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.

We aren’t just talking about working outside the home or being a stay at home parent. You can be dedicated to your career, but Less focus at work means fewer promotions and raises. The primary parent takes a financial hit, even if they are career driven. The primary parent should be compensated for that.

I am all for people that have agreed on this type of family life, where one parents makes the sacrifice and the other parent becomes the main provider. Sadly, a lot of the threads I see about separation seem to be full of resentment from the SAHP and therefore wanting to take as much as they want from the other person, they don’t seem to be previously made arrangements as somebody posters here have mentioned having with their DP

That resentment comes from being taken for granted by the WOHP and then (90% of the time) dumped for a younger model because "You dont give me what I need anymore.....".

Watch The First Wives Club if you need it spelling out.

Your family problem isn’t because of marriage laws. Your family problems are because your grandparents chose not to divorce (which would have separated assets) and that their children don’t get on. Asset planning and strong wills would sort that.

Your plan would scupper families like mine. We had to make a choice when our youngest’s health problems became apparent. She needs pretty much full time care, and possibly always will. So one of us had to give up work. At the exact same time by pure luck my DH was offered a chance to trial a job that he wouldn’t normally have got near (think two steps up the ladder due to very unexpected departures). The security that I have that my contribution to his being free to take the role (shifts, trips away) meant it was worthwhile for our family. Had I not that protection we’d both have had to go part time and we’d be massively down on income.

Plus even if you take that out of the equation it was still my career that was impacted by pregnancy and maternity leave. Once you choose to marry and have children then you are committing to sharing everything. If you don’t want to share then don’t get married. If you want to stop sharing then get divorced. There’s nothing obliging people to get married and share.

It's a woman's choice to sacrifice her career and earning potential and become a parent. No-one holds a gun to your head. If you earnt less than your husband - before children - then it's safe to assume you would always have earnt less, so i don't get the assumption that you 'sacrificed' some stellar career for motherhood. I think women do themselves a disservice with this martyrdom tbh.

If it's more cost effective for one parent to stay at home and you can afford it, then great, do that. But in my opinion it doesn't entitle you to half: 50/50 should be for situations where both parents work out of the home an equal amount and share an equal amount of childcaring and home-making activities.

Children needs to be provided for of course but i also don't understand the idea that the wife and kids need a comparable standard of living. How can the same pot of money cover two households, post split, with no drop in standard of living?

It's all mad. I'm with you OP.

@DexyMidnight

A woman’s choice? My child was not the result of immaculate conception and was a choice we arrived at together.

It's a woman's choice to sacrifice her career and earning potential and become a parent.

Working men are also parents.

Ignorance of how the law works on here. The equal split presumption is a starting point, and it applies to assets of the marriage (not wealth accrued before marriage).

Divorcing couples are often in middle age. A SAHM at that age with little work experience outside the home has poor employment prospects. It would be appalling for one partner to be in the breadline while the other keeps everything.

But the law only steps in where couples cannot resolve matters themselves. If a SAHM wanted to value her contribution at almost nothing and agree to spouse keeping lion's share, she'd be free to do so.

Agree with you also OP that if you want it to be 50/50 while one parent gives up work to stay home full time that's wonderful but you both have to agree on that and the law should allow informed adults acting of their own free will to document that, just as it should allow (for example) a wife who brings a huge pension pot and a BTL flat to a second marriage to record that those assets will belong to her in the event of a split.

As I said above there obviously need to be rules to make sure children are provided for by both parents if there's a split / divorce

Your family problem isn’t because of marriage laws. Your family problems are because your grandparents chose not to divorce (which would have separated assets) and that their children don’t get on. Asset planning and strong wills would sort that

This.
I also live in a country where people can opt to share or have separate assets when they get married. This has lots of ramifications and is worth looking at, but you definitely do not put your point across well.

Having separate assets is not all bad. One of the benefits is that your husband's debts don't become yours.

@FoxMuffin of course not but you could have decided, together, that you'd go back to work and your partner would care for your baby. You didn't, which is fine, but no-one forced you to be the primary carer beyond the first 6 months.

I believe in the UK whatever assets you had before marriage remain yours after the divorce. Only assets acquired during the marriage are split 50-50.

I am in the position where the SAHP chose to stay at home and is still choosing to stay at home post children -they haven't given up a stellar career - it makes life easier to have someone at home but not hugely and I would love either the choice myself or for my partner to work as well as me. To me my partner is getting a benefit now . I do therefore resent the idea that if we separated then I would have to continue to fund their life style. Its a factor in why we are not married. I have seen other situations where on a divorce the SAHP claims they were forced to give up a career and want compensating - where its not always as simple as that.

That said I do think there are times when a spouse has sacrificed the chance to earn and shared assets are more appropriate so its not clear cut

So you are annoyed because your family are arguing over inherence, which you believe should go directly to your Mother (and potentially yourself thereafter) rather than be split equally between siblings because of the contents of your Grandmothers will.

And you accuse some SAHP of greed.

@DexyMidnight
No I’m not forced, but my husband comes from a culture where the children are looked after at home. He doesn’t want his children in nursery whilst I work full time. I’ll return PT for that reason partly because when we decide on the next baby arrives I’ll again have to carry said baby and endure pregnancy, which was bloody hard working 12 hour days in a demanding job. I don’t remember him vomiting 3/4 times through the day and night or missing work for appointments. My husband acknowledges that my input isn’t just financial and he is willing to make that sacrifice with his own income as I am mine so we can attain our joint goals.

I’m not forced to accept this but nor is my husband. We started as equals and remain equals as far as I’m concerned.

Dexy

You are being ridiculously simplistic over what is a very complicated issue, which is precisely why the law starts at 50/50 and then looks at need. Should the husband who stayed at home to look after the child with Cerebal Palsy leave a marriage with no way of securely housing himself or the child going forward because he didnt do paid work? Because he "chose" to stay at home with a child that needed him? Because his wife was the only one who was bringing money in? All while she can buy a nice safe home for herself and have no worries?

I suspect you are the second wife......

@FoxMuffin that's good if you are both on the same page. I don't think i could be with a man who believed my place was at home but if you are both happy that's great. Don't you think though, that the law should allow you to record what you've agreed in writing so you will both know exactly what will happen to you whatever happens to your family in future? Rather than risking a falling out and two people thrashing it out in an ugly and expensive divorce?

@pyongyangkipperbang I think a disabled child needs care, it's not really a choice is it? Can you not see that's different?

Even in a marriage with healthy children I think we can all agree children should come first in divorce. I haven't seen anyone pining for a system where one parent is left destitute, I have literally no idea why you said that.

@DexyMidnight
My place isn’t permanently in the home. The is a chapter in our lives. As I said I have the boobs and the child bearing body. So this arrangement makes sense for now. I’ve also picked up responsibility for our business which is relatively low maintenance but which we used to work around our jobs together. But I don’t view that that is any less his.

I absolutely agree that these arrangements should be documented and it should be taken on a case by case basis. Some women are rail roaded into picking up the lions share of childcare and some men would rather it was 50:50.

Don't you think though, that the law should allow you to record what you've agreed in writing so you will both know exactly what will happen to you whatever happens to your family in future?

The law already does that - everyone knows that when they get married if it results in a split then 50:50 is the start point. If you don’t want to have that start point then you don’t get married.

That’s why many people with unequal assets choose not to marry.

Then I shall, literally, explain.

You said that a SAHP is not entitled to half, that it should only be split 50/50 when both parents work ("Why should the wife and kids have a comparable standard of living?"). YOUR words, not mine. And I didnt say destitute, I said without secure housing as he would not be able to secure a mortgage and would be at the mercies of the rental market. However, many parents would be left destitute by your "If you didnt earn it then you dont get it" plan.

Laws are not known for their subtlety, so it would be "one size fits all". Unless you are talking about a legal system that looks at the income and assets of the family as a whole and then divides it up according to need? Oh..... wait.....

Ps the law does allow it, it’s a pre nuptial and these can be done post marriage. I’m a lawyer so both me and my husband entered our marriage with our eyes wide open. (I’ll add I don’t specialise in family law but have an adequate understanding).

@lyralalala
Exactly. There are alternative arrangements if that’s not either parties intention.

@Coyoacan

Funnily enough I think we’re from the same country