference in pensions so they don't have to be cashed in etc
Whether the job was easier or not doesn't come into it unfortunately, nor does who did what at home (or didn't)
It may be cheaper to agree to something you feel is less than you deserve than fight through the courts to get a "fair" settlement as you will have lawyers costs to account for.
I would make an offer based on keeping your pensions for yourself and giving him slightly more % of assets, but also adjust the assets based on who is to be RP etc. If it is also his DS at college - I would also get written into any agreement that he must contribute to his costs in the actual order so if he breaches that then it is a court order he is breaching and can be called to account - alternatively get an award adjusted so that you cover the costs and he doesn't (so adjusting the asset split again in your favour)
I would add that whilst you can use CSA for maintenance its not very effective if he is refusing or being awkward - this can also be written into a court order and there are more serious consequences if he fails to pay
I am the RP. He has no contact with the child under 18 and sees the uni student rarely. Both are his children. I am told I cannot get any agreement on the uni costs. I have offered half and to split pensions fairly and this b*****d wants more.
I threatened to go to CSA and he started paying a small amount of money but via mutual acquaintances I hear he resents this massively. He does not seem to understand that having children is a financial responsibility.
Marriage is an evil institution and should be banned.
My solicitor and I agreed the “fairest” possible offer - which we believe is what the courts would agree was correct. I don’t regard it as fair but he would have half. He wants lots more. His solicitor has not yet communicated this to my solicitor so I cannot discuss it with mine as that will be another £500 or so a pop.
Lawyers are also milking me. I have no support at all from any family members. A few friends have been kind and helpful but I feel utterly alone and let down by this evil system. I have tried to do the best for my family all the way through and what has happened is I have been utterly exploiuted. I feel there is no justice and the stress of this is about to finish me off.
It's a dreadful process. I've had two high earning friends who have been fleeced by their ex-husband using rules that were put in place l, like you said, to protect "housewives". Stay strong and keep fighting for what is right - but accept that it's not going to be an outcome that will seem fair to you. Sending you very best wishes - it's a dreadful experience but it will end and life will go on.
This is so wrong. I will tell my children to never marry. But they don’t understand - they think I don’t want them to be happy. It’s not about stopping relationships it’s about stopping this vile law. In the end we as women are still reduced to being only “worth” as much as the man we marry - something I have always been against.
My name is on my payslip. He hasn’t done my work! How dare he take my pension. At present I really doubt I’ll live to pension age anyway under the stress of all this.
In my next life I’ll go to the sperm bank. Damn site cheaper and more caring.
Do you know what really makes me mad? There’s an ad on TV for H Samuel showing lots of ecstatic couples exchanging engagement rings. This advert should be banned. They might as well be selling shackles. Engagement and marriage is NOT to be celebrated.
In the cases I mentioned the men cleaned up on the joint custody thing - therefore needed to have an equivalent home etc. Given this isn't the case for you, I'd seek advice on what the real situation is. It's expensive but worth it if it keeps any part of your pension intact
If one of your children is at university then they are an adult and will not be a consideration in any settlement.
Your pension (and his) are part of the marital assets. They will be considered in the same way as if the man had been the higher earner.
I'm sorry you're going through this, but please don't show your bitterness to your children. That will stick with them into adulthood and it's not healthy at all. Have you sought counselling to discuss how you feel?
OP not sure where you are in the process but I had a friend in a similar position
2 lawyers told her there wasn't much she could do. She was the higher earner by far, the resident parent and he was asking for way more than a 50/50 split of assets while using every trick in the book to get out of paying child maintenance.
negotiations went on for ages because she wanted to avoid court - I think that's the right terminology?
anyway, it did finally end up in court and thank goodness it did. The court ruled he was only entitled to what he put in to the family home, plus some increase on the property value.
he wasn't vulnerable in any way and didn't have to take on a childcare role. We're still baffled at the initial advice she got from two law firms though.
This could easily be a higher earning man claiming his ex wife was screwing him in the divorce.
If he was a lower earner then he possibly will be entitled to more than 50% of the joint assets. Your DC at uni is an adult but you should definitely apply to the CSA for maintenance for your younger DC.
The courts will work out a fair split, you probably wont like it but then if the man was higher earning he wouldn't like it either.
I had the bigger pension and bigger salary -I got 65% of everything. I don't follow this- you need kick arse lawyer. Absolutely not. I took maternity leave and so did you.
Yes, two lots of maternity leave and six or seven years working part time. If anyone can recommend a better lawyer please do. It’s not the same as being a man. The only people it suits to think this are women who do not work - and I do wonder why on Earth they don’t.
Please do not belittle me by telling me not to be bitter. I won’t be bitter when I get justice.
@Grace212 it’s similar to this, plus he is revelling in claiming its “equality”. Like hell it is.
Hello again. Be careful about listening to generalizations as they can be dangerous. Unlikely that two divorces will be identical.
That one of your "children" is over 18 and at University won't influence anything as courts view over 18's as adult. From another thread your other child is approaching 18. If your Divorce drags on they could be over 18 before settlement is decided?
The courts will work out a fair split, you probably wont like it but then if the man was higher earning he wouldn't like it either
The best comment of all so far.
No, second child is still a long way off 18 and has additional needs. This isn’t fair for a man or a woman and particularly not for me.
What you are saying is shut up and hand over your money like a nice little woman - don’t get above your station, know your place, which is to be a downtrodden vassal. I WILL NOT SHUT UP.
I WILL NOT SHUT UP
Sounds like the Courts will have to decide this case. Good luck as that guarantees only 2 things:
Lots of stress
Lots of costs
Please login first.