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.

TwllBach That sounds awful. He's not your "DP" really is he, not "D" or a partner in the true sense

Can you make an escape plan for when DS starts school? If he has no sn he might well be able to handle his own food intolerances by then at least - lots of children seem to have a good handle on what they can't eat by 5. Do you really think he'd be awarded 50/50 care?

swingofthings ah that old chestnut - if you love your children it isn't a job...
Regardless of the fact you've given up your income to do it and it'd be a job if you paid someone to do it for you.

I didn't say it was a job, I said it was 50 hours of childcare which it is impossible to do if in a different location to the child earning money doing a "real" job.

It's not a job - it does indeed equate time and effort wise to a job though (some sahp put in more effort than others, so do some employees), which you said it didn't.

Op,
A. You don't understand what marriage is.
B. The problem here is not your grandparents marriage, it's the fact that they separated but didn't divorce.

So it seems the law suits SAHPS but not those who have kids and continue to work. Maybe this should be spelled out clearly before the marriage ceremony

I'm a ft wohp who earns the larger salary. I knew that upon entering into marriage, if it all went wrong the starting position is 50/50 split of assets and I'd be really surprised if you didn't know that too. In many cases it's the only reason people marry - to assure their investment either in time and effort or money, particularly where children are involved. My dh's sizeable deposit was the only reason I could afford to get on the housing ladder. He also knew that upon marrying me, I'd be entitled to half. We entered into a contract, that's essentially all marriage is. If you want to keep your own stake in a relationship, don't get married. But don't argue for a change in the law that is there to protect women and children.

To be honest, even if there aren’t children, it’s still common for one half of a couple to make sacrifices for the other, especially in some careers

@DexyMidnight

Stormi having a disabled child that needs full time care isn't a personal choice, what a horrible thing to say.

Now you are misphrasing what Stormei said, they said
That’s not exactly personal choice is it. My life was all rosy and easy prior to a disabled child, but it blew options out the water.

Are you deliberately being goady?

They thought a 70/30 split to my mum was fairer as she had no pension. Dad agreed straight away.

@nameusernameuser, would that 70/30 stand permanently? So if your parents decided to divorce in their sixties/seventies, your mum would still get 70/30? Sorry if a daft question, just wondered.

My career went on hold while I cared for our young children, did his? No he did not. I did what was best for our family and even now I’m back working in my field I could be earning horrific amounts more than I am if I hadn’t taken years off and working in hotels for shifts so damn fucking straight I’ll be taking my fair share if we divorce.

Even now I do significantly more childcare and housework than him because he works long hours to earn a good wage for us, if I just flat out refused to do that he would have to give up his lovely wages!

YABVU and your views are very anti-women. Of course it's normal for a MOTHER to look after her own children and this means not earning money and supporting her husband/partners career to increase the familys earning. Of course things should be split 50/50. You are insane.

There are problems with the system in the UK but this isn't it.

I'm assuming that you have never divorced in the UK and you don't have kids.

There are lots of parents (usually mum) who end up playing family roles that can not be quantified in terms of money. For example, you can't get childcare for children with disabilities so one parent becomes SAHM or both parents have to go part-time. Most people would opt for the former so there's no break in earnings and it's easier to find one job than two that have to be opposite shifts to each other.

When couples divorce, the non-resident parent (usually Dad) isn't usually made to contribute 50% of school/nursery fees. Sometimes switching private to state is fine but it's unfair on the child to be forced to switch say in y11 because it's slap bang in the middle of GCSE course and the local school might teach a different board in a completely different order. Nursery allows parents to work but it is the RP who is responsible for fees after a divorce. RP is usually the lower earner so is it fair that they are the only ones who pay when they are on a lower salary already? The government help but 30% of the nursery fees on a more modest income is still a lot. Nursery for one child is £1000+ in many places. Nannies are even more so how naive of you to judge

House deposits can be protected already so anybody putting more into the purchase can protect it already. Say you are buying a £300k house and one person puts up £100k and the other is legally 50:50 . That person would get £100k plus 50% of the rest while the first person would get 50% after 200k goes to person 1. I will mention this to my kids if they buy with a partner.

Why Dante, are you? Didn't realise you were into that.

No one has said having a disabled child is a 'personal choice', nor anything that could be construed as remotely approximate.

Suggesting that anyone has said otherwise is pretty sick. No one has those kinds of abhorrent views on this thread and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

I knew very little about divorce before I divorced myself. Plus times have changed and divorce is different for my generation compared to my parents’ eg clean break preferred, 50:50 starting point, spousal support rare.

People still say and I’ve seen it on here, the woman is entitled to stay in the house until the children are 18. Rubbish! As I said earlier in the thread, I lost far more than my exh on divorce including the house and he didnt want to see our young dc nor pay for them and he still doesn’t.

Anyway point being, I don’t think you can predict or prepare as every couple’s set up is different. I would have been much better off unmarried.

@pikapikachu well that’s interesting about deposits - I am certainly not getting my deposit back. That money has been lost due to the stupid 50:50 split rule. Nobody ever suggested to me I could protect my very substantial deposit.

OP you appear to have a very simplistic view on life. Most of the time, the decision for one parent to SH is made by both parents as it is the most sensible thing. Some people have jobs that require a lot of travel or very long hours. They may also have careers that require them to drop everything at a moments notice. The ONLY way to manage in some situations is for one parent to give up working outside the house to enable this sort of work life. Usually the mother but many times the father will have to give up if the family is to function on any practical level. Yes, one could hire in 24 hour nannies, cooks and drivers but let's get real, most people don't want to live like this. Often BOTH parents want one parent at least to be involved in the day to day running of the household and parenting. Anyway, why do you get to decide? If OTHER PEOPLE choose to live with one person sacrificing their career and therefore having to share assets, what in heavens sake has that got to do with you? Perhaps you need to stop being so concerned with how others choose to run their lives.

I fully agree that the OP’s views are actually linked with where she is living (or her parents and grand parents are living).

I would make a guess that this is France (the inheritance situation sounds exactly what would happen there).
The difference though is

• most women work and work full time. Very very few will have taken years out to raise their dcs. Instead they will have carried on with their full job like they were before.
• childcare is much much cheaper than here. I personally have never heard someone say that they had to stop work because of the cost of childcare
• if the woman is a SAHP and has stopped work for raise the dcs, this is taken into account and the other partner will have to pay maintenance to compensate (for ever and independently to child maintenance). This would be even more the case if the child was disabled for example.
• private schools like the ones in the U.K. don’t exist but the NRP will have to support their child through Uni. France is very procedural BUT once he courts have decided the payment it WILL happen. No escaping the way a lot of fathers do here. (Well some do but not to that extend)

Basically, you can see how the environment can make one rule ok in one country and not in another.
Most of my friends there have some sort of split the way the OP describes and it works well for them. Incl though divorce. But that’s because they have all been working and haven’t been stopped in their progression the way women are here.
Me, on the other side, I’m very happy for the ‘putting everything into the pot’ attitude in the uk. Because otherwise I would be left with absolutely nothing after a divorce/death. (See high cost of childcare, illness, working part time, no pension etc etc)

But how other people live their lives is relevant. Because the law is designed to favour SAHPs not working parents, mothers in particular, who often do more than 50% of domestic work AS WELL as working outside the home. It seems to me being a SAHP is a luxury most can’t afford and most jobs are not quite as overdemanding as you imagine.

I also know several male colleagues whose wives have refused point blank to work and the earning partners have been stuck having to support them.

NotBeingRobbed are you sure you are hearing the full story from your male colleagues? Are they the types who stay at their desks unnecessarily til 7 or 8pm to avoid "helping" with dinner, bath and bed? Do they go out with colleagues after work for drinks and networking? Do they volunteer for or cheerfully accept week long residential training courses or trips to the new York office? Do they ever take parental leave when their children are ill? A lot of men seem to think their wife should return to work after maternity leave on the same pay as before but that this should not impact them whatsoever, and they should continue with the exact same work life as before they became a father, except possibly staying later to get out of dealing with a tired child or two in the evening...

I also know several male colleagues whose wives have refused point blank to work and the earning partners have been stuck having to support them.

If the men were that unhappy with their lot, they could divorce the wife!

Spot on, Ginny. A lot of these men who insist of their wives going back to work have zero intent to assist with all of the childcare arrangements and rushing to and fro that working full time with children entails. They also do a LOT of "working" late after pregnancy/children born.

I also know several male colleagues whose wives have refused point blank to work and the earning partners have been stuck having to support them

I know a 2 couples like this and in both cases the men do their fair share. The DWs are my actual friends, whose children are teens and they refuse to go back to work. The DHs don't want to get divorced due to how much they would lose financially (I happen to work with one of the DHs) they live basically separated in the same household.

Dillydally, do the DHs write the lists of the things that have to be done, or do they leave that to the wives? Do they oversee the kids appointments, or just take the kids the the appointment the wife set up?

There's doing "your fair share" then there's actually carrying your weight.

We were 50/50. My husband eg used to call childcare agenices. He was first home from work by about 6pm most nights (I earned more). if a child was sick he was usually the first port of call. He eg took them to the dentist for 17 years and I didn't; at one point he did all the washing (we had 3 under 5s in cloth nappeis so an awful lot of washing) and we both worked full time.

I think there should be more provision for paternity leave, so both parents can share care in the early months, without it being an either/or situation.

There should also definitely be way more support for childcare costs, free childcare for everyone, free after school and breakfast clubs, and free cresches should be commonplace in workplaces.

The current system seems set up to pretend children don't exist! Weird.

Woops sorry thought I was on the 50/50 parental leave thread... But this sort of applies here too

I think it's interesting that the consesus on this thread is that a 50/50 financial split is fair because women often take on more of the parenting duties and sacrifice their career progression and earning potential.

But on the other thread currently running, the consesus is that a compulsory 50/50 split in parental leave (that'd go towards balancing things a bit) is a terrible idea for various reasons.

I know each thread has different posters with different opinions but it's been eye opening.