Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder why the man always expected to

107 replies

pancakesareyum · 17/02/2019 17:51

Move out when a marriage breaks down?
My friend (who is the wife in this situation) has decided that she no longer loves her husband. They've been stuck in a Rut for a while, no others parties involved. They've been together 20yrs (school sweethearts) have 3 DC age 10 , 7 and 3
Her husband is devastated. She expects him to move out and still fully financially support all of them. She works PT by choice (could work FT). He's now 40 and back in his parents box room.

I know she's my friend and I have to be on her side, but I just wonder how fair this is on her husband, and when I think about it, when a relationship breaks down it always seems to be the man who is expected to move out.

I've NC as outing but am old Mn ... snapped and farted was one of my fav threads!!

OP posts:
MakeItAmazing · 17/02/2019 18:39

I agree with you Pancake. It always seems like the mother thinks she has the say when it comes to the kids. She withholds access etc when it is the child right to see their father. When it comes to money it seems to favour the man. For example. Ant was giving Lisa half his fortune. The rich amazon bloke was giving his wife half. Why? Why is the man giving the wife anything? It's meant to be joint when married…

heidiwine · 17/02/2019 18:40

Doesn't matter who chose to do what or who supported who through whatever....

While I absolutely agree that the most important thing is what’s fair to the children. I don’t always think that the fairest thing is maintaining the status quo. It’s less disruptive but surely the best thing for children (assuming they have two fundamentally decent parents) is to be brought up by two parents who share the load (emotionally, practically and financially).

JacquesHammer · 17/02/2019 18:41

Forget it. Should have known it was too much to expect an adult conversation on here

And which bit hasn’t been “adult” enough for you?

BreastSideStory · 17/02/2019 18:41

Is he actually going to have the children 50% of the time though? 50% off all school runs, 50% of time off with the kids when they’re sick, 50% of trips to the dentist / doctors/ opticians/ hairdressers/ kids parties etc? 50% off all costs including clothes/ uniforms/ pocket money/ bus fares/ petrol for running them around to friends or activities?

Because in reality that rarely happens.

Also he will likely have a healthy pension pot from working full time, she won’t because she’s worked PT to support the family. So she’ll be fucked financially in the future because she raised his kids.

Her job prospects are also limited because she has worked part time and she will likely have to find a job which will work around looking after the children or face hefty childcare bills... unless he is also willing to pay half (or in fairness it should be more than half and proportionate to the wage he’s been able to achieve because his wife has taken on the bulk of the childcare and sacrificed her own career to allow his to thrive).

It isn’t as simple as she doesn’t love him anymore. Their relationship has broken down, there will be many reasons for this... many of which he’ll also be responsible for.

CodLiverOil556 · 17/02/2019 18:42

I'm just going through this now. It was my choice to end my marriage so I've moved out into my own rented place. It wasn't fair for H to move as it was my choice. We have 2 kids and each have one living with both parents. It's a trial to see if it works. Marriage break ups are never straight forward though

FudgeBrownie2019 · 17/02/2019 18:42

if we were agreeing on 50 50 custody

I think the reality, though, is that 50/50 doesn't happen or work often. There are exceptions of course, but generally one parent picks up more of the slack with the DC while the other picks up more of the slack with work, which makes 50/50 impossible.

In our situation Ex left when DS13 was tiny (under 6 months) and suggested 50/50 initially, but realised his shift patterns meant he simply couldn't work if we divided DS13's time equally. In hindsight I think we made a great choice and DS13 is happy, has equally strong bonds with us both but I've always been the primary carer and (I'd sincerely hope) that we made the best choice for him. The majority of divorced/separated families I know are equally unable to do 50/50.

Al2O3 · 17/02/2019 18:44

Because the children come first for as long as they need to. It is not rocket science.

cantbeb0thered · 17/02/2019 18:49

Laughing my ass off at the poster who said with kids under secondary age she couldn't be expected to work full time. I work full time and my husband works full time and we have two preschoolers. I think the bank expects to receive the mortgage payment! Tell her to get her ass to work full time.

Springwalk · 17/02/2019 18:50

The priority is the stability of the children. I am sure ex dh will be considering his child over and above everything else. Your friend is the primary care giver, she provides the children with the continuity of a settled life. Of course she can’t move out every other weekend!
The ex dh will find his feet, and once they have come to a financial agreement he can fund his own place in time.
You seem to have a very odd idea of supporting your friend.

clairemcnam · 17/02/2019 18:50

I think 50:50 is very rare.

clairemcnam · 17/02/2019 18:52

And I would refuse to move out every other weekend as well. You expect her family to be happy for her to live there every other weekend? Beggars belief.
Every other weekend is miles away from shared custody. It is 48 hours every fortnight.

DoneLikeAKipper · 17/02/2019 18:52

Why is the man giving the wife anything?

Well here’s the short version for the hard of thinking.

Even in these modern times, it’s usually the man who goes out to work and makes the most money. The wife (even when there aren’t kids involved) are usually reduced to their support system. If mumsnet is anything to go by, most blokes are amazing at their high-flying, never at home jobs, yet when they are home they barley function better than a three year old. If and when children do come along, most of the time it’s women who become the primary carers. Any job they previously had, now has to be flexible for childminders and time off for illness, hence why many reduce their hours. Because they ‘work less’, women tend to then do more housework to be ‘fair’ - so they end up working, doing most of the child care and running the home. You expect them to step away from that every other week without consequences to the children/how the house is run? Within an hour of the wife leaving on ‘her week away’, you can guarantee she will have several calls asking about feeding/routine/where’s this/why is that. The best thing when children are involved is to keep them with the primary caregiver and the one who knows their routine the best.

Mintychoc1 · 17/02/2019 18:53

This happened to my partner.(years ago obviously, before I met him).

His wife had an affair and wanted to split so she could be with the other man. She wanted my partner to leave the marital home. 2 kids, mid teens. He didn’t want to - he desperately wanted to be a resident parent as he always had been. They both worked although she worked fewer hours. So he borrowed money, bought her out, and she went off to live in a rented house. The kids alternated their time between them.

It worked for them.

gamerwidow · 17/02/2019 18:54

clairemcnam not even just the weekend he’s expecting to have the house for alternate weeks Shock

clairemcnam · 17/02/2019 18:59

Wow!!

clairemcnam · 17/02/2019 19:00

So her family are expected to have her living with them for half the time?
I can see each parent moving into the house for alternate weeks working. if both parents also had their own place to live.

snoutandab0ut · 17/02/2019 19:02

By that logic clairemcnam the husband should also have refused to move out in case his family weren’t happy with him living there all the time.

This thread is advert for why marriage is incompatible with the modern world. It disincentivises women from being financially independent. As far as we know there was no abuse from the husband (obviously if there was, it would be a different story) but on the face of it, she should be the one to move out and leave the kids with him in the family home

goldengummybear · 17/02/2019 19:03

Some of the advice on this in incorrect. A mother with primary school kids is expected to try and maximize her income and work full time if her family needs her to.

What might normally happen, Dad agrees to pay mortgage for a few extra months (say 3) while a long-term plan is decided on.

Mum works out if she can afford mortgage. Her new income is salary plus maintenance plus benefits. She can use the CMS calculator to work out the minimum maintenance that she'll get. If she can pay the mortgage from her new income then she needs to negotiate with her ex. She needs to either borrow money so that Dad gets his share of the equity and name removed from mortgage or agree to keep his name on the mortgage, she pays mortgage and he gets x% when youngest is 18. If she can't afford the mortgage then house needs to be sold and she needs to rent. Once a plan is decided on, Dad can find accommodation and have kids at his house. The solution that he's proposing "nesting" only works if things are super amicable. Most people prefer the privacy that separate houses creates.

NRP doesn't pay mortgage plus maintenance unless he's a very high earner.

clairemcnam · 17/02/2019 19:05

snout Except the mother has been the primary care giver. I don't think it is good for children for this to change when so much else is changing.
The solution is for fathers to truly do their share of all childcare tasks when in a relationship. In reality that is rare.

snoutandab0ut · 17/02/2019 19:07

In this instance if she’s the one who wants to leave, she should hand over that responsibility to the father. We don’t know that he didn’t do his fair share. I’m only going by the information we have here

clairemcnam · 17/02/2019 19:08

snout I don't see any mention in any of your comments about putting the children first. That is what matters.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 17/02/2019 19:09

Why did he move out? He should move back into the house until the divorce is settled, its half his.

Also he should be thinking of cutting back on his hours of work so he can share looking after his children 50:50

He seems to be a fool just doing what he is told by his soon to be ex, has he not seen a lawyer?

Vulpine · 17/02/2019 19:10

You could argue that if 'the stability of the children' is of the utmost importance that she shouldn't kick their father out in the first place. Fwiw, 50/50 can work well. I did it.

clairemcnam · 17/02/2019 19:10

And the youngest is 3 and she works part time, of course she is doing way more childcare than he is.
And OP you are sneery about her choosing to work part time. Many mothers choose to minimise, if they can afford it, the amount of time such young children spend in childcare.

mrsmuddlepies · 17/02/2019 19:11

TwoRoundabouts said,
and with 3 children all under secondary school age, then your female friend cannot be expected to work FT.
How life must have changed for MN mothers since I had my children a few years ago. I knew loads of mothers who worked full time and have three children under secondary age.
A report on homelessness said many of the homeless are men who have lost their homes through divorce. I think it is increasingly recognised by concerned bodies and the government, as a problem facing many men today.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread