AIBU to want half of the pension after divorce?

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
40 years ago, childcare costs were nowhere what it is now. My mum was a single mum at 22, raised me mainly alone as we lived 5 hours away from my dad from the time I was 7yo and she managed a fantastic career.

Why do so many women on MN think that was so many women do and have done for years is so hard it makes it impossible? It's coming across as just excuses to justify what is nothing but a choice that suited them best at the time.

£400,000 not enough to buy somewhere to live?

How do they think the rest of us manage?

I randomly selected a London borough (Hillingdon) to see what was there.

Perfectly nice 2 bed flat - gated, two bathrooms, close to station for £230,000. Many others of course

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/89760687#/?channel=RES_BUY

Not my business how couples arrange their finances, but the very idea of reaching 60 with little or no financial independence or ability to earn brings me out in a cold panic. I could never ever imagine living like that. I never understand women who sub ordinate their lives to their husbands.

Local authorities did some inspection but I don’t think anyone should blame parents for not choosing to use largely unregulated childcare if they had another option (SAHM) available
Yes, all those children of parents who DID work, who have paid taxes, who are now funding the pensions of the mums who decided these horrible nurseries were not good enough for their own children.

Take, take and take again and stuff the children of those who did pay their way....

Ultimately, thankfully, research has found over and over that children who attended daycare did not fare any worse than those who didn't.

It's amazing the arguments people come up with to justify their choice of lifestyle and then expect the same benefits later in life.

It's not a far out assumption. I think it is pretty established that in the UK that pension pots are a marital asset and will be split evenly after a long marriage.

Er, well, bully for you too?

I wanted to work until I didn't any more.

My point was simply that not working for pay does not have to equal not being intellectually challenged and that to make that kind of blanket statement is reductive and simplistic and full of assumptions.

For. The. State. Pension.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Which is… entirely optional.

OP £7/4 didn’t want to work and that’s fine. It will work out well for her, but often doesn’t for many women.

What was her career? Childcare costs were high actually and there was no help with costs as there is today. I did have a career by the way but it wasn't as easy for me as it would have been if I had someone at home sorting out childcare etc. Leaving work on time, working part time etc all had an impact on my progression.

Does he really want to split? He could travel and she can stay home. Plus no splitting finances and another woman swooping in, remarriage, getting it all when he pops off.

I don't get the feeling from OPs posts that he is in any way desperate to hang on to the marriage and wants a completely different sort of life.

It sounds like he's currently prepared to be fair re splitting of assets @DivorcingDebbie25 so I would get good legal advice immediately. As others having pointed out, it would be unwise to rely on the prospect of future inheritance from his relatives. Your bigger issue is that you will have little to no State pension as things stand and and it would be worth looking into what you might get from Pension Guarantee credit although that is a good few years away for you.

As I said, it's usually the other way around. So why are people so worked about a woman benefiting from the arrangement for a change rather than the man?

There is no 50/50 rule but likely the split will be close to that in your case. They pension can either be earmarked - where you get a percentage of the income once it starts paying - or you get a Pension Sharing Order (PSO) - which will overall be better for you - where a percentage it moved now into a pension in your name, and you have no further claim on his remaining pension. You will likely not get anything from his future income. The house will probably be marked for sale and proceeds split. After divorce, you are no longer an automatic beneficiary under his will, and you normally cannot claim against his estate later if he leaves you nothing. Which he probably will. Get a specialist family solicitor, expect a fair break ruling in which what you get now is all you get ever.

Your lawyer (get one at once, a really good one) will almost certainly say the house and pensions will be split equally. Your H doesn't get to say it's unreasonable. Also, it's no-one's business to judge you for not having worked - that was the arrangement between the two of you. Don't consult your STBX about any of this, let your lawyer do it.

Yup @bittertwisted you're right!

I was just explaining to the young 'uns the reasons that @DivorcingDebbie25 has a right to negotiate for 50% of the marital assets in a long marriage.

I don't think some of the "You've never worked, you're grabby" responses know what they're talking about.

What was her career? Childcare costs were high actually and there was no help with costs as there is today. I did have a career by the way but it wasn't as easy for me as it would have been if I had someone at home sorting out childcare etc. Leaving work on time, working part time etc all had an impact on my progression
University lecturer. I was walking to school on my own by the age of 7, staying at a childminder until my mum called her to say I could walk home, often after 7pm. In the winter, the childminder would walk with me.

My mum did it, I did it 20 years later. Of course it wasn't easy, but it was nowhere near impossible as some posters are pretending it to be here.

Agree with this. Also, whilst he’s amenable & assuming you can afford it, top up as many missed State pension years for yourself as you can (although hopefully you’ve been doing this throughout your marriage).

What is sad is how women are getting trapped. They are offered a lifestyle most mothers wish for, the sahm married to a rich man. Get to spend quality time with the kids whilst enjoying a life of leisure, spending, fun. Who wants to give this up when you don't have too.

Then the man starts to find the wife boring. Needs more stimulating conversation, more excitement, he looks elsewhere. He cheat, he likes, treats his wife like shit, but she closes her eyes to it because even though her self esteem is at its lowest, she values the luxury higher. Self esteem continue to crash. Either they continue like this disposing themselves but neither willing to give up the status quo, or he decides he can still have a great life with 50% less and wife end up with enough to survive but not enough to continue with the luxury she got accustomed to for so many years, she doesn't know any different.

It's hard to think what your life might be like at 60 when you are in your 20s and 30s living the dream life and yet...

Obviously each case is different, but friends of my parents (albeit a few years ago now) were in a similar position- long marriage, SAHM who did not enter back into the workforce even after children grew up and left home and self-employee husband- the divorce was not amicable and they spent a fortune in lawyers fees (TBH, I’d try and keep it amicable if at all possible, if they are anything to go by).

the judgement essentially split marital assets (house/cars/savings and any investments) equally. the wife did not get very much out of the value of the company due to the way it was set up- I’m not sure if that was deliberate or a bit of a fluke on his part. It did’t aware the pension on a 50/50 split. Essentially the judge took into account the years she was at home providing childcare, as this was allowing him to work without consideration of that responsibility. However, they did consider the time before and after that period a little differently and did not split that equally. As I said, they spent a lot of time and money getting there, though. I remember mum saying if either or both of them had compromised they would both have been better off in the end- what they saved/gained (depending on which side of the fence you look at) was spent on legal fees in a long, drawn out process.

i wound be very surprised if you had access to any future earnings, pension accrual after the split, or any future inheritances (apart from anything else, inheritances are not guaranteed, so how can you anticipate this or use it in any calculations).You would still get any legacy specifically left to you in the will of one of his relatives.

Joint investments, yet to mature, will be considered in the judgment, but I doubt you’ll get a lump sum from them now- unless, for instance, there is an agreement that you get x% more from a different investment/the house or savings and give up claim in the yet to mature investment. If not, you may get an order ensuring you get the allocated share on maturity. You would still get any legacy specifically left to you in the will of one of his relatives.

Get good legal advice, make sure you get what is fair- though I suppose that is subjective- but I’d be mindful that a long legal wrangle can be very expensive too and you could stand to lose more than you gain depending on the kind of figures you are talking about.

Thankfully, law in the UK doesn't differentiate in the way you would like it to. Only the billionaires of this world can afford to drag out divorce proceedings nitpicking over whether their wives were sufficiently supportive or not. For everyone else, the assumption is that both spouses contributions have been different but equal.

I’m not worked up about a stranger’s decisions, I just said that personally I think it’s an awful idea for women to still do this.

It worked out for OP because he’s wealthy and not horrible, but for many women they’re just shooting their own foot.

Well maybe, but we are looking at a situation where the OP got married in 1986 and the children were both 20 by 2008.

So hardly 1950s attitudes.

Many people wouldn't think it ideal for a child to be walking to school on their own or walk home from a childminders at the age of 7. You aren't even allowed to do that where I live and no childminders either. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. Also, people might feel more justified if they really had to do it for financial reasons but less so if they can afford to work part time. And career progression is certainly not good for part time workers in academia.

Just go and see the solicitor and get some proper advice rather than folks on here. There will be some unexpected twists and turns but fundamentally he will either give you the house in return for keeping his pension and you keep yours or there will be some divvying up and putting into pension pots DEPENDING ON YOUR AGE AND HIS etc. Ignore everyone going on about should have worked etc - that horse has bolted and there is no catching it.

Do get on with things tho as by taking time you are also giving him time to ferret things away - so check out what accounts he has, shares and other investments etc as he could also be hiding assets from you if he has kept you ignorant on the finances

I very much agree that it is a bad idea. I don't get why some posters are frothing that it might actually have worked for OP though.

Who said impossible? Why should she have worked ? Because a stranger in the internet said she should ? That was the arrangement in their marriage.