To think i shouldn't have to pay maintenance?

[BrokenAndAfraid]

i met my ex when he didn't have a visa so couldn't work, married him to get that visa (had one child by then) . I was very young and naive. He couldn't work so didn't give up a job to become a homemaker. I had to work 2 jobs as we wasnt entitled to benefits, so got pregnant with second child so I could go on maternity leave and stay at home for awhile.
he eventually got a visa but only ever worked part time - had no drive to get a better job. Refused to even look for work when i was on maternity. Whislt he did look after the children as I worked (through no choice of my own) i was expected to do all the housework and used to spend my whole weekend cleaning. (Not his job acording yo him)
10 years later i saw the light and left.
Now going through the divorce - and trying for a clean break but been told he's entitled to half my pension!!! And to possibly ofset it with the £100 a month he gives me for our children. He doesn't have them or contribute in any other way.
how can that be fair?? We both work part time now and claim universal credit.
what can I do? Should I argue it out in court (which could be costly) ??
or I am Unreasonably for thinking he shouldn't get maintenance

Have a look on Wikivorce, they have loads of free information and you can pay a small sum if you want some legal advise.

From experience he will be entitled to 50% of any private pensions accrued during the marriage (as would you). He could try for 50% of your full pension but it is less clear cut as to if he would get it.

Child Maintenance is separate to any divorce so go through CMS for that one. Spousal maintenance is unlikely to be awarded after a 10 year marriage when you are both still of working age and neither is a big earner.

That's not correct. If I worked full time I'd get 85% off my childcare paid so my UC would be higher with the childcare added in. I work 30 hours a week currently , of which I'm paid for 25 as I have yo take an unpaid lunches.

A lot of men feel the same way you do.

But surely your wages would go up so your entitlement to UC would reduce, even if you did get reimbursed for childcare?

For what it’s worth, I’d say keep your pension and forego the maintenance. If he stops paying it then there’s not much you can do, and you don’t want to be reliant on money that may or may not come each month.

Get legal advice RE your pension OP but ignore the idiots benefit bashing on here. Your mental health is far more valuable, if you rush back into work full time before you’re ready you’ll end up in the same place you are now or worse. Take it from someone who’s been there, done that and is currently dealing with the “worse” because of it

I would perhaps consider legal advice, but after 10 years of marriage, all assets start at 50/50 split.

One of you worked and the other played home maker. Quite a normal family set up. The homemaker would not have been able to build up a private pension, so would therefore be entitled to half the pension pot during the period of marriage.

I would look how big the pension pot is, then compare this to the £100/month maintenance that will be paid.

With the youngest aged 8, then you have 10 years of maintenance at potentially £100/month. £100 x 12 x 10 = £12,000. This may increase if he gets better paid work, or it may stop if he earns less.

So if the pension pot is more than £24,000, then it might be worth saying that he doesn't have to pay maintenance in lieu for no entitlement to your pension.

If it's only a small pension pot then give him half and insist on him continuing to pay for his children.

I took paid maternity leave from my work. He wasn't entitled to public recourse so I wasn't playing the benefit system. Was I not entitled to take a company benefit? How does legally marrying someone 'beat' The system? Just curious. He was here anyway I didn't bring him home in my suitcase !

You definatley need to get legal advice op

Honestly, it may be worth letting him have half that and then moving on, it’s a short period out of what will presumably be a long working life.

Allthough I wouldn't have married him just yet I was in love and thought we would be together for ever at the time. It's just that because he didn't have a visa the plan was bought forward.

Ignore some of the ‘virtuous’ pp’s on here.
You've worked full time and built up some pension. If you can legally claim UC then it’s nobody’s business but yours.
I would see a solicitor with an understanding of finance and workout the best way for you to conclude the financial split.

When I was young, there was a marriage scam going where a young person, male or female was paid £2,000 ( a long time ago) to marry an Eastern European.
I was pressured to do it by a friend of a friend at work, but SO GLAD I didn’t as it could have had serious repercussions.

When one is 18 , it seems fine marrying for money.

But I still shudder at the thought.
A workmate married a Polish Woman purely for the £2000 .

Bet he bitterly regretted it if he met someone he loved and wanted to marry as a 30 yr old.

Unfortunately the law doesn't take into account his motivation to look for work or his labour contributions to the household. You may be able to challenge it in court but the cost of it is likely to be considerably more than what he would be entitled to.
Getting a solicitor advice would be the first step and if your options really are either your pension or go without child maintenance then I would be inclined to waive the maintenance money. You are still working and can make up the shortfall if necessary. Much harder to do that when you are retired and on a measly pension which doesn't cover the bills.

It does make a difference what the gender, as usually a stay at home mother would be supporting the man to go out to work and have a family but doing most of the child care, home admin, cleaning, cooking laundry etc. she would have been 'working' in those ways. Op's husband wasn't doing that.
There are very few cases where a woman doesn't work (visa restrictions or otherwise) and a man is willing to go out to work and then come home and do all the hosuw work! Someone might name some random person they know but we all know on the whole that's extremely rare for stay at home women and not so rare for stay at home men (all my friends who have offered shared parental leave to their male partners have had to tidy up after them when they get home as the men don't seem to be able to handle baby care and house care).

But I don't think the law recognizes those contributions or lack of sadly op.

I think also what you need to seek clarity on is whether it's contributions during the marriage he has a claim to, or your entire pot when you retire. The legal queen on Instagram gives lots of tips about this

Lazy and useless men like your ex often have issues with delayed gratification, so if there's any way you can give him a few thousands pounds now (rather than him having to wait decades for part of your pension), you may be able to strike a deal with him.

What benefits has he been given?

Good idea.

Then you have to get a 'financial order' so he can't come back for more later

I'm trying to get a financial order in place and thats where this has come from

As far as the world is concerned you can have your opinion on what he is or isn’t entitled to and whether that is fair.

However ultimately marriage and divorce law is what it is. When you married him it blinded you to each other financially effectively agreeing to share your wealth and income. After 10 years the good and bad decisions you made won’t the unpicked and you have to live with them.

Child support is paid for the benefit of the children. I’m not sure what good your pension will be for them growing up. If you want a better pension then go back to work for time. Don’t make your children pay for your decisions and his decisions.

You need to do expand your friendship group then as I know plenty of men who work and do their share of the household chores!

I hate the whole that’s what women have done on men forever. Historically women weren’t allowed to work and then the man could abuse them and still be the one to walk away, leaving them with nothing and children to raise. Yes times have changed but it is still often women who feel they need to leave work. Whether this is because childcare is too expensive, children have higher needs, it’s impossible to work around the partners work (and it is often the woman that has to work around the man). So the woman quits on agreement the man will financially support the family. She foregos her pension and often her own money. She raises the children, keeps the house, deals with the mental load etc. In the meantime the man is spending ‘his’ money. He expects because he paid the house he owns it, same with savings and pension. He expects to take his contribution with him, after all he ‘worked’ for it. The woman is usually left as rp of the children, where the man will pay the minimum maintenance he can get away with. In this instance she is 100% entitled to half.
Now if the role is actually reversed then 100% the man deserves half. But honestly how often does that actually happen? I’m not saying it doesn’t, and I’m not saying there aren’t female gold diggers out there but talking about the norm. So it’s not comparable to the man who chose not to work, chose not to do child raising, housing maintaining (or chose to do so with no agreement from the other partner), and after sponging of her for years now wants half of everything she has. While still walking away without the children too. Again if a woman done this I would feel the same but that’s the exception not the rule.

You tried to play the system (twice), now you are paying (literally) the consequences.

As a taxpayer I’m very happy for taxes to fund childcare for full time workers.
However funding benefits for your scenario pisses me right off

"I work 30 hours a week currently , of which I'm paid for 25 as I have yo take an unpaid lunches."

Who goes around saying "I work 45 hours but am only paid for 40 because of an hour lunch"?

I'm at work 8.5 hours a day and get paid for 8. I don't tell people I work 42.5 hours, I work 40 hours.

You work 25 hours, which is barely over part time.

This is not to diminish the fact that you also have two children with you, but they are school age now and many single women even with very young children work full time hours (of which they are not paid for lunch).

You're very unreasonable to think your ex and you shouldn't split all assets and debts 50/50.