Why did I read this??

[coffeeeandtv]

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4994118/Women-destroying-marriage.html

Ok I’m really sorry to share total BS.... I stupidly read this.... TV is rubbish too tired for a film.... no more excuses and I’am so disappointed that the Daily fail thinks that this is an accepted article to print..... I bet the women are queuing up to date him 😂.

I’m not saying I agree with everything in the article and I frickin hate the Daily Fail usually, but on some of it I kind of see his point, for example, this feels wrong and out of balance..... if it’s true I can understand why some men are scared of marriage....

I have a friend who was married for just three years when his wife filed for divorce. She never worked and the house was solely in his name, but — because they had a one-year-old — she gets to live in it until the child turns 18 or finishes full-time education.

He now lives in a studio flat and works constant overtime trying to pay his rent, the mortgage, plus child support. Meanwhile, she still doesn’t have a job.

What do you suggest be done to provide for his child if he isn't sharing residency? Should he be living in the family home whilst his child is in the studio flat? He would still have to pay child support if she was working so I'm not sure why that's relevant?

No, just don't see why he should be working while she isn't. Why shouldn't she be obliged to work 3 days a week and him 3 days a week? They both decided to have a child. They should both be responsible for the financial AND emotional/practical requirements to bring that child up.

He has some fair points about weddings TBH.

If only men paid maintenance most of the time he could have had some other points...

What @Smidge001 said 👆🏼

Why does the guy have to pay for two homes (one for him and one for the DC) while the ex wife pays for none?

Surely in a fair and truly equal world they should equally pay for the home where DC lives the majority of the time.... or if they have joint custody then they each pay for their own home where DC spends 50% of the time at each?

If my OH and I divorced there is no way on this earth I would expect him to move out but continue to pay for the house; I would expect to pay for the house if I was staying in it and he buys/rents his own which he pays for 😳

Why does the man in this example not have shared residency?

The father seems to have been quite happy for the mother not to work whilst they were married. She's had 3 years out of work which has an impact on her ability to get back into work and her earnings if she does. He has benefitted from having her as a housekeeper for that duration. To expect her to get a job full time that will pay for 50% of the house plus childcare fees is ridiculous.

Had the father been primary carer for the child, or even 50/50 carer, then the situation would be different I'm sure.

Erm, the terms of our divorce were just that - he pays nothing except the mortgage, and when our son reaches the end of full time education (we have now agreed this will be when he is 18, even though he will likely go to university), we sell the house and divide the profit. In the meantime I maintain it and decorate it. He had a good deal, from my point of view.

Oh, and yes, similar position, although we had been married 14 years. I gave up my job to raise our child

3 years out of work is bugger all. Of course she could get a job. How appalling to think a woman loses her ability to earn a living after being a mother /housekeeper for 3 years. Ridiculous. Even if she has reduced her earning potential since prior to having the child, we're not saying she should necessarily pay for 50% of the actual cost, just share 50% of the financial burden. That can be done as a fair (50%) proportion of each parents wage, based on them both working the same number of days a week.

Of course she could get a job. One that pays for 50% of the house and childcare costs? A harder task. Plus you're asking her to pay a mortgage that she isn't named on. And if she can't, should she and the child be turfed out of the house?

You dont know how the system actually works, do you?

Single parents and disabled people have to apply for jobs through the DSS agency, and are barred from applying for many jobs. They can only apply for jobs that are fixed hours and pay, not as and when required.
That reduces the number of positions available to them even further.

If they each worked 3 days a week he would probably have to give up his high-powered job whatever it is and get a crap job allowing part-time working. He would also have sole care of a 1-year-old 50% of the time. If men actually wanted these outcomes, I reckon they would already have them.

If men actually wanted these outcomes, I reckon they would already have them.

Exactly.

Most women file for divorce because the men they married are either abusive or consider 'wife' means 'domestic appliance with a fuck socket'. A huge number of divorced/separated fathers spend an enormous amount of time - and actual money - working out ways to avoid paying maintenance for their children.
The trouble with the version of marriage so idealised by idiots and rightwingers is that it did work, very well on the whole, for men and for children but it worked at the expense of women. The functional model was dependent on the woman servicing everyone else and putting herself last all the time.

I agree with the broad thrust of what he is saying. If you are the significantly higher earner, getting married has a high probability of being the biggest mistake of your life. No higher earner should do it.

What do you suggest be done to provide for his child if he isn't sharing residency? Should he be living in the family home whilst his child is in the studio flat? He would still have to pay child support if she was working so I'm not sure why that's relevant?

Even though she gets to live in the house until the child is 18, there is no reason why she has to remain jobless for 18 years. She can work when the child starts school and pay towards the mortgage in the property she lives in and owns half of.

I think marriage only works as protection for women or men who do want to be SAHP's.

It seems just to be about asset control to me.

As a single mum, financially independent with a good career there is absolutely no way I would marry. Ever. My daughter deserves my assets, no one else.

Why would she own half of the house? It's solely in the father's name it says in the article. She'd have been paying half the mortgage of a house she doesn't own and then have to leave when the child is 18 and have no rights to half of the profit if the house were sold.

If the house was purchased during the marriage then she owns half of it. AFAIK. It has been a while since I did family law though.

Why should the three year old have their life further disrupted by the stress and practicalities of his Mum working?
Bad enough that his parents have divorced.
Credit to the Judge for protecting the child from durther consequences of the divorce.
And don't say lots of other children go through it and worse (LOOCGTAW) because it doesn't make it right.
If Dad had been the SAHP then I would cheer the Judge for making the same decision.

*further not durther.

And yes, I do know that for some children their parents' divrcing is the better outcome - but it is still traumatising.

That decision is for the benefit of his child, not the ex wife. I would be interested to know less about her in this scenario, and more about how he would organize his child's care and maintenance if it was in his hands.

It winds me up how often these articles get published. My story - normal human partner turns into a useless tosser after child's birth and runs off, makes a great effort to protect his money from his child, and leaves his child's primary carer with the entire parenting burden (including financially) on her shoulders. It just doesn't inspire as much sympathy as a MAN being asked to take on the entire financial portion of parenting, does it...

All it says in the article is that the father is the sole owner. It doesn't say she gets to own half the house, and I'm quite sure it would have been mentioned as a further outrage if that were the case. She is allowed to live in the house until the child is 18 is all that's mentioned.

Why should the three year old have their life further disrupted by the stress and practicalities of his Mum working?

She can get a job when he goes to school though. When he is 4. And pay towards the house she lives in.