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.

The law was changed on divorce a few years ago...
No matter how you legally protect your assets, a judge can and will use the NEEDS clause...
Which means if there is not enough money in shared assets he can use ringfenced assets to equal things out...

I don't see raising my dc as a pointless endeavour at all. It's the most important thing I do. I just don't measure the value of relationships in monetary terms.

Many women are left destitute with the sole care of their children after a separation. It is important to know your value and for you to advocate for financial security even after a divorce, for both you and you kids. I realise it's not a romantic position to hold, but a sensible one.

Oliversmum, as a working parent, I have always been "hands on" with my dc. I did pay a fantastic nanny for four hours a day when dd was small, but other than that, DH and I have managed stuff between us. We did the school run between us, and managed school holidays etc. DD also has a pretty full-on hobby that she does at a high level, which requires a significant commitment from us as well as from her. This is not impossible to manage just because we both have careers.

Yes it's just turned into another sahp v working parent debate.

@windygallows No but I am not but that is my CHOICE. I will choose the same method as my mum to allow my children the same choice. Also her method has allowed me to have a very well rounded knowledge and though while not a guarantee could have effected the fiancé that I have now. Of course this does not mean it's the only or only right way to parent but I do believe it contributed to my ethos where each member in the family plays their part for the greater good of the family and that it is not about the individual but what we can do as a team so that each generation will do slightly better financially and socially then the last one. I want my children to see the world as their oyster full of options and possibilities. To pave that road takes work and effort that not many children least of all teens wants to put in so I need to be there to make sure they are doing the task no matter how reluctant

@AlexaShutUp your parents had a nanny to help. I would rather do it myself

birdsdestiny it has. People are also comparing apples with oranges, and oranges with tea pots, without acknowledging that there are thousands of combinations of factors determining whether any one individual has made sacrifices/ made the best decisions/ how people have got themselves into different situations whilst trying to do the best thing for their circumstances.

Several posters seem determined to make this about how anyone not exactly like them is an entitled cheeky fucker.

So basically you think women who stay home to raise kids should be fu##ed over if they divorce? I came into our relationship with my own home, and I was working full time warming more than him as he was a student, he came with nothing and a large dect from his previous marriage. We came into our MARRIAGE with 3 kids (now 4) and a house we bought together. I now work part time, he's full tine so by your reckoning I should get less than 50% because he now earns more than me?

Families who jointly decide to have 3 or 4 children close together will not have the same experience as parents of just one child. The same solutions will not work.

Where people live and relative cost of childcare to wages, housing and transport change what is sensible.

Exactly what each parent does as a job and relative ages of parents when the children are born and career stage make a difference.

All sorts of curve balls thrown by life in terms of health of everyone involved, unexpected redundancy or promotion opportunity involving relocation or travel or unsociable hours for significant long and short term gains are relevant.

People make the best decisions they can at any one time but nobody can tell the future.

The fact is that usually it's the woman, whatever she's done in the past, left trying to support the children if a relationship or marriage ends. Usually (but not always) it's the woman who's career is impacted by pregnancy, maternity leave and the way working life changes or is put on hold while children are small. Usually this has far reaching long term implications financially and in other ways for the woman to a greater extent than the man even if she goes back to full time work after maternity leave. This is because of biology and social expectations. Usually women are paid less than men for the identical job if there is any way for an employer to get away with this. Usually women are expected to fight for career opportunities men take for granted, but doubly so after maternity leave, especially if they are seen as likely to have another child, and becoming a father does not have this impact.

There are so many complucating variables that the idea that it is "fair" in a marriage involving children for each partner should keep exactly what they bring in plus what they earn is simplistic to the point of terminal stupidity (or more likely deliberate denial of reality).

*complicating

By what you write you sound coming from a south civil law country.
Great having working parents and lovely grandmother/ nanny helping out BUT

1. grandmothers if fit to work are usually employed in this country - so, your grandmother looking after you had a loss of earnings.- coming from where I think you are coming from she very probably had a pension of some sort so she could afford it. Still, it was her choice to lower her income to look after pretty young you
2. Nannies cost - a fantastic nanny who is able to patch on a manager erratic work schedule clocks more than £45,000 per year - if you are not lucky enough to have a fantastic and lovingly grandmother who can patch in.

Some families prefer one of the parents to reduce hours and work to look after their children. This results in a disproportion of earning power between the couple - this is why the 50/50 split is fair.

Tessabelle where on earth are you getting that idea from? I think the OP would say you should get more than 50% in those circumstances.

Love the assumption that your earning power follows a nice neat trajectory! There were times when DH earned considerably more than me, then times when I was supporting him while he studied, followed by times when we were equally-earning-partners in a business. The last 5 years I have earned 3 x what he has.

So at what point would the decision have been made to look at the relative earnings and split divorce proceedings accordingly?

How ridiculous! And whatever happened to the idea that we throw it all in together and sink or swim together.

If a divorce then happens, starting at 50/50 seems pretty fair to me.

This is odd...sorry I haven't rtft but is OP even married? When I married DP it was for better or worse, we are a team and we share. We both bring lots to our marriage and our parenthood and money (while useful) is but one of them. We don't plan our married life assuming divorce and a splitting of assets is inevitable, which means like many women, I've happily let my career slide a bit to support the family in other ways. I suppose in the event of a separation most people are not trying to take their DP to the cleaners but are trying to preserve things for children (e.g. remain in their home, continue having income to fund things for children).

Your AIBU is not about divorce. It's about greed over inheritance. If your Grandmother was leaving everything to another sibling, your Mother would be fighting to get her equal share.