Fiancé asking for a prenup

[Aquea]

Fiancé and I have had a relatively short relationship. We’ve only been together for two years. I basically had to make it very clear that I would not be having children without being married. Just for legal protection. Got a bit of push back on that in the early days but I did say that marriage was a non negotiable for me and if that wasn’t for fiance then he and I should part ways.

Anyway, now we are engaged. Fiancé has asked I sign a prenup. Fiancé has his own successful business. We’re not talking a champagne lifestyle but he is comfortable enough and owns several assets. His business is fairly large - employs 35 people. But the margins are small and the overheads are massive.

I don’t have an issue in some regards as I’m certainly not marrying for the sake of money alone. I plan to carry on working FT.

But the actual concept is extremely cynical and unromantic. It’s really made me feel shit. Like I can’t be trusted. I’m kind of sick of indirectly having to convince fiancé that I am good person to marry.

We plan to have children.

it just feels like it’s one thing after another. Ie having to explain my reasoning for wanting to get married and now a prenup. The path to being engaged just seems already so negotiated.

Basically the only way you can ensure you are not fucked is to refuse to compromise your career. Do not go part time, do not become a SAHM because you WILL get fucked if you divorce
I don't disagree with this @Glowingup but I would go further and say the only way to ensure you are not fucked is to not have children. It's much easier for a man to work the situation to his advantage if the woman has children. Men often have predatory instincts which kick in when a woman is vulnerable, i.e when she's pregnant.

The only way any woman can protect herself from being ‘fucked over’ is not to have any children or dependents at all. There is no safe route without a degree of risk.

This risk is further increased by pre nups, disabilities, low paid work and age.

Indeed. And further to this, it might seem appealing but it’s actually pretty unwise to marry a man a lot wealthier, because in the event that the child needs additional care it’s much more likely that the woman will feel she has no choice but to compromise her career. A marriage of (financial) equals, whether both well-off or both piss-poor, means any extra care more likely to be shared (unless different poor decisions have been made, like marrying a selfish pig).

I disagree partially, many of my friends are the main breadwinners and are still doing the lion’s share of parenting or paying for it to be outsourced.

Post divorce they were ‘fucked over’ twice both in terms of the financial split, and the other parent being so deliberately incompetent and useless they could mot care for their own children properly. Their sterling careers did not prove to be protective in any of these cases, they were still effectively parenting alone AND working 65 hour weeks. Not fun.

Before I even thought about children I made sure I was financially independent. Own house, savings, job.

i was set up so I could raise my children on my own. If they had have had additional needs then I would have managed there too. I had enough saving to survive a few years not working or working part time.

my bigger fear was becoming financially reliant on a man and then that man disappearing. My own dad died when I was in primary school. My mum had never worked, and couldn’t support us. Even worse, my friends dad had a stroke at 40 and needed 24 hour care so her mum had the kids, sorting him and his carers out etc.

if dh had walked out, died, lost his job, or in any way became unable to work in the last 20 years I would have been financially fine. Because I entered the relationship financially secure and kept working full time.

many women seem to think marriage will give them the same financial security. It doesn’t. Basic maths - one income rarely supports two households in a split. If that income is lost it won’t support anyone.

i also think giving up work and dividing the relationship along gender lines sets women up for failure. They do the caring, the man never learns the routines, the day in, the day out, how the washing machine works etc. don’t give up work, ensure he takes on the household labour and childcare too. Then if your marriage does break down, your kids aren’t being left with a man who has no clue how to feed them or run a house. I’ve seen women leave kids with their mum rather than their husband as he’s so clueless! If he doesn’t step up, if you are financially secure you aren’t trapped and you can walk away sooner rather than later.

This doesn't sound like a too harsh pre nup tbh? Plus I think this should be protected anyway as he built the business before you got married so I'm not sure what you would be entitled to?

What would you do with a severely disabled child that required 247 care?

How many women do you think can own a house outright? Are you aware many are minimum wage jobs paying sky high rent? How do they amass the wealth required when they are struggling to even put a deposit together for a mortgage and may never be able to afford a house?

Are we reinforcing the class system by saying only wealthy women can marry wealthy men?

And only wealthy women can risk motherhood as they have numerous safety nets?

I am curious. I have always had a solid profession, but I do wonder how carers/nurses/bus drivers/ teachers afford to buy houses outright at child bearing age without a substantial and meaningful inheritance or trust fund?

I have to think that at some point there was a calculation for your friends, and they decided they really wanted kids, even to a crap dad and husband.

If they divorced for other reasons and the men suddenly became unwilling and unable to look after their own children having been equal partners and parents beforehand, your friends have been very unlucky and I feel terribly for them.

(I feel terribly for all women being screwed over by pointless men, but in many cases I do believe - and have witnessed at close hand- some bad decisions are made by women whose desire for marriage and babies took over their common sense.)

No, these were most certainly very capable, intelligent men at the beginning. I met all but one of them decades ago as polished young men and very much pitching in. Over the years complacency, laziness and boredom have set in and it’s been a gradual decline, not a poor choice to begin with.

Once you are knee deep with very young children, full on jobs and life it’s not so easy to leave at all. Particularly if these chaps start out as competent and decline.

Some women choose poorly, but that only applies to one of my friends whom is incredibly successful and beautiful.

On here I am rather sick of reading the wretched outcomes for some women and children, and op is really just setting herself up here to really struggle best case.

I have never ‘desired’ children in the way some people do, so I really can’t understand why anyone would agree to such poor ‘terms’ of marriage and loveless treatment.

Most women would be better off remaining childless and travelling the world. Liberated from the drudge work of motherhood and men’s weaponised incompetence.

I would have no problem at all with my partner wanting to protect a company they built from the ground up - provided it was all pre marriage and everything post marriage was fair.

He is protecting his interests as much as you are too

Yes this.

I would also not be happy at all about this. Trust your gut OP x

I mean surely it depends how you got it- how about if you haven't earned it?

It dont matter how, you dont just give up half to someone else.

I disagree, if it is just family wealth and you haven't lifted a finger does it matter.

Not to me no.
Marry for love not money.
If a brand name or bank balance is what makes you want to marry someone says more about that pearson than words do.

Men need to protect themselfs just as us women do.
And tbh a lot of men are now doing just that and i dont blame them.

So you think men and women experience pregnancy, childbirth and the early years the same? No difference at all between the sexed. Nor afterwards? Or post divorce? The statistics and biologics must be lying then - strange.

Its not about pregnancy it's not about gender.
Its about a prenuptial agreement.

Of course there is a difference which is why it’s important not to leave yourself financially vulnerable. Marriage doesn’t really protect you - divorced women often suffer old age poverty. Nothing protects you apart from having your own assets and earning capacity. The two older age women I know who are really struggling financially now were married to wealthy-ish men and were SAHMs from when their kids were born. They both got divorced in their 50s, both because their husbands cheated. Both got financial provision and short term spousal maintenance but that wasn’t/isn’t enough. No pension (there are very few pension sharing orders made). Their exes are now very wealthy. They own their homes but they’re in need of repairs which they can’t afford and due to high property costs, selling and downsizing not really an option. They wouldn’t be in this position had they not been SAHMs. If you gave up your job at 27 you can’t really get anything when you return to the job market aged 54.

Don't you find it a bit robotic to think so pragmatically about marriage?

If my DH had come to me with a pre-nup to sign when he proposed to me, in all honesty I would have replied "no I bloody don't, you paragon of charmlessness!" And I would have thought he'd had a lobotomy.

Clearly the biology is different.

but the reality is most women choose to give up work. Men don’t. Which means they also keep their pensions, both state and work- remember once your children are over 12 your NI contributions stop, so you will not get full state pension unless you work your 20 odd years on top.

as with all these things we need to look at why men don’t make the same choices as women. Who really benefits from women having the “luxury” of not working or working part time? Men. If marriage truly was financial “protection” why aren’t men going part time, sharing the financial and domestic load? Because it isn’t shared, it’s their money they choose to share with a spouse because they benefit. They stay at work giving them financial independence, while someone else does all their cooking and cleaning.

women do need to be making sure their futures are secure. Either by staying at work or only giving up if the sole salary can fund a decent pension and significant savings to compensate. The vast majority won’t stretch.

Pre nups become post nups. It is recommended that they are updated/amended following the birth of each child or every 5 years.

couples who have pre nups don’t necessarily keep their finances separate within their marriage, it just means, should the split, they know roughly where they and the other stand

And also making sure that if the single salary does cover a pension etc that one is set up and contributions are made. Not some vague promise that “I will look after you” because that means shit when you actually split and they are no longer interested in looking after you.

If you have an ultra wealthy DH, ie where there are capital assets of several million you will be fine as a SAHM in the event of divorce. However many of the women who do stop work have a DH who earns maybe 100-120k and the main assets is the family home which is mortgaged. While you have enough income for one parent to stay at home you are likely to be screwed on divorce. You’d get enough for a house, maybe a bit of maintenance for a few years and then child support. Earning capacity is a massive asset, probably the most valuable thing someone can have but it’s not shared on divorce. You need to be seriously asset rich to even consider giving up your career.

You are literally making this up. 76% Majority of female parents work with a child work Do not misrepresent or present your own view as fact. I know mumsnet berates working mums routinely, but housewife sahm is a minority activity
SOURCE ONS stats ONS stats

• In April to June 2021, three in four mothers with dependent children (75.6%) were in work in the UK, reaching its highest level in the equivalent quarter over the last 20 years (66.5% in 2002).
• The employment rate was higher for mothers than either women or men without dependent children and has been since 2017.
• From 2020, in families where both parents are employed, it has become more common for both parents to work full-time, rather than a man working full-time with a partner working part-time.

I think you mean sex, not gender. And men don't give birth, so it's very much about sex