Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Dd s boyfriend wants a pre nup .

457 replies

Velveteenrabbitt · 28/10/2025 09:33

dd had been with her bf since uni - he has several investments and earns 85 k plus massive bonuses and his earnings will increase. She earns 32k

They are buying a house together and she is investing 30% of deposit , he 70% . Has he has more money.
They told me y day that he wants a pre nup when they get married.
I must admit I was very shocked as I assumed marriage to be a ‘ we situation’ and everything is shared as in the good and the bad - and why would money be the only thing not shared ?

I spoke to him about it as he told me that his mates just dont get it . He says that its because he has seen some married men lose their home And end up in rented if the couple split up and the man ends up worse off mostly, he wants to make sure that If anything happened its not like that .
The mortgage but also it will be not what i assumed in that it will be - joint ownership - but that he gives 70% contributions to deposit and mortgage payments, and she gives 30 % and that will be reflected too .

We are giving dd part of her deposit. The solicitor says that this is classed as a gift and is paid when the mortgage commences.

dd says that initially she was upset and insulted , but now she understands what he means she is ok with it .

I understand that she will need a solicitor for her part of the pre nup.?
I remain anxious about this - it does not feel normal ?

How can i address this with sensitivity with dd without isolating her from us ?

Ive said to him it needs to be fair and in the marriage would be uneasy if dd had to buy cheap clothes for eg and him with more income had much more spending money.. he said that - what people don't see is he does treat her - and he is generous- but again thats in his control .

He comes from quite a deprived background and I think part of this may be anxiety as he has worked very very hard .

I don't want to interfere , dd adult, but also our dd.I am aware we may need to tread carefully here am looking for balanced support and i want to stay measured about this and calm etc.

OP posts:
TheeNotoriousPIG · 29/10/2025 20:32

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

Genevieva · 29/10/2025 20:42

If he is insisting on this then she must put clauses into it that protect her career sacrifices for his career and for children.

OhDear111 · 29/10/2025 20:44

@TheeNotoriousPIG The issue is that, at divorce, all wealth is on the table. Pensions are not exempt. Neither is property or other investments. The pension must be declared at the outset. It cannot be hidden and protected so if it’s not declared it affects the divorce settlement.

No: divorce when dc and a longer marriage are involved won’t be affected by a pre nup, especially when it’s not a vast sum of money. It will still be a 50:50 starting point. A pre nup might be guidance for around 5 years but further down the line, dc and family needs overtake a pre nup which is largely about a house deposit.

TheeNotoriousPIG · 29/10/2025 20:48

I'd still prefer to have my own assets, and for the other party to keep their hands off my things! They can keep their own.

It's bonkers that one person can end up with everything, leaving the other person penniless. It simply isn't fair. Thus, a pre-nup sounds (to me, anyway) like a good idea.

Thankyourose · 29/10/2025 20:52

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

‘going after his pension’ giving her money…

always an interesting one. Male friend was whining about this - what was ACTUALLY happening was that after a 25 year marriage with 2 kids, where they both worked in the same industry but she was PT because of child raising and he was able to work FT and become a partner in his company … they were splitting their marital assets 50/50 INCLUDING their pensions.
His pensions WAS worth more because as high earner it made sense for him to pay a lot in for tax relief and and for her to pay in less to hers so they had money for the day to day. Plus she earned less, never having made partner because she worked 3/4 days rather than FT.
And of course in divorce he massively resents having to share ‘his’ pension, massively resents the ex getting more of the hse equity so he keeps the pension and they walk away with 50/50 .

it amazing how quickly - these choices make sense financially for our family decisions swing to a ‘she’s taking my money, MY pension, I have to sell the house and give her half’ etc when divorces happen.

k1233 · 29/10/2025 21:12

Velveteenrabbitt · 28/10/2025 12:19

Houseleeks
when he discussed it with me yesterday , I pointed out that the woman often stays in the home FOR the benefit of the dc . And that this stops at 18 .

If I was your daughter I would use it as an opportunity to set financial obligations across the entirety of the marriage, not just on breakup. For example:

  1. Financial contributions are proportionate to earnings, including all costs for children of the marriage (during and on dissolution of the marriage)
  2. All investments made and bank accounts created during the marriage will be in the names of both parties with regular statements provided to both parties
  3. On maternity leave he pays 100% of costs of the household, provides her with a monthly allowance (% of his income, not fiixed amount) and makes pension contributions on her behalf to the maximum allowed
  4. If it is agreed that she stays home to raise children, he pays her a monthly allowance equivalent to her salary immediately prior to ceasing work, increased by CPI annually and he continues to make pension contributions on her behalf to the maximum allowable. This is payable until the youngest child leaves full time education.
  5. He will contribute a monthly amount into individual accounts for each child of the marriage. These funds will be used by the resident parent to raise the children in the event of divorce, topped up by child maintenance paid by the non resident parent.
  6. In the event of divorce, children's costs will be split in the same proportion as earnings immediately prior to the divorce (allowance is classed as earnings for this purpose)
  7. If he has an emotional or physical affair that results in the end of the marriage, she is entitled to 70% of the assets accumulated during the marriage.
  8. Clause on how child maintenance would be calculated, offset by funds from point 5
  9. Any child maintence payable in accordance with clause 8 will be paid directly to the recipient by the payers employer (set up as a split payment in their payroll system). If the payer is unemployed.... if self employed....
TheeNotoriousPIG · 29/10/2025 21:17

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

windintheoak · 29/10/2025 21:21

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

He was presumably quite happy for her not to be earning, or accepted it in the least. She's not going after his pension. They are dividing up the assets accrued during the marriage. He'll get 50%, as will she. Divorce, especially later in life, is financially devastating to almost anyone. She shouldn't be left with nothing due to the choices they made as a couple when they didn't forsee divorce. He's as responsible for those choices or what he accepted.

OhDear111 · 29/10/2025 21:24

@TheeNotoriousPIG Of course he’s got something left! Who on earth are you listening to? He’s got earning capacity and he’ll get a share of the house! I think you are being fed porkies and believing them. He probably would be advised to get a barrister though. Did he represent himself?

Rosiedayss · 29/10/2025 21:29

Sounds like the notorious pig has been sold the crazy ex story.

How unreasonable to have been a sahp raising a family and expecting 50% of accrued assets during the marriage, and the pension.

Too right if one party has agreed to be at home full-time.

RoostingHens · 29/10/2025 22:18

windintheoak · 29/10/2025 20:05

We have unequal incomes but it's not a problem. It's all pooled as 'ours'. Surely most marriages aren't equally matched for income? In our case, we married as students, on equal scholarships, had no idea where life would take us or who would earn what. With children being born and my industry not being as lucrative, his earning capacity has grown more than mine. It doesn't matter. It's a life we've built together and we don't think in terms of his and mine when it comes to money. Just ours. He doesn't get more weight in decisions because he earns more. That would be sad. We are equal partners. Income doesn't determine that.

Show quote history

But that is the point - you consider your assets pooled. The proposal here is that it isn’t, that each is protecting their own. That contributions are weighted and assets divided according to income so one spouse is wealthier than the other.

Ally886 · 29/10/2025 22:20

k1233 · 29/10/2025 21:12

If I was your daughter I would use it as an opportunity to set financial obligations across the entirety of the marriage, not just on breakup. For example:

  1. Financial contributions are proportionate to earnings, including all costs for children of the marriage (during and on dissolution of the marriage)
  2. All investments made and bank accounts created during the marriage will be in the names of both parties with regular statements provided to both parties
  3. On maternity leave he pays 100% of costs of the household, provides her with a monthly allowance (% of his income, not fiixed amount) and makes pension contributions on her behalf to the maximum allowed
  4. If it is agreed that she stays home to raise children, he pays her a monthly allowance equivalent to her salary immediately prior to ceasing work, increased by CPI annually and he continues to make pension contributions on her behalf to the maximum allowable. This is payable until the youngest child leaves full time education.
  5. He will contribute a monthly amount into individual accounts for each child of the marriage. These funds will be used by the resident parent to raise the children in the event of divorce, topped up by child maintenance paid by the non resident parent.
  6. In the event of divorce, children's costs will be split in the same proportion as earnings immediately prior to the divorce (allowance is classed as earnings for this purpose)
  7. If he has an emotional or physical affair that results in the end of the marriage, she is entitled to 70% of the assets accumulated during the marriage.
  8. Clause on how child maintenance would be calculated, offset by funds from point 5
  9. Any child maintence payable in accordance with clause 8 will be paid directly to the recipient by the payers employer (set up as a split payment in their payroll system). If the payer is unemployed.... if self employed....
Show quote history

I'm not sure this is a very well thought through answer. It's simply not affordable

RoostingHens · 29/10/2025 22:21

She's not going after his pension.

A pension can be a bigger asset than a house, and necessary for long term security.

windintheoak · 30/10/2025 01:28

RoostingHens · 29/10/2025 22:18

But that is the point - you consider your assets pooled. The proposal here is that it isn’t, that each is protecting their own. That contributions are weighted and assets divided according to income so one spouse is wealthier than the other.

Show quote history

I suppose I feel like a marriage begun in this way (when it's a first marriage and there aren't children to consider yet), is a bit sad as it's not really a partnership. What is even the point of being married if you're basically separate entities who just share a bed?

That said, those are my values and how I view relationships, and it's quite valid if other people want to do it a different way. I'm just concerned that if there are to be children, the daughter will be hugely disadvantaged. If she is willing to enter into this kind of individualistic marriage, then I agree with previous posters who say she needs legal advice and clauses added to cover the sacrifices she will likely make if having children.

I also hope that if he ends up sick or disabled that the OP's DD will hold him to the same individualistic approach, which he may not be so keen on when it's him that's the one disadvantaged.

Thankyourose · 30/10/2025 08:10

k1233 · 29/10/2025 21:12

If I was your daughter I would use it as an opportunity to set financial obligations across the entirety of the marriage, not just on breakup. For example:

  1. Financial contributions are proportionate to earnings, including all costs for children of the marriage (during and on dissolution of the marriage)
  2. All investments made and bank accounts created during the marriage will be in the names of both parties with regular statements provided to both parties
  3. On maternity leave he pays 100% of costs of the household, provides her with a monthly allowance (% of his income, not fiixed amount) and makes pension contributions on her behalf to the maximum allowed
  4. If it is agreed that she stays home to raise children, he pays her a monthly allowance equivalent to her salary immediately prior to ceasing work, increased by CPI annually and he continues to make pension contributions on her behalf to the maximum allowable. This is payable until the youngest child leaves full time education.
  5. He will contribute a monthly amount into individual accounts for each child of the marriage. These funds will be used by the resident parent to raise the children in the event of divorce, topped up by child maintenance paid by the non resident parent.
  6. In the event of divorce, children's costs will be split in the same proportion as earnings immediately prior to the divorce (allowance is classed as earnings for this purpose)
  7. If he has an emotional or physical affair that results in the end of the marriage, she is entitled to 70% of the assets accumulated during the marriage.
  8. Clause on how child maintenance would be calculated, offset by funds from point 5
  9. Any child maintence payable in accordance with clause 8 will be paid directly to the recipient by the payers employer (set up as a split payment in their payroll system). If the payer is unemployed.... if self employed....
Show quote history

This is a very good idea. One that Mr Practical will no doubt be entirely on board with.

Thankyourose · 30/10/2025 08:13

Not each point exactly, but a proper agreement put in place as part of the pre-nup that protects her in case of divorce particularly if they have children.

Summerhillsquare · 30/10/2025 08:14

Velveteenrabbitt · 28/10/2025 12:14

ScupperedbytheSea

His dad is very macho actually .
he idolises him .
the bf once said to me that he seems some of his mates as ‘ p’ whipped and that he would not take that in a relationship. It shocked me . other than this money aspect he is very traditional and actually also says its mans job to be the provider . He talks about his money quite a bit . Initially when we met him , he practiced extreme frugality to get were he is today.. but over the years , he says that he now values going out for meals , drinks etc.. whereas before he just would not. So- he has grown in his feelings over time and learnt about things he struggled with , perhaps due to fear and , whilst i found the expression offensive i think that he has some ability to be flexible .

He doesn't sound very nice at all, can your DD not find someone better while she is young? Anyone using that language is a no no.

OhDear111 · 30/10/2025 09:34

@Thankyourose I’m rather sick of saying this! At the moment a pre nup where relatively low amounts of money are involved, makes NO difference when parents divorce. Dc change the divorce landscape completely as does a longer marriage. The ONLY wealth that might be excluded is that accrued BEFORE marriage but it won’t compromise dc having a home if there’s enough wealth in the marriage for both parties to buy a house post divorce. A pre nup in the early years of marriage has a role but it won’t hold when dc need housing. Marriage alters everything when it’s a longer marriage too. No marriage - no protection for lower earning partner with no assets. Marriage is joint assets accrued during the marriage.

k1233 · 30/10/2025 09:46

Ally886 · 29/10/2025 22:20

I'm not sure this is a very well thought through answer. It's simply not affordable

Show quote history

What is not affordable? His income is nearly triple hers and the difference will increase exponentially if she is a SAHM for a couple of years and either doesn't return to work or returns on a part time basis to cover child obligations.

The whole point is he seems to have a what is mine is mine attitude. If she leaves herself financially vulnerable by not working and relying on his generosity, she will be in a very bad position.

He wants rules on divorce that will, presumably, disadvantage her. She should equally demand rules across their relationship that do not see her financially penalised for having and raising the children.

Start high, negotiate down.

Alternatively they could pool resources so both parties have equal access to marital income and assets. That would be a much shorter agreement. I'd still want a penalty clause for infidelity.

Ally886 · 30/10/2025 10:46

k1233 · 30/10/2025 09:46

What is not affordable? His income is nearly triple hers and the difference will increase exponentially if she is a SAHM for a couple of years and either doesn't return to work or returns on a part time basis to cover child obligations.

The whole point is he seems to have a what is mine is mine attitude. If she leaves herself financially vulnerable by not working and relying on his generosity, she will be in a very bad position.

He wants rules on divorce that will, presumably, disadvantage her. She should equally demand rules across their relationship that do not see her financially penalised for having and raising the children.

Start high, negotiate down.

Alternatively they could pool resources so both parties have equal access to marital income and assets. That would be a much shorter agreement. I'd still want a penalty clause for infidelity.

Show quote history

So you're telling me after paying mortgage, all bills, all costs for your wife, children and household a man is supposed to have A THIRD of his salary left to pay what you've suggested including his wife's old salary plus inflation!? What if he loses his job and takes one on lower pay? Would you leave him if he was unable to do the job he has? Is a man just a bank account to allow women to stay at home with the kids up to the point where he is no longer convenient?

I'm not disputing this situation is not ideal but to be fair they may not be able to have children so it may be a load of fuss over nothing. This is the case for 1 in 6 people.

Shared resources yes but that shared resource is finite and should never be dictated by just one party

RoostingHens · 30/10/2025 10:51

Ally886 · 30/10/2025 10:46

So you're telling me after paying mortgage, all bills, all costs for your wife, children and household a man is supposed to have A THIRD of his salary left to pay what you've suggested including his wife's old salary plus inflation!? What if he loses his job and takes one on lower pay? Would you leave him if he was unable to do the job he has? Is a man just a bank account to allow women to stay at home with the kids up to the point where he is no longer convenient?

I'm not disputing this situation is not ideal but to be fair they may not be able to have children so it may be a load of fuss over nothing. This is the case for 1 in 6 people.

Shared resources yes but that shared resource is finite and should never be dictated by just one party

Show quote history

Of course not, he could give up his higher wage so they can move to an area that is more affordable and maybe become job-share so he is able to stay at home and look after the children and support his wife establish her career.

Ally886 · 30/10/2025 11:27

RoostingHens · 30/10/2025 10:51

Of course not, he could give up his higher wage so they can move to an area that is more affordable and maybe become job-share so he is able to stay at home and look after the children and support his wife establish her career.

Show quote history

You're absolutely right

RoostingHens · 30/10/2025 11:43

Ally886 · 30/10/2025 11:27

You're absolutely right

Show quote history

It would cost rather more than a third of his wage to do that though. So I presume you think it unaffordable?

Ally886 · 30/10/2025 12:52

RoostingHens · 30/10/2025 11:43

It would cost rather more than a third of his wage to do that though. So I presume you think it unaffordable?

Show quote history

One cuts their cloth accordingly, such as moving to a cheaper area as you suggest. That's your saving right there

OhDear111 · 30/10/2025 18:28

@k1233 Why on earth do you think this man makes up the rules for a divorce? What planet are you on?