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.

My brother came from nothing and is now worth millions because he was a very successful banker in the city of London. He used to work some nights till 2am and have to be back by 7am.

I was really surprised at how much he went on about his wife the other night. I was really proud of him. He told me that his wife had no choice but to give up her job to look after their kids when he was working those hours and that he will always be eternally grateful to her for doing it and the sacrifices she made for him.

People put way too much emphasis on money. We've lost out way on what really matters which is people, family, community and relationships.

I think there are lots of careers which are hard to have success in as a parent unless you have a co-parent happy to make some major sacrifices.
DH is at a senior level in an international business and we have lived in 4 different countries in 5 years, often moving at a month or less notice (he has left the next day and I’ve packed the rest of us up).
Before we started moving I was just starting an academic career. That can also require years of location flexibility in order to progress.
Medics - combination of shift work and the expectation of mobility.
Ditto army careers
Or really anyone with shift-work who doesn’t have a partner who can do child care at night or helpful family nearby.

I know many people with partners in these fields that have either given up work or chosen to do work which doesn’t maximise their earning potential (school hours only/no travel etc).

These threads are really entertaining! When you read the thread on how fathers should help more with nights, it would appear that the majority of fathers have jobs with no more demands than what being a sahm entails and therefore should be expected to share more the loads.

Here though, we have career people working 12h days whose schedule mean that the mother had no choice but to give up her career!

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

Not all jobs paying well mean you can't be a good parent. Plenty of sahp give their kids little attention or of poor quality. Whether you work or are a sahp doesn't define you as a good or bad parent.

they would not return to work even if their oh were not happy about it.

Any man who is unhappy about this should make it clear before he has children, and if an agreement can’t be reached then they shouldn’t have children. What you can’t do is reluctantly agree to something you’re actually unhappy about, and then refuse to compensate your spouse for the loss of their career years later when the relationship goes tits up.

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

But they aren’t just the SAHP’s children. They’re also the children of the WOHP. If the SAHP didn’t exist, the WOHP would either have to work significantly less themselves, or would have to pay a lot of money for childcare. It’s only right that this vast benefit is shared with the SAHP, who has enabled it to happen.

I love this view that SAHP don't work. If I paid a gardener and a cleaner and a nanny and a DIY person and a PA and an accountant and a carer for elderly parents and a taxi driver for all the things I did then that's ok because they 'work'. Because I choose to do it for my family because it saves us money and because it's easier and because it facilitates my DH's long and irregular working hours and gives him free time at the weekend then according to a commonly held view I'm basically doing nothing. Yes, of course it opens me up to a financial disadvantage if I divorce, I'm well aware of this. However for all the people involved in our family at the moment it's the best possible solution. My 50/50 in a divorce should help that. I had a parent die when I was relatively young and that has coloured my view - which is make the best life for the moment you are in, plan for the future but do what you can to facilitate a good 'now'.

@FamilyofAliens, there's no need to bold my name, I'm on the thread.

Why is 'jilted' a slur? do you look down on women who've been abandoned? (serious q)

I am left wondering if you married and then anything you earned was yours how that works with the nitty gritty of life.

Does one decide they are only eating beans on toast each evening so they can save more of their earnings whilst their spouse is cooking steak.

Who cleans the toilet?

Does everyone have separate toilets so you only clean your particular toilet.

Custard mentions that girls are given less priority to education so how does that work?

If someone who hasn’t had the access to education then marries someone who is educated wouldn’t on divorce the woman end up with losing her children if the husband divorced her or would she be subject to dv and abuse from her husband because he knows she had nowhere to go?

@ginnylamb that's a bit North Korea.i know you don't literally mean a 'roof' but jeesh come on. I'd rather give my kids a house deposit and pay their uni fees than collect them from school every day tbh.

Swingofthings - i think you are conflating being unavailable to pick children up from nursery or take days of when they are sick or being present to look after them as being more demanding rather than being inflexible and unable. My DH was very inflexible in his job. It wasnt anymore demanding than my role at that time so he would have been just as able to do a night feed when he was in the uk and i was no longer breastfeeding as i was. In fact he would have said my role was more demanding but incredibly flexible.

@FamilyofAliens, there's no need to bold my name, I'm on the thread.

LOLOL. Calling out someone for bolding a name having just bolded that poster's name.

roundturn.

My circumstances are very similar to yours. My mum died when I was young and it has shaped my view of parenting. One of the reasons why I wanted to stay home whilst DC were young was because I very much wanted to cherish every moment of their childhood.

I think it's hugely important that parents who make financial sacrifices as a result of having children are compensated for this.

I would say, though, that I don't think 50:50 is appropriate where there is enough to provide for everyone to have a decent quality of life and one spouse is a much higher earner because of specific talents/qualifications/exceptionally long hours etc.

I'm partly thinking high-profile footballers, hedge fund managers etc. Have their partners really "enabled" them to earn those amounts?? Was there actually much sacrifice involved??

But a less extreme scenario. I'd expect to share some of my DH's earnings as I do all DC care during the week (because my hours are about half his) but there's no way I'd have been able to achieve the standard of living he provides for us, even had I not had children, so why should I expect him to provide that still if we split?

And SAHMs choosing to stay home against the wishes of their partners - who can't force them to work - is a real thing and I personally know of many examples. I even know two couples where they need the money but DW won't countenance anything other than a stress-free, well paid, school hours, term time, local job (which handily don't exist) so the DH works two jobs... I don't believe 50:50 is appropriate there either.

Am I really the only woman who has raised kids and worked and earned more than her husband? I don’t believe that. Now I am divorcing and have been royally fleeced. As for parenting, we both did it but I, as mum, was always seen by him as the one who was responsible for arranging childcare, doctor's appointments, dentists, hairdressers, buying clothes, arranging play dates etc etc etc. I am now the one left supporting the children 100%.

The courts do not seem to take my situation into account. I never felt I could have the luxury of giving up work - the family relied on my income! So the law suits SAHPs and not me. The trouble is the family courts act with a “broad brush” and none of your personal situation is taken into account. My ex is laughing all the way to the bank. I will be the one supporting my teens through the rest of school, uni and into adult life. At least I am rid of him now.

I do agree there will be lots of circumstances where it isnt fair - but it has to be the starting point of discussion in my opinion - which i thought was the england snd wales position. Rather than trying to prove you should split the marital assests equally the onus is on proving why that isnt fair in these circumstances.

@SoupDragon I know, it made me 'lol' too. Huffing 'Don't @me I'm on the thread!' while bolding me

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.

Over 50,000 women in the UK each year lose their jobs because of maternity discrimination so for many it is not a choice.

www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jul/24/maternity-leave-discrimination-54000-women-lose-jobs-each-year-ehrc-report

What about Adele? Has her ex really earned £75m of her wealth after a three year marriage and a few years’ cohabitation? The idea is absurd. Nearly all her income was made before she ever met him. The law is just wrong.

@wingardium8, I agree 100%.

If my husband gives up work to care for a child I would be livid if we later divorced and he tried to claim he'd enabled my success. What he would have done is saved us a huge childcare bill and lost his salary. I'd expect a fair financial settlement to take that into account but he wouldn't have enabled my success.

Sorry i know this is going to go down like a lead balloon but I think a lot of the women saying they've been instrumental in their husband's success are a bit deluded. Unless he's been at sea or running a global company or at the Hague prosecuting war crimes... You probably could have managed with childcare. Like 99% of families do.

The Adele point is an extreme but excellent example.

If I paid a gardener and a cleaner and a nanny and a DIY person and a PA and an accountant and a carer for elderly parents and a taxi driver for all the things I did then that's ok because they 'work
Similarly, I love how sahp seem to think that working parents don't undertake these responsibilities in addition to working for someone else!
Not every working families have gardeners, accountants and cleaners!

swingofthings I'm not talking about salary but hours worked and priorities. Obviously the ideal are well paid jobs with a genuinely good work life balance, and they do exist.

I've known people (men, but I'm sure women like this exist) who actively avoid going home before their preschoolers are in bed, and who choose to work more hours to avoid having to "help" (the irony) with their own children. Parents who choose to work away when they don't need to, to socialise with colleagues and schmooze senior colleagues in the hope of promotion or simply being well regarded at work but don't know their primary school children's friends names or what night they have football training/ swimming or whatever.

Lots of people have children to show they have it all rather than because they actually want to being up a human being.

Some people should think about their priorities.

There's more to life than climbing the ladder. People's real value doesn't increase with hours spent at the office, whether their earnings do or not.

It doesn't mean being fairly successful career wise is incompatible with being a good parent. However some parents seem to think that the world owes them respect because they work all hours and barely know their children, when in fact that's a choice, and an irresponsible one.

There are too many variables to make a blanket rule. I can't give detail due to the circumstances but 50:50 is not right for my situation. Sometimes people have to accept that actions have consequences. Hopefully it's obvious that this goes way beyond leaving the toilet seat up or even a straightforward affair. Each case with divorce or children needs to be considered individually and the conduct of the parties involved should be a factor. Again I'm not talking petty point scoring, I mean seriously awful behaviour.

swingofthings I work. I do not do everything a sahp does.

Until your children are independent no working parent does everything a sahp does.

Otherwise nobody would pay for childcare.

DexyMidnight has a point. Especially once the youngest is at school. a SAHP is a bit of a luxury in some cases. However, some couples do agree that it is the arrangement that works for them.

Re: childcare though, if DS goes to after school childcare regularly his wheels start to come off. Due to shifts DH and I share the picks up though, and this has meant neither of us has made any career progress for several years, nor do we hope to until he goes to high school.

No but someone has to do it and if you don’t or your dh doesn’t then one of you will be working/commuting 60 hours per week and then coming home to cleaning, gardening, diy etc