AIBU to want half of the pension after divorce?

She said she has a pension ? You do realise you can pay your national insurance contributions if you don’t work, so you can get a state pension don’t you? . Oh Wait clearly you didn’t no that information . Maybe look it up 🤣 before you comment on something you clearly know nothing about .

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
This was the 70s, of course things have changed. My kids didn't walk to school on their own until they were about 18 years old. The point remains that it's been possible to work FT AND take care of children and a home for a very long time.

But it doesn’t matter whether she worked or not. It doesn’t matter how old the kids are. Why are those things relevant? It doesn’t matter whether you personally think it’s wrong. The law disagrees with you. They are married, and it’s been decided for centuries, maybe, that the moral and fair outcome of a marriage contract is that all assets are generally shared for life or the duration of the marriage. Especially in a long marriage.

Only really if they needed to financially. If your DH was a high earner, it was equally normal not to return after (6 weeks) mat leave.

Nobody has said it is impossible under any circumstance though. Obviously some people do it but that doesn't mean it is easy or best for the children for both parents to work full time and long hours.

Nobody has said it is impossible under any circumstance though. Obviously some people do it but that doesn't mean it is easy or best for the children for both parents to work full time and long hours
That's exactly what people are saying. That it wasn't possible and they didn't have the choice but to be a sahm. Yes there are instances when it's really not possible but in many, it is very possible. The fact it isn't easy doesn't mean it's impossible.

I can’t believe you’re saying this! I graduated in 95 and everybody I know worked, men and women. It was just the norm. To graduate, get a job and not live at home again.

@DivorcingDebbie25

I'm a bit older than you and left a 38 year marriage a bit over a year ago. The differences are that I worked full time and I left him due to his drinking. But I think I can offer a few suggestions.

Alsolutely seek legal advice. But discuss not only divorce but legal separation. In my case (caveat; I'm in the US) a legal separation was much the better option, financially speaking. There was still an equal division of marital assets and severing of any financial responsibility to each other and for the other's debts, but we remain legally married, preserving our (mutual) rights to a widow(er)'s pension. The major difference is that each of us has our own retirement income. You don't and that's something you definitely need to discuss with a solicitor.

I can understand your desire to have the retirement life you envisioned. I did too, and it's been blown to smithereens, by him. But again, I had the wherewithal to start a new life. You don't. So is there a reason why you feel unable to forge your new life and let him forge his and have a 'marriage of convenience' living in the same house? If he's willing to 'throw money at you' I say, let him. Let him be Action Man whilst you embark on your own dream of quiet walks, family time, and local jaunts. There's no reason why you can't do all that without him whilst living 'as roommates'. Especially if he's willing to finance it! Because of my esDH's behaviour when he is drunk, this was not a possibility for me. I tried, but his drunken behaviour meant that he wouldn't let me live a 'separate life' and eventually he turned abusive. I had to leave.

My retirement dreams were truly shattered. We had both retired young and had been enjoying the carefree life of RVing all over the States for the last 16+ years before his drinking spun out of control. Now that is dead for me so I'm finding other dreams, dreams I can do on my own. They're surprisingly easy to find if you look for them.

I wish you the best of luck.

Yep. Especially given that women were pretty much made to stop working upon marriage. It would probably surprise some on here to learn that the formal marriage bar was only lifted in the 1940s and that many women still didn't have the opportunity to work in the decades after that.

Agree, I'm early 60s and don't recognise this world populated by non working out of the home women, certainly not in the 80s and 90s, with the exception perhaps of those with very small children.

My grandmother (who had an actual career, unusually) was v cross that she had to resign on her marriage in 1918. Times changed dramatically between then and even the 60s.

You’ll have to get a job to cover the difference then!

I remember when the 50/50 rule was brought in after a number of cases highlighting the appalling treatment of women in divorce.
It seems to me ironic that so many women here are expressing contempt for OP and seem to want a return to the bad old days.
FGS we only know a few sketchy details about the circumstances and definitely not enough to condemn in this cruel way.
These women who ‘do it all’ are very pleased with themselves and want to ram the point home.
Disgraceful IMO.

For those saying it is unfair, go read White v White from 2000. That is when the principle of a 50:50 start point was first established even thought that is not quite how it finally landed.

It also established that a business is a marital asset, so OP should also be considering that, given her husband is self employed. He can't hide assets in his business in order to keep more. Her husband may find it is better to let her have the family home in its entirety than have her take any of his business.

I haven't seen anyone say it was impossible to work at any point in the marriage! It may not have been possible when the children were young though and it may have been difficult to have a good career when they were a bit older without impacting them negatively.

Not read through all the comments but thought I would give you an idea of what happened to me when I got divorced a few years ago. I had worked continuously throughout my marriage although was part-time for several years and in order to get flexible employment at that time it was necessary to take lower paid jobs than I was used to. Therefore during a fairly length period I couldn’t afford to contribute to a pension, whereas my ex-husband continued to do so. When we divorced, we split everything 50-50 apart from the pension. He was reluctant to give me anything because I left him but the starting position is generally that each party is entitled to 50-50 of the assets. What happened in our case was that we had to get all our pensions valued by a pensions actuary – that in its self cost £2,500. It’s not a clear cut process when you have final salary pensions - he only had those, I had a couple of those and one money purchase scheme. It’s not an exact science either but a valuation is arrived at and then you agree/negotiate the split either between yourselves or using your solicitors. I didn’t get half of his pension and nor was I expecting that as I had reasonable pension provision myself. However, his pension provision was more valuable than mine so we eventually reached an agreement on how much I should get. We could have done this by agreeing for him to pay me a lump sum but I actually wanted pension income to make up for the periods when I wasn’t able to contribute to my own pension due to being on a low income. I have recently retired and it amounts to about £5000 per year. It doesn’t sound a lot but on top of my own pension provision which of course had to be taken into account as well it does make a difference. Obviously, if I had never contributed to my own pension provision there would have been less provision in total and therefore I would likely have received a higher proportion of his pension. I had various options – including transferring a portion of his pension into my own pension scheme, but I was also given the option to become a member of his pension scheme with my own pot and that’s what I went for because the indexation on it is good.

You have to take legal advice.

People get so jealous when you dare say you don’t work, even if you both agreed to that when you set forth together. I don’t get why it annoys so many people when their lack of income has zero impact on their own life!

'I rather feel you have missed the point of AIBU as well.'

'Oh dear, how very foolish of me! I must be getting old!'

Sounds to me like a touch of ageism going on here. No, I have not 'missed the point' of AIBU, thank you.

Where does she mention turning a blind eye though? Really doesn't sound that luxurious either.Only that she vould stay at home longer than most people can.

No, it wasn’t! You are talking utter nonsense. I’m 60. Many of my friends are near on 70. They all worked! We all went to university in the late ‘70s or ‘80s. Not one person was a sahp, though a few did take up to five years off when their children were small. You are talking about two generations before that! My mum, now 92, worked part-time from the 1970s onwards.

Yep she did. I suspect OP might end up quite well pension provisioned, actually.

She almost certainly has half the credits needed for a full state pension already, could have more, and can make voluntary contributions for most of the rest. And the couple clearly have abundant private pension provision between them, which OP as a 60 year old could start living off now if needs be. It just depends how she wants to weigh that against other assets.

To chime in over the 'who gets the pension' vs whether or not mothers worked in the 90s argument.

Both my parents were full-time working parents through the 80s and 90s (OP is a similar age to my mother). I live in London and it wasn't particuarly unusual.

However... my parents had a nanny for the three of us for well over a decade, as it was simply cheaper and better quality than childminders or nurseries or after school care for three.

No, people in the same jobs today couldn't afford a nanny in central London for three children. But it is worth noting that the money that was spent on a nanny could not be spent on other investments, including pensions.

FWIW my mother was a teacher, who went on to be a headteacher and an academic and her pension is a healthy public sector pension. My father's pension, as somebody working in the private sector/freelancer is much lower.

Partly because so much money was spent on a nanny for their three kids...

So having a mother at home very much does have an impact on pension, and I'm a bit shocked at the people trying to claim otherwise. Particuarly on a forum for mother's.

But Mumsnet really is a bit weird about shared/family money, imo.

You need a divorce specialist who will go through everything you have and every aspect of your life from the moment you married.

My Mum never worked a day in her life and once everything was split properly she got about 70% of the value of all of the assets after my dad had an affair. 3 kids, 19 year long marriage. It took ages for them to finalise this though and it didn’t happen without a battle.

50/50 is the starting point and then they take all circumstances into consideration, so it is possible to get more than 50.

My mum would be 84 now if still alive. She qualified as a teacher in the early 60s, and was unusual among her female friendship group in that she took an extended period off work after her kids were born in the 1970s (but did go back full-time by the time I was 6).

Most of her friends were back out to work - in a range of jobs and professions - pretty promptly after having kids.

I don’t recognise this picture of women in the workplace being painted whereby pre-Y2K, they were mostly SAHMs.

The OP would have been an outlier even in the 1980s.

@OutOfTheOtherSide Wht do you only see being employed as worth anything? Those of us who didn’t do paid work didn’t do “fuck all”. Why do working women have to be so insulting? It’s deeply unpleasant.

My DH ran a very successful business but I did everything else. It’s just how it was. He would have paid a lot of wages to replace me. I was worth a lot to him. We aren’t divorced but I’m sure as hell worth my 50:50 had it come to it. I could say he did “fuck all” with our dc. We felt we were a partnership and made decisions based on needs and the money DH earned, which was a lot. I have a pension from working and only stopped aged 40 but I deeply resent anyone saying I did “fuck all” after that. Everything we did was organised by me.