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.

Why would he need to quit job in order to have his children more?

Big of him to step up to 50/50 now that it's easier because they're teens.

Lots of people manage to work with partners who sometimes travel for work. Me and my husband both sometimes travel for work but are both able to work full time.
we do need to make sure we’re not travelling at the same time but it would be ridiculous for me to not work just because my husband is sometimes away.

I voted yabu because your are hearing one side of the story - his side. No one knows what goes on inside someone else's marriage.

This is the quote of the thread!

OP - you are so biased towards your brother here. I get it but you are glossing over so many things. Including the international travel. He has three kids and works full time. Someone else has been picking up the slack for years and yes his career has benefited.

50:50 is the starting point and then a judge will work from there but I do think you need to stay out of it. Your brother has not done too badly out of this so far.

Umm they lived with him 100% of the time previously ( together with their mum).

You said your brother works abroad for a week. Surely no responsible adults thinks it is ok to leave a 13 and 14 year old home alone for a week?

I would stay out of it.
My mother had always been a stay at home mum when we were young. When my parents divorced my farther continued to value her role(especially as she was then effectively a single parent). He continued to support us, even when my mother did go back into work as we got older. He was a selfless man, who wasn't wealthy, but who supported my mum as she in turn supported us. I am always amazed he didn't ever begin to resent it but he was always grateful to her.

Having the other parent stay at home makes it easier for someone to progress at work but it’s not essential and also puts a lot of pressure on them to be the only provider. It sounds like he wanted the wife to work but she refused.

You appear to have forgotten the children that need looking after when he is abroad…

this, i don't think people realise how having all the extra free time to work more facilitated by having 24/7 childcare is beneficial.

I know a very high flying man who decided to take his full paternity leave (3mo) for a very hard won and likely only baby. suddenly first in line for redundancy where previously companies were fighting over him.

The instability created through childcare is no small matter.

Don’t think the op said that , she said they can stay with other family members. He doesn’t work away every week

Read the thread. He SOMETIMES goes away with work for a week. He has to do this, it is vital for his work.

I don’t understand these women who are so entitled. Why do they think they should live the high life without working…

I thought you said they were 13 and 14? Of course they need to be looked after overnight!

She said there are family nearby when required but that the children are at an age (13 and 14) where they can look after themselves.

And for the past four years? Oh no, OP says he couldn't do 50/50 cause he works. So what is SIL meant to do? 80%, 90% and still work?

One rule for DB and another for SIL.

If his pension is worth a lot then she may well be able to get a far larger % of the house in return for giving up any claim on his pension.
That seems more likely than spousal maintenance.
Whether she works or claims benefits she will have to adjust to live within her means - and recognise that there will be a drop off point to benefits and child maintenance in a few years when the DC turn 18.
Returning to some form of paid work is likely to absolutely be in her best interests.

The only way to find out what she is likely to get for sure is to consult a lawyer. There isn't enough information here to say. The starting point will be a 50/50 split of the assets, but there are various factors taken into account that could result in her getting more or less than 50%. However, the courts will take her earnings capacity into account, not her actual earnings, so they will effectively expect her to work full time. It is highly unlikely your brother will be ordered to pay her mortgage. It certainly sounds like her expectations may be too high.

Nowadays!! Who do you think facilitated it when they were young? Do you think three kids can be left alone?? It doesn’t matter that they are older now. She did the brunt of the childcare when they were young and that will be taken in to account.

If she was working in a high paying role and travelling there would have been a battle as to who stays at home with the kids. Who is doing the pick up/illnessholidays/cooking/cleaning. He never had to think about ANY of this. You can’t keep dismissing and downplaying her role. A judge won’t either. Sorry.

You are more biased towards my SIL than I am towards my brother.

Do you really think it's fine that she resigned from a 3.5 day a week job in floristry (that she loved) that fitted in around the children? I know her why she did it. She hates leaving her home to go out to work and always has done.

Do you think that she is putting her children first in all of this? She could be earning money to help provide for them but she has rejected the perfect opportunity to do so.

So atm they each have a 4-bed house? Sounds as if that divides neatly into one each tbh.

If a woman told you they considered looking after their DC two nights a week doing 50% care or that they didn't think 13 YOs required any parenting at all would you agree with them? You believe SIL is lazy because she can't work and look after her DC but your brother couldn't be expected to have DC more than 2 nights a week as he has a job. Surely you see the bias?

Why though, if those assets were acquired from him working? She’s entitled to half.

4 bed flat in a cheaper city versus 4 bed house in the more expensive city