To think working women shouldn't have to split 50/50 when divorcing?

[threeisacharm18]

I've name changed for this.

I'm seriously thinking about leaving my man-child of a husband. We have 2 kids, I'm the bread winner, work full time , paid 150k house deposit and do almost all housework, sorting out the kids, home admin etc... DH only ever does things if I ask him to. He's not proactive. Never takes the kids anywhere unless I point him to things to do or book it.

As I think about leaving him I'm increasingly annoyed at the idea of splitting custody and the assets 50/50 when he has never brought 50% to the table.

Why should working mothers have to be short-changed in marriage and in divorce?

Back when men were the breadwinners you could argue the wives' compensation was a husband who took care of the money. These days it feels like women put in 80-90% and equality upon split favours the partner.

AIBU in thinking this? And if not, how do women in this scenario protect themselves ?

By the sounds of it 😂

@TableFlowerss

By the songs if it ugh a new baby on the way, a full time job and two other children, you’ll need all the help you can get!

This bloke won't provide it though, will he? He's effectively just a 4th child for the OP to look after.

OP - You knew all of this when you chose to have a 3rd baby with this man. Why did you keep having babies with a waster who contributes nothing (not just talking financially here - running the home and childcare would be just as valuable)?

It never ceases to amaze me what people will put up with from their partners.

Baby no 3 wasn't planned and was conceived during a period where I spoke to him (not for the first time) about his lack of proactivity. He started to do better but we are back now in the same situation.

He does work and makes decent money but not as much as me . I subsidise his half of our expenses and household bills as a result.

Anyway, it's been helpful hearing different perspectives.

If he has any custody of the children, he will need half the current assets in order to establish a second home for them. Divorce will force him to work/get his own income to then sustain it.

I say cut your losses and divorce now. 50/50 is a starting point as it is the maximum he will get. 50% of what you have now will still be less than 50% of what you will have later when the children are older. Think about it. How much more money will be in your pension savings in ten years time? Your savings accounts? Your investments? Your house equity? Do the divorce now and you will keep 100% of what you earn and save from that day onwards.

@sweeneytoddsrazor

Too late now but why on earth are you on baby number 3 if you feel like this, he hasn't just become a man child, you have facilitated this, will you be happy if he only has dc eow? You still won't be getting a break and it will still be you doing, everything.

I agree. I'll never really get my head round while women do this. Sometimes I think it's because they want more children and are using what they believe to be the only available man to have them. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

Why*, not while.

If you are a female breadwinner and bring the capital it’s crazy to get married and I would never recommend a woman in this position do this

Utter nonsense. I am the higher earner and have been for a good while but I certainly wasn't when I was on maternity leave or had a lower paid working from home job for a while when DDs were small, or when I went back to college for a year and DH supported me. That's how it should work, you support one another. It is rare for couples to earn the same as one another, someone usually earns more than the other. And although DH earns less than me, his pension will be better than mine as it is based on average salary. By pooling our incomes and living together we can afford much more and there are economies of scale, plus the tax benefits.

Obviously this isn't a reason not to divorce if other things are going on, but it's not a reason not to get married in the first place.

I agree. I'll never really get my head round while women do this. Sometimes I think it's because they want more children and are using what they believe to be the only available man to have them. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

Agree. It is somehow always an accident and there is never any reference to considering termination, it's almost like abortion just doesn't exist. I can only assume the women in this situation just want more children more than they care about an unsupportive partner

So the problem isn't the money. If a couple are both working then the bills should be split proportionately regardless of who is the higher earner. If the problem is him being proactive in the house or with the dc, but he will do it if you ask, then you must think carefully about what would make your life easier, writing him out a list of things to do or separation and you doing the things.

@ElftonWednesday
Good post. I was thinking along same lines but couldn’t put the words down. You’ve said it perfectly.

And of course this happening to you is unfair but it wasn’t unfair when Men had to do it
What a coincidence.

You know there have been some pretty useless non working wives and SAHM who got half too? It’s like you assume every non working married woman has been the ideal old fashioned housewife.

You need to reframe it in your head - if you divorce him now, he only gets 50/50 of what you have accumulated (together, albeit with you putting the bulk of the effort) up to this point. You get to keep the vast bulk of anything you accumulate subsequently.

The whole, "he's lazy, doesn't contribute" thing is the reason you divorce. It's not part of the decision making on assets.

Of course, you have to ask yourself whether he WILL get 50/50 because if he's not going to have the DC 50% of the time, it may well make sense for you to keep more than 50% of the assets to accomodate the fact that you will remain the primary carer.

Sorry but a ton of men have to split their assets with SAHM who rely on nannies & outsourced childcare which their husband pays for! Same argument applies to them too

@Bujinkhal

By not getting married.

An acquaintance of mine split with her partner about 10 years ago. But they're not married, they own the house jointly, and she's afraid to move from her 5 bed Victorian house with huge garden to somewhere a bit more manageable because he'll claim 50% of the proceeds. "Not getting married" doesn't necessarily solve all problems.

MereDintofPandiculation
That's because they chose to own a house jointly though.
If your friend wanted to own the house based on their proportional contributions then they could have chosen to own the property in that way.

Your friend could have sold the property when they split, taken the respective share of the property and then had a clean break.
If she's chosen to remain in the property, it doesn't change the fact it is a jointly owned property so if the house price has gone up then both owners benefit.

It's about choices at the end of the day.

Spade. Patio.

A stranger from MN to provide you with an alibi.

Sorted.

It’s not a 50:50 starting point, it’s “the needs of the parties”, in particular their housing needs. This depends on a lot, including where the children live most of the time, who earns more, etc. All assets are, however, usually in the pot. Re the children it’s the children’s needs that are said to be considered, rather than those of the parents.

However I agree the solution to not wanting to share assets is not to get married.

Absolutely what’s sauce for the goose etc, but only if comparing like with liked. OP feels she’s being shafted because she does all childcare, housework etc on top of being the main earner. A father would only have a similar complaint if he did likewise.

You need to reframe it in your head - if you divorce him now, he only gets 50/50 of what you have accumulated (together, albeit with you putting the bulk of the effort) up to this point. You get to keep the vast bulk of anything you accumulate subsequently

What if you are divorcing on the cusp of retirement, so 50:50 means the person who contributed 25% to spending during the marriage, and who will continue in their 100K a year job for several years after the divorce, ends up wealthier from their first pay-day following the divorce? And the one who paid 75% of the bills, and has no future earning ability, has their retirement income over the next 30 years reduced by a third, and will not be able to do things they would otherwise have done in retirement? (BTW, in this scenario needs are not an issue, the person receiving the money won't ever spend half the money they've saved themselves, they only want the extra for the satisfaction of contemplating a bigger investment balance.)

Asking for a friend.

Children aren’t assets to be shared between their owners! Contact is for the children- not the parents reward for washing all their pants!

An acquaintance of mine split with her partner about 10 years ago. But they're not married, they own the house jointly, and she's afraid to move from her 5 bed Victorian house with huge garden to somewhere a bit more manageable because he'll claim 50% of the proceeds. "Not getting married" doesn't necessarily solve all problems.

But she chose to enter into a different type of legal contract - joint house ownership.

People make choices, choices have consequences. That's life.

Also - she's an idiot if she stays in that house. The longer she's in it, the bigger his gain.

However I agree the solution to not wanting to share assets is not to get married.

It's not the getting married that causes the sharing, it's the combination of (a) getting married, (b) saving more and (c) divorcing. Take any one of these away and you don't have a problem.

It's not clear-cut that getting married leads to you paying a large chunk of money to someone who has made you miserable. If it was, fewer people would do it.

And bear in mind that not getting married can mean ditching the relationship, being unmarried and together isn't always a legally available option.

@sweeneytoddsrazor

So the problem isn't the money. If a couple are both working then the bills should be split proportionately regardless of who is the higher earner. If the problem is him being proactive in the house or with the dc, but he will do it if you ask, then you must think carefully about what would make your life easier, writing him out a list of things to do or separation and you doing the things.

But why should I have to write a list for an adult? I don't understand infantilising him further. I'd rather leave and know that I'm doing this on my own than to carry the burden or another adult.

I'm fortunate to have family around to help so I don't really need him . If I was on my own then being pragmatic I'd consider this option

An to the poster who mentioned termination - that's not a choice everyone wants to make and I think it's best to respect people's views on the matter one way or the other

Surely this is not about mothers versus fathers. There are lazy people of both sexes that walk away from marriages benefiting for doing very little.

The answer is simple. Don't get married. Although in my opinion the law needs revisiting!