Protecting myself financially in event of divorce

[user1461609321]

Hi everyone

Just awake in the small hours...... needing some advice re impending house purchase which is being done solely in my name though I am married

Husband is unemployed and has been for several years stating that he is trying to set up a business abroad

I have financially supported us for over 10 years whilst he has basically been a SAHD

I have put up all the money for the deposit and will be paying the mortgage alone whilst still in effect giving him an income

We have 2 school age children, but wanted to know where I would legally stand if we were to divorce property wise.

No current pension and all savings will have gone into house

Is there anything that I can do to protect myself and children financially prior to house purchase in the event of a divorce?

I am not presently looking to separate but want to make an informed decision where possible

Two things here -

He's the one sorting out childcare and carrying most of the parenting load so that you can go to work. When was the last time you had to worry about a sick child and having to try and find care for them? That's his contribution. So have a careful think about being given half a property without "earning" it. Would you still have had the deposit money if he'd been working FT, but you'd both been paying for FT childcare plus the stress and expense of kids being off sick from school plus school holiday cover?

The second thing is that you don't seem to value what he does. That's quite sad really. I wonder how much of his desire to run his own business is in response to your attitude towards him being a SAHD?
And if you've had to "pinch" money to get the deposit together then perhaps the money being invested towards his business needs to be re-evaluated?

TBH it doesn't sound like you have much respect for your husband - who sounds like he's doing a solid job of being a SAHP. Do you need to take a look at your own attitude towards him? It can't be much fun for him to be a SAHD and treated as if he's a freeloader because you don't think that what he does is "work"...

I know without his support, I would not be where I am professionally, but a tiny part of me feels like this is all unfair and that nobody just gets 'given' half a property that they didn't work for!

Nobody gets “given” free, full time childcare covering all school holidays, sick days and emergencies either....

Anyone think this thread is not going the way OP had anticipated? ie lots of pats on the back and agreement that the SAHP should be thrown onto the street and become a homeless person?

It doesn’t matter. The house is half his.
Just like when a woman is a SAHM, your DH is a SAHD and is helping you progress in your career, is, I wouod imagine, doing most of the HW, there to pick up the dcs, be there when they are ill etc...

If you have an issue with him not working, then this is the issue you have to address.
But you can’t take away that house form him. It’s his house too and he has been participating in being able to buy in his own way. Even if this wasn’t directly a financial one.

Can’t have it both ways....

If OP was a FT single parent she would have been unlikely to have got to the earning stage she's at now. Childcare responsibilities, costs, covering for sickness when nursery and school won't take them, long school holidays... All of them impact on employment and earning - whether that's sucking up the cost of emergency childcare or a nanny so that you can still work when they are ill (which impacts on your disposable income), or having to work flexibly so that you can juggle the school run and holidays (which impacts on career progression and earning power).

I once worked with a woman like the OP. She had 4 kids and her OH was a SAHD. She was completely inflexible and unsympathetic to other parents working for her (men and women), who were faced with juggling nursery and school pick-ups, medical appointments, sickness, holiday cover, because she never had to do any of it. Then her OH left her but retained residency of the kids. However she had some of the weekdays to cover and had a rather sharp and unpleasant shock when she realised what it was like to try and be a high flier and juggle kids at the same time.

No judgement of career advancement - I don't have DC myself. But most of the people who work for me do, and I see them every day having to work out schedules and cover to manage their children. It's really hard work for them, so I find it frustrating to read this where the OP doesn't seem to have any idea of how much support her H is giving her to facilitate her career. If this situation was reversed he'd be being pulled apart and rightly so.

I doubt the housework is evenly split btw.
It might be when you are together in the house. It won’t be when you are out of the house.

I’m that you think his input, which has allowed you to progress in your career in a way you wouodnt if he hasn’t been at home is somehow not worth anything at all and it wouod be ‘giving him a house for free’...

One word abit pension. I’m sure youbhave a pension with work. It’s a legal requirement. He won’t, he REALIY doesn’t have a pension at all. I hope he is the one who is receiving the child benefit so he can, at least, get a state pension. And it’s not you receiving it when it gives you no advantage.

If OP's older child is seven, and the H hasn't been in paid employment for 10 years, what was he doing the first couple of years? If he was dossing round the house talking about his grand plans but not working on them, that could be where some of OP's resentment comes from.

Mind you, if he's been a good parent and home-maker for eight years, then he's clearly not still a lazy cocklodger, and OP is right to recognise that his contribution is valid and valuable.

What would happen to the children if you split? My exh was a ‘sahp’ But he left when we separated and wanted very little contact with the dc which affected the divorce.

OP, as SAHD he would probably get residency in the event of a divorce. And possibly more than a 50% share of the house in which to house them.

It’s very telling that you say you feel ‘put upon’ because your husband isn’t the breadwinner. You don’t talk about him being an equal earner, but the breadwinner - does that mean if the situation was reversed and he was the full time earner and you were at home, you’d also think the house should be solely his and you should get nothing if you divorce? Or do you think that’s only ok because he’s a man?

It sounds to me OP that you and DH never set out for him to be a SAHP and it just kind of happened as his business never took off. Maybe this is where part of the resentment lies? No relationship should go into a breadwinner/sahp relationship without discussion and agreement to who is responsible for what.

Also,you were saying you have separate accounts which can also lead to 'my' vs 'his' money. You don't like how he spends his as you feel put upon to do the bulk of the saving. Surely you should look at total household income...then budget out bills, shopping, insurance, mortgage, savings (and agreed investment in his business) and then only divide up leftover 'fun' money for each to spend as you like. This way you won't feel he gets to do whatever he wants with his stay at home 'salary' while you do all the saving.

Being an SAHD is fine, but if he hasn't worked for 3 years before the children were born, takes 400 pounds a week from the OP and is wasting most of this on failed business ventures, I get why it's annoying.

I think rather than worrying about a possible future split, you should sort things out between you now to put the relationship on a better footing. Now that the children are in school, it would be better for the dad to get a job. It's not just about money but about respect and self esteem. Perhaps op can reduce her hours to see a bit more of the children, hence feel less resentful about missing out. Secondly if you are earning enough to give 400 a week basically as pocket money, why don't you have a pension and savings? Surely those should be prioritised above business gambles. I would re jig finances so that all essentials including bills, children's expenses, pension and regular savings are made, and then divide what's left equally.

Op I’m going against the grain here but I do think the divorce laws in the uk need a massive overhaul and should stop penalising the working parent.

I hate this attitude of “your staying at home has allowed them to go out to work”. Well actually in this day and age there is no reason both parents can’t work (and indeed apart from a small blip mid 20tg century) was the norm for working classes). Unless the worker has a very high powered career with long stints overseas etc it’s actually very possible for the stay at home parent to work. It’s actually the workers hard work that has allowed the other person to stay at home. If they have agreed this there should be a legally enforceable agreement between them (approved by a third party to ensure it is fair to prevent abuse) to set up split of assets etc.

I never really understand how anyone can allow themselves to become so financially reliant on other people.

My friend is currently going through a divorce. He’s been asking his stbew to get a job for the last 10 years since their DC started school. She has refused. She has done v little in the home our friend has to come home from long hours get his own food do any diy, ferry round DC (she has never learned to drive). Yet she will be getting half of everything. All of his friends have been saying leave for years. Now DCs are teenagers his wife is still saying he must support her after divorce as she can’t work as has to look after DC (youngest DC is 14!). I suspect my friend is likely to be working long hours at a job he hates for very little return.

People are being ghastly to the op here. It doesn’t sound like she has agreed that he gives up work to look after the children, rather she he hasn’t had a job and has spent his time running an unsuccessful hobby business while op works to provide. Also for those who say that him being a sahp allows op to work- she doesn’t say she needs that to work.

Nothing wrong with being a sahp if both parties agree but that’s not the case here. He’s not pulling his weight financially and being financially irresponsible while op tries to keep it together. Sounds like a cocklodger to me.

Problem is, you can’t force him to work and pp who say he will probably get more than half the assets and the kids on divorce are right. I would try to start discussing him getting back into the workplace and make it clear you are happy to do a share of the domestic chores.

* Op >> It's so unusual being a female breadwinner*

It's really not.

Sorry if I missed this but what is the business aboard?

OP, I think you need to focus on how you feel about the way you run your household.

Your DH sounds both economically feckless (unemployed before you had kids, spending money fruitlessly, now having school aged kids but not making a go of a business after plenty of time)
AND to be playing a valuable role as a SAHD.

Where do you work as a team, where is the tension? How does he feel?

I am the highest earner but DH has always been an equal part of the team. You don’t seem to feel this, which may be because he isn’t, or may be because of your resentment.

It’s not that unusual being a female breadwinner but most are either single parents (like me) or their dh do work but earn less. I have to say I am glad I am not in this position and would feel for a man or woman who was. I was a higher earner than my ex but I didn’t marry him so got away with most of my assets (and like many female breadwinners got the dcs). I do think that the position is unfair to the one earning if the other partner is just refusing to get a job and there is no agreement that they should be a sahp.

And for those who say op couldn’t work without him - how do you think I (and all the other single parents) manage?

Nobody gets “given” free, full time childcare covering all school holidays, sick days and emergencies either....

The thing is, even if there were no children and the DH were completely useless, he would still be entitled to just as much.

When people raise the contribution of a non-earner as a justification for 50:50 settlements, it gets my back up. There may well be non-earners who deserve what they get, there will be others that are vastly overpaid, and some who are underpaid. The law is a very crude mechanism that seldom ensures fairness. It's an insult to those on the wrong end of any unfairness to imply 50:50 is always justice.

(Seriously, I recently saw a UK government web page describing the procedures for divorce that, as I remember it, explicitly said that you should not expect the outcome to be fair.)

do think the divorce laws in the uk need a massive overhaul and should stop penalising the working parent

I would agree with that, but only if the new laws can be applied retrospectively to working husbands who were left with little after they Divorced.

Unless the worker has a very high powered career with long stints overseas etc it’s actually very possible for the stay at home parent to work

Disagree as I was overseas on big earnings. Could have easily afforded childcare had grandparents not been around so that Wife could develop her own career. Never happened as Ex drifted from one training course to another, at my expense, but never completed any of them.

All of his friends have been saying leave for years

Obviously he did not listen. I got rid of my freeloader of a Wife as soon as stepdaughter was off to University, about 6 years after marriage.

I would try to start discussing him getting back into the workplace and make it clear you are happy to do a share of the domestic chores

Best plan I think.

I do think that the position is unfair to the one earning if the other partner is just refusing to get a job and there is no agreement that they should be a sahp

It is called filing for Divorce. If the higher earner is prepared to let the weaker earner not look for a Job when the children are aged 7 or more the solution is simple - GET RID OF THEM. The sooner the better to avoid the "it was a long marriage they must get half of all assets and pensions". Or worse still they get Spousal Maintenance.

Partly because there is a constant drip drip drip of information regarding what he does with the kids/housework and ages
There is still no clear information as to whether the business makes a profit or a loss and how much goes towards it
Divorce can never be fair because nothing in any partnership is ever done 50/50. It can however be balanced for the children on need

Missedtgeboat, I agree that even with overseas work its perfectly possible for both to work. DH is away on average one night a week, away for 1 week every quarter, I work in finance 4 days a week but earn about same as DH. We have no support network. Perfectly possible to manage.

Sahp is a big luxury at school age- the kids are at school over 6hours a day. Most schools have wrap around or there are child minders meaning office hours are perfectly feasible even with no support.

I’m sorry but don’t think ordinarily once the kids are at school a sahp facilitates anything. Get a cleaner for a couple of hours a week, set up direct debits, do an online shop. The house is taken care of. I have weekends plus one day off a week (during which I volunteer in DSs school). Perfectly possible for us to do everything in this time (away a lot of weekends)

What it certainly shouldn’t entitle you to is half of all assets. How many times on here do we see the advice, protect yourself and get married? You should only get out what you put in.

OP, now the kids are at school, I think it is reasonable to expect your DH to work at least part time. I earn more than DH & work longer hours, which is fine, he does more in the house. I would not be prepared to support him to sit on his arse while the kids are at school. Fair enough when they were wee, but he sounds to have got a bit too comfortable. Time for him to start sharing some of the financial load.

I think it is reasonable to expect your DH to work at least part time.
That’s assuming that, in the country where they are, her DH can work (visa issues) and part time work is available (not every country does prat time. In some countries, part time work is still very rare or restricted to MacDo etc..)

I’m sorry but don’t think ordinarily once the kids are at school a sahp facilitates anything.
Actually they do when it comes to the holidays, every time the child is ill, there is a school play/sports day, youbare told about world book day and that little Johnny needs a costume wth 3 days notice etc....

Get a cleaner for a couple of hours a week
That is assuming that the SAHP who is now working earns enough to pay for all the childcare, incl holidays AND a cleaner.
That was a few years ago but with an average wage (about 25k), I wouod have just covered the costs of the childcare plus cleaner. In effect, I wouod have worked for nothing.
Who wouod be happy to work 37~40 hours a week, wth all the juggling it entails, for nothing?

Of course, if your earning power is higher, then the situation is different. But with more earning often comes an expectation of longer hours or flexibility. And of course, having not worked for 10 years will also have had an impact on the earning potential of the SAHP....