Are my SIL's divorce expectations unrealistic?

[GoAdvertFree]

In short, my brother and SIL intend to divorce but she wishes to continue being a SAHM. Their children are 19 (away at uni), 14 and 13.

They separated 4 years ago and were cohabiting until SIL started dating a new man. My brother has quite a well paid job and managed to buy a 4 bed flat in the nearby city. It needed a lot of work but is finished now. He WFH a fair bit so has the kids there when needed. He does at times have to travel overseas for work.

My brother has also recently started seeing someone new. So, brother and SIL have started to discuss selling their marital home (SIL is still living there with the children).

SIL has been a SAHM since the children were born and this had been the source of a lot of friction in the marriage as the children got older. My brother had no problem with SIL not being in paid work, but she is a big spender. I have been at their house many times when numerous boxes of stuff arrived from Amazon. My brother eventually set a budget that SIL was not delighted about. She also has some debt of her own, my brother has paid some of it off.

SIL went back to work 3.5 days a week when they separated. This job suits her perfectly and she can sometimes work from home. However, a few weeks ago she started talking about 'burn out' and has now resigned from the job. She has no intention of finding a new job but is saying that she wants to sell the house, that her share should be 70% because she has the children living with her, and needs to buy a 4 bed house in the town we live in (which is expensive). She wants a sum of money to put into a savings account and she wants her new mortgage to be paid by my brother.

They are amicable (at the moment). My brother told me last night that she is now asking him to go to financial mediation because she thinks he is hiding funds. He has told me that he isn't, and has 2 savings accounts and his pension - which she knows about.

AIBU to feel that I've never really heard anything like this? When my exH and I separated, I immediately upped my hours at work to full time and my children were also teens.

Well he has been gullibleall these years so why would it change now, he needs legal advice and to do what he needs too only

His pension and other assets may well be worth as much as the house. It's important the get a proper financial mediation as women often get diddled as they don't fully include their husband's pension.

No, she's unrealistic, esp considering the children's ages. She should be landing on earth with a bump soon after the divorce settlement.

She is lazy, greedy, selfish and entitled. It's folk like her that give SAHM's a bad name. Your brother needs to stand up to her.

It really depends on the circumstances, so financial mediation sounds like a good step. My dad had to pay my mum spousal support for life and she got 70% of the assets, it wasn't enough to live on, but if there's a massive earning imbalance because one partner has taken a step back to look after the family thus enabling the higher earner to work more, it's not entirely unfair to expect a larger share of assets or ongoing financial support. She's gonna need to work either way though.

Stereotyping and name calling isn't helpful. If we did the same to OPS brother we could say he was an absent father that intends to continue with the same lifestyle and leave the ex the default parent and has been ploughing marital assets into renovating a 4 bedroom property he doesn't intend to share. They need to stay calm and be honest about the expectations of both parents and all assets.

From the sound of it she did not want to as opposed to could not do so. Quite happy for work to be something other people did.

Is it? Why?

He isn't an 'absent father' at all. Perhaps you missed that my brother has always taken all 3 children to all of their after school sports clubs, evenings and weekends.

He does not expert her to continue to support their dc and have a 'lifestyle' at all. He has a good job that occasionally requires him to work for a week overseas; that's all. He often has the dc at his flat. SIL wanted him to move out and get his own place, which he has done.

Because even if she went back to work now, full time, it's very unlikely that she would have the opportunity to build assets or a lifestyle in line with what he would have. Her being a SAHM would have facilitated his career etc etc etc.

But like I say, what exactly that might look like, I couldn't say.

There’s a lot of projecting and criticism of SAHMs on this thread when nobody knows the details.

I don’t love the narrative that SAHMs are lazy, entitled and work shy and therefore must live in poverty and get a full time minimum wage job. Whilst the DH carries on in a lovely house with his huge pension and high earnings.

How is that fair? Presumably they both decided she would stay at home so he could focus solely on his career. I’d far rather be doing that than be at home with young kids but someone has to do it.

Yes she can work now but she won’t get a decent job. So that needs to be factored in. It just has to be fair and a court can decide that.

She was only a SAHM and spender because she was able to do so courtesy of her husband’s financial income.
That should be taken into consideration.

She can “want” more but she’s not “entitled” to more.
she will be granted what the judge considers a fair split of assets, she’ll be given maintenance for the 2 youngest children and that will be it.

if she doesn’t want to work, that’s fine, but your brother won’t be required to fund that lifestyle. They will be expected to both contribute towards the children’s living expenses, not just your brother.

he should speak to solicitor as soon as possible to discuss his financial proposal. If she’s not happy, she can take it to mediation, but if she’s unrealistic, she won’t help her cause

She had a job. She has resigned from that job. 3.5 days a week, some days from home and 'burned out.' Her employers like her very much and don't want her to leave.

I don’t think anyone is expecting her to live in poverty, but to choose not to work and expect your ex husband to continue to fund that lifestyle is absolutely wrong on all counts!

and I say that as a SAHM myself

I didn't say I stood by that stereotype anymore than I stood by the PPs. But I do think there is much more to being a parent than dropping kids off at their hobbies outside of work hours. As a sibling you are going to be biased towards your brother, but that doesn't mean the outcome will be.

Sure. Sounds like she wants 70%.

How would her being at home helped him progress at work ?
Given he could probably afford childcare.

She certainly seems to be hell bent on continuing her idle existance at his expense, I hope he has plenty of 'running away money' somehwere where she can't get her greedy hands on it, just like women are adviced to have 'running away money'.

The OP has explained that was not the case, that her not wanting to go back to work as the kids got older was a source of contention in their marriage, not their agreement at all. I think these arguments are very valid where it is by mutual agreement to facilitate one person's career/being the breadwinner, but this is not the situation laid out by the OP, quite the opposite.

He is a very involved father who loves his children. It isn't 'just' taking them to the after school clubs. I say this without bias, it is the truth.

Agreed but there does need to be some recognition that she won’t be able to walk in to a high paying, rewarding job. She clearly needs a job but it won’t be well paid.

What was the work ? Clearly able to get a job when she applies herself.

She got a job as soon as she began looking. She is a florist.

She is likely to get 60-70 percent of assets, I don’t think that’s unreasonable tbh. She’s missed out on twenty years of pension contributions, savings and career development.

She is very unlikely to get ongoing spousal maintenance though, the expectation will absolutely be that she needs to work.

But yes you’re wise to stay out of it!