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.

I will not comment on this thread any longer as I do not mean to turn this into me vs other posters. Everyone enjoy your day!

OP: AINU

Everyone: yes

OP: well I don’t accept that so i’m Leaving then

There is standard view on mn that following divorce, those who were sahm were so mainly to support their husband careers, that this was mutually agreed, and that had they not, they would have earned as much.

It may be true of posters, but this is a complete different picture to what I see in real life where most men are not happy that their wives refuse to work, at least once the children go to nursery, but have no say in the matter. Most of these sahm never had a well paid job before having children nor studied for a profession.

I do believe that there are families where one staying at home is a genuine mutual agreement but it is much less the case than what we read here.

@Gpatz i didn't make that clear in fairness but I thought the meaning was obvious.

swingofthings
With dh and me it was mutual. He was relocating countries every few years with work. We agreed to pursue his career as it took off when mine didn’t.

Custardforbreakfast how old are you? Do you have children?

@Veterinari you beat me to it!

OP, I know you say you're not coming back but I bet you can't resist a sneaky peak!

You keep saying about someone's choice to take on a childcare role but what you're missing is the whole point of marriage. My husband and I are a team. I haven't chosen for me to get pregnant, have a baby and take a year's maternity then go back part time. WE have decided, together, that we want a baby and that we feel for us that me having more time with him over more earnings from work is what WE want for our child. Influenced by our own childhood experiences - just as your feelings are. As part of that decision making my husband is aware that he would have to support us financially to account for that. He's making that decision too, essentially.

It's also not as simple as adding up payslips. Finances are much more complex. You sound a bit naive to be honest.

@swingofthings I agree, the narrative is tired.

Plus the very vast majority of people who divorce are just ordinary people with very ordinary jobs. It's always made out to be some jet-setter husband who's always off on business trips and works 16 hour days and if he had to play even a minor role in family life his career would never be where it was without his wife's sacrifice blah blah.

Those couples absolutely exist and they exist when the gender roles are reversed too, I know a lot of ultra wealthy and very powerful women at the very top of their professions because their husband's either don't work or do something where they can leave at 6pm on the dot every day no matter what happens.

But those kinds of couples are a tiny minority, they're the top 5 or 10%.

Most women and men are married to spouses who can build experience and skills and increase their wages over the years without requiring their spouse to sacrifice themselves at the alter of what is, in reality, a bog standard job!

I respect a family's right to do whatever works for them, truly I do, but I think SAHPs should be more honest and say that they stayed at home because it made financial sense and because they wanted to rather than pretend the WOHP has some sexy, terribly exciting 'career' that they just had to support from the sidelines

YANBU OP. My Dad’s wife conveniently proposed to him on a New Year’s Eve after his business started going well. She trapped him as he finds it hard to say no. Too much of a coincidence I hope that he has a prenup otherwise when they divorce she will get loads of money for just milling about in Costa and spending his money 24/7. She’s barely worked or contributed anything, no children either. I’m his only child with his only grandchildren so any money would be best suited coming in our direction say if he died, instead of all to her

@freetone sorry but I don't believe I canny business man can be 'trapped' if there are no kids involved. He's no fool, if he's marrying her then that's his prerogative. I wouldn't be... Best pleased to be in your situation but it's his money and you've got to keep you beak out. Sorry

If you don't want to share finances at all and you're worrying about what would happen in a divorce then why would you get married? Just don't get married, nice and simple. Keep money separate and live together while splitting all the bills. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing this.

I so agree Dexy

I gave up work because of my h's job needing us to live overseas. He earns 5 x what I do now consequently, I care for our dd with autism, so yes I expect far more than 50% of the assets, maintenance and a share of his pension!!!

Completely disagree OP. You’re effectively penalising all SAHPs, or parents who work part-time to facilitate childcare. Societally women have tended to take that role, but the issue applies irrespective of sex.

I wasn’t the SAHP in our marriage and have worked full-time throughout. In the hopefully very unlikely event that we divorce, I would be an utterly selfish bastard if I expected to walk away with the assets in proportion to my financial contribution and not recognise the sacrifice my DW had made in being a SAHM and then working part-time in order that I could remain full-time.

@freetone

She trapped him as he finds it hard to say no

Your successful businessman father isn’t capable of saying “no” to anything. Ridiculous

I think op has a point. I know MN is very pro-marriage to protect the women’s rights but I did not do well out of divorce. I had always worked and paid into a pension. Exh worked cash in hand if at all. The dc were with me after divorce. He was entitled to equity in the house, savings and part of my pension.

On here it reads like the norm that husband is high earner and woman sacrifices her career. I do not know a single family with that set up in real life. I do not know a single sahm. All the women I know went back to work.

Besides it’s assets generated after the marriage that are in play... the wealth your father generated from his successful business up to that point aren’t relevant i believe, and 50:50 is the starting point, not the inevitable end point!

Why do you appear to havename changed to start this? Is it because you know it's goady through and through?

@oakenbeach I don't think the OP is suggesting the contribution of a SAHP should be viewed as nil, nor that the earning parent should get to walk away with all the money. I think she was only saying people should be allowed to decide what assets to pool and what to keep separate and that the courts and the law should respect that.

If my husband wanted to be a SAHP I'd not be very happy about that, because as a household we would earn more paying full time nursery fees and us both working. Not to mention the lost career progression, the lost pension pot building, the fact that it would put so so so much pressure on me. Maybe I'd like to stay home with my kid? But I can't because the bills need paid. If he wanted to stay home regardless I would think it very unfair for him to expect a 50/50 split on divorce. Very unfair indeed

I suspect you're a jilted wife...

Well don’t you sound just lovely, dexy

No children- sure what you bring in is what you leave with. When children are involved, most often one parent (usually mum) takes a year off, then works around the kids. Earning potential decreases, promotions decrease, and one person usually has a larger in home responsibility that should be legally recognised. If you've given up work and end up splitting, your assets are greatly reduced and your potential for future earnings as the resident parent are usually greatly reduced. That should be recognised and compensated.

@FamilyofAliens I thank you, but to give credit where it's due I'm not as nice as the recipient of my comment, who said she suspected me of being 'the second wife'

I don't think the OP is suggesting the contribution of a SAHP should be viewed as nil, nor that the earning parent should get to walk away with all the money

Really?

if you choose to be a SAHP or a working parent, it is fully your decision but I apologise and don’t share the views that it should be 50/50 just because you made a decision you fully accepted to make. I don’t think it gives you the right to be spiteful or wanting to take advantage of the working parent in the event of a separation. I’ve always been a fan of everything being easier when it’s on paper and you get what you made before or after marriage.

@HoustonBess Not even in that case. My mum was a SAHM for a long while, dad a high flyer. They agreed 50/50 split of assets but when the paperwork went to court to be signed off they pulled them both in to check they were 100% happy with that as my mum had no earning potential. They thought a 70/30 split to my mum was fairer as she had no pension. Dad agreed straight away.

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.

Everyone has a choice in life, if you choose to be a SAHP or a working parent, it is fully your decision but I apologise and don’t share the views that it should be 50/50 just because you made a decision you fully accepted to make. I don’t think it gives you the right to be spiteful or wanting to take advantage of the working parent in the event of a separation. I’ve always been a fan of everything being easier when it’s on paper and you get what you made before or after marriage

I know OP has flounced off, but this really is such a blinkered view. Being a stay at home parent is rarely a unilateral choice the SAHP forces upon an unwilling spouse. It’s a decision usually taken either out of necessity, or because both parties agree it will benefit the family overall. And the WOHP automatically benefits from the work done by the SAHP, both in savings on child care costs and their freedom to pursue their career goals without having to undertake regular childcare responsibilities. There really isn’t any justification for saying that the SAHP’s contribution to the situation should be valued as worthless, when without them the WOHP simply wouldn’t have the money and opportunities they do.