to think that if possible evrything should be shared 50/50 during a divorce

[bladibla]

Hi I am divorcing and I have not yet resolved the finances of the divorce. I was surprised that I did not get 50% of the childcare. I can only put it down to ExH living in our house and court favouring children staying in their original environment.
I currently struggle to pay my rent and this may have an impact on me seeing the children which would break my heart. I would like to get my share of the house so I can be in a stable position.
Dcs are complaining that they do not get days out to family attractions with me as they do with dad. I really can not compete.
Maybe I should also ask for 50% of his retirement, compensation for half of the content of the house and a share proportional to the amount of time I have the DCs from the child tax credit.
I was a stay at home mum for 10 year, so I have no retirement.
I cannot afford anything and I dread the day my car or washing machine will pack up as I really could not replace it.

[Viviennemary]

A free lunch only lasts so long as many people find out to their shock.

[ChickenLaVidaLoca]

I don't think most NRP dads took the career and income hit of being SAHPs for 10 years worridmum. So that does make quite a big difference between OPs situation and theirs. She mentions financial worries a couple of times in the OP, and having taken a decade out of the workforce most probably contributed to that. This seems to be a situation where someone has ended up with the worst of both worlds, actually.

[WienerDiva]

Charis, you know naff all about being a SAHP. Sorry thought I made that clear.

Bla, your legal rep should be able to guide you through this and stead you in the right direction.

[lem73]

Op you have all my sympathy for your situation. I have a friend who is going through a divorce right now (her dh left her for another woman) and I am absolutely shocked at how vulnerable women are in these situations. She worked part time for over 10 years because they BOTH agreed on it but she has now too low an income to support the kids alone and no pension. At the moment he has cut her off totally financially to have control over her.
I think you are entitled to 50% of the assets accumulated during your marriage. I also believe you should get some compensation for the years of pension contributions you have contributed. However with the house you do have to think about what is best for the children. I know of people agreeing to sell the family home once the youngest has left school. Perhaps you could agree on this.
You must miss being with the children and it must be hard when you can't afford to treat them. It is important that you make them realise how hard your situation is and show them how to have fun without spending loads.
Good luck.

[notinagreatplace]

You should seek proper legal advice - it doesn't necessarily sound like the proposed settlement is fair.

On the other hand, unless you had your first child at 18, I don't quite understand why you have no retirement savings at all? Have you ever worked and, if so, why didn't you pay into a pension then?

Your ex having primary residency is your chance to build up your earning power - according to posters on here, it means amazing things for your career now that your ex will be doing sick days/main childcare for your school age children - and you really need to focus on building up your financial security and pension.

[BettyCatKitten]

Misogyny at its finest on here
Being a SAHM referred to as a fucking holiday!

[Meechimoo]

I've heard sahms referred to as prostitutes on mumsnet before Betty, (by someone who called herself a feminist) so nothing surprises me anymore!

[BettyCatKitten]

That's disgraceful Mee.
It makes you wonder how far women have really come. Patriarchy is alive and kicking in all its guises

[SugarOnTop]

With less than 50% childcare you end up not having child benefit, child tax credit, being considered single when you apply for a council house and having to pay about a third of your salary in child maintenance. Now that's a massive impact and burden.

there are lots of good fathers out there precisely in these circumstances - plus it's usually the men who most often than not end up in this situation. A man wouldn't get 50% of everything if he was the non-resident parent so there is absolutely no reason why you should. your assets are divided according to need and as the resident parent the dc needs come first so he should be getting more than 50%.

it's all very well trying to claim 'but i was a sahm for 10 years so i deserve it' but that was YOUR choice-you weren't forced. You CHOSE to keep having children (despite bad health and whatever other problems you had with him), you KNEW the sacrifices regards personal and financial independence that would entail and you still CHOSE to go ahead with it. You were responsible and in control of your own situation the whole time. Now accept the results of those choices.

you can argue semantics over whether you gave him 'free childcare' or whether he funded your lifestyle choice, the fact remains that whilst you exercised your right to be a sahm he lost out precious time with his children because of his choice (not much of a choice when your other half isn't working) to work. i've no doubt it was a tough job being a sahm parent but i've also no doubt that being the sole financial provider and taking responsibility for all household and family expenditure was also stressful and tough on him. is he asking you to compensate him for that?

you both chose as a partnership to have children and you both decided how best to arrange your family dynamics - so for you to now think/claim your owed some form of 'compensation' is beyond ridiculous. If it were a man on here complaining about the situation he'd be getting told to 'man up' and accept his responsibilities or that he should have worn a condom - so the same goes for you.

[chocnomorechoc]

charis1 has been stiring on other boards as well. Best to ignore her

[MissBattleaxe]

Sugar on Top- you write as if the OP insisted on not working and insisted on having children against the DH's wishes as if none of these things were anything to do with him!

[foxinsocks]

that's very harsh sugar. Most of the OP's posts are a bit disjointed but somehow she was a SAHM and has ended up without her dcs which must be hard for anyone who was with them 24 hours a day before for 10 years, especially her kids

btw, your answer is inaccurate. My ex-dh is the non resident parent and ended up with more than 50%. It is perfectly possible. If her dh outearns her and has remained in the house, she is totally entitled to a share of the equity to help her with her housing costs and she should be catered for.

[MissBattleaxe]

Mind you, this kind of story is why a woman should never give up her job. That was the best advice I was ever given

But when nursery fees can cost around a grand a month, it's not always that simple.

[Charis1]

Charis, you know naff all about being a SAHP where do you think I am when I'm not at work? On holiday at home with my children.

[BettyCatKitten]

choc
Couldn't agree more

[Idefix]

Op please get some more legal advice about your situation.

[bladibla]

Sugar, hi! you sound exactly like my Ex, full of self righteousness. Maybe you are him!

[BettyCatKitten]

sugar
Some women are in abusive relationships with controlling men who dictate to them.
I know women who have been raped by their partners and had birth control thrown away etc to force pregnancy on them.
Some men don't allow their partners to work, so they have no income and are financially dependent on their partners and have no money to escape.
I think you are being very disingenuous and assumptive about op.

[WienerDiva]

Wtf is actually wrong with you both Charis and Sugar?! How about solidarity between women regardless of their situations and life choices in the past.

The OP is in what she feels a crap situation, no one knows her the back story as to the relationship of op and her stbexh.

It's not black and white when it comes to people deciding to be SAHP.

I've been a soho and a SAHP and without a doubt it's more of a holiday working than being a SAHP 24hours a day, day in, day out.

[harshbuttrue1980]

In my view, everything earned during the time of marriage should be split 50/50. I always assume, until proven otherwise, that both partners have made the choice about how they live while married. That means that both agreed that the OP should stay at home, so neither of them should be "compensated" for this. The OP should get a 50% share of whatever pension was paid during the marriage (not 50% of the whole pension), 50% of the furniture and assets like cars and savings, as well as 50% of the equity which has built up in the home over this time, and 50% of whatever deposit was put on the house. The resident parent should remortgage to buy out the non-resident parent, whichever gender they are. The OP then needs to get a job and start building up her own pension entitlement.

[MsColouring]

I haven't read the whole thread but I'm wondering how your ex has ended up with the children resident when you have done the bulk of the childcare.

Things can never be 50:50 when there are children involved as the children need a home. I am worried about how you came to have to leave the home and children behind - was this a mutual decision or were you made to feel you had no choice. Is he controlling? You need legal advice.

[MissBattleaxe]

MsColouring- it does sound unusual that the primary carer has left without kids, home or money. And it certainly doesn't sound fair.

[Anniegetyourgun]

This is the most astonishing thread. OP, may I suggest you try the Relationships board? You're more likely to get helpful advice here. Not that some posters haven't been helpful, of course, but there are too many of the other kind who think that, notwithstanding the topic description, AIBU is a fight club. You may wish to either start a new thread or ask for this one to be moved. Or of course ignore the, er, less helpful posts and concentrate on the good stuff.

Btw I paid for 100% of the marital home, but when we divorced 25 years later the value was split 50-50 because we had been together for so long. Neither of us could afford to buy the other out, but there was enough equity for us each to buy a small house with a modest mortgage, so it was sold. We also went 50-50 on the childcare so there was no need for either of us to pay the other maintenance. XH had not bothered to pay into a pension so he got 50% of the proportion of mine that had accrued during the marriage (ie most of it). I left him the furniture and cars as they were rubbish. I was the WOHP, he the SAHP. He did try to say that because I was the one who wanted out I should leave the rest of the family in the marital home and pay maintenance, but it was bullshit and I didn't buy it. Is that what your soon-to-be-ex said to you? This is the sort of thing you need to be asking your legal representative.

[MissBattleaxe]

Excellent post Annie