AIBU to think the system punishes hard working women during divorce

[Iris10000]

DH decided to leave us. We have two DCs who are 1 and 4. I will be the main caregiver and he will have them for Saturday all day plus two nights a week after school for the oldest one (youngest later as he was a not comfortable doing her bedtime or attending to night wakings). We both have solicitor as mediation failed. He wants 50% equity and equalise pensions. My plan was to buy him out to minimise disruption to DCs but I can only afford 40%. I will be basically a single mum for 6 days a week and bearing all costs (he will pay required child maintenance which doesn’t even scratch the surface of nursery fees). I thought the system recognised that but solicitor advised to separate the two and said it’s very usual to get 50/50 outcome. I would be devastated if we have to sell and move to a smaller house. DH’s solicitor suggested other towns but I am doing drop off and pick up at school and nursery which are in two different pms es then getting to work. Living half an hr away would not be doable plus I have friends and activities here. My wages are £75k working 4 days and his are £50 working full time. My pension is £100k and his £30k. The argument he has is that he cannot rehouse on £120k I offered him but can on £150k. Why should I be responsible for kids plus his housing needs and the fact he never wanted to progress at work and was happy for me to pay majority of house bills. And now I feel I am responsible for his future.

It’s really no surprise given the above that marriage rates are at historically low levels. Women are wising up!

This is interesting. The decline in overall percentage of the adult population in marriages is almost entirely down to fewer people getting married in the first place, not more people getting divorced (proportionate to the adult population).

In fact divorce rates have largely been on a downward trend for decades, other than returning to the previous level post-Covid, whereas the number of marriages relative to the population rose after Covid by nowhere near enough to “compensate” for the decrease that happened when they couldn’t take place, and it’s now falling again…

I’d love to know the rationale of the 24% of people who’ve voted that you’re being unreasonable
Those are the posters who understand the law and particularly that the ultimate decision has nothing to do with what is emotionally fair but legally fair, which can be two very different concept. What is fair legally is that both spouses have their needs met going forward. The past has very little incidence.

He refused contribution to children’s costs as he claims offering me 50 percent equity and child maintenance (which he has no choice over anyway) is very generous and he genuinely believes what his solicitor told him that he should get more becuase he is the lower earner and I have higher earnings potential! I am not even going to mention the time at work I’ve lost due to nursery bugs because he „has to work” so wouldn’t covet any sickness.

Sadly I think he will do just that

You need your solicitor to push for these and 60% as you are the only one having the dcs overnight. Be clear you’ll go to court and his costs will eat into the difference he’s getting.

There is precedent of fees being part of a settlement so even if he refuses, be clear if you don’t get the percentage you want in the house/pension you’ll ask for these to be court ordered, after all the childcare costs are so you can both work, not just you.

Really good point here !

Why don't you tell him that if it's going to be 50 50 then he needs to have kids 50 50 and call his bluff

How patronising. It think it’s perfectly clear from my posts that I understand the law. The title of the OP’s thread explicitly states that it is about the fact that the law is unfair as it stands to women (and it is almost exclusively women who are in this group) who are both the higher earner and the main carer and yet end up also having to pay off useless husbands who didn’t contribute 50% to joint assets OR do their share of parenting and almost always fail to do 50% of parenting or pay 50% of the cost of raising a child after divorce, either. It’s not about “emotion”, it’s about the fact that the law as it stands often leads to illogical and unjustifiable division of assets in these cases as it was set up without considering that the woman might be the higher earner AND main carer, as is increasingly common now.

Most of these men have little intention of doing a significant amount of parenting and are perfectly capable of supporting themselves without also expecting a higher share of the assets than they contributed while their ex-wife actually needs to provide for and care for and house the children.

Highlighting this blatant unfairness in the law shows that people DO understand it. Nobody is disputing that this is how it works currently, people are discussing why it shouldn’t be set up that way because it disadvantages women and children in favour of useless men who don’t pull their weight in any respect.

I dont think anyone else have mentioned this, but from your OP is he having every single Saturday daytime and a couple of nights in the week?

think hard about that as you’ll never get a weekend away with or without the kids.
And if it goes into place now it could be tricky to go back on later.
He’ll have Friday and Saturday nights to go our doing what he likes, while you’re home with the kids every single week.

Sale costs get deducted usually at 3% gross sale price plus any mortgage redemption costs

What is each of your max mortgage capacity if you extend the term as long as possible? Have you both done mortgage reports (brokers will give you free quotes). your own bank may be more generous to keep your business. Put his figures through a calculator to check
£30k isn’t worth arguing over - legal costs would make a hole in that quickly. can you both really not just borrow a bit more?
Have you done a search of properties that would be suitable for him - if he wants both dc at some point he will be considered to have a 2-3 bed housing need. But housing doesn’t need to be equal if one has dc much more or needs space to work from home due childcare etc.
The court will say you both agreed to the division of work at the time and they will consider it was equal. This is annoying I knew when you were both higher earner and main carer whose career was arranged round dc but the court doesnt want to litigate your marriage and it’s impossible anyway as lazy people lie about what contribution they made.
Capital contributions and future care contributions or different housing needs can shift the dial from 50:50.

I divorced my first husband over 20 years ago after a 15-year marriage and with school age children, and discovered then that the law wasn't set up to accommodate the fact that I'd be taking on full financial and practical responsibility for the children going forward and my wilfully unemployed XH, who would have responsibility only for himself, was entitled to 50% of everything, including assets (pension, mostly) that I'd accumulated before I'd ever laid eyes on him. He actually got a bit more, because he had lots of time on his hands to keep going back to court and appeared to revel in the process and I thought it was worth buying him off rather than continuing to rack up legal fees.

I remarried a few years later. If I'd been on Mumsnet and paying attention at the time, I'd probably have said, "No, let's just stay as we are," when my boyfriend who was living in my house and had just quit his job proposed. It's turned out to be a good marriage, but I shudder to think of all the things that might have gone wrong.

Did you have a pre nup second time round? I certainly did!

No, total wide-eyed and stupid optimism even in the presence of some reddish flags. I look back at Past Me and roll my eyes very hard.