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.

Idk OP, I kinda get what you mean. I can see how, in some circumstances it would work.

Personally though, I grew up with a disabled sibling so my dad actually stayed home to provide care. (He wasn’t a great SAHP but did his best).

A nanny/ au pair wasn’t really an option due to my siblings conditions. Anyway, my mum meanwhile ran her own business and did VERY well! But she wouldn’t have been able to do that if it wasn’t for my dad staying home with us. So it was totally fair that 50% be his!

I agree with what others have said, kids change a marriage. Women often are pushed (by circumstances) into PT work or SAHP. Marriage is, and should be, a partnership of shared assets. If you want to keep your assets separate fine- don’t get married x

@GPatz agreed and a stupid one.

Two of my SILs earnt less than my brothers before they were married. They continued to work and study after having two children each. 20 years on they earn more than my brothers. They could only do this as my brothers' seeing they could get promoted to earn more for the family encouraged them to study and pulled their fingers out at home.

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.

Really? It's the woman's choice if the man doesn't want her to work, and doesn't support her?
It's the woman's fault if the man decides he doesn't actually want the planned child and doesn't see why he should look after?
So it's the woman's fault if they both agree that she stay home and look after the child and she's out of the market for a while??

Fucking hell, it's not a race to the bottom, although you'd think so on this thread

I didn't give up work when I had dd but I did have to go part time to facilitate dh work.

At the time he earned 2x me so in respect of paying bills, etc his job was more important. I worked shifts in the nhs. His job meant he had to go abroad for extended periods of time often at the last minute. So childcare was a nightmare and being part time meant less juggling and also meant my mum could help if needed.

After a few stressful years of that I took an office nhs job so lost a third of my wages as no unsocial payments.

Me and dh didn't divorce but if we did I'd have been annoyed if he'd kept all his savings and I got nothing. He was earning between 4-5k a month and banking most of it which he wouldn't have been able to do if I hadn't been working part time and sorting childcare.

It's not just about stay at home parents, it's about any decision a spouse might have to make as part of being married. If, for example, the higher earning spouse gets a good job in a non-EU country, the lower earning spouse might not have a working visa for that country and wouldn't be able to work. Yet, they have to follow their spouse. Why should they be left with nothing if they divorce?

And now dd is older and I've been able to focus on my career I'm actually earning more than dh. So yeah I do think I did sacrifice/postpone a stellar career. One of us had to and as I was the lower earner it made sense it was me. You're right, nobody held a gun to my head but it didn't make sense to tell dh to give up work instead.

@HBStowe "There really isn’t any justification for saying that the SAHP’s contribution to the situation should be valued as worthless"

I don't think anyone has said it isn't a valuable role and should be valued at nil (if they have, sorry if I missed it).

If one parent didn't stay home then you'd (likely) need full time childcare, and we all know that's not cheap.

I'd like to see prenups become legal and binding to protect what you bring to a marriage.

I disagree with 50/50 where it's been unequal. It's fine where all costs have have been shared but that's not the case for a lot of marriages and one person usually ends up shouldering far more and losing far more on divorce.

Given how many admit they chose a partner for their earning capability and how many suddenly don't work once married the split on divorce should reflect the input each gave financially during the marriage.

My husband got about 60% as he earns less - we both worked full time. Whilst 50% is the starting point lower earners often get more.

@Gwen I don't think anyone has said any spouse should be left with nothing (apart maybe from the poster who is annoyed at her dad marrying a 'goldigger')

I agree OP and in particular these days when people often marry later in life and bring more independent assets. Currently my BIL is divorcing my SIL who refused to work for over 10 years and she is now probably going to get both custody of children as she was the main career (just because she was at home though hardly did anything with her children) and probably 60-70% of the assets despite refusing to contribute financially almost their whole marriage.

I also come from a country where you can choose separate assets when you marry. Makes sense.

Obviously I won’t drip feed as it’s not my thread, but a woman who marries a man who earns £200k+ a year and doesn’t have a job themselves or isn’t raising their children shouldn’t get 50/50. I never said she wasn’t entitled to anything. It would be the same if my Mother was earning 200k+ and her spouse wasn’t working or raising children. I don’t think they should be entitled to 50/50 as they haven’t put 50/50 in, if that makes sense? Men can be gold diggers too don’t worry

My DH brought a great deal more cash than me to our marriage.

For example, for his £200k, I had £20k. We pooled it and I invested it, making the total £400k.

We have no DC, so if we divorced then I would only want my original £20k plus half of the profit from investment. It wouldn't be morally fair (IMO) to take half of his original cash.

But honestly? If he'd been having an affair or turned violent or anything like that then I could see my morals changing.

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.

In the UK, where childcare costs are absurdly high in relation to earnings, that choice is often forced on people by economics. I know many women who gave up work because every penny they earned (and more) went on paying someone else to look after their children.

You don’t automatically get 50/50, from people I know personally if there haven’t been any children involved they didn’t split everything 50/50 (the women tried dam hard to though!!).

I think if you have children though and the mother has put her career on hold to raise children of that marriage she should be entitled to take her share. I have put my career on hold to have a family, my long term earning potential is potentially going to be effected, plus I’ve not been paying into a pension during that time. I chose to do that of course I did, but I did so with the security of knowing if for some reason down the line we didn’t work out I haven’t financially enabled my husband to flourish in his career at the expense of mine.

I don’t understand how having separate finances would work long term in a situation such as ours. It just wouldn’t be fair and for me completely defeats the point in getting married. Maybe I’m stupid or old fashioned but once we became married everything became “ours”, neither of us had much to start with though so we didn’t have much to lose!

Being a stay at home parent is rarely a unilateral choice the SAHP forces upon an unwilling spouse

I don't think it is a choice that is imposed although I have had friends and colleagues who made it clear before getting pregnant that they would not return to work even if their oh were not happy about it.

However, except for these wives who genuinely had no choice but to follow their oh abroad where they were not allowed to work, I don't believe that any woman who genuinely cared to get on the career ladder have sacrificed their career for that of her OH because there are definitely options in this country for both parents to be professionals whilst having children.

The moment you agree to be a sahp for longer than 3 or 4 years, you opt to put yourself at a vulnerable financial position in the event of a divorce. Why would anyone do this unless they thought that divorce would never be on the card, or they just prefer to be a sahm than working?

@DantesInferno, I think you're being facetious but, anyway:

"Really? It's the woman's choice if the man doesn't want her to work, and doesn't support her?" No that's abuse. There's no 'choice' in your hypothetical scenario.

"It's the woman's fault if the man decides he doesn't actually want the planned child and doesn't see why he should look after?" No, that would be abandonment by the husband and the woman has legal rights to pursue him for CM in that scenario, and to pursue a fair financial settlement on divorce. Again there's no 'choice' in this scenario.

"So it's the woman's fault if they both agree that she stay home and look after the child and she's out of the market for a while??" No, no one is at fault here. If that's the choice the couple make and they're both happy with it, excellent. At the same time the woman needs to understand anything could happen. What if she's a homemaker for 4 years and the husband is killed in a car accident. Overnight, zero household income. Husband could leave her for a new girlfriend and have triplets with the new woman, vasy reducing the CMS she's entitled to.

You're entitled to choose to stay at home with your children but the law should let people be clear where they stand.

@swingofthings yes yes yes, everything you said x100.

It's very possible to have two working professionals working full time and also parenting successfully.

I earntless than my dh when we married but then I was several years younger - I earnt exactly the same as he had at a similar age. Over the next 15 years his salary increased significantly. I took a career break and then went back on the same grade so that I could look after the children/home. This was a joint decision - if I hadnt made it and insisted childcare was split equally (nanny or no) he would not have been able to take those promotions.

swingofthings my parents were both medical doctors who qualified at the same time. It was not logistically possible for them both to climb the career ladder at the same rate and have children, or indeed live together 7 days per week. Climbing that career ladder involves moving around to take promotions, and working unsociable hours. Although they both continued to work one parents career had to take a back seat, and that parent became a consultant a whopping 20 years later than the one who's career took priority, and earnings reflected that. If they'd divorced at specific points in time the inequality would have been greater than at other points.

The parent who has been home more is usually the one who the children live with after divorce, which also doesn't prevent that parent working but impacts their freedom to do long, irregular or unsociable hours, work away, work nights etc while the parent who only sees the children EOW can work like a childless person.

Custardforbreakfast seems young, blinkered, clueless and to be barking up the wrong tree anyway. His or her inheritance woes are to do with siblings fighting over a shared inheritance, their grandparents marriage sounds like an absolute red herring.

@DexyMidnight 😊😊

if I hadnt made it and insisted childcare was split equally (nanny or no) he would not have been able to take those promotions

Why not? There are many men who do share care and manage to get promoted, or single mums who get to the top.

It might be harder, reduce your social life, mean you spend less quantity time with your kids, although you can make this up with quality time, but being an involved working parent doesn't mean you are doomed to never get promotions.

DexyMidnight have you been criticised a lot for being a two working parents family? You seem very keen that anyone who hasn't done things your way be penalised financially as much as possible...

dexy

“Second wife” is a description.
“Jilted wife” is a slur.

And no need to @ me - I’m on the thread.

"@Gwen I don't think anyone has said any spouse should be left with nothing (apart maybe from the poster who is annoyed at her dad marrying a 'goldigger')"

That could be OP's point of view in talking of a separation of assets. In my understanding, in countries where there is an option to separate assets, the spouse would not have a claim to ANY of the marital assets. Can you confirm that's what you think OP?

I'm actually of the opinion that if people chose to have children they should prioritise the children. Neither parent should work all hours unless they cannot put aroif over their children's head and food on the table any other way.

I think parents (both sexes, both parents) should ensure a good work life balance once they have children and ensure they are both around lots. I think parents who prioritise career and money and wealth accumulation over time with their children are at best foolish and at worst narcissistic twats who shouldn't have had children. That goes for both parents. If either choose work so much they barely see their children for any reason other than to avoid their children living in poverty they should not have had children.

Having children is a choice, for most people in the UK working all hours and never being home is a choice.

Parents who prioritise climbing the career ladder over their own children are bad parents.

Both parents can work, but it's selfish to do more than 40 hours a week once you have children. Doing more isn't virtuous unless it's the only way you can feed your children.