AIBU to thinking that I wasn't really financially controlling?

[WantingMoreFromLife]

My ex and I were together for 15+ years. During this time he didn't work for about half that time despite me constantly asking (begging) him to get a job. I paid for the majority of mortgage payments, house bills, groceries & all child care costs as I worked full time plus had my own small business on the side. I also did the majority of housework, cleaning and cooking.
My ex was pretty emotionally abusive which in the final years turned out to be MH issues (not an excuse for bad behaviour, I know). He also smoked funny stuff every day which I funded the majority of.

He is now saying he's expecting half of everything with our settlement and claims that I was financially controlling which makes me guilty of being abusive as well. I did control the finances but we didn't really want for anything much. I paid for most things we needed and a good portion of things I/he wanted. Sometimes I said no because there was absolutely no reason for him not to be working and I felt that giving him funds whenever he wanted them, was just encouraging him to not get a job.
Was I financially controlling in this situation?

BeepBeeeep, I think as you do but I always seem to get the raw end of the deal. He wants to take half my super which isn't a very high amount (

Not sure if it different in your state, but most mums I know complain that divorced dads opt for 50/50 (usually granted) just to avoid having to pay maintenance. Not cos they madly want the kids.
So unless WA (assuming you are in WA) is different to east coast, you should not have to pay him.

DemiGorgon, I'm not in WA but I did the CSA calculator based on our wages and the only scenario where he doesn't get child support from me is if he only has them one day per week. He is a reasonably good father to the kids now that they are older and he would take them 100% if I let him.

His refusal to get a job and making you work two jobs could be seen as financial abuse, he was living off you and refusing to contribute to joint expenses.

I really don’t think you need to worry about being seen as financially controlling.

But I do worry that you will pay dearly for the mistakes you’ve made.

Also this: he's in the family house and the mortgage is fully in my name Why is he in your house?

I think you need to get (more) legal advice ASAP to ensure you don’t get screwed.

I was also wondering, you say things like I’ve agreed to pay for the children’s uniforms, school fees, etc.

Who are you agreeing this with?

I think unless you are getting legal advice stop agreeing things.

Sorry you are in this difficult position. x

To answer a few questions:
He's in the family house because I had to escape. He had escalating MH problems where he had delusions about me cheating. I was falling apart after two years of interrogations, isolation, hyper vigilance and stalking. House is partially in his name. It was easier for me to leave - he wouldn't leave because he has no insight and doesn't believe there is anything wrong with him.
We were planning on doing the whole settlement thing without going down the legal route. Remembering that he's delusional (psychosis confirmed by his psych) and believes that I am the daughter of satan, he is upset that things won't be 50/50 split because he believes I have been so bad to him that I shouldn't get more than he does. It's very difficult because you can't argue with delusions so we will probably have to waste more money (my money of course) going down the legal route.
I will do anything for my kids. I'm used to paying for them and I don't mind committing to this at all. He may wind up in hospital for a period down the track with his MH and it will all fall back on me anyway. In any case, the things I'm agreeing to are things I have verbally said while going down the 'non-legal' route. Legal route obviously changes everything.
I guess another fear I have is that the courts may decide that because he's five years older, has MH issues and had a heart attack a couple of years ago, everything may go in his favour despite the history.

Nope you weren’t controlling.
But it is fair that he is getting half of what you BOTH have. The same way that a SAHW would get half of what her DH had ‘earnt’.

The fact he took you for granted and did fuck all is a different issue.

If OP was male then Mners would accuse him of lying or exaggerating about many parts of that picture and that legally of course the lower earning partner is entitled to 50:50 of all assets: suck it up.

OP will have to fight it out in the courts sounds like they can afford it

I wouod get legal advice if I was you, even if you are not planning to go down the legal route.
Yes u Ned to know where you stand and is actually a fair settlement. Even more so he is properly delusional and will keep telling you you are unfair etc..l
The fact you had to check that what he was saying about you being financially controlling says a lot about the influence he still has now and how he can sow doubt in your mind about what is fair/acceptable etc.... (and whether it’s in your advantage to go to Courts if his demands are crazy)

I guess technically you were 'controlling the finances' because you were the one earning the money, but realistically, what else could you possibly have done, as a responsible adult and parent?

I think I'd sidestep that label altogether as far as you can: certainly don't attempt to defend your conduct to him. The less direct contact the better, I'd say.

I think with 50:50 child split, neither of you would be expected to fund the other, but I'm no expert.

His gravy train has hit the buffers so he'll say anything to anyone. Doesn't mean you have to listen. I'm glad you got the house tied up so he can't easily take you to the cleaners! Also, the house is the children's home, so it's highly unlikely you'll be forced to sell it from under them. You might have to buy out his share, which no doubt means 50% in his mind but I'd be inclined to start from 10%. You probably will have to pay him something to go away, I'm afraid.

In the UK (where I see you're not) the starting point for dividing assets is 50:50 but not, I think, for such a short marriage. I would imagine you have loads of evidence for how you had to spend to compensate for his shortcomings as provider and parent!

But the other line to pursue is the emotional abuse, for sure.

The children are the most important people in all this and their views about where they want to live and how they want to divide their time will be listened to if they are old enough to express them. Do you think his substance abuse makes it doubtful he will be awarded unsupervised contact?

I'm so glad you're beginning to be free; good luck with the rest of the process. I trust you have a good lawyer!

@YeOldeTrout, the difference though is that we know from research that women tend to overestimate what they do in the house whereas women tend to minimise what they do in the house.

So when a man says he is doing a lot, we can doubt it’s the case. But when a woman is saying she is doing all the housework etc.. we can also assume she is and is probably doing more.

I agree about the 50/50 as a starting point though.
And the fact that her DH has health problems so that would be taken into account in the settlement too because he might well never be able to work again due his health problems, incl MH (and it might well be that this was the issue in the first place rather than laziness - many time, MH issues aren’t diagnosed for a long long time)

"Research" describes populations not individuals.
We only hear OP's side.
I hope the right thing happens.
But I can't tell OP what that is (either).

Myriade, from everything I know about Tenants in Common properties, I am fairly sure the unequal percentage will remain as it should but it's terrifying all the same. There's not a lot of money now because I couldn't leave the house and could only get PT working from home the last couple of years. I came into the relationship with about $150k - he had nothing.... literally. If the Tenants in Common stuff is as it should be, I'll walk away with about $230k and he'll have $130k + his insurance payout.
I know this stuff isn't fair to anyone but I will fight to make sure I haven't wasted the last 20 years financially.

If you're in Australia then it is completely different to the UK as after 2 years of living together you became a defacto couple with similar protection to a married couple. Marrying then compounds this.

So although you might be Tenants in Common, he can argue for a larger share, and will quite likely be successful unless you signed a cohabiting agreement and a prenup.

You need a solicitor. ASAP.

Does the fact that it is a short marriage go in your favour at all? Or do they take the relationship before into account?

Absolutely do not go down this road without legal advice. Sorry OP but that is insane. You know that you have made bad decisions in the past concerning him. Doing this without legal advice will just be another one.

Aside from the divorce can he look after your kids 50% of the time if he is in the midst of psychosis?

You need to see a sollicitor to know exactly where you stand.

Don’t rely on what he says, whether he is pushing to make you feel guilty and doubting yourself. Don’t rely on what you think is right. Or whatever knowledge you have have. It’s a good starting point but there is a reason why a sollicitor has many years if training.

Ah sorry just seen you're in Australia. It's probs a totally different system.