Dd s boyfriend wants a pre nup .

I don’t think prenups mean anything in England unless you are located elsewhere.

Im trying to think what my thoughts are, as I have two boys and I would want them to protect themselves financially. I suppose I would be asking what the point of marriage was in this situation? Who is pushing for the marriage? What benefits are they expecting from it if not an equal playing field of shared assets and security? If ever there was a case for pre-marital counselling i would say this was it.

My partners ex was given money for a house deposit and this was ring fenced when they purchased a house together so when they split up she got that exact same money back again. My instinct was this scenario might work better for your daughter and her boyfriend instead of marriage.

If the OP were the parent of the higher earner, I would think the same.
They don't really need to get married do they at this stage? What will it bring?

Once they have children pre-nups become totally invalid in the UK.

Why are you assuming he'll automatically be abusive?

I believe that in a divorce the pooled assets earned during marriage are shared between the couple depending on circumstances. So similar to the UK where the law takes into account if someone was a stay-at-home parent or whatever.

The difference is that assets from before the marriage aren't included in the pool to be divided.

I'm the higher earner in my marriage. If we divorced I would have to share any savings made during marriage with my DH. The reasoning being that we were a team when that was earned and each spouse played their part (e.g one looks after the kids, the other works).

But any property or money I had from before the marriage remains fully mine.

So in your example it doesn't matter that the DH had a business before marriage. It's what he's got after getting married that counts.

I think that it could be fair (before children only) if all expenses are paid in the ratio of earnings.

So if he earns in the ratio 4:1 what she earns, and owns a 4:1 share of the house, he should also pay 4:1 of the bills.

the domestic work and organising should be split 50/50, not according to who earns what .

You should point out that structural inequality is also playing a role here: one of the reason that she earns less than him is because girls are still encouraged into 'softer' careers. There is also still a massive gender pay gap within the same role.

If he can't acknowledge that I'd say that was a red flag.

Once she has children it should be the case that they are both left with the same amount of fun money and free time after all the bills/savings are taken out.

If he continues with this idea of his earnings/share of the house vs hers after they have children - well, that is a massive red flag.

This is true and something to consider. If he chooses to divorce her after DC a family court may decide the child needs to remain in the area they currently reside. Could she afford that after divorce with 30% or would she need to leave the child with Dad?

All ok until/unless they have children. Then I'd want it thrown out; but would be too late? Unless that's written in as well. His career will continue to rise and of course hers won't be prioritised as it earns so much less.

OP, if your daughter was the one who was earning more and she was marrying someone who earned a lot less,wouldn’t you want her to protect her assets?

Would he continue to do that if she started to earn more money?

What about if they needed to move to allow in to further his career? Or her?

😂 you don’t get to police who posts on what boards.

But what happens if she takes maternity leave? Does he plan to take equal leave?

Ah, you are one of those MN types who thinks parents should throw their children out at 18 and never speak to them or offer them any support ever again.

Just take on board all the advice that she should seek independent legal advice to take into account her overall contribution. Men hear these supposed stories of being "fleeced" by ex wives but in most cases, the women's side is totally different. But it's easy to fall into this.

DH risked being excommunicated by a group of friends when one was ranting about his wife "taking the house he worked hard to buy" etc by pointing out that this man's wife had moved city, then coutnry, giving up a lucrative career of her own to support him and now needed to start again...... Luckily, that caused everyone to pause and actually, to their credit, they all took a long hard look at the situation again and got less "yes, you poor guy. She's fleecing you" about it.

It isnt judgy. She is explaining a history of financial insecurity which will influence his actions as an adult.

The pre-nup would have to be made invalid and re written once they have children (ideally before pregnancy) if it were me.

She’ll be left holding the baby tied to London without the salary to make it a pleasant experience.

None of this is your business. I'd be advising my DS to run a mile from you as a MIL.

Why would you be advising your son that? Surely it wouldn’t be any of your business either?

Yes I agree for them to discuss. Not for her mother to create drama over.

Why do you feel the need to tell us his parents are on benefits, that is none of your business and neither is whether than can afford food. How judgemental of you.

None of this is your business. I'd be advising my DS to run a mile from you as a MIL.

Before they are engaged is the perfect time to discuss this.

Yes but it still puts her in an even weaker position, as the man might refuse to pay nursey fees arguing her salary pays less. You can't make the man pay anything if he refuses too. The only way it would work is if she had a well paid job and is able to cover the nursery fees alone. She would wonder why husband is so tight and feel financially able to leave him.

I’m surprised that you know so much about their private financial matters. Why is that?

I've just realised they aren't even engaged.

Seriously, you need to stop shit stirring.