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.

swingofthings misandry is a term men's rights activists invented in the 1970s in an attempt to claim victimhood for men equivalent to misogyny. Misandry has no basis. It's like white people whining about racism against whites.

Madaboutwands The situations I'm talking about, the theoretical ex-wives have no independent income. The income of the theoretical ex-DH would have to cover to households, whether by way of lump sum settlement, CM and/or spousal. Fact, not judgment.

Where that money is limited because there's no high earner involved, of course stretching it between two households is going to be a struggle. And of course it is right that the children are housed suitably. But don't kid yourself that the NRP always ends up with enough too.

I can only speak anecdotally but I know a fair few NRPs in shitty one-bed places, unable to properly accommodate their DC for contact, while RP has the family home. That may well be the right outcome in some/many cases - but you can see how it would rankle when that RP has made an active and unilateral choice to limit the family's money. And why the non-primary carer might choose not to divorce and create that situation, despite their own unhappiness.

This does not, of course, take away from the many NRPs who do not contribute enough, leaving RPs with all the struggle and sacrifice. I was simply making a different point in answer to a PP who glibly suggested that these unhappy men just divorce their wives.

There are 3 kinds of divorces really so it is hard to generalise. In many one person earns about £23k and the other nothing as they are home with the children. There is a rented house or possibly a small mortgaged house. The income will really only keep one household going and there is no choice but that the worker lives with his/her parents or in a bed sit or shared house just to keep the children and family going.

Second category have more money and then things like 50/50 might be possible particularly if they both can work.

Third is those you read about in the press where one is stellar rich but there are so few of them it's hardly relevant to look at those eg. recent Amazon owner's divorce.

"in these discussions, staying at home with the children is often framed as a huge sacrifice that the stay at home parent makes at the detriment of their own high flying career. The comments on the other thread suggest that a lot of women aren't that bothered about the hit to their own career and would just rather be at home with their child. This is a valid decision and if you can afford it, then why not. But then framing your decision as a huge sacrifice in the event of a split just seems a bit insincere."

Outlawjr I agree.

I think everything you own pre marriage should be ring fenced and the value at fate of marriage plus indexation should be awarded back to the original owner. Any inheritance should stick with the original side of the family. There should be a written agreement as to how long someone will be supported by their partner.

One of my friends is currently divorcing his wife. The have a 14 year old the wife hasn’t worked for 16 years. My friend has asked her to return to work many times but she’s refused. It doesn’t seem fair for her to get half after he’s had to work for all these years to support her whilst she sat at home which he did not agree to.

I agree that there should be an option for community property or not. I don’t agree in a lot of cases that both parties are desperately as keen for one party to be a sahp as many pp seem to think. In a lot of cases, this is what many women want to do. It’s easier to be a sahp than to work and juggle everything.

It’s not impossible to work and keep the home fires burning. Especially with teenage kids. The idea that someone couldn’t work with an older teen or adult kids is absurd.

I am the RP, now a lone parent, the mother, also the higher earner who will have to mainly support my kids with a tiny CM contribution from ex, who I am handing a large amount to go away. I’d say he’s getting at least £100k more than he’s earned, thanks to the 50:50 rule. I am also, clearly, sorting all domestic matters.

Question for op (if she's around)

Your grandmother. What assets did she bring to the marriage? You said she never had a career or worked but did she bring inheritance or other assets?

If she didn't bring any do you think it would have been fair for her to have received zero if they did get divorced?

It would have made things a lot easier in terms of children inheriting everything from the grandfather, less fighting between them.

Yes @SoupDragon that's exactly what I understand her to be saying:

-50/50 isn't always fair if one parent chose not to work ('chose' being the operative word)
-you should be able to document what agree to pool and what you keep.

This is entirely contingent on the belief that you don't think SAHP actually 'work', which is of course absolute bs.

Regardless of all else, this is just an absurd complaint in relation to the OP's situation. Wouldn't it make more sense to be annoyed at your relatives behaviour and not whether people split their assets equally?

I have heard a lot of complaints on this thread about how certain men complain because their wives never return to work.

I know a lot of these women.

I would say don’t believe everything you hear.

Some men will complain about their wives not returning to work but actually in private don’t actually want their wife to go to work.

And some expect the wife to return to work whilst still doing the drop off and pick ups for school, activities, keep the house spotless, do the garden, diy etc with no outside help because they don’t like other people in their home.

I would say whilst there might be the odd woman who sah because she wants to there are an awful lot of back stories that you won’t know about.

One woman I knew refused to go to work because her high salaried dh spent money like it was going out of fashion.
She could never get a job higher than a nmw office job.
What ever she earned he just assumed was more money for him to spend on the latest must have so they were no better off.

Her only control was to take his salary and give him pocket money whilst she looked after the finances.

He would still try and sneak things in the house but as she was always there she was able to intercept and make him take the item back.

They are very very rich now because of the dw tracking everything. Dh is still on pocket money.

Equally I know one abusive husband who during one bout of his anger attacked/accidentally injured his dw which resulted in her being so disabled she will never work again.

He insists she is lazy and tells anyone and everyone she could get a job.
Anyone who just speaks with her for 5 minutes realises she will never work again.

I wonder if op would feel that these women didn’t deserve anything on divorce because they hadn’t sat in an office for 40 hours per week

It doesn’t make sense. Someone who could “never” earn more than minimum wage has not made great sacrifices from their career by staying at home. So they simply have not earned half of the money in the pot. You can’t claim to have given up a brilliant career then say nobody would pay you more than minimum wage! Being an adult should mean you are obliged to do all you can to support yourself.

Of course children should be taken care of as the No1 priority - yet in my case the law barely appears to care about their fate. I am looking after them while handing their father money to go away.

Yep I'm with you NotBeingRobbed : sort out a fair deal for the kids, recognise a SAHP's loss of their income (ie the income they earned before giving up work), and then you should split the matrimonial assets accordingly

It may be the case that someone who only ever had the potential to work in a low wage job has not made great sacrifices by being a stay at home parent

It is also the case that someone who is able to earn substantial amounts of money could not have done that and been a parent were it not for the stay at parent

The stay-at-home parent has the benefit of a high salary and a gets to be a parent
The working parent gets to be a parent and the benefit of a high salary, they also get the benefit of having a job being paid having agency in the world feeling like they can progress in life rather than just be stuck at home talking to toddlers

Being an adult should mean you are obliged to do all you can to support yourself

It depends on what you mean by supporting yourself.

Do you mean ability to generate cash because that doesn’t follow that you automatically can support yourself.

I have rented property in the past and have had tenants who are high fliers (divorced) who earn a huge amount but haven’t a clue in how to feed themselves never mind supporting themselves and I have had people on nmw with children who make their salary go a long way and have the ability to feed, clothe and pay bills on time.

I disagree that a working parent needs to be supported by a SAHP. I wasn’t. We both worked - he just earned less and never tried to advance himself.

Lots of distain for the working population and divorcees coming from @oliversmumarmy. What is your role when Oliver grows up? Divorce is freedom for me - even at a price!

I wholly agree with you OP

Yep I'm with you NotBeingRobbed : sort out a fair deal for the kids, recognise a SAHP's loss of their income (ie the income they earned before giving up work), and then you should split the matrimonial assets accordingly

It would not necessarily be fair to do that. I am on the same pay scale now as I was before having children and going part-time but would probably would be earning more if I had worked full-time after children like DH did. We were on the same salary before having children and in the same job. Now he earns quite a bit more. For that reason in early ideal world I think I should get more 50% of our assets if we were to divorce.

NotBeingRobbed I was just trying to point out the different meanings of supporting yourself and how it doesn't always follow that earning a salary no matter how high means you can "support" yourself.

Oh and I didn't bother getting married and "Oliver" is grown up.

Some interesting ideas. Ringfencinh what you each started with, any inheritances and what percentage you contributed financially would be great. That way, if you opt out of working you know it comes with a risk should it all go pear shaped. The sole or higher earner knows they have protection so wont lose by daring to get married.

Not France. Underveloped country outside of Europe

Ah, well that'd be why your parents could afford a nanny then. Do you have any idea how much they cost in the Uk? More than a lot of people earn.

YABVVU - your situation was extremely fortunate but millions of women end up having to forfeit at least part of their career progress and earnings "for the good of the family", perhaps because their partner earns slightly more, often because the man simply refuses to be the one to make the sacrifice. And as a result there is a huge proportion of women who end up in poverty as pensioners because they haven't got the same pensions and their "D"H who they gave up their finances and careers so that they could advance and the kids would be looked after for have swanned off with another woman and secreted away lots of the family assets.

I can't actually believe you think this is a reasonable argument, and your family problems and squabbles about what to do with the inheritance are absolutely nothing to do with split or shared assets. Not convinced that you are a woman either tbh 🤷🏻‍♀️

Here you choose whether to share assets or not by eother getting married or not.

NotBeingRobbed Tue 30-Apr-19 01:44:02
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

Couldn't disagree more.
When I met my DH we had about the same earning power, after DC2 we knew it was too much to rely on my mother to look after both (we now have 4) and we didn't want a stranger looking after them when we could easily cope on one salary so we made the decision, together that I would be a SAHM and he would work. I gave up my job, as a joint decision, to look after OUR children and run OUR home and do OUR shopping and most of the cleaning and OUR cooking - I work inside the home and he works outside of the home to earn OUR income.
If we ever split - it's 50/50 and I don't give a damn what the wage slips say - if I charged per hour it would be at least his salary, probably more.

Just don’t get married then. FFS it’s a risk, a commitment.

50/50 is fair when you marry you become a unit you share the house you share the cost of living share the upbringing of children so yes splitting assets (house savings etc) is fair it protects both people who put a lot of effort in to the home and building a life together!