to think I’m not being unreasonable (divorce)

[BettyBroderick]

We are divorcing. Kids are pre teens, some mild disabilities.
My pension pot is 400
His pension pot is 725
Cash/shares 40
I’m SAHM, no income
He earns 85k
House equity 500
Mortgage -50

I want to keep the house, with no mortgage,
Not so bothered about anything else. Is that fair?

He wants to sell the house to release the equity and us both buy somewhere each, mine outright, and him using his as a deposit and then remortgaging. He wants the kids 50:50 so no child maintenance and also wants a clean break. We are both 50.

I think he’s not being fair. AIBU?

Even if the kids aren't shared 50/50 the amount you would be 'paid' for being a full time carer would be derisory. You could dog sit for more money. Your current lifestyle is based on the fact that he lives there too so is invested in making it somewhere he wants to be. Once he's out I'm afraid you are on your own. Men tend to forget all the heavy lifting and see SAHMs as a financial drain. The second the kids go to uni they want no more supporting them. And they resent it when the kids are at school too. Is that what you want? To have no money?

YANBU at all. You have made a massive sacrifice in terms of earning potential and pension provision by leaving the labour market to raise the children.

And what sor of income would your career have given younow if you hadn't given it up to care for the children?

But she left the labour market before children were a factor. OP has confirmed that she still could have worked, in spite of her disabiliity, but gave it up, even though there were then no children to look after. It sounds like her ex-husband would have been solely providing for both of them, with her not having to work, if they hadn't subsequently had children - so if anything, he was the one who originally made the massive sacrifice, if there was one.

How old are your kids? You say preteen but 11 and 12 is preteen and so is 7 and 8 but both age groups have vastly different needs of a parent.
Is they are older preteens than 50/50 care could work to everyone’s benefit as it would give you time to retrain alongside working.

I think WeBuiltThisCityOnSausageRoll speaks a lot of sense.

The accident that limited your work potential was nothing to do with your kids or marriage so will soon be none of his concern, in all honesty I think you are fleecing him. It's tough for you but it's not really appropriate for nothing to change for you while he's left renting.

@Incrediblytired, you've summed up how I feel about this.

What OP is suggesting is not that far off a 50:50 split, probably not even 60:40 in her favour. She has a disability and is caring for disabled child(ren) of the marriage.

I think it's fair and I think that OP is not BU.

This notion that he's going to take on 50:50 parenting... any way you can put that to the test while you're under the same roof? Is there somewhere you can go for alternate weeks, your parents or a sibling, even a friend? You need to force him to recognise firstly what sole parenting for 50% of the time means, and then demonstrate how he plans to make that work.

That's why I think you must sit down and carve up the CHILDRENS expenses and also the things that need to be done for them. Make a list of ALL of the things that need doing and paying for. Add everything for now and until they leave home.

Once he's staring down the barrel of using up every ounce of his leave on their holidays he might revise his ideas - but do you never want a holiday or break either? Let's say you get a job doing something you are good at snd enjoy.. how will you keep it? No one gives that much leave. A casual job will be low paid and possibly very boring for you.

So what about things like children's clubs? After school clubs? Who takes them to sport or music practice? Who buys their sports gear or musical instruments? Can you do some quid pro quo's eg he pays their uni fees. Their dentists. You take them to their medical appointments?

This is about so much more than the house. Let go of the house. You're moving whatever happens and as there's no stamp duty currently (before March) it's a great time. Embrace it. You have no choice.

Although the OP's original decision to stop work was motivated by her disability, and she could now start work at NMW, not being able to do this in the interim (and hence progress up the earning ladder) is because of her joint decision with her H for her to prioritise her DCs and their SEN, and also because of their particular needs (no suitable affordable after school care for example).
So it's not true to say that she could have been working and the decision not to work was her choice/motivated by disability. If not for the DCs, she could have been back in the workforce by now.

If her STBX actually took on 50% care with, as I've said, a full time SEN nanny, she could work on the days he has them (full time those days) and move up the payscale.

I don't think those saying "you aren't being fair" have any idea what it's like to have a failure of wraparound care for a SEN child.

I think you need to move to house you cn afford to run without child maintenance for a start.

Cannot understand the replies on this thread.. there seems to be a lot of bitter people here. I don't think you are in anyway unreasonable and think you should fight for as much as you can get. As you have said it is highly unlikely he will do anything near 50:50. You have a fairly large pot here. really am baffled by the replies

Who is being bitter and why are you baffled? Even if he ends up taking no responsibility at all for the children, why is it fair for him to have to give up all of his own financial security built up to date at the age of 50 and then somehow manage to use his nice-but-not-amazing salary to support two adults, one of whom he no longer has any relationship with - seemingly until she retires, long after their children are adults?

I think a lot of people must have misread his salary as £850K. Either way, some seem to be taking the view of 'big nasty man with all the power' and 'poor little woman who can't possibly be expected to manage financially on her own'. Once the children are fairly provided for, we either have equality in rights and responsibilities between men and women or we don't - which do we want?

I'm sorry but I hate that woman think they have s right to a man's money after seperation. You need we whatever you put in.

The only way he earned all that money is by not doing any childcare.

unreasonable and money grabbing, you can get a job

@crimsonlake
Wow
That was an amazing amount of help

The defence that OP only didn't go back to work because of the kids is tenuous, as she had already decided to give up work. It's just speculation. It just does not sit right that he could be the only earner for all this time only for her to turn around and expect the lion's share of it. There is a middle ground where she is able to provide a home for their kids provided for by him, but without it being that house and causing him to not be able to afford a house for himself. I sympathise with OPs position but really think she needs to accept that her choices have led to the necessity to compromise at this point. She cannot afford that house and he shouldn't be at such a massive disadvantage so she can keep it.

I interviewed three solicitors and went with the one who said I would quite likely get 60/40.
Don’t forget you are paying the piper.
My divorce cost me £7.5k 12 years ago, so a considerable amount of money which I expect will be double now , so choose wisely
She was also well recommended by a friend who used her in two of his divorces and came out of it really well and keeping his Florida villa twice.
As I said previously, the split was roughly 72/28

Does he realise that 50/50 means he has then did half of all school holidays? Can your dc access childcare to make that possible? If not he will be paying you some maintenance whether he likes it or not!

*them for not then did

You don't need a 500k house, but what you do need is to secure some kind of financial future for yourself when your dc are older and you are looking at retiring. If you are planning on keeping the house until the dc leave home and then sell to provide a pension pot then fair enough, but in your position, not being able to work, I'd be more concerned with a pension. I'd opt for a smaller house that you and your dc will still be comfortable in.

I appreciate you've given up earning potential to raise your dc, so that should be taken into account, but not being able to work due to an accident, isn't something your stbxh needs to take into account. As horrid as it sounds, that's not his problem. His dc are.

You might get the house until your youngest turns 18 & then you'll need to sell to release the equity.

If we split the equity down the middle, I’d get £250k which wouldn’t buy anything and still enable the kids to stay in their schools. He could though, cos he has mortgaging capacity and £250k is a decent deposit, even with pension equalisation.

I'm confused. He is not suggesting 50/50 split of equity (which is 450 isn't it?) but a split in your favour so you get a place outright. He is recognising the work you've done as SAHM by doing this and recognising that you can't get a mortgage to provide a home for the kids like able bodied mums would have to do. I think his split is quite fair and I think you may need to reconsider 50/50 as that can actually be experienced as stable by kids.

Honestly, lots of these posters are taking rubbish as far as the law is concerned.
Your relative future earning potentials will be taken into account, as will the effect your disability has on your earning potential. The fact that you stopped working before you had children is neither here nor there.

Your husband's financial responsibilities towards you will end if and when you implement a clean break settlement or at a date decided by the court. It certainly isn't the case that it ends with the decree absolut, unless the financial settlement mandates this. This is not to say you will necessarily be awarded spousal support, but it is quite incorrect to say that he will have no financial responsibilities towards you once you are divorced.

Generally, the starting point is a 50:50 division of assets. I would imagine that your husband is likely to be awarded less than 50% due to his future earning potential compared to yours.
T

Unfortunately you have to accept that you won't stay in the same house. Lots of DC move when their parents divorce, so I wouldn't think avoiding it is enough of a reason for one party to walk out with 100s of £ more than the other.
With the equity you have you should both be able to buy something, even if not as nice than currently.

If you go to court you can be sure that he will bring up the fact that you stopped working before the DC arrived, ie you didn't stop to better his career. This is important as you can't really claim now that him being a high earner was at your detriment and ask for maintenance.
I feel like you are seeing it as "he'll be able to get x in the future because he earns more, so to compensate I should get y", if that is the case I believe you are wrong, you are not entitled to equality (still keeping in mind you didn't stop working to raise DC / to help his career).

As for the comments saying surly he won't be able to do 50/50
He ain’t got to earning 85k by picking the kids up at 3.15 3 times a week and others. Well I earn more than that and do pickups 4 times a week, DH also earns more and does all drop offs, so stop assuming.
HOWEVER I agree with PP saying to make sure to put the details in writing, including school holidays, sickness, appointments, buying school uniform, etc.

It depends on the jurisdiction OP but spousal maintenance might not be on the cards so how would you fund the day to day expenses OP?

Regarding pension pots, these aren't readily accessible so equalisation using these may involve assignment of the rights on retirement so pl don't be surprised if your solicitor points out some constrsiaints to your aspirations.

Good luck.

That's exactly the attitude that helps to fuel all of the misogynistic 'jokes' about ex-wives bleeding men dry. It's so sad when divorce has to end in hatred, especially as there are children who will be caught up in the middle of the acrimony

I agree, it goes way beyond fueling jokes though. Sadly I'm of an age where I seem to be witnessing more divorces then weddings and it never ceases to amaze me how some 'friends' are happy to advise a divorcing women to 'go for everything' and cheer from the sidelines as the inevitable car crash unfolds. I have seen far too many failed marriages that could have ended amicably turn in to decade long toxic shitfights that fuck up the kids. It's depressing