AIBU to want half of the pension after divorce?

I'm 67 and have only just retired. I can't imagine not being intellectually challenged for 40 years.

I know this isn't the point of the thread, but I find that such an oddly reductive way of thinking. When I left my career to stay at home, in addition to spending time with the family, I got a second MA, became fluent in a language I'd only toyed with previously, wrote two novels and had them published by a traditional publisher, served as a school governor on a very active federation, volunteered, sat as a trustee on a charitable board and chaired a foundation. I was never not intellectually challenged.

A lot of men make it very difficult for their wives to pursue careers. They don't pull their weight around the house or with the children, and they insist that any childcare costs come out of their wives' income. It's not always easy.
In my house we are pretty much 50:50 on everything, but that is completely down to me pushing it all these years, not necessarily because my DH ever voluntarily decided that he should do more around the house.

I am the same age as OP and know from experience how hard it would have been to have a good career if her husband worked long hours and also worked away. That might not be the case now but it was 40 years ago. Yes, she could have worked but probably not a high flying career without considerable sacrifice for herself and her children.

You do realise that lots of women who work and who contribute equally to the family finances also put up with very selfish men who do not appreciate their wives. Mumsnet is full of married women who are the main breadwinners and who also do all the cooking/cleaning/life admin and care of the children.

OP's marriage sounds like an old fashioned marriage of convenience where wives would turn a blind eye to their husband's infidelities in exchange for a luxurious and lazy lifestile.

The thread has moved on a good bit since last night. Someone made a (jocular?) suggestion that the OP just needs to outlive her husband in order to get everything.

I'm now a widow and would definitely rather have my husband than money. However, I'm adding this in case there's anyone who mistakenly thinks that you get your husband's whole pension if you outlive him.

I'm no accountant and I have no idea whether it varies depending on the type of pension or how long you've been married, but when my husband died I was awarded a percentage of his work pension - about half, possibly.

Fortunately, I have my own pension; I was the main breadwinner for most of our marriage. We were married 27 years.

That's a decision you have both made to have more children.

Absolutely agree however long that period is, it's a tough time. The length of it is not forced on anyone however.

I'm a firm believer than if you make a decision, you don't complain about it

Indeed - I can’t believe some of the comments. You’re fully entitled to 50% of the marital assets Op, so see a solicitor & make sure you get what you’re entitled to.

if only these people could share their time machines so we could all benefit
It's a pity people don't think of the future, just the oresent when they make life decisions.

The OP states 'future income'. It's right there in the post. The family members presumably provided for both of them because they were married. It seems highly unlikely that they will continue to do so once their son/nephew or whatever goes through a divorce. It's pretty odd to ask this question. I can't imagine expecting my wealthy in laws to leave me money if I decided to divorce their son! The whole OP comes across as grabby. She doesn't sound upset, talk about her love for the man, doesn't talk about how he has let her down, mention how upset their DC will be, how hard she has worked or anything or that sort. The whole thing is about how much she can get. The fact that he is paying her rent and credit card bill even after separation and has suggested 50/50 makes him sound pretty reasonable.

But I very much doubt the length of marriage would come into it
You're wrong.
When balancing a fair financial settlement, the court evaluates these key elements under Section 25.
Resources: Income, earning capacity, property, and other financial assets.
Needs: Financial needs, obligations, and responsibilities of each person.
Standard of living: The lifestyle enjoyed before the breakdown.
Age & duration: Age of both parties and how long the marriage lasted.Disabilities:
Any physical or mental disabilities.
Contributions: Financial and non-financial contributions (like looking after the home or family).
Conduct: Behavior, only if it is severe enough that it would be unfair to ignore it.
Lost benefits: Pensions or benefits lost because of the divorce.*

It’s the same as the
“well why did you have another child” people.

if only these people could share their time machines so we could all benefit.

What future earnings ? OP has mentioned future income - from joint investments. Not the same thing at all. And the inheritances she refers to are those she knows about from family members who have provided for both of them in their wills. She’s not trying to fleece him for the lot.

Although he could easily have hidden some assets

It’s 4 years per child though isn’t it.

We started paying for nursery in 2021 and will finish in 2031. That doesn’t include the £45 per day per child school holidays clubs or wrap around care.

Fortunately I have the education a job that means we can afford the childcare but it isn’t a short period of time for a lot of people. It can be a long time to only just break even for especially when life working with small children is hard anyway.

If he is really worth millions then definitely go after a hefty chunk so that you can live a comfortable life and buy a decent property

As has been mentioned upthread, if he was a high flyer, OP may well have enabled his progression and earning power by supporting him - taking over the running of the household and all the mental load that goes with it. No-one knows and I think branding any woman who does so solo, is pretty offensive. They made the decision for her to stay at home together, so it follows that her needs following the failure of the marriage at a late stage is also a joint responsibility.

Why would you expect to inherit something from a man you divorced? I think expecting something from his pension is fair as he was only able to amass so much as you were caring for children but you don’t really have any excuse for not working for the last quarter of a century or so. Definitely get some legal advice. He doesn’t particularly sound like he’s trying to leave you destitute it has to be said.

I'm 67 and have only just retired. I can't imagine not being intellectually challenged for 40 years.

I was a SAHM for 4 years as DD had some health issues that would have made working very difficult if not impossible, but I remember the first day I went back to work. I was on such a high to be back in the grown up world again. I literally skipped into the office.

What did I think we would do? A quiet life, walking, local travel and enjoying our family time maybe

That doesn't sound very exciting to most able bodied and healthy people. DH has some serious health issues that make me nervous about going abroad (plus the expense of travel insurance), so we travel in the UK, but we will travel up and down the UK, not just locally.

Obviously, as you haven't paid national insurance your state pension will be minimal.

Actually, she doesn't only want 50% of the assets. She also wants and feels entitled to his future earnings and even his inheritance. You seem very keen to defend the OP and assume that the DH was useless and couldn't possibly have coped with his job without her being at home for 40 years, that she sacrificed a career when she clearly didn't want one, etc. I bet if she was a he, you would not be making things up in a desperate effort to defend him.

I agree on the pensions thing - I think the usual division is to add everything together from both spouses and then a 50/50 split. But I very much doubt the length of marriage would come into it. In cases where the spouse doesn’t work it’s usual for only the time spent raising children to be taken into account. The law doesn’t seem to attach much value to maintaining a house and the mental and physical load that goes with it.

as to inheritance I meant that he has relatives who have provided for both of us, by name, in the will. I was wondering what would happen. I’m not grabbing the money. Just wanted to be sure.

This will be up to those relatives and exactly how their will is worded. They may choose to remove you, or they may not, or maybe reduce what they leave to you. No one can answer that part for you.

I am sorry your thread has attracted so many obviously male posters and misogynists who do not understand a traditional family set up. My mum has never worked since marriage, my SIL has never worked since having kids. Although I do work, I am surrounded by women in their 50s who don't and never have since marrying. It suits their husbands to have wives who take care of all their life admin, while they are off living their best life. They sell the fantasy that they will retire early and spend time with their wife, so there is no point in getting a job, even after the kids are grown up. Except 'early' never comes. It is absolutely a gilded cage as you are discovering, when it is too late to change trajectory.

Get proper legal advice, and be aware that he might be a lot less accommodating once he realises how much it is going to cost and that he will have to look after himself.

That "why are you bothering, all your money goes on childcare" makes me laugh.

It's 4 years. Once the kids are at school you suddenly have your salary back and the children have a better upbringing with more opportunities.

A friend of mine said "it's not worth going back all that money it'll cost". Alright love, what are you going to use as an excuse once your only child finishes nursery?

Regarding inheritance - it's entirely up to those people what they choose to leave you and your STBX husband when they pass away. If you get on well with them all then they may still leave you something, or they may write you out of their wills completely. You don't have any kind of 'claim' on the money!

She didn't sacrifice her chance of having a career at all. She had her DC at age 20 and 22 and that was it. By the time they were both, let's be generous, of senior school, she was only in her early 30s! Some men and women start new careers/gain challenging new qualifications/take on all manner of new work related challenges in their 50s or 60s even. The OP was clearly not interested in a career or she would have returned to work decades ago.

I'm close-ish to your age OP and know plenty of women in your situation, it's not overly unusual, don't worry about being judged by the 20/30 somethings who are looking through today's eyes.

Please see a lawyer (preferably one recommended to you) and don't settle directly with him. It's important all the marital assets are declared, homes, pensions, investments. You and the lawyer can then work out what a fair split would be and start negotiations.

All the best, hope you enjoy retirement.