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.

Her being a bit workshy and not being able/willing to work is a separate conversation to what split of assets may happen longer term. The asset split is more backward looking whereas the working now is more forward looking. I can see the court being open to a bigger share of assets to her, but less enthusiastic about long term support for her based on her not wanting to work in the future.

In an ideal world people have a choice over this stuff but it’s not an ideal world. I will say I do roll my eyes at people who laugh at why someone is a sahm with teens, as someone who worked ft while I had a seventeen year old depressed and refusing school and a 13yo who was thrilled when I was home after school because we live rurally work is as much of a barrier to teens growing up well adjusted as it is with small kids- it is the age they can go off the rails, and could do with someone at home to just be there.

She probably is going through burnout tbf, I don’t know your db but most women do have the lion’s share of the work at home and your db has already found someone new. Saying that at some stage I’d assume it’ll register that life means you up up up your hours, not decrease unfortunately

Exactly. She has a job that fitted in around the kids that she has just resigned from. This is what I cannot understand.

Aren’t you both expecting her to work but also have the majority custody of the kids?
You can’t on one hand berate her for not working and while dad claims he can’t have his kids close to 50/50 because he works.

I know. I was also a SAHM until my youngest started school. This is not my question.

My brother's children are teenagers now.

She had a job that fitted in around the children that she has resigned from. This, I cannot understand.

I am not berating her.

She had a job that worked around the teenagers. She has resigned from it because she is exhausted.

Surely they would have both chipped in with housework and childcare the same way as every other married couple with children do? I know plenty of couples who both work full time and have their own careers, these days the women don’t have to play the martyr and stay home, they can go out and build their own careers if they really want to.

SIL found someone new before my brother did.

Excellent reply. You are so right.

maybe going back to work after so long not working was a shock to her system.

Maybe she's struggling with a sense of identify after years of not working.

Maybe itwas just the wrong job for her because lets face it, most of the time the first job you get isn't the greatest job.

Maybe she forced herself to take the job but actually, she hates it because she no longer likes that career or it was the only job she could get it.

There are a million reasons why. I don't blame you for looking a bit askance at her for not making some effort to find somethign that does work, but I still don't really see that as the key point. She didn't work for the bulk of their marriage and, based on what youv'e said, even if she does go back to work now, she would have ot have the DC the bulk of the time so any work she does will have to fit around that.....

... it's not bizarre that she is expecting him to step up with at least some of the finances.

I think it is important not to conflate the two issues.

Her being a SAHM for years will have an impact on the financial settlement she gets. It is a kind of compensation for the earnings she lost through staying at home (regardless of whose choice that was).
The settlement is primarily about the practical need to house the children, but beyond that consideration it is modified by taking into account her past SAHM status.

But her current SAHM status, and her being work-shy now and refusing to support herself, is not likely to be relevant. The courts will expect her to support herself. She is vanishingly unlikely to get spousal support.

Child maintenance is a third and separate issue.

I was 100% with you up to this point.

If she has to be the default parent so he can work, then yes, he does need to pay more than the minimum 50%.

If he wants 50% financing (or if you think it should be 50%) then he needs to do 50% of weekday care and duties too.

I suspect he did well in his career because of his own abilities, luck and/or hard work.
Not because he didn’t employ someone to pick up his children from school.

Good post.

But he's already bought himself a new house so that will be taken in to consideration too. 50/50 would be that they could both have a 4 bed property. And she would get a chunk of his pension. It's the whole picture.

Their children are teenagers. She does not need to facilitate his job him at all nowadays. My niece and nephew can look after themselves and there are also quite a few family members nearby to have them stay whenever required.

Yes, that has been her choice. Her children are teenagers, they haven’t “needed” a SAHM for a good while, she could have taken steps to get a job and work her way up long before now.
even getting a job that was 3.5 days a week has given her “burn out” according to the OP. I think it’s safe to say she just doesn’t want to work.
why should her ex husband have to finance that?

Minimising.
It was not just about after school. It was about before school, and half terms, school holidays, inset days, and when the DC were off work sick.

Of course his career progression depended on his own abilities and hard work. But it was also massively helped by her.

And?
It’s not your business, you don’t actually know why she resigned. Do you even speak to her or are you getting all your information second hand from your brother?

You don’t know she has no pensions contributions or savings.
I am a SAHM and my husband pays my pension contributions and has contributed to savings I have in my own name over the years.

being a SAHM isn’t always as clean cut as that

He could do this and it was the reason for the flat purchase, I think. He wants to be able to have them with him as much as possible. It will all become easier as the kids are mid-teens now.

I'd say this to anyone regardless of sex, or circumstances.

The priority is the children.

The starting point is the legal financial separation. Get that done as soon as possible so everyone knows what they are working with including home, pensions, spousal support if appropriate etc.

Then sit down and work out what is best for the children and what compromises both parties need to make. For your brother than might be initially further helping with housing for his children; for your SIL it might be she realises she needs to work to support herself beyond the financial separation.

So why can’t he have his children 50/50?
If she doesn’t facilitate his job at all, but you argue he can’t have 50/50 because of his job…?

If you read my posts, I have covered all of this.

I like her very much but I am struggling with her getting a great job that really suited her, but then resigning from it. She does not want to be in paid employment and never really has.

She actually told me that she needs to spend more time with her new partner. I just don't that's not reality.

Sorry op I read it as he’s with someone now! Sorry bout that!