Dd s boyfriend wants a pre nup .

If I was your daughter I would use it as an opportunity to set financial obligations across the entirety of the marriage, not just on breakup. For example:

1. Financial contributions are proportionate to earnings, including all costs for children of the marriage (during and on dissolution of the marriage)
2. All investments made and bank accounts created during the marriage will be in the names of both parties with regular statements provided to both parties
3. On maternity leave he pays 100% of costs of the household, provides her with a monthly allowance (% of his income, not fiixed amount) and makes pension contributions on her behalf to the maximum allowed
4. If it is agreed that she stays home to raise children, he pays her a monthly allowance equivalent to her salary immediately prior to ceasing work, increased by CPI annually and he continues to make pension contributions on her behalf to the maximum allowable. This is payable until the youngest child leaves full time education.
5. He will contribute a monthly amount into individual accounts for each child of the marriage. These funds will be used by the resident parent to raise the children in the event of divorce, topped up by child maintenance paid by the non resident parent.
6. In the event of divorce, children's costs will be split in the same proportion as earnings immediately prior to the divorce (allowance is classed as earnings for this purpose)
7. If he has an emotional or physical affair that results in the end of the marriage, she is entitled to 70% of the assets accumulated during the marriage.
8. Clause on how child maintenance would be calculated, offset by funds from point 5
9. Any child maintence payable in accordance with clause 8 will be paid directly to the recipient by the payers employer (set up as a split payment in their payroll system). If the payer is unemployed.... if self employed....

‘going after his pension’ giving her money…

always an interesting one. Male friend was whining about this - what was ACTUALLY happening was that after a 25 year marriage with 2 kids, where they both worked in the same industry but she was PT because of child raising and he was able to work FT and become a partner in his company … they were splitting their marital assets 50/50 INCLUDING their pensions.
His pensions WAS worth more because as high earner it made sense for him to pay a lot in for tax relief and and for her to pay in less to hers so they had money for the day to day. Plus she earned less, never having made partner because she worked 3/4 days rather than FT.
And of course in divorce he massively resents having to share ‘his’ pension, massively resents the ex getting more of the hse equity so he keeps the pension and they walk away with 50/50 .

it amazing how quickly - these choices make sense financially for our family decisions swing to a ‘she’s taking my money, MY pension, I have to sell the house and give her half’ etc when divorces happen.

I'd still prefer to have my own assets, and for the other party to keep their hands off my things! They can keep their own.

It's bonkers that one person can end up with everything, leaving the other person penniless. It simply isn't fair. Thus, a pre-nup sounds (to me, anyway) like a good idea.

@TheeNotoriousPIG The issue is that, at divorce, all wealth is on the table. Pensions are not exempt. Neither is property or other investments. The pension must be declared at the outset. It cannot be hidden and protected so if it’s not declared it affects the divorce settlement.

No: divorce when dc and a longer marriage are involved won’t be affected by a pre nup, especially when it’s not a vast sum of money. It will still be a 50:50 starting point. A pre nup might be guidance for around 5 years but further down the line, dc and family needs overtake a pre nup which is largely about a house deposit.

If he is insisting on this then she must put clauses into it that protect her career sacrifices for his career and for children.

We have unequal incomes but it's not a problem. It's all pooled as 'ours'. Surely most marriages aren't equally matched for income? In our case, we married as students, on equal scholarships, had no idea where life would take us or who would earn what. With children being born and my industry not being as lucrative, his earning capacity has grown more than mine. It doesn't matter. It's a life we've built together and we don't think in terms of his and mine when it comes to money. Just ours. He doesn't get more weight in decisions because he earns more. That would be sad. We are equal partners. Income doesn't determine that.

Ah, apologies. Unfortunately, can’t always spot satire on these types of threads as plenty of people would say what you did with total conviction and sincerity!

Totally agree, my post was facetious...hence the nausea emoji

She would have had to stay married to him for quite a while to get 50% of his stuff.

I think it's good he is protecting himself, although I don't think pre-nups are binding in the UK.

He should ring fence his deposit. What if they split up within a year, why should your dd get half the house when she didn't pay half the deposit or mortgage?

They need to make adjustments for any life changes(children, maternity leave, SAHP etc) but your dd should prioritise excelling in her own career and not replying on a man.

I think the arrangement is fine as long as they don't want children

Or do what ever i please and have some legal paperwork to protect me lol

The number of times on here that I read pre nups are not worth the paper they are written on. This is not the case. Look at this link ( could have been one of a thousand) IF drawn up properly then yes they are taken seriously by courts. Yes there are other ways of protecting deposits in property too.
https://www.equifax.co.uk/resources/money-management/prenups-and-divorce.html

Then don’t get married and certainly never have children.

It sounds like your daughter is handling it well. As long as she gets her own solicitor and it’s fair, a prenup can just be a sensible way to protect both of them without affecting their relationship.

Those OP’s were in relationships for wrong reasons, does not mean OP’s dd wants to do the same and it does not mean her fiancée’s offer is reasonable - expecting her to leave job to raise kids and look after home and at the same time telling her my money is mine. Imaginary divorce aside, he is controlling.

"Imagine being a man, working hard providing for a family and then the woman decides to up and leave with 50% of your stuff."

Imagine being a woman, working hard to raise your children at the expense of your career, your pension, even your health, trusting that your marriage was a shared mission, and then being abandoned by your husband and told that everything you thought you shared was just "his stuff."

As a woman I am far better with money than my man. When we end things you better belive i am taking my money with me. Should be the same with men

I think it's fine as long as they don't have kids, if they do decide to have kids, I would want him to pay me compensation if I was her. Transactional relationships are only fair if they work both ways.

You're not wrong but most men enter a marriage expecting and intending for the woman to always be the junior partner.
If she starts earning more then he does he will find some way to crush her back down to where he thinks she should be.

Then the DD can negotiate for better income protection and/or not being a SAHM

There could be but why would you enter a marriage where you will always be the ‘junior partner’? Where you know if he threatens to leave you won’t be able to afford a house? Where he has extra weight in all decisions because he ‘pays the most’?

I remember a thread before where a a poster was talking a time when man cheated on his finance before the wedding. He apologised, the wife pretended to accept his apology but they she waited to get married for the sole purpose of taking half his stuff.

I know a PP on a different thread who refused to marry her DP who she lived with and had kids with because "she didn't want him taking half his stuff"