Finances- why 50/50?

[Boxingshibes]

I know im lucky but I read so many threads about having to split everything 50/50 even when on maternity leave. I genuinely don't understand.
Why us it not 'our' or family money as you are a family?
When is got married 20 odd years ago i had a just above minimum wage as id lived abroad for years. Dh had a good job ( not mn good but around £40k)
I worked and also it was enough to support us, me and 2 children. I went back to work and we got a nanny as it was cheaper than nursery.
Now im the sole earner as dh is now medically retired. I'm on £70k but all our money is ours? I do pay for everything but it's not a problem as we are a family?

I read so many threads where people are using their savings/ going into debts just to pay 50/50. Why?

Barring abusive relationships, why?

@sagittarius1queen I would imagine in a culture where men are seen as providers, women are seen as subservient.
I would not want my husband to provide for me and my family whilst I stay at home - I'm more than capable, and wish to maintain a career in my own right.

When we split up, but we were living in the same house. I did literally that I downed tools and I refuse to do anything that was related to him and I only did 50% of what related to the children.
Child protection services were involved within three months because I really did draw a hard line and I stepped out of the house when it wasn’t my turn. I think they call it nesting.
The school called social services
Who did not approve of me simply stopping doing a disproportionate amount of housework
They don’t give a shit who does it as long as somebody does
And if it’s not going to be him, it’s going to be you

@Mosman2020 They genuinely said "You should be doing a disproportionate amount of housework?" I doubt that very much.
It would have been far better you living in a separate house so it was clear cut.

Obviously in hindsight I should’ve booted his arse out the door and done a disproportionate amount of housework because if I didn’t do the disproportionate amount of housework it quite simply did not get done along with the childcare.
Their involvement stemmed from him leaving them for three days alone in the house aged 15-5 years old With 20 quid for food.
What they did not do is say Mr. Mossman it’s your turn to have the children and to do your proportion of housework and childcare. Now you will need to get your arse home and take care of your children because you are on duty.
They phoned him who told them that he would not be returning home because he was at work and that’s far more important obviously
And then they phoned me and said your options are get your arse home or we’re taking your children.
So please do not claim that if women didn’t do it men would be forced to because there’s another option available to them that they simply just don’t

@Mosman2020 Assuming you were both working at the time then both of you had an equal duty re the housework and childcare.
But also assuming you were married, it isn't always possible to just kick someone out. That's when you need to fund your own place temporarily until divorce settlement and why I would always advise your own income stream.

You are purposefully, no doubt, missing the point
The arrangement was - court ordered btw, I had done my 50% and it was now time for him to do his 50%
It was entirely possible for me to kick him out because he was living in my house long after the settlement so that most definitely was an option that I chose not to take.
So again to your point that women should just simply refuse to do more than 50% of their share. It’s not an option that that’s available to women or mothers.
It is an option to men and fathers

I think the point is women and mothers should insist on shared responsibility for children, when they have the other parent in the house.

Your “other parent” shouldn’t have been in your house, because who on earth leaves their 5 year old with a man so incapable he’d leave them for 3 days.

So yes, you should have been doing 100%, because the other “option” should have left the building before he neglected his children.

Oh I get it now.

First, women should have a magic arsehole detector to know in advance if a partner will turn out to be a useless dad (yes, sometimes there are clear red flags but not always). If someone who seemed basically decent before turns out to be an arsehole, that’s the woman’s fault.

If dad isn’t doing 50% of all household things, that’s mum’s fault for not forcing him or accepting too little, having low standards etc. She should simply refuse to do more than 50% so he has to step up.

Oh, but she needs that future-seeing magic again, because if it turns out that he actually doesn’t respond to being expected or forced into doing his share that’s also the woman’s fault because she should have realized that he was such an arse he’d rather have his kids neglected and possibly removed than properly parent them.

And if she uses her judgment to decide she can’t force him into parenting and has to do more than 50% herself we’re back to calling her weak and saying she simply has to force him to step up, yes?

If he’s useless she should leave (which obviously doesn’t solve the unequal responsibility problem, he can still be an arsehole once they’ve split), and if it’s financially not viable to do that at a moments notice that’s also her fault because only rich women should have children, no change in her circumstance is permitted, no cost of living increase or at least she should have foreseen that, no impact on her career from having kids because oh yes she had to force him to be an equal parent…

it’s all very well to say how things ideally should be but at some point it’s just insulting to ignore the complex reality.

Absolutely pissing myself laughing
The judge ordered 50-50 you can’t possibly have missed that because it was there in black-and-white at the top of the post

I can look back and laugh now because the children are grown and safe, But actually, everything that you wrote is exactly the narrative that I heard from everybody, social services, solicitors, cafcas, the schools, family, my parents, his parents.
everything was all about what I needed to do better to compensate for how fucking useless he was
Whilst married and whilst divorced.
I strongly suggest people don’t have children these days. There really is no advantage to it.

@Mosman2020 With respect, you should not have allowed him into the house if it was indeed yours. Then, as it was 50/50, you parent the children in your court-specified time and he parents them in his. Kids in your house - your responsibility; kids in his house - his responsibility. Simple.
I am shocked tbh you let him stay but walked out on your children (where did you even go?)
And yes I do have experience of 50/50 court ordered as that's what happened with my sons when they were 3 and 6 (they are 16 and 18 now so many years later).

With respect, you know fuck all about these things as is apparent by your comments.

He was awarded 50-50, but had nowhere to take them.
Where I went is irrelevant. It wasn’t my shift, where he went was a far more interest. You would’ve thought but no. It certainly wasn’t an emergency. It was a planned work trip that he knew he had coming up.

But in his mind leaving them was perfectly acceptable.
This is what women are dealing with, Before, during and after marriage. Supported by the courts of this land.
All in the name of avoiding £750 in child support
Which is what it always comes down to how to reduce their financial liability at whatever cost to the children

@Mosman2020 Oh yes - I know f all - I only lived 50/50 with my children from young children to adulthood. So what would I know?
But I do know I would never have left my children at home knowing they could be at risk and that is unfortunately why SS were involved. You still haven't said where you went? Were you with someone else?
Why would you expect maintenance for 50/50? It's up to you to provide for your children in your time. Yes you have to work bloody hard to cover it all, but that's what you do as a mum.
And do you really regret having your children because "there is no advantage to it"? That's terribly sad.

@Youshouldbestrongerthanme really needs an award for so consistently and laughably missing the point. He’s their parent, they were in his custody, by court order no less. It is not always possible to foresee another person’s terrible decisions. It doesn’t matter which house it was in, the children were in his care and many professionals had judged him fit to parent. It was his responsibility to figure it out and no one knew in advance that he would abandon them. And there was no mention of expecting maintenance for 50-50, there was the implication that dad pursued 50/50 to avoid paying maintenance. It’s not a complicated concept.

You cannot have it both ways. It is not internally coherent to insist that a) the mother must be hyper vigilant, always have full responsibility for childcare decisions, not leave them with their father in case he does something stupid and/or have backup plans ready in case dad decides he cba, but also that b) she must insist that he do 50%, not do more than that herself, child rearing should never cost the mother more (and if it does that’s her poor choices).

@UraniumFlowerpot If mother was living apart from father it all could have been prevented.
And again, why should maintenance be payable if 50/50? That makes zero sense.
I wonder what happened after this event. Was dad still deemed fit to parent?

That’s just not true. If he abandoned them at his home and refuses to return, they would still call mum to come get them.

At this point you’re just not reading. Maintenance not payable if 50/50. Sometimes 50/50 sought to avoid paying maintenance that would be due for a different split.

@UraniumFlowerpot You just said they were in his custody!!!!
As I say, I'd be interested to hear what happened re the 50/50 after this event. If indeed father did "abandon" the kids...

Eh? It seems your comprehension skills are not up to this discussion. I really can’t explain it any more simply, and besides this is not my fight.

@UraniumFlowerpot No - it's you who doesn't understand 50/50 court enforced. Do you have direct experience of it?

Yes, Dad was still deemed fit to parent.

He did in fact returned back because he was closer than I was but there was zero consequences for his behaviour.

There is no relevance as to whose house it was. He would’ve left them alone in his house.

And the kids think the sunshine out of his arse to this day.

@Mosman2020 This just doesn't add up. You say he abandoned them and left young children home alone, but yet subsequently he was still deemed fit to parent and the 50/50 continued?

What consequences for his behaviour did you impose?

He may have had court ordered 50/50, and you may not have known beforehand how truly incapable he was.

But once you did know, because he’d abandoned your children…. what then?

We've been married for 28 years and lived together for nearly 30. We've always "pooled" every penny and had family money.
For many years DH carried the financial burden as I worked part time for a while before becoming sahm. Now the tables are turned; he's retired while I'm working full time. It's never occurred to us to have "my money / your money", it's always just been ours.
I had a work colleague years ago who used to talk about splitting everything 50/50 with her partner. To the extent that she'd buy their daughter for example a T-shirt for £13, come home and say to her partner you owe me £6.50 can you transfer it to me.