Dd s boyfriend wants a pre nup .

it does seem reasonable to me and he has a point if marrying for love this should not be a problem she gets legal advice and signs or gets legal advice and walks away
if marrying for money then I can see this being an issue either way

He used the term 'pussy whipped' to his girlfriend's mum? I really don't like the sound of him.

He sounds controlling and sexist, with lots of double standards, i.e. it's the man's job to be the provider but there are string attached with the pre-nup. I would imagine that he would leave all the child care to your daughter if they have children.

I don't know about controlling and abusive. But a man who says that he won't be pussywhipped like his mates, man needs to be provider, my wife won't work when we have young kids. But also talking about protecting future assets (unclear if they will he married by then)and bill splitting in marriage with large income difference does not give good vibes.

@HedwigEliza It’s transactional for men to argue they want 50:50 care of dc and then farm it out. Women need to keep working - it’s not transactional. It’s trying to fend for yourself if you need to. A women can have dc with a partner and be significantly worse off than a married mum. A not married mum is entitled to no marital assets. There aren’t any. In this case, she’s better off being married and marriages if they split, are all about money!

Prenups aren’t automatically binding in the UK but they are sensible, and courts will often uphold them. Ask your DD to consider what will happen if she decides to have children and stay at home, losing earning power

I find this approach towards marriage really quite sad. So transactional, always keeping tabs on what the other person is doing, how much they’re contributing, always with an eye on the future in case things don’t work out, never fully committed or a team player, making sure you have advantages when it all goes pear shaped, instead of thinking what’s in the best interests of the children. I wouldn’t want it for myself, and it’s not my approach at all.

Blatantly refuse this prenup or any prenup? I've seen an PP many threads and years ago saying she didn't want to marry her DP (who she lives with and has kids with) because "I don't want him taking half my stuff".

It is hypothetical, but i wonder what would happen if the young woman in this scenario simply refused to sign a pre-nup, and said something like 'either you want to marry me expecting it to last our whole lives and we share all our assets because we are partners/a family or there is no point continuing with the relationship.' The reaction of the man could be very telling.

@HedwigEliza A lower earning woman is always better off being married if she got dc and there’s a divorce. Not being married means no split of marital assets so a woman without anything gets nothing. It’s still beneficial to be married for most women. Yes they should continue to work and no, DH should not do 50:50. He will then demand that in terms of cars of dc and it leads to arguing over dc. It’s better for women to keep working and do more for dc. This keeps them and dc in a stronger position and not be bullied to give up dc to the higher earner in a divorce.

I can’t answer that, as I think there are more important things in life than money. But others are free to feel differently and take steps to protect their assets; if marriage isn’t for them, so be it.

Declaration of trust

Or you can marry and choose not to totally merge finances and assets 🤷🏻‍♀️

I just feel like the OP now has a tainted view of her daughter's partner.

Get advice definitely but maybe off someone not so invested and close to the situation.

It sounds like they'd be better off not getting married to be honest!

If they're both working full time I think that's fair. I'd be urging them both to think about:

What happens if earnings change for either of them in the future? What if she wins the lottery and he gets burnt out and loses his job?

What they both bring to the relationship that isn't purely financial. Make sure that he doesn't expect that he gets the final say in decisions because he earns more, or he does less house chores because he earns more, if they both do the same hours. As that isn't a partnership.

Most importantly how things will change if they have children. If she is the primary carer, and they split, does he really want the big house while her and the children rent a flat? What if they have a child with a disability or some other situation where they can't get childcare and she has to give up work. Is it fair that she has to give up her financial stability as well?

I wouldn't have any objection to things not being 5050 if there are two adults that can control their earning power etc. But it's not fair for one person to expect the other to support their career, make sacrifices etc and still walk away with pretty much everything if their marriage broke up. In these circumstances she could be increasing her own financial vulnerability and it would put me off having kids with him

and marriage is not solely about money - how can it be
otherwise it would be called a business
i wonder what his parents are like? I mean are they just nice decent people??
that would tell me more about him / or a person

he is full of himself - sees his worth only in money
I'd dump him

Why? Because they may be given advice that makes them realise what a bad deal it is you are trying to drag them into? Much better to be with someone who never seeks advice from anyone other than you?

@TrendynamePre nups are very standard on second marriages where there can be a lot of money involved. In the case here, it’s really an agreement about what’s going into the deposit so it’s a very limited pre nup. He just wants his % back.

The recent Standish v Standish case changes the landscape on what non matrimonial assets look like (what each person has before marriage) but the house will be a matrimonial asset as he’s not owned it for years before marriage. What he could ring fence is wealth he has acquired prior to the marriage. It’s not unusual to protect a very uneven deposit for a house either. After marriage, wealth accrued after that date is in the matrimonial pot so pensions, cars, property etc. Children alter the landscape too.

Any woman earning less than dh can agree to a pre nup but when dc arrive it’s not going to count. A short marriage and no dc, it will.

It’s purely an agreement about money. It’s no reflection of love and caring for each other or dc. Women go into marriage with substantial funds too! They also might want to ring fence that wealth.

Then don't get married then because that's exactly what you risk by getting married.

If the prenup reflects just the deposit, I wouldn't be too bothered, as it's only fair he might get his larger share back if they divorce after a year.

What would concern me is a possible controlling dynamic on his part further down the line, for example when/if DD takes time off work to raise kids, her salary goes down, and his goes up after promotion.

Will your DD have any say in family finances, or will she just be a passenger. Would he think of it as "my money"?

Yes, the perfect time to discuss between the two of them.

I could never be with someone that discussed this kind of thing with their parents

I think it's fair if he puts in 70 percent of deposit and is going to pay 70 percent of mortgage and bills that if they split up with no DC that he gets his 70 percent back. If they have DC I think he should pay her pension contribution if she is on mat leave. She needs to insist on continuing to work full time after any DC are born and make him do 50/50 childcare with her. If she does more then 50 percent sh should get increased in share of property.

I agree with this. Let's say a nanny's hourly rate is 25 pounds per hour. I'm just spitballing here but bear with me. If a woman's hourly rate is, say, 30 pounds per hour, with a possible rise to, say, 45 pounds per hour (if she were not burdened by doing the majority of the childcare) then, if she is relegated (by her husband) to part-time nanny, even if she were to be assigned "nanny wages" by him, she is STILL losing money compared to her pre-kid status. She is ALSO losing pension credits that she would otherwise be earning, AND she is losing her financial contribution to the house, which is relevant if her % ownership of the house depends on her paying a visible part of the mortgage.

Meanwhile, the man, who does NOT have to participate in childcare, is having his salary increase because he is unencumbered by childcare. He is still earning pension credits, he's building his professional network, he's building his curriculum vitae. From his viewpoint, a contract where he "has to" pay her and equivalent of a nanny wage is still a contract where he wins and she loses, because he is being allowed to benefit from her labor, and to curtail her career progression (this increasing his relative power in the relationship), but he's also being allowed to rationalize it as if he's treating her equitably.

Of course it's better than a financially abusive man who thinks that when you are on maternity leave you somehow owe him money for the gift to you that he claims you are getting when you are graciously allowed to provide him with free 24/7 childcare at your own expense.

But it's still unfair to the woman.

The way, IMO, for a woman to be compensated fairly for her childcare provision is for her time doing childcare to be calculated at her expected rate of pay were she not doing childcare, PLUS pension contributions, PLUS a quid-pro-quo for her lost networking/CV-building opportunities, PLUS a multiplier to reflect the fact that the longer she does this the more difficult it will be for her to get back into the workforce.

Or, they could just share the income equally, which would be simpler.

I agree with this. For a marriage to work, both sides need to be mentally / emotionally committed and have a positive outlook. Of course it’s sensible in practical way to secure your assets. But being too practical is not good for marriage too because it is not a practical relationship and those who keep a balance sheet, end up getting divorced. My suggestion to person asking for prenup is to not even get married if you are so concerned about your current partner financially taking advantage in future, don’t even bother.

Prenup is to secure your financial assets, what about other investments you put in a marriage - your time, emotions, support. There are no guarantees in a marriage or even a romantic or any relationship, and if you want guarantee don’t even bother with that relationship.

If this man has a major sickness in future, should his wife walk away because the time, efforts and energy she would be putting in will not guarantee that they will not have a divorce in future? Where is prenup for that?

Because they’re clearly not entering marriage with the understanding that all resources will be pooled. There’s a significant amount of ground between ‘all’ and ‘nothing’.

But this is not considerable wealth it’s a deposit on a house the is still expecting her to foot part of the mortgage and deposit. The more I think about this the more stupid it sounds