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 ?

I should also add OP, the only reason I know the answer is to not get married is because much like you I got burnt when I divorced my ex. I was the breadwinner, looked after the house and I was pregnant. I lost financially but I am so much better off without him. Best thing I ever did was the divorce. Emotionally and financially I am sooo much better off 7 years down the line.

And I am never getting married again.

I am sorry to sound harsh but you are making some very poor choices here and then seem to blame others.

Suggest early legal advice. You may be making inaccurate assumptions about the potential financial settlement and likely outcome should you go to court over this and/or the DC.

If he has worked or now works part time and does much more of the weekday parenting, for example, things might be different than if he has worked FT throughout.

Why should one parent get access to children most days and the other, every other weekend?

If both of them are great parents and the children want to spend time with both patents, why should they not???

@Floundery

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

That’s the point though - 50/50 must be awful for many children. It’s one of those “equal but not fair” outcomes. I know 5 or 6 women who want to leave (mostly) crappy men but are terrified of losing their kids half the time to an inadequate co-parent.

This is the risk everyone takes when they choose to create life with another person. Unless you are able to use a sperm donor then you’re going to have to accept that person parents your children in their own way and unless it’s harmful you can’t prevent it.

Make him take a job - any job - then start divorce proceedings.

@thepeopleversuswork

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.

Marriage is designed as insurance for a woman (or occasionally, man) who chooses to stop working.

It was not designed to facilitate a situation where women bring home the bacon and also do 90% of the childcare, housework and life admin. Which many female breadwinners do.

It’s a lose/lose if you have your own money.

This is a good response.

@Floundery

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

That’s the point though - 50/50 must be awful for many children. It’s one of those “equal but not fair” outcomes. I know 5 or 6 women who want to leave (mostly) crappy men but are terrified of losing their kids half the time to an inadequate co-parent.

I find that a bit so women chose to have babies with men that end up being psychos?….

I struggle to understand why women get into relationships with men and have a baby with them when they know they are feckless…

To the posters saying things may not be split 50/50, in some countries, such as Scotland, this is standard.

@daffodils123

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

Now, come on. A tonne? A tonne of sahms with nannies and staff? You are surely in to tenths of a percentage of the population?

I think the thing is that by getting married you are saying that you are forming a partnership where each person’s contribution is of equal value, even if monetarily equal, because the contributions to a successful relationship aren’t just monetary.

Marriage is in part a legal/financial contract, but it’s essentially not just that. It’s meant to reflect love, care, protection and creating a space where people can be safe together to raise children etc.

So if you don’t want to split 50/50, don’t get married.

The 50/50 split on divorce is to protect people who may be more vulnerable after. It’s not divvying a business based on financial reward.

@MoreStuffingMatron

Make him take a job - any job - then start divorce proceedings.

The OP drip-fed that he has a job and earns decent money, just not as much as her.

So, while he may not be contributing around the house, he certainly isn't the waster she portrayed him as at first.

Unfortunately I'm 37 weeks pregnant again

Surely his behaviour hasn't just happened in the past 37 weeks? That one's on you I'm afraid if you didn't want another child.

Why would be get 50% of assets? If you can prove you are the main breadwinner and have always been - and can prove you paid the £150k deposit - there's no reason why he would get half.

Usual double standard from many posters. If the OP was a man they would not get any sympathy

I agree with you OP.

I personally know at least two women who are in a very similar position to you - they are the ones bringing almost everything to the table for their children, both financially and emotionally. They both feel trapped with utterly useless men because they do not want to end up with 50/50.

@cheeseismydownfall

I agree with you OP.

I personally know at least two women who are in a very similar position to you - they are the ones bringing almost everything to the table for their children, both financially and emotionally. They both feel trapped with utterly useless men because they do not want to end up with 50/50.

Sunk costs fallacy.

If they are that bright, they will be able to do the maths rand work out the difference between giving away 50% of the assets now, and 50% of the assets that will exist in 5, 10, 15 years time.

Well, them's the breaks. All actions have consequences unfortunately.

@MoreStuffingMatron

You missed the bit where she says he has a very good job, just doesn't earn as much as she does.

@cheeseismydownfall

I agree with you OP.

I personally know at least two women who are in a very similar position to you - they are the ones bringing almost everything to the table for their children, both financially and emotionally. They both feel trapped with utterly useless men because they do not want to end up with 50/50.

I know men like this, they feel that divorce settlements unfairly penalise men and are trapped with useless women as a result, especially those with no children.

But I suppose overall the 50/50 starting point is just that, a starting point.

If you are primary carer for the kids, it may not be a 50/50 split. Is he likely to want 50/50 shared care?

I'd view it pragmatically as making sure your children's father is left with enough money to provide the kids with a decent standard of living when they are staying with him going forward. Although you might be (justifiably) royally fucked off with his lazy ass at the moment, it's not going to be good for your DC if their dad isn't financially secure. So really you're paying him to benefit them and make sure he's in a position where he can be a father to them. If he wastes it all going forward, that's on his head not yours.

And going forward, of course, 100% of what you bring in will be yours. And you will get maintenance from him if you are not sharing care 50/50. So things will only get better from now on.

There's no set-in-stone rule about the division of assets or who takes responsibility for the children, although, generally, the assets follow the greatest needs of the children. (e.g. if one parent doesn't earn but will be taking care of the children 80%, they're likely to get considerably more than half).

How things are divided will partly be down to how good your solicitor is and how the two of you decide to proceed with the divorce.

Decide what you believe to be in the best interests of your children and you, how that affects the money, and then find a solicitor who is likely to be able to support that for you. Don't be mean or selfish - if you want your kids to have a positive relationship with their father, then he will need the resources to care for them (even if he then flakes out). If you do most of the childcare and running the house, do you want that to continue? Then you need the money to support that, and he needs enough to accommodate them when he sees them.

Its annoying but the same would apply to a man. So they should change the rules for both. Don't get married unless you are prepared for 50/50 split.

Choices have consequences. Marriage and children have financial consequences; if you split sooner then fewer assets have been created in the marriage, fewer kids affected and you've put up with a lazy person for less time. It's no good grumbling about asset splits when everything was ok a few months ago. If it wasn't ok then you should have been working on how to make your marriage successful then, not bringing more children into it.

Split now or split later, but you clearly aren't in love any more and that's going to create issues for the kids if you don't figure out together what the next steps are. If this is just a tantrum because he hasn't done laundry then sit down and agree reasonable splits of tasks, but if you're genuinely finished (and it sounds like you are) then disregard the money and focus instead on what your new life will look like without him.

I sympathise, OP, but the main thing now is managing the situation you are in.

• don't let the care of the new baby (congratulations, btw) act as some kind of lever for him to make out he is doing more childcare / family stuff than he is. If you limit your maternity leave, don't let him cut his working hours. Don't do shared parental leave. Take the mat leave for yourself and make sure you fully recover from the birth and establish yourself firmly as primary carer. He is likely to pick up a little more basic housework and caring work when the baby is tiny and you are peri-natal - he should do more than basics of course but I doubt he will - and he will probably spin this into a tale, that he believes, that he is a super hands on dad. Watch out for key markers that he might use to prove this to people externally, and neutralise them.

• Beware the sunk costs fallacy. Yes, you might find it galling to come away with less, in real terms, than you put in; but don't attach as much importance to that as to the rest of your life ahead of you, and self determination.