To want more in a final settlement from ex

[Nosocksevermatchup]

We have split up, sold the house and we will get half each.

I want more than half as my ex has three other houses,vehicle he owns outright, a business and a pension which I am not entitled to as we weren't married. All of these were bought while we were together with 'his' money. This is one of the main reasons we split
He says I'm not entitled to any more than this as I received some inheritance when my mum recently died, this equates to less than the value one of his houses.
I know by law I'm not entitled to any more as we were never married.
Am I being unreasonable to ask? He has always been financially controlling. Or should I just walk away?

Thanks for all your thoughtful advice, especially thisisafakename. I will walk away and save myself any more stress and emotional turmoil, there's been far too much of that recently.
I did have a career for a few years, but gave up work then went part time when kids were young as my job involved shift work and would have been impossible to continue this as his job involved working anti social hours and was very highly paid . I've retrained in the past few years and have a decent job now, but always feel I'm way behind others who had continued to work. I didn't ever expect him to just provide for me, I worked hard, retrained when the kids were younger but haven't been able to get above part time
Thanks again for all advice.

we need more stigma around kids out of wedlock
What does this mean? Stigma for whom? For children? Their mothers? Who is going to be the recipient of this unpleasantness? How about "we need more rights for people who cohabit"?

we need more stigma around kids out of wedlock

That's the stupidest suggestion I have read for a while or indeed, ever. So instead of changing the law to make it fair for families, we should stigmatise the children (and their mothers, because it will be the mothers rather than fathers who are stigmatised, as was the case historically)? Should we go back to calling them bastards and limit their inheritance and child support rights do you think? Or should we just look down on them generally, make them think they aren't as worthy as families where the parents have signed a piece of paper?

You do realise that the proportion of unmarried families is higher in the lower socio-economic groups, right? So under your brilliant suggestion, you would be further disadvantaging already vulnerable children and their mothers. Because it would be awful if we updated the law to prevent people from dicking over their long-term partners and mothers to their children.

As you can read in the OP's latest post, her career prospects were affected by her status as a mother. She was the one who had to fit her career around the children while her partner was free to build up assets. Few women recover financially from the effects of being out of the workplace to have children and subsequently reducing hours or responsbilities. As we know, women get paid less as it is. Women and especially mothers are the ones most affected by the lack of legal protections.

As I said before, there is nothing 'natural' or inherent in having protection for spouses on divorce. In fact, when the law was first proposed, some backwards-thinking people were resistant to it as it supposedly encouraged divorce. But now we see it as a given because of the fact that a marital relationship requires both work outside and inside the home. The fact is that there is no functional difference between marriage and long-term cohabitation. They serve the same purpose, live the same life. So why should one be protected and the other not?

we need more rights for people who cohabit

There is already a way for a couple who live together to get more rights - it's called marriage.

Isn't it a better idea to educate people on the benefits of getting married? Many people choose to cohabit because they don't want any of the rights or responsibilities associated with marriage. Why should they be forced to taking these on?

Well, thank goodness for the Office for National Statistics, lunchboxtroubles. According to this there were 697,852 babies born in the UK in 2015. Of these, 47.7% were born outside marriage or civil partnership. And most of them were to cohabiting couples. So around 340,000 babies. That's a lot of evils to be throwing around, a lot of stigma. And how are you going to be able to tell the ones with unmarried parents at, for example, a bus stop? And who is the 'we' who needs this stigma around babies born to unmarried parents? Would like to say here and now I don't need any stigma, but I'd like to see more protection for parents and children.

This is exactly why I've insisted on a cohabitation agreement....see a solicitor Op but legally he doesn't have to agree to anything.

And Yanbu in the slightest Op....like you my earning potential has gone down and I'm unlikely to be able to return full time.
Feel for you

By stigma I mean that those who have kids out if marriage need to be aware that they have very limited financial rights. It is ridiculous that so many people think that common law marriage exists.

I agree I have friends that aren't even on title deeds of houses they have lived in for years with Dp and DC....don't know how they sleep at night.

As you can read in the OP's latest post, her career prospects were affected by her status as a mother.

I am not sure I agree with this. Her career prospects were affected by her decisions, to have kids, live a with a man who she wasn't married to, to give up her career progression to support the career of man without thinking it through.

The OP could have made very different decisions or refused to give up work, or refused to live with him, refused to have anymore kids with him if she got pregnant by accident and he promised to marry her after the birth but didnt.

The problem is that too many people assume in the event of a split their partner wouldn't be an arse. Unfortunately during splits we see a very different side to to people.

Before putting the breaks on earning potential or becoming a sahp, people really need to be aware of the possible pitfalls.

Totally disagree that it's a shameful indictment of the education system that some people think 'common law marriage' exists.

Why is it the job of the education system to address this? It's basic - this is the sort of information that parents should be imparting to their children.
Oh hang on.... but many of those parents aren't married themselves! Children learn far more by example than anything else. If their own parents aren't married and give off the impression that everything is hunky dory, I can't see how a teacher telling them that their mother is leaving herself vulnerable is going to have any effect. Oh and that's if the teacher has time to fit in a lesson on marital rights alongside everything else in the curriculum.

The information is out there... it really takes just a few clicks on google to arm yourself with it. Fgs let's not start blaming schools for the fact that many adults prefer to believe their own misconceptions than take a bit of time to look at the facts

I am not sure I agree with this. Her career prospects were affected by her decisions, to have kids, live a with a man who she wasn't married to, to give up her career progression to support the career of man without thinking it through

OK, but her DP (ie the children's father) was not affected by his decision to have kids, to live with a woman he was not married to. In fact, he came out of it much better than had he married her. That's the unfair bit.

Also, as you well know, the career thing is usually not a free and unconstrained choice and it is ridiculous to paint it as such. Children need looking after, childcare is expensive or virtually non-existent in some places. Most high earning roles are not compatible with children because they involve working late, travel, absence from the home. Therefore, someone who has children can only do that job if they have a partner who can pick up the slack. Women do the vast majority of childcare work in the home and their careers will inevitably take a back seat. All the while, society spouts stuff about how the perfect mother doesn't go out to work, is always nurturing and available for her children. Women already feel huge pressure and guilt about being working mothers that men simply don't.

To talk about free choices when it comes to children and relationships is nonsensical. People are not rational in those circumstances, they are emotional. Parents do what they deem best for the child, not their own career trajectory.

The upshot of not protecting cohabitants is not that people have to live with their individual choices. Instead, it is that WOMEN or carers have to live with their individual choices. Breadwinners do not.

thisisafakename Yes I agree it's unfair. But the information is available. people on this thread say that women shouldn't marry if they bring more to the relationship. It works both ways.

I would never ask dh be a sahp if I wasn't married to him, I wouldn't put him in that shirty position. I do think the OP'S ex is being a dickhead. I am not saying what he is doing is OK.

The fact that childcare is expensive,/non existent is something people should consider before giving work up. Especially when they are not married.

That's my point. No people aren't rational when they are in love. And that's the problem. People need to think before making huge life decisions.

Yes people think of their children first. But ensuring you have financial security in the event of a split is thinking of your children first. The 'what happens to the kids if we split?' Conversation should happen and have some legal back up.

I don't think people talk about consequences of splitting enough. There seems to be a train if thought that if you think about splitting you must think the relationship will split or you are jinxing it.

Before people entangle finances, lives and kids. It should be normal to talk about these issues and someone's word isn't enough.

As I said before both my kids are aware of my feelings. Especially dd as she is older, it's something we talk about every so often. Educating my kids about this stuff is mine and dhs responsibility.

Very few women are forced to have children, for the majority it's a choice they make.

The OP didn't have to have stay with him or have two children. She could have retrained into a job suitable for childcare hours, hired a nanny to do nights etc. Nobody has to quit work or do the odd few hours simply as they have children.

We all make choices, some plan and ensure they are the right ones others don't and wing life.

I don't think it's down to school to educate, let's face it they already teach sex ed yet the amount of "unplanned" pregnancies is still sky high. Parents need to teach these basics but if they fail to a two minute google gives the answer before committing to a decision.

OP, I don't know much about this sort of situation at all so no wisdom to impart, just some thoughts for you to consider.

Put aside what you may or not be entitled to for a second, what would you hope to achieve by pushing for more? Can you live comfortably enough on what you currently have and earn? Ask yourself if you're thinking of fighting for more just because you perhaps can and you think your settlement is unfair. Is proceeding worth the emotional and mental strain, and the time (and money) it will take to resolve? Or would it be better to walk away now, put it behind you and make a happy life for yourself?

Just because you can doesn't mean you should (a good mantra for many scenarios)

It's your call, do whatever will make you happiest in the long term

Excellent post Bruce02.

We all have a responsibility to educate ourselves (as adults) and our children about basic stuff such as this.

Also, reflecting on thisisafakename's post- society isn't some standalone entity, its us, women and men, and it's up to us to make decisions collaboratively with the person we choose to procreate with. A man doesn't suddenly, randomly, become a high earner with loads of assets any more than his partner randomly becomes a SAHM with several kids and not a bean to her name.

The OP said she'd been with her partner for 30 years, yet after having kids she'd never stepped up to working more than part time. That's not some inevitable consequence... there must have been a process of choices (and yes everyone's choices are made within certain parameters, but let's not pretend there is no choice)

And of course now in 2016, parents are fortunate in having the right to shared parental leave, so frankly it starts THERE. You want greater balance and equality? Then share the parental leave so that it doesn't by default become the woman whose career takes the battering.

I really hope that in a generation or so's time our daughters and granddaughters aren't buying into this tired construct that the default is 'have kids, man's life and career continues absolutely unchanged whereas woman lets her career get shot to pieces'
And as a bit of an aside, if the mans life really is continuing unchanged, then I'd suggest he's 'missing out too - maybe not in a financial/career sense, but he's probably not getting the time or interaction with his children that they deserve.

Cmon people- this is 2016!

Things were similar for me Op, we had dd and I went part time in same career following, a few years ago I panicked....not married, fair enough jointly own house, but my previous earning potential out of the window....I decided to return full time.

Dp thought this ridiculous especially, as both of our jobs take us out of the country. The amount of around the clock childcare would have been astronomical....He also is the far greater earner. We had an agreement drawn up, very unromantic, this however made me feel slightly more comfortable.
A horrible position to be in.

Munster - your post relies on one partner being a completely controlling, selfish individual. Sadly, thatvis not the case for all relationships.

'Not' being...

I know a lot of we higher earners, many of whom are female and a lot of whom have already suffered in paying out to a spouse in a divorce are very very keen we leave English law well alone so that we keep the massive difference between marriage and as they used to call it "living in sin". Scotland has gone the way of the nanny state on this sadly and I hope England will never follow suit. Women and men are grown ups and can decide if they want finances pooled if they marry (or indeed hvae some kind of pre or post nup for that) or if they just want to be live in lovers/partners without all the financial issues which arise with marriage and divorce and indeed can have written cohabitation agreements which are even better than just living together.

And if the father of your child refuses to marry you or sight a cohabitation agreement after the birth of your child?

That's why you sort it before you move in together.