Fiancé asking for a prenup

I would have no problem at all with my partner wanting to protect a company they built from the ground up - provided it was all pre marriage and everything post marriage was fair.

He is protecting his interests as much as you are too

No, these were most certainly very capable, intelligent men at the beginning. I met all but one of them decades ago as polished young men and very much pitching in. Over the years complacency, laziness and boredom have set in and it’s been a gradual decline, not a poor choice to begin with.

Once you are knee deep with very young children, full on jobs and life it’s not so easy to leave at all. Particularly if these chaps start out as competent and decline.

Some women choose poorly, but that only applies to one of my friends whom is incredibly successful and beautiful.

On here I am rather sick of reading the wretched outcomes for some women and children, and op is really just setting herself up here to really struggle best case.

I have never ‘desired’ children in the way some people do, so I really can’t understand why anyone would agree to such poor ‘terms’ of marriage and loveless treatment.

Most women would be better off remaining childless and travelling the world. Liberated from the drudge work of motherhood and men’s weaponised incompetence.

I have to think that at some point there was a calculation for your friends, and they decided they really wanted kids, even to a crap dad and husband.

If they divorced for other reasons and the men suddenly became unwilling and unable to look after their own children having been equal partners and parents beforehand, your friends have been very unlucky and I feel terribly for them.

(I feel terribly for all women being screwed over by pointless men, but in many cases I do believe - and have witnessed at close hand- some bad decisions are made by women whose desire for marriage and babies took over their common sense.)

What would you do with a severely disabled child that required 247 care?

How many women do you think can own a house outright? Are you aware many are minimum wage jobs paying sky high rent? How do they amass the wealth required when they are struggling to even put a deposit together for a mortgage and may never be able to afford a house?

Are we reinforcing the class system by saying only wealthy women can marry wealthy men?

And only wealthy women can risk motherhood as they have numerous safety nets?

I am curious. I have always had a solid profession, but I do wonder how carers/nurses/bus drivers/ teachers afford to buy houses outright at child bearing age without a substantial and meaningful inheritance or trust fund?

This doesn't sound like a too harsh pre nup tbh? Plus I think this should be protected anyway as he built the business before you got married so I'm not sure what you would be entitled to?

Before I even thought about children I made sure I was financially independent. Own house, savings, job.

i was set up so I could raise my children on my own. If they had have had additional needs then I would have managed there too. I had enough saving to survive a few years not working or working part time.

my bigger fear was becoming financially reliant on a man and then that man disappearing. My own dad died when I was in primary school. My mum had never worked, and couldn’t support us. Even worse, my friends dad had a stroke at 40 and needed 24 hour care so her mum had the kids, sorting him and his carers out etc.

if dh had walked out, died, lost his job, or in any way became unable to work in the last 20 years I would have been financially fine. Because I entered the relationship financially secure and kept working full time.

many women seem to think marriage will give them the same financial security. It doesn’t. Basic maths - one income rarely supports two households in a split. If that income is lost it won’t support anyone.

i also think giving up work and dividing the relationship along gender lines sets women up for failure. They do the caring, the man never learns the routines, the day in, the day out, how the washing machine works etc. don’t give up work, ensure he takes on the household labour and childcare too. Then if your marriage does break down, your kids aren’t being left with a man who has no clue how to feed them or run a house. I’ve seen women leave kids with their mum rather than their husband as he’s so clueless! If he doesn’t step up, if you are financially secure you aren’t trapped and you can walk away sooner rather than later.

I disagree partially, many of my friends are the main breadwinners and are still doing the lion’s share of parenting or paying for it to be outsourced.

Post divorce they were ‘fucked over’ twice both in terms of the financial split, and the other parent being so deliberately incompetent and useless they could mot care for their own children properly. Their sterling careers did not prove to be protective in any of these cases, they were still effectively parenting alone AND working 65 hour weeks. Not fun.

Indeed. And further to this, it might seem appealing but it’s actually pretty unwise to marry a man a lot wealthier, because in the event that the child needs additional care it’s much more likely that the woman will feel she has no choice but to compromise her career. A marriage of (financial) equals, whether both well-off or both piss-poor, means any extra care more likely to be shared (unless different poor decisions have been made, like marrying a selfish pig).

The only way any woman can protect herself from being ‘fucked over’ is not to have any children or dependents at all. There is no safe route without a degree of risk.

This risk is further increased by pre nups, disabilities, low paid work and age.

Basically the only way you can ensure you are not fucked is to refuse to compromise your career. Do not go part time, do not become a SAHM because you WILL get fucked if you divorce
I don't disagree with this @Glowingup but I would go further and say the only way to ensure you are not fucked is to not have children. It's much easier for a man to work the situation to his advantage if the woman has children. Men often have predatory instincts which kick in when a woman is vulnerable, i.e when she's pregnant.

And what happens if your child is born or becomes disabled/ill/special needs? Do you think you can package them up, and send them back with a note saying this doesn’t fit into my career plan? I would rather not be fucked over in a divorce with their own father…and screwed over 🧐

I very clearly was not saying that she alone should support the children!

You are stating how vulnerable women can be to terrible men. I completely agree. Which is why it would be mad, and irresponsible, to get married and have children without any means of your own. Women are much more likely to end up in exactly the situation you are railing against if they can’t provide for themselves, and half the costs of their children, in the event of separation.

Love, he doesn't want to marry you.

I'm sorry.

You've only been together two years.

You had pushback when you said no children without marriage.

Now he's more interested in his assets than the joy and privilege of the prospect of you becoming his wife.

He should be head first into it all, not negotiating and lawyering up and talking contracts.

It must all feel very chilly indeed.

I wouldnt.

But a lot of people seem to think that financial provision law on divorce or child support will protect women adequately. It won’t. Being married offers you more protection than not being married, but it really doesn’t insure you for life. Basically the only way you can ensure you are not fucked is to refuse to compromise your career. Do not go part time, do not become a SAHM because you WILL get fucked if you divorce. It’s sad but true. You may feel that being a SAHM is best for your kids but you have to put yourself first and avoid damaging your career.

I don't blame him.
Its like no one married for love its marriage for money.
If i was to get married I'd do the same, as I don't want to lose half if not more of what I've earned, to someone that didn't help me get it in the first place.

Why SHOULD the mother have to stump up the financial provision alone when the child has two parents. It’s disgraceful that this hasn’t even occurred to you.

Men absolutely have to pay, be responsible, accountable, house and look after/raise their bloody children.

The incels really aren’t struggling for support in certain quarters these days clearly..

I said I didn’t want children, not that I have no care for them, or pregnant women.

You say it’s madness to go into a marriage planning children without the OP getting financial provision sorted in a pre-nup. I think it’s madness to go into marriage and motherhood without making any of your own provision for supporting yourself and your children, and instead being financially dependent on a man.

None of this would be relevant if the OP was, and intended to continue to be, anywhere near financially equal to her fiancé - by her own means, not half of his.

Being childless does not excuse the men that do just disappear and leave the children high and dry. You might not care about babies or children, or pregnant women - along with the many men on here looking to insult us - but honestly even you must see that going into a marriage with a decision to have children without a serious and lasting provision for a home and financial support within the pre nuo is madness. Let’s see if op returns with an update on how her discussion goes in that regard.

As someone who never wanted children, it absolutely blows my mind that some women want them so badly that they are only too willing to have them in the circumstances the poster you quoted describes!

Exactly - absolutely spot on.

It really is very annoying that some seem to entirely dismiss the impact of pregnancy and raising children on earning capacity, pensions, savings and security. Unless they happen to be very high earners.

Pregnancy alone is often discriminated against, and more often than not women are left to carry the responsibility inside and outside of marriage for children throughout their lives. It’s depressing. No wonder the birth rate is dropping through the floor.

Ah, you’re one of those who think anyone who disagrees with you is a man. Original. Can you explain, though - without the drama and hyperbole about brain injuries and homelessness - what your actual objection is to him wanting to protect his business and assets accrued before marriage, and before he even met the OP? What do you think is morally wrong with that? If a woman wanted a prenup for the same reasons, would you still object? Without knowing the terms of the prenup nobody here can speculate what his stance is on assets accrued within the marriage or what his approach to day-to-day finances would be (and a prenup has no bearing on the latter as many have said).

I actually think it would be irresponsible for the husband not to have a pre-nup in these circumstances. It would leave him at the mercy of the divorce courts in the event of divorce and potentially having to sell the business or co-owning it with his ex-wife, which would have a knock on effect on his employees, any co-owners and his own future earnings. Having no agreement in place would create scope for a very acrimonious divorce with fighting over valuation of the business, when / if it should be sold, what rights over it the ex-spouse should have etc. The ex-husband could also be left with taking only the business (which may be essentially illiquid) whilst the ex-wife takes the house and savings to balance out the value.

UK divorce law is quite unusual in generally giving an ex-spouse a share in assets acquired before marriage. Pre-nups give the ability to amend that principle, which is useful in non-standard situations such as where there is a business of significant value.

But the pre-nup should be fair to both parties and shouldn’t leave the OP with nothing. It could, for example, just ring fence the business and divide everything else equally. But it could even provide for the OP to have some share in the business in future but with non-voting shares e.g to reflect the increase in value of the business since marriage.

I really don’t see that carrying and giving birth to a couple of children creates a need / moral responsibility for the husband to hand over half of his pre-marital assets if you split up. However much I loved someone I wouldn’t marry (again, as I’m already divorced) because marriage is in law a financial contract where agree to merge finances such that you may need to give away an uncertain amount of assets in future to your ex, even if they have treated you badly. There’s no benefit to that for the party who is financially stronger.

And yet, the vast majority of women are completely fucked over in divorce and break ups. In your circles, yes, these women profited financially, but they would have lost in other areas.

I tend to think pre nups are fairly sensible in this day and age. But they must be fair. If he’s proposing that after a significant length of marriage you would walk away with nothing then that is obviously ridiculous. If you want to marry him then agree to a fair and sensible one that specifies how finances and property would be dealt with, presumably with him keeping his business, which it sounds like he had already built up before you got together. I am guessing it will be his business that he is worried about and I can totally understand that. It’s all well and good talking about romance but the fact is nearly half of marriages end in divorce and many people end up royally screwed over in the process, wishing no doubt they’d they’d had a pre nup!

Not much to add that hasn’t been covered by @Glowingup.

and yes it’s the first one that comes up on Google etc, that’s why it’s case law because it’s referred to in future cases, it sets the precedent for future claims. It’s not the first time I’ve referenced this around the discussions of prenups and probably not the last.

Your description of a prenup is completely one sided, which they are not really designed to be. It doesn’t take into consideration children time married etc. all of which would be included in any decent prenup.

and I’d argue this guy is very close to being a millionaire, maybe not in the bank but business assets, I could easily see his business being worth in the millions . Why wouldn’t he want to protect that!