AIBU in wanting the end of the meal ticket for life in this particular instance (or in finishing off all the DC's mini sugared doughnuts)?

[Artemisia48]

I find myself writing this post in the middle of the night because I cannot sleep and I am hoping that some MN's feedback will bring me some moral support -and writing this post will help me back to sleep -that and the doughnuts plus the large glass of Chardo no no no cup of organic herbal tea. Please bear with me if you can as I am gathering all the facts. I divorced the father of my 2 teenage sons 5 years ago very amicably no court involved and we have a great relationship, co parenting together. I am happily remarried with someone who also has 2 teenage children but went through a very bitter divorce court case. His ex doesn't work, is 8 years younger than us, got a very generous settlement (keeping the whole house mortgage free estimated at 1.8 mil.plus a lump sum so circa 2mil and a personal yearly maintenance until she is 65). Not mentioning children's maintenance because this is just normal. It left my DH quite worse off. At the time she was the RP looking after their 2 children (14 & 16) living next to their school in Kent whereas we are based in London; suffice to say, her attitude was always less than amicable and she never facilitated the children' visits. This year 2 things happened: In January my DH's son (16) chose to come and live with us, and in June his DD just left to go to Canada (Uni). We sold our previous property (which I loved) in January to move to another house closer to transport to facilitate my DH' s son's commute and had to take quite a large mortgage as we needed space for the 3 children who live with us for now most of the time. My ex husband and I both contribute equally to a joint budget for our sons but no one is giving the other any maintenance. I am about to start a new job after 3 years of free lancing because we need to pay off the mortgage and my eldest will start Uni next year. And the last straw came today, I have just learned that my DH's ex has now taken up golf and some unpaid local volunteering to fill up her days. My jaws just hit the floor... Surely now is the time for her to self fund whichever lifestyle she has chosen with the assets she was given and stop rely/ weigh on us? We work full time, look after our children and are happy to provide for them, moved house to accommodate the change of circumstances and still pay her the equivalent of a considerable salary (pre tax = my last full time salary approx £50.000). Surely this defies any kind of logic? Aer we still in the 50s or in 2016? In real terms she has become a millionaire when she got divorced and all she needs to do if she doesn't want to work is sell her 5.000 ft house, buy another (still very nice) one and live off her money?? AIBU in finding this meal ticket totally unfair in our circumstances? (Insert angry face). Thanks in advance for your replies.

It's the only real interpretation once you've actually read it.

OP I am in a very similar situation except that DH has to maintain her in accordance with her needs (which require a six-figure annual sum) until he dies. Obviously I am bitter and rancorous that he has to work at a demanding and stressful job way past retirement age to fund that lifestyle; but the only way - though I succeed in this far less than I should - is to remember that we have each other and her child while she, having ended the marriage, faces growing old alone.
Yes, she gave up her career - as a secretary.
Yes, she raised his children - with full-time live-in childcare and full domestic support.
But one just has to try to push these thoughts away and enjoy all the good things one has. As I say, I am a lot less good at this than I would like.
And if it's not unduly inflammatory, I would add that other people's incredulity really doesn't help.

Oops I meant 'we have each other and our child'!
Though I (now) have a very happy relationship with his children too!

Ha Ha - as I said it is one interpretation another could be his ex wife is an idle 'lady who lunches'and is milking her exH for all she can. The truth will be somewhere between the two. No?

Brilliana thank you, very true and we are indeed very happy together.

Fluffy, Oara, you have it completely wrong although I can understand where you are coming from, lots of people out there not behaving as they should or being arseholes. But it's not my story at all and believe it or not, there are men and women doing the right thing. Forget about the cliches especially when they are so dated. It's exactly like Brilliana said, about unfairly funding a lazy and privileged lifestyle. The lack of honesty and greed are not the natural attributes of second always wifes... Society has a lot of catching up to do on families today!

So what I have learned from this thread, is that very few value the work of a SAHM. If you choose to do this work, and your marriage fails, the divorce courts might award you X, but public opinion will throw you a truck load of shade and you will be judged a freeloader by your peers and successor. Thats depressing.

I don't believe it is fair to imagine that wife 1's only contribution to their marriage was menial housework and childcare. Sounds like he is doing a bit of revision.

It's exactly like Brilliana said, about unfairly funding a lazy and privileged lifestyle

Bullshit. You aren't funding anything, your husband is, and the court awarded it to her for a reason. Her lifestyle is not your business. What she does is not your business.
Focus on your own life and put aside your obvious jealously.

I guess we are looking at a split between those who believe the financial obligations of marriage are permanent and those who believe in divorce as a termination of a contract. And we will just have to agree to differ.

I think we can all agree that having children, and how you decide to raise them is a LIFE changing decision.

Their marital decision to have wife number one put her own interests second to his career and their children, has an impact on her and his whole life, not just until end of contract.

Can understand your frustration OP. He shouldn't have to be funding that & sounds like he's been totally screwed

I guess we are looking at a split between those who believe the financial obligations of marriage are permanent and those who believe in divorce as a termination of a contract

But the financial ramifications of decisions made in a marriage do NOT end at divorce. Luckily the courts have a more enlightened view than some of the women on here.
We don't tell women who gave up their own chances to further a mans career that they can be thrown aside and the money kept all for him and wifey number 2 to enjoy. Thank fuck.

I guess we are looking at a split between those who believe the financial obligations of marriage are permanent and those who believe in divorce as a termination of a contract

Actually when a contract terminates, the terminating party has to pay damages to the other party based on what they are losing from the contract ending. You can't just walk away. And if the other party has based their entire future on the contract continuing to exist, the damages will be significant.

So looking at it as a contract doesn't get the ex out of spousal support either.

Though the other party has an obligation to mitigate their loss.
And if we apply your analogy, should a wife instigating divorce proceedings pay damages to the husband?

Absolutely, so to mitigate she should look for a job, but realistically after 18+ years as a SAHM her earning potential is very limited and not going to make much of a dent on what she's lost financially.

Yes, if we applied my analogy, obviously it applies equally to women and men.

Of course I don't think broken marriages should be treated like broken contracts. It isn't a good idea to make settlements depend on who is the terminating or breaching party and who is the wronged party (in the way they do in contract cases). First, it's usually more complicated than that. Second, it will just lead to a whole load of mudslinging, or worse, people who don't leave but instead abuse their spouse to try to get them to be the "leaver".

Just saying, if you did look at it as a contract, that doesn't do away with spousal support.

So lesson from Brianna is, look out for number one, don't give anyone an inch, better to just not have kids. If you do then tough luck when feelings change. That goes for both men and women.

It's interesting for me to see the varying viewpoints concerning spousal maintenance.
I gave up work to be a SAHM 18 yrs ago, my (now ex) H career soared after we married and had the children. I provided a platform for that through provision of all the child care, domestic work, etc. He was able to follow his career path as if he was a single man. When we divorced 4 yrs ago the court saw my contribution (labour) as equal to his contribution (money). I was given residency of the children (as he was moving to the States) and was awarded maintenance for the boys but was also awarded spousal maintenance on the grounds that I had been out of the workplace for 14 yrs. During that time my employability had dropped massively whilst his had risen massively and the law quite rightly saw spousal maintenance as recompense for that. The judge stated that one oartner should no longer be able to leave the marriage financially better off than the other.
However, there were caveats - my spousal maintence would gradually reduce if I began to earn over a certain amount (my earnings never came close) or if I remarried. I remarried in July so no longer receive it and actually only received it for about three years.
I can see both sides and would find it difficult in the OP's circumstances - life is long and we should all move on - I saw my SM as a temporary step and my pride alone prevented me from wanting to live off my exH for any longer than I had to. However, I'm amazed the exW in this scenario was awarded spousal maintence til 65. Maybe I should have got a better solicitor.

And if we apply your analogy, should a wife instigating divorce proceedings pay damages to the husband

Of course. IF he stayed at home to raise their children enabling her to make lots of money, then yes, he should get a good big wodge of that money. He earned it.

The OP and her supporters should see how that attitude plays out over in Relationships..."hey lazy bitches, now your husband has left you, get a job and sell your house cos his new woman thinks your contributions are worthless and wants what the courts ordered he should pay you, for herself. You lazy over privileged tarts".....

Fluffywuffy

I am curious, what would your opinion be if she hadn't given up a lucrative career to become a SAHM let's say she was operating a till at Sainsburys? Since her employability has been arguably enhanced should he still be paying spousal maintenance if that was the case?

You didn't ask me but;

How exactly has her employability been enhanced by being married to her husband? Has his success enabled her Eliza Doolittle style to mix with her betters?

She could have been a checkout girl with no aspirations, when they first started their life together. It doesn't matter. Her behaviour has enabled him to make their money. Her encouragement, handholding, advice, domestic drudger, understanding and putting her needs second. Raising a family is a team effort. How you divide the labour amongst the team is a personal choice that shouldn't be allowed to come back and bite you on the ass if your team mate switches.

Why are women criticising other women and judging them as lesser, less valuable, because they stay at home and raise the children, keep the house? Is this seen as a less taxing endeavour?

Well said Not

Not whatiexpected

You seem to have read a whole lot of assumptions into the question I asked. Fluffy makes a big thing of the woman giving up a good career to be a SAHM( a very valuable job and a role my ex wife fulfilled) I was curious to see how her argument stood up to a SAHM who didn't give up a lucrative career.

But to answer your question, as an employer, I would far prefer to employ a mother into a role requiring multi tasking and concentration than a young girl, so I imagine her employment prospects are enhanced or certainly would be at my company.

Even with 15 years out of the workforce?

Kudos to your bring an employer, as luck would have it, so am I. I am certain every person on this thread has experience pf how the employment market operates, and the values placed on professional experience, how detrimental a big gap in your CV can be, how confidence can deteriorate, qualifications laps etc.

It is wonderful to read that you are bravely bucking the trend with your own organisation. Here, have a biscuit. 🍪

Also, "my ex wife" - Are you mansplaining on mumsnet?

Regardless of the 'price' of her career, the role she fulfilled during the marriage is the same.

Fluffy makes a big thing of the woman giving up a good career to be a SAHM( a very valuable job and a role my ex wife fulfilled) I was curious to see how her argument stood up to a SAHM who didn't give up a lucrative career

But you don't know whether she MIGHT have done had she not been at home supporting his career and raising his children.

IT's not a shot in the dark, to get the support in the first place evidence must have been given to the court to support the fact that she was owed it.