To think divorces shouldn’t be 50/50

[Custardforbreakfast]

It has come to my attention that most of the threads here about divorce/separation always point out that divorces are 50/50 (for starters).

I come from a country where one can choose at the registry if you want shared or split assets. I’ve always thought split is the way to go as honestly whatever you make in your life should be yours and not to share (even in a marriage)

My grandparents were married with shared assets and it’s absolutely broken my family now that the they’ve both passed away. My parents on the other hand married with separate assets and divorced a few years ago, it was the least complicated separation I have seen as there was no fighting over things. It makes my cringe when people on here say you should take everything from your husband or make sure to take your half or even more if you can

AIBU to think that not everything needs to be shared? Even in marriage.

Why has it broken your family if both of your grandparents are dead?

I think 50:50 should be a start point, unless it's a very short marriage with no children involved. Then it should be just a case of putting both parties back to where they were pre-marriage.

I agree with the OP. People should take out what they put in. Fine to share assets when married but when it’s over, it’s over. Payslips normally show who earned the most so it shouldn’t be difficult to calculate.

This does not account for the vast majority of women who have to put their career and earning power on the back burner to give birth to and take care of the man's children. YABU

If there are no children, then split isn’t a big deal. The second children enter a marriage, compromises on career have to be made somewhere. Both parents taking an equal reduction in professional work responsibility is extremely rare. Both parents taking on an equal share of the physical work at home is extremely rare. Both parents taking on an equal share of keeping track of the million little details that become necessary once you have kids is extremely rare (ask my actually very egalitarian DH which drawer holds dd’s socks or what day she has to wear silly hair, or what her silly hair-do is going to be). The parent who takes more of that role suffers financially. That parent needs to be compensated. 50-50 is the easiest way to make that happen.

lyralalala My grandparents were separated but never divorced. They passed away and now the inheritance is a mess as everything needs to be shared. Example: Grandad had a house so 50% was grandmother’s (while alive) and 50% was their children (3 living, one deceased) and she passed away and now the percentages have shifted. They owned multiple properties and it’s the same problem, same for their joint bank account. The siblings hate each other and can’t come to an agreement as some want to sell and others want to keep the house (mum and brother fighting over keeping the same property). This was made even worse when grandmother’s will mentioned leaving all her assets to my mum (everything she shared with grandad, even houses grandmother bought with her own money now still must be shared with mum’s siblings due to grandad’s half)

Hope this makes sense!

Payslips normally show who earned the most so it shouldn’t be difficult to calculate.

And what about, as happens often, the woman becomes a full time parent to save the family child care costs and this enables the father to climb the ladder without worrying about sharing school runs/holiday childcare etc? She will have earned precisely nothing. However, she will have saved ££££ of nursery fees, you could argue that that would be offset by her earning. But what about the increased earnings of the father who may not have been able to advance his career had he been required to do his 50% of the running around? That needs to be acknowledged which is precisely why 50/50 is the starting point and is then adjusted according to need.

50/50 is the starting point. It can be, and often is, deviated from. 60/40, 70/30 etc is not uncommon.

NameChangedNoImagination

I don’t mean to offend anyone but I believe giving up your career to look after children is a completely personal choice that nobody is forced to make. I was raised by parents that worked full time and I was looked after by a nanny and my grandmother. I had a lovely childhood and hold great memories of my parents even when they worked all day everyday. Both parents ended up having very successful careers and no one gave up anything. All marriages and family lives are different but I’d just like to mention it isn’t mandatory to give up on everything once you have children.

No it isnt, but sometimes it is necessary.

My friend was determined to keep her career after their first was born. Except it was twins and the childcare costs would have cost more than she would earn. Their finances would just about manage on one salary but simply couldnt afford for her to work. She could have gone PT but his workplace would not countenance it, so they couldnt do it between them.

She could finally go back when they were 4, by which time she was lagging way behind her contemporaries who hadnt taken a break. Why the hell should she suffer a major financial loss after a break up for that sacrifice?! Not everyone can afford a nanny or has family support.

Anyway, you are being a GF and I am falling for it, so I am out.

But it sounds like you were raised in a different country with different provisions re employment and childcare.

You don't know what decisions your parents would have made if they'd been raising you in this country?

Which country are we discussing?

It's frankly at best disingenuous and at worst goady to post this when you're talking about different countries with different cultures and very likely different provision regarding employment of mothers, childcare, family culture etc

As for your grandparents situation that sounds as if they majorly cocked up because they didn't bother getting divorced and have left the mess for others to clear up!

That's got nothing to do with the differences in how divorces are managed.

And yes, as pp have pointed out many women in the uk become sahm as a decision that at the time is right for their family based on a variety of factors not least of which is the high cost and limited availability of childcare.

You're oversimplifying and not considering all the factors.

Things should go back to how they were before you got married if someone is more wealthier than the other, kids or no kids. It is not so bad if your in your early twentys just starting out and have no wealth, but if you meet later on in life and you have got your own house paid for, lots of investments e.t.c and the other person hasn't, I don't see why that should be given away if it was made before you got married/met the other person. You will still provide for your kids after a divorce if you have them, but not give half of your life savings/earnings away to your ex which you earnt before.

Custard, do you have kids? It sounds like you don't really 'get' what shifts in the power dynamics between couples after kids come along. I could be wrong.

Maybe ask your mum one day about why she and your dad got divorced. My bet - pure speculation mind you - is that she developed resentment from working full time AND being the one to remember that you had a birthday party to attend and a ballet lesson on Fridays and you had to take a permission slip tomorrow and needed new socks and wanted a Cabbage Patch Kid for Christmas rather than a Sindy. This is the wife work that most mums, working or not, take on and it's RELENTLESS. It's years and years and years of thinking and planning and making sure the whole house doesn't come crashing down.

I was looked after by a nanny and my grandmother.

Well, ladida. You do realise this is not the norm, don't you? Your parents were very very lucky to have a nanny and a grandparent who took care of their children. Most families do not have such luxuries.

I can't believe this even needs to be said.

It isn't mandatory for anyone to give something up, but statistically, on average it is still women who make career/financial sacrifices when a couple has children. This is one factor in gender pay gap figures.

Not many people can afford a nanny, and others may not have family who they can rely upon for childcare. If someone is on relatively low wages, they may be worse off working compared to staying home with the children. As a society we seem to value financial income/earnings over all else and we don't seem to value other forms of contribution such as childcare etc. I personally think there is nothing more important than raising children and this should be valued, therefore if a woman or a man gives up their work to care for and raise their family, this should be seen as a contribution if they ever go their separate ways.

Parent 1 earns 50k
Parent 2 earns 50k

They have a baby. Childcare is £500 a week.

Parents both work and they pay £500 a week for 4.5 years (assuming 6 months leave). Neither can climb the ladder in any meaningful way as they need to share school runs, holidays etc

Gross income after 5 years £475k
minus childcare of £117k

Total gross income over 5 years = £358k

Parent 1 stays at home
Parent 2 increases their earning due to all home responsibilities being taken care of, they can apply for promotion that includes foreign travel, longer commute etc. They increase their income by (on average) £10k a year.

Total gross income over 5 years = £660k
no childcare costs.

Ok so these are very simplified figures but the parent who has given up their career has actually increased the family income by £300k over 5 years, and you are suggesting that they should receive.....what?

Custard

Did your mother never have to battle through a day of work with morning sickness, miss work for prenatal appointments, deal with sciatic pain that made walking excruciating? Did she have you at 6pm in a Friday and then show up ready to work on Monday morning fresh as a daisy? Then perhaps her career didn’t suffer. If she isn’t super-human and the effort of growing, birthing, and nourishing a human being actually took some of her energy, then her career took a hit.

And what about your grandmother ready to step in and help?. What about her career?. If she was available to help when you broke a bone or the nanny was sick, then Her career took a hit as well.

Sounds like you're talking about Napoleonic Law OP? France maybe?

Most of the complication in your family seems to have come from those complicated rules about inheritance rather than from 50/50 marital assets splits.

In non-Napoleonic law countries, you split assets in divorce and move on and you're always free to leave your assets to whoever you like, dependants excepted.

Haha.. I wish I could afford a nanny :D no job I could ever get would cover a nanny, plus why should my husband automatically be worth less than me just because i works when he cleans the house, cooks breakfast lunch and dinner, does all the laundry, does the childcare, is my personal assistant when it comes to appointments and whatnot, sorts out every birthday party, sort sall children's activities and clubs.

I don't take him for granted but the fact is even though he can't work as it's not financially viable right now until the kids are older means that I will share every penny I earn because without him I would have to be doing a hell of a lot more than just working.

Got to admit... it's not bad being a working partner to a stahm/stahd, I would much rather work than do all the house work and child stuff everyday. Most people don't understand how hard it really is being a stahp... it's a lot to handle and half the time your dying for some conversation and company but for most people.. working just isn't an option yet.

It's not a statement that can be made for an event that is not the same for everyone. 50/50 is fair, it is then up to the couple to prove that their circumstances need that split to shift in favour for one or another.

I have given up my career and it has always been of the understanding that his is mine and mine is his. So it will be 50/50, with me needing more support and concessions whilst I get on my feet. If you have entered a relationship and not discussed this I think you are shooting yourself in the foot. Never enter things in your life without knowing EXACTLY where you stand. It's about communication and clarity.

RubberTreePlant

Not France. Underveloped country outside of Europe

I was looked after by a nanny and my grandmother. I had a lovely childhood and hold great memories of my parents even when they worked all day everyday. Both parents ended up having very successful careers and no one gave up anything.

You do sound ridiculously blinkered and simplistic. Nannies are not the norm. High powered careers are not the norm.

Purpleartichoke

Mum struggled a lot growing up as she was a woman, her male siblings got everything while she was handed crumbs, she refused to give up on her career as she saw how her own mother struggled after having no career (she wasn’t allowed one as she was a woman and her brothers got priority for education money)

I just cannot imagine myself handing over what I’ve earned and got based on my own hard work to the other person, even if we were married. I couldn’t dream of taking my partner’s assets whether he got them before or after marriage.

It doesn’t matter how how high powered or high earning a woman may be. The burden of parenthood falls on mother’s across all economic classes. The number one topic of conversation with my friends and acquaintances is about trying to balance work and home. This is true even though we can afford to throw money at the problem.

Me and my husband both have good careers but seen as I have the boobs I’m the one up feeding the baby. So I’m the one on mat leave and not progressing my career for a year. Husband wants several kids so I’ll repeat this a few times over. I will reiterate that he wants more babies and wanted this one and in making that decision he accepted that my income would be reduced and subsequently that he would need to take a greater share of financial responsibility. He also wouldn’t want our baby in nursery whilst I continued my career. These are all conscious choices we have arrived at together because we are a partnership. There’s no reason he shouldn’t also bare the brunt of our joint decisions should we part ways later down the line.

I couldn’t dream of taking my partner’s assets whether he got them before or after marriage.

:o

This is the marriage version of "When I have kids, I will never let them eat chocolate"