For thinking that the proposed divorce reforms are bad for women?

[JanuaryShoes]

Maintenance for 2-3 years, legal prenups?

This sounds bad for women (who in the majority of cases are the less well off in the couple).

I've given up my career to support DH and my DCs, a decision we made as a couple, I could never get close to what I was earning before, certainly not in 2-3 years. So, if the worst came to the worst, I'd be struggling earning peanuts whilst DH waltzes around enjoying his six figure salary. Or have I got this wrong?

Do you have a link to what you are talking about?

I didn't think either partner were entitled to maintenance after divorce at all? Only child maintenance for any children.

I don't see a problem with pre-nups, I see why some people would think them necessary. However, wouldn't have liked DH to ask me to sign one as personally I would have felt like he didn't think we would be together forever which is sort of the whole point of getting married.

So men should continue to pay for their ex wife to live a life they have become accustomed to for years and years after divorce ? - Yes, very wrong in my opinion.

My ex is happy to support his CHILDREN in the manner to which they where accustomed until his youngest finishes uni , its what decent parents do

There is no absolute entitlement to spousal maintenance after divorce. When awarded, it tends to be to long-married spouses who can be shown to have reduced their earnings in order to support the married/family life and even then it tends to be awarded only for a limited 'getting back on your feet' period (typically up to 5 years). So there is little change on that.

I'm not surprised that pre-nups are to become more binding (they can already be taken into account). I suspect that most people won't bother with them, but for those who do it will be important that they know to get proper legal advice before signing one.

I have no problem with pre-nups, I believe adults should not be prevented from entering binding agreements (subject to already existing law about capacity and excessive pressure).

I wouldn't have one myself though (and I earn many times what DH does) as I treat all our resources as joint.

I can see what you're getting at. I'm a SAHM myself and did so, not to please myself, but for the good of our family.

In that time my DH has been able to progress his own career knowing he could devote himself to work without issue.

On the other hand, not only am I now out of touch with my old career and would need to retrain, but each of my previous companies have gone bust so I now have no employment history.

It's going to take me years to regain the position and potential I once had, let alone not have had the promotions and career progression I would have had. Oh, and anybody mentioning the word pension will make me feel a bit stabby!

We chose this as a partnership as beneficial to the family, despite the overwhelming disadvantages to me. Disadvantages that will take more than 2 years to overcome.

I suppose if you give up your career to bring children up. You know that it will be difficult to get back into your career, although you felt it beneficial to the family you didn't have to give up your career. I suppose it was a choice so down the line you do know what to expect with trying to rejoin the career 10 years on. If you have a good career why give it up with no hope of re entry in later years.

I don't think theres any guarantee of income from a spouse unless you have a pre-nup to that effect. I don't think the divorce laws are going to provide a guaranteed income for former spouses on divorce, no.

Of course there is nothing to stop people from having a pre-nup to that effect, ie getting their prospective spouse to sign a document stating that they guarantee to pay them X amount per month should they split up.

I think its always a good idea in life for anyone, male or female, to make sure they have established a means for themselves to earn a living, and that they keep up with that career or be aware of the consequences of not doing so.

Before you start saying that the reforms will be worse for women, you have to look properly at how things are now.

Yes but bedtime the clue in your post was "If you have a good career"

Many of us had not particularly well paid jobs rather than lucrative careers. We worked out that it wasnt cost effective for both of us to work, did the sums and it made more sense for me to WAH supporting H's business whilst he worked. In this economic climate I doubt id even get an interview bearing in mind my only referee would be my husband!

The spousal maintenance is more than most women get now. The only 2 I've known to get it was in exceptional circumstances and one of those was because he offered.

You would still get maintenance for the children.

But if you don't have a good career BlueSky, isn't a bit of a risky uncertain future a given anyway unless you are fortunate in life?

Joysmum On the other hand, not only am I now out of touch with my old career and would need to retrain, but each of my previous companies have gone bust so I now have no employment history.

Surely this is just evidence that without you, they couldn't survive?!

Some of us had parents who didnt have a massive amount of money, whose push for us was to get us "out working" rather than continue with education. I was discouraged from taking the second college course I was offered because a friend of a friend had a suitable job vacancy and we lived in a deprived area of the country - my parents wanted my money coming in.

I think now there are so many ways to study that if I were of an age where starting a new career would be of benefit then I would - I definately think its something for the 30 year old mothers at home with the children to think about.

We are not badly off together - he doesnt know the first thing about the bits of his business I deal with (he wouldnt even know where to find them) He would be less well off if he had to take days off for insets/sick days/snow days etc. we are a team - the money earnt is as a result of team work.

Dojo - that's funny :)

Blue sky - I see why your working for his business as you probably have the ability to earn more than the job you used to have. Therefore you all benefit from more money . But it is risky if you have given up getting qualifications etc to get a career if anything happened between you and your husband. Like you said what would you do if you didn't work in the business. There's always the 'what ifs' I guess there's no guarantees in life.

Totally with you joysmum, our circumstances are the same and DH and I made a decision TOGETHER that I would give up my six figure salary for the sake of his earning potential and the best interests of the whole family. I wasn't that keen on being a SAHM but it is what's best for our family whilst the children are small and DH works very long hours. Why should I earn peanuts if we divorced? DH wouldn't be any where near as successful as he is if I wasn't picking everything up at home and with the kids.

By the way, a few mums at my DCs school get spousal maintenance in addition to maintenance for their children and they've divorced fairly recently (last 1-3 years) and had relatively short marriages (6-10 years) so it does happen.