AIBU to want half of the pension after divorce?

I can only speak from my own personal experiences and those of people in my life, as you too are doing. I'm nearly 60 myself. A lot of women in relatively recent history have still given up work upon marriage - the fact that it doesn't square with your own life experiences doesn't make it 'utter nonsense'.

I agree strongly. There's a lot of naivety fuelling this.

As I've said upthread, when my children were little in the 1990s I knew almost no-one who had paid employment (although I did).
What the critics don't know: it was assumed that a woman would earn less than a man. Paternity leave had not been dreamt of. It was impossible to be absent from work due to a child's illness etc. In fact, I made it my invariable rule to never, ever, mention my children at work (unless another woman informally asked about them). Maternity rights were much, much less. Remote working or flexible hours undreamed of. Day nurseries were still mostly run by local authorities for children in adverse economic situations, although beginning to exist in some places for the general population. It was normal for people in general to express strong disapproval of working mothers. It was normal for employers to ask about childcare arrangements during job interviews. Ready meals , food deliveries didn't exist. Shops closed on Sundays and earlier in the evenings. There were many fewer restaurants. Fewer people had tumble driers. Dishwashers were unusual. Microwaves very new. People had to cook from scratch. Far less frozen food.
I personally knew of a young female solicitor who was offered a partnership. A little while later she revealed that she was pregnant and the offer was withdrawn. She had no recourse to this situation.
A pp stated that her DM always worked and her DGM had a career - I assume she was a medic or lawyer and was facilitated by her financial/social situation. Yes, of course some women were employed, usually through necessity. Most often childcare was done by relatives, making this possible.
In my very middle, middle class experience, away from London, it was not really known, and where it did exist was disapproved of, often vocally.
I've read that in the 19th century, poor women factory workers were obliged to leave their babies in a drawer while they went to work, and the baby often, tragically, died. So, yes, women have always worked .

Please, please educate yourself before showing such contempt for women not in employment.

Why do you?

Why?? She may well be able to. It depends on whether there are savings/assetts to offset it. Even if there aren't she can probably get a lump sum transfered to her own pension and start taking it.

It can be done with my pension. I think it is called earmarking. It's also possible to take out a lump sum and put it in a separate pension though and also to offset with housing equity or savings.

OP i agree with another poster that there are probably other savings somewhere. Seems unlikely and very convenient for him if it is all in a pension you apparently can't touch.

I find it quite incredible that you think it's possible for OP to have the cash equivalent of half the assets.

I find it quite incredible that so many posters are effectively against an equal split of marital assets on divorce. While OP has arguably done pretty well out of this, that's definitely not usually the case. Most women are worse off after divorce than men. Why are people on a supposedly female site so keen to make divorce less favorable to women?

@Luckystarss Really good post. Thank you.

@DivorcingDebbie25 I'm glad you're getting legal advice. I'm another one who is a bit concerned that you might not be getting full transparency on what other savings and investments there might be. While pensions are a good safety net, it would be unusual for a high earner to put so much into them without a more varied portfolio. Please make sure your solicitor has a good forensic accountant.

Well whatever it is that you do to earn your own money, I hope it doesn't involve taking on and assimilating new information. You've been told repeatedly that legally it's not his pension, it's a marital asset. And under the law, the OP is entitled to half of it, whether you approve of their choices or not.

@blossomtoes ,

Most pensions are payable as a lump sum on divorce. I am not even sure ‘taking the income’ is an option.

The pension will have a date from which it can be drawn (and the tax free lump sum paid), but that is normally 55 years (lower value) or 60 (full value). Of course, there may be variants.

So, for example, pensions get split and she puts hers in a SIPP. She has full control under the rules of the pension. Also, if it is millions, it is more tax efficient to split it rather than for her to take half the income.

I am not even sure how half the income would be done tbh. He would keep all the pension and she would get spousal until death? Would be a disaster for the tax free lump sum and inheritance planning.

The same rules don't apply to you because your not married. If you and your partner split at best you would get half of anything you owned together like a house and if the kids lived with you, you would get some child maintenance. Whether that would be enough for your to live on or not wouldn't be looked at like it would in divorce.
If you don't want the same rules to apply its best to make a conscious decision to not get married and to make sure your children understand the impact of marriage if you they decide too.

Yes, but she wants the equivalent money now to do as she wishes. That may be possible depending what assets there are but she needs to see solicitor.

Her STBX is offering her 50/50.

He says half the house and then we combine the value of the pensions and I get the equivalent of half the income from it.

This thread is slightly bonkers to me.

40 year marriage, defined roles, she has supported him throughout his career, of course the default is 50/50.

Also most private pensions are normally split as lump sums when people divorce.

I am 100% with OP here and I am sure that a solicitor would advise her the same (of course, dependent on very specific details of pension).

I agree.
Op has her own accommodation and the amount her half of the pension is likely to be .
Tbh, her stbxh could have been really awkward and they'd both still be in the family home in the interim. Which would have been a lot cheaper right now.
He isn't disputing a 50:50 share of assets and thinks op seeing a solicitor is a good idea.
The only issue is op, who is looking for ways to buy her own property, before the family home is sold. Plus not realising that pension sharing doesn't mean her ex simply handing over half of the total pot to her in one go. She's said herself that the pension was the priority, so there isn't a lot of money in savings. It's just not a realistic option and a guaranteed monthly income is much more sensible financially.
Stbxh will probably challenge any attempt op makes towards his future earnings. But who wouldn't.
Op definitely needs a solicitor to talk her through things.

The pension isn't his and never has been - it's legally a marital asset. If the OP was the higher earner with the big pension it would be the same for her. I have known women had to pay their ex husbands half their pension.

Agreed. I have seen so many people at 60 get cancer or have other serious health issues. Sadly more people than you might think are too ill to work at 60.

A job doesn't protect you from fears of being able to survive alone. You can easily lose it particularly if you suffer from ill health which is common by the age of 60. The best protection is housing equity and pension which OP has actually got.

You have made a (some would say naive) choice to have children without the legal protection that marriage gives you and therefore had little option but to go back to work. It has absolutely zero relevance to OP's situation and what the law says about division of assets after an ultra long marriage.

What do your pension and decisions about work have to do with anything? Nobody cares. I've always worked too but that's irrelevant to anyone else's finances.

Well yes but you said partner not husband, which in your case leaves little choice but working as you do not benefit from the safety net of marriage

I disagree, if he had cheated that pension is still his therefore she shouldn’t get her hands on it.

When we first got our positive pregnancy me and my partner discussed me staying home- I said no! I said it’s only right I earn my own money in this relationship and for our child also to see both parents working hard not just dad and that is how it’s been for 5.5 years. I’ve built a pension since I’ve been old enough to do so I worked from being 16 and I’m now 31. She could have said at any point I’m going to find independence and I’m going to find a job and career for myself. She wasn’t made to stay at home locked in everyday told she had no choice.

There’s only so much pottering around the house you can do! Get yourself a part time job, would do wonders for your self esteem and bring some money in that you’ve actually earned!

Where did you live?

My eldest was born in 1990 and nurseries were rare where I am and very expensive if you could get a place. The one I got my son into did 8:30 - 5:30 hours and had a waiting list as long as your arm. No summer camps, no after school clubs. I got him into nursery as he needed it due to his disability and it cost a fortune.

As I said above, it definitely depends on where you lived and what you did.

ETA "the vast majority of us" ..... you mean the vast majority of people you know or lived around. It clearly hasnt crossed your mind that maybe the rest of the country's women didnt do that.

Ironically, her husband does not seem to be arguing and is openly discussing a 50/50 split. The query raised was just a misunderstanding of how the pension split works