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 ?

Have you given him an ultimatum, as in he steps up to the "mental load" and starts noticing things and doing them without waiting to be asked and supervised (aka adulting) or he is at grave risk of being divorced in a split that recognises his lesser input and financial contributions?

At 37wks pregnant your hormones are peaking and you're also near the end of a 9 month long physical marathon. You need increasing support and input from him and he needs to step up and provide it. "Just tell me what to do and I'll do it," is not an appropriate response from anyone over the age of 12, really. You're his wife, not his supervisor!

I'd show him that French cartoon strip and tell him he has until the new baby is 3 months old to get his act as a husband and father together. That's time enough. Meanwhile, get some legal advice over what a realistic sharing of assets would be. 50:50 is always a notional starting point, but that's all it is.

english.emmaclit.com/2017/05/20/you-shouldve-asked/

@Viviennemary

I think exes being allowed to raid pension pots is pretty bad and very unfair.

Really? Even stay at home mums?

@toomuchlaundry

But you got pregnant again knowing what he was like

@toomuchlaundry

Pot. Kettle. Black.

That was an unhelpful kick which at this point, the OP doesn't need as she will likely be kicking herself already.

Problem with household/mental workload split when divorcing is that’s pretty hard to evidence isn’t it.

I’d try to separate out thinking about 50\50 child care arrangement and the finances. Although they’re obviously linked, the are separate issues.

@Viviennemary

I think exes being allowed to raid pension pots is pretty bad and very unfair.

So you think that women should have to live in poverty in old age because they were SAHMs?

Count yourself lucky: me and my ex don't have kids, he made money before meeting me, I made mine after meeting him. I had to pay HIM out! Can you believe that? And he has way more money than me. The law works in funny ways. The worst bit for me is that I never wanted to get married in the first place but we got to a point where it seemed to make sense. It didn't. More fool me. If you have money, don't get married.

@PurpleOkapi

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.

There were plenty of women who were crap with the kids and household labour in those days, just like there are now. I don't think they deserved 50% of their husbands' assets any more than your husband deserves 50% of yours. It was never a just system. But it's only recently that the inherent injustice has become likely to favor the man rather than the woman, so most women never saw a problem with it until now.

I would challenge the assertion that "plenty" of women were crap at home. Every piece of research I've ever seen on domestic work shows both men and women overestimating mens actual domestic contribution. More interestingly even where the woman is the higher earner the woman's domestic contribution remains higher.

The marriage contract needs to be treated like any other 50/50 contract - assets accrued jointly are 50/50 if the business is dissolved irrespective of which partner earns the money. Pension pots are quite rightly counted as assets. That will always seem unfair where one side is a complete waster but its certainly not unfair to count SAHPs as equal partners in the contract.

The inherent system still largely favours men in the long term as even when women continue to work outside the home, they take the career hit simply by bearing children.

This is why the mantra on here that women simply MUST get married, or be very vulnerable, is nonsense.

Marriage can be a huge burden to women, if they're the higher earning, harder working partner.

The nature of marriage as a financial contract needs to be made clearer. It's not about commitment, it's not about romance, it's about money. And if you're young, and are both bringing 50:50 to the table, then having children, then it might make sense. If you're wanting to be a SAHM then it offers financial protections. But for a growing number of women marriage is a trap they've been conditioning into wanting.

I'm so sorry, OP, it's so difficult. At least if he's forced to do 50% of the stuff post-split you get some respite?

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
The difficulty is that it is all very subjective.
Not saying it is the case for OP but if in a couple one likes things done a certain way / has higher standards / doesn’t like to do things last minute … they will feel like they have the mental load and do most chores. What is the «lazy» other half supposed to do?
I’m the one who «does everything» at home, but in all honesty if I were to go on strike I’m sure DH would do it, it will all be last minute and not done to my standards but it would be done. So my choice in a sense: take on the mental load and decide how/when things are done or don’t.

@PurpleOkapi

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.

There were plenty of women who were crap with the kids and household labour in those days, just like there are now. I don't think they deserved 50% of their husbands' assets any more than your husband deserves 50% of yours. It was never a just system. But it's only recently that the inherent injustice has become likely to favor the man rather than the woman, so most women never saw a problem with it until now.

I honestly don't understand this sort of thinking. Because it's just not true. I mean sure, there are outliers, there always are. But overall, it's a well researched fact that women take on more household labour, more mental load etc.

Certainly, in my own life, and I appreciate this is anecdotal, not scientific, I can't think of a single woman I've met who I look at and think, "my god, she really does take the piss" while I could list half a dozen men off the top of my head.

I would challenge the assertion that "plenty" of women were crap at home. Every piece of research I've ever seen on domestic work shows both men and women overestimating mens actual domestic contribution. More interestingly even where the woman is the higher earner the woman's domestic contribution remains higher.

That may be, but even back in the ye olde tymes when most women were housewives, they weren't all equally good at it. Children weren't really optional, because there was no easy way to avoid them, and a lot of women (and men) who didn't particularly want or enjoy them still got stuck with a passel. Many weren't good parents, including many women. (This still happens, it's just easier to prevent.) But they all got 50%, regardless. Was that fair? No, just like it's not fair to OP here.

@gordongrumpy

This is why the mantra on here that women simply MUST get married, or be very vulnerable, is nonsense.

Marriage can be a huge burden to women, if they're the higher earning, harder working partner.

The nature of marriage as a financial contract needs to be made clearer. It's not about commitment, it's not about romance, it's about money. And if you're young, and are both bringing 50:50 to the table, then having children, then it might make sense. If you're wanting to be a SAHM then it offers financial protections. But for a growing number of women marriage is a trap they've been conditioning into wanting.

I'm so sorry, OP, it's so difficult. At least if he's forced to do 50% of the stuff post-split you get some respite?

Don't think it's the mantra on here. Only see people saying this about unmarried SAHMs or part-timers who are relying on their partner as the main or higher earner. This seems to be a much more common scenario than the reverse (based on posts where something has gone wrong).

I honestly don't understand this sort of thinking. Because it's just not true. I mean sure, there are outliers, there always are. But overall, it's a well researched fact that women take on more household labour, more mental load etc.

Yes, and those outliers got 50%, same as everyone else. Until fairly recently, women who out-earned their husbands and were negatively impacted by a 50/50 split were outliers, too.

@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.

Absolutely agree. Female breadwinner who did the vast majority of the children/ housework as well. Now I've got the kids 100% (thank God, because he's abusive) and he's got his hand out, knowing he'll get far more than he ever put in, and far more than he needs. The law hasn't caught up with this scenario, it's based on lower, or non earning parties, who have sacrificed earning potential for the family. Not scenarios where lazy, abusive partners put their hand out and the law forces the other party, running themselves ragged, to pay out.

Don't think it's the mantra on here. Only see people saying this about unmarried SAHMs or part-timers who are relying on their partner as the main or higher earner. This seems to be a much more common scenario than the reverse (based on posts where something has gone wrong).
Agree with this.
The advice about making an informed decision about finances and marriage is usually where a woman is planning on going part time or becoming a SAHP, becoming dependent on DP's income, living in a house she isn't on the deeds to, and generally doing a lot of the domestic duties that will facilitate her DP building his assets, pension and earning potential.

Advising women to make informed decisions about their situation is a perfectly valid thing to do.

Many men manage to get themselves clued up (which is probably why there's a lot of threads where a man is dragging his heels regarding marriage if his DP wants to be a SAHP, which BTW I don't agree with them trying to have their cake and eat it, but it shows that a lot of men get clued up whereas a lot of women drift along and then seem surprised that their lack of consideration has consequences for them)

Does he want 50/50 parenting with the dc?

I think if you're the main breadwinner and put the lions share into the house deposit AND are the main carer for the dc etc it will feel very unfair. However if the dc will be with you more than 50% of the time it's likely it won't be a 50/50 split of assets. But you're right, it does feel very unfair for him to walk away with a % of your 150k deposit.

I'd seek good legal council and take it from there.

How long have you been married? If it's less than 5 years you might be able to walk away with your deposit, if it's longer than 5 years it's more difficult

Wow lots of replies

The house work issue isn't about standard- it's about doing it without being asked. I'm heavily pregnant and yet he doesn't have the common sense to tell me to sit and relax and take a load off. He'll join me when I start tidying not tell me to go sit down. I asked him to sort out a couple of issues with taxes and financial admin - I reminded him 4 times , each time he said he'll do it - time almost elapsed and I had to pick up the slack. So for me writing out a list sometimes is counter productive because of the mental load required to download everything for him to do. I don't love him - maybe it's the hormones talking but I can't stand the sight of him .

Re the deposit - I did initially try to ring fence my share but not formally a can d when I suggested tenants in common so he got 30% and I got 70% of the house in the event of a divorce he said it wasn't fair as if he was the women I wouldn't like that sort of split. At the time it made sense so I let the marital home be joint tenants. I regret it now

I spoke to a lawyer today who said to get my deposit back if need him to agree to a post nuptial agreement to get my money back.' Lawyer also said all our assets would be assessed and the courts would want to see that he has the income to afford to provide accommodation for the kids so they may split asses to reflect this. I was also told to see a financial advisor as I do have investments - though over the years I've cleared quite a bit to cover our unexpected expanses for the house.

And to whoever said about the subsiding his half of the bills - I said it inelegantly . He puts in to the bills a proportionate amount but it still means I cover 4.5k and he pays 2k towards our expenses.

@threeisacharm18 have I understood this correctly, he pays £2k to your £4.5k because your take-home income is more than twice his?

Also have I got this right, you are releasing capital to subsidise current expenditure?

Seeing a financial advisor is a very good suggestion as you both may benefit from making some changes to how you both & each manage your financial planning.

[quote FinallyHere]@theworldsastage

marriage is only worth doing if you're planning on being a SAHM and need the financial protection

Or to avoid IHT, which has to be paid on inheritance above a certain threshold

[[https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax]]

There is no tax due on transfers between married couples. The allowances can be carried forward for use on the death of the second partner to the marriage.

Pretty compelling argument, IMHO. [/quote]
You only avoid tax on interspousal disposals, which is only relevant if I want to give my worldly goods to my imaginary partner.

And with the nil-rate band £325k, IHT is a nice problem to have...

It's not really a compelling argument if you're planning to give your wealth to other people, such as relatives.

[quote UniversalAunt]@threeisacharm18 have I understood this correctly, he pays £2k to your £4.5k because your take-home income is more than twice his?

Also have I got this right, you are releasing capital to subsidise current expenditure?

Seeing a financial advisor is a very good suggestion as you both may benefit from making some changes to how you both & each manage your financial planning.[/quote]
I earn 40% more than him - I split expenses in his favour because he's crap with money and would either go overdrawn or use a credit card to get through the month. He has buffer for fun/ unexpected expenses whereas I cover that from my expenses. I pay for all the kids clothes and toys etc plus anything for the house.

I realise I've shafted myself proper with this split in budget....

I was told by the lawyer any investments I have would be considered marital property so I can ring fence that unless I set up a trust for the kids where that money would be saved for them but I wouldn't benefit.

And with the nil-rate band £325k, IHT is a nice problem to have...

It might sounds like a nice problem to have @theworldsastage but it isn't much fun being faced with a bill to stay in your own house, which is jointly owned by your partner.

Given what had happened to house prices around here over the thirty five years since I first had a mortgage, there was every possibility that that would be exactly the situation one of us would be in.

Paying 40% of the value (over the threshold) of the house you already owned jointly is really no fun at all.

In that situation, getting married seemed a very reasonable tax avoidance strategy

This is just as valid a reason for getting married as one of you becoming financially dependent on the other due to parenting responsibilities.

I only wish more people realised the 'true' meaning of getting married and the consequences of doing so.

Tbh, I’d imagine a LOT more women than men have done well out of divorces.

Sorry you're going through this right now OP. It does increasingly seem that marriage is a trap for many women who are very much standing on their own two feet. Before you make any decisions I'd speak with a lawyer so you know exactly where you stand on all this.