Moral question- divorce, short marriage, young child, high net worth husband...hat settlement would you take??

[postlady11]

Hi I'm currently in the process of getting divorced and sorting out settlement. Husband is a high bet worth individual. It's a short marriage under 5 years but we have a young child. What % do you think is fair for a settlement??? I need to rehouse and am SAHM so need to have some excess cash to live off for a while....

What does your solicitor advise? I would start there, with the actual figures.

Yes I know but I'm saying if the solicitor advises I am 'entitled' to x% but I feel it's wrong to take it as a short marriage (however do have young child). What does one think is morally right to take? I'm not sore I'm making much sense or someone can give there opinion without knowing there figures involved. I was just seeing what other peoples opinion were. If same as mine or not...

I suggest be logical about it. Dont let your feelings cloud your judgement and listen to your solicitors and your actual needs.

Have you ever worked whilst been married?
Calculate how much your support has contributed to his successful career , and how much you've sacrificed by not Pershing your own chosen career to your potential.

Yes I've worked part time the last year for some of my own spending money. In terms of worth that's the hard thing as after an EA marriage I don't have much self worth left!

I don't think anyone on MN can tell you what you 'ought' to have.

My gut feeling is that spousal maintenance for a period whilst you get back on your feet (no more than length of SAHMing) might be indicated.

But really you need your own legal advice.

Thanks everyone. I do have excellent legal advice thank goodness. However my question wAs maybe really if the court awarded you a lot of money would you, should you even take it!?

To me, don't know.

In trust for the DC, hell yes.

I wouldn't like to live off someone else's money, particularly after such a short relationship. I would expect him to pay towards child though.

The question, I guess, is how much will your DCs financial wellbeing be effected if you were with no support, compared to how much it would be if you were still married? Your stbx should pay the difference.

Remember, he's not paying for you, he's paying for your dc to have the same quality of life he would have had if you didn't get a divorce.

*affected

I guess I just feel guilty taking it even though he's been a complete arse and left me with no other option than to divorce. I suppose I can't deal with his hate towards me telling me I'm fleecing him.

I'm just too nice it's always been my problem aka F*%king doormat! I need to grow some...

Oh well if you think that not taking the money will make an EA ex-husband not hate you, then just take it, because it won't.

If he is truly EA, he will carry on trying to EA you and will find a reason to hate you for divorcing him whatever you do.

Make sure your child is provided for in the way he ought to be as the son of his high-net-worth individual father (e.g. school fees, decent house in decent area, mum with decent disposable income etc). And make sure you as DSs mum can provide a suitable lifestyle for DS without ruining yourself.

Speak to your solicitor and take everything you are entitled to. If morally, you currently, think this is excessive for YOU to have, put it in a savings account for your dc's future. This also gives you options if your feelings change later.

Do NOT make your decision based on what you think he will think of you. Sorry to be blunt, but if he is EA he'll be the victim whatever you do.

My XH has more assets than me. Our marriage failed because he saw prostitutes. So - although the law makes no moral assessment for finances, he was at fault.

I chose not to include his business as a marital asset as I'd never contributed to it.
I let him stay in our home without buying me out immediately - he's got 7 years grace. That wasn't kindness to him, I didn't want our child dealing with two new homes at once. So I've leant him over £100K. And that's not from 50/50 legal view - that's £100K of actual money from me personally.
And because he now has a big mortgage payment, I've declined going for maintenance, I've just given up £400 a month because whilst I'm the RP, it's about 65:35 so we both maintain homes for her.

Basically, he has done bloody well out of my personal ethics.

What did he say to his new girlfriend? (and this is fact not hearsay) about our child? "I've had to pay to keep her in my life".

Pay WHAT???

So - all about me. I just wanted to illustrate that you divorce and arsehole, and they will hate you or judge you or lie about you whether you take 5% or 95%.

Forget what he thinks of you.

CAbrinha so sorry for your situation you sound like an amazing woman and I'm sure better off without him as your husband. Your totally right, whatever I take I'm going to get absolutely ripped to shreds, I do anyway if I forget to get some groceries. Whatever I do is wrong. I need to make sure I stand tall and get his voice out of my head. I need to take care of business and be firm, hard when your dealing with a piece of work...

Percentages are the finishing point and without knowing the value of the assets, your respective incomes, ages, the age of your child and the number of nights he/she is to spend with each parent it's impossible for anyone to say what percent is fair legally or morally.

What you need to bear in mind is taking a gap in employment leaves people at a disadvantage because their earnings and promotion opportunities fall behind. Being the main carer for a child means you have the main responsibility for housing them for many years to come, perhaps 20 years or so if they go to university. If/when you return to work there are also child care costs.

You may be left with very little income to save or invest in a pension fund for retirement. It isn't easy, or in some cases impossible, to recover from the financial disadvantage brought about by having children. That's one of the reasons why two thirds of pensioners living in poverty are women many who are divorced. Equality in divorce settlements is leaving both parties standard of living on a parity to start independent lives rather than a mathematical percentage.

On the other hand your husband will be able to build on his successes so far and is unlikely to be impeded by child care in the same way. It isn't particularly fair on children to live with one parent relatively modestly in comparison to the other parent and who can afford to live extravagantly. Remember your husband may remarry and your child may have to come to terms with his new family being privately educated, having expensive holidays etc etc. Equality in divorce settlements is leaving both parties standard of living on a parity to start independent lives rather than a mathematical percentage.

From the legal POV judges have to ensure a divorce settlement is "fair" i.e. complies with the law before making an order settling the finances on divorce. There is usually quite a broad spectrum of possible settlements. It's fairly common to start negotiations at different ends of the spectrum so there is room to make concessions and compromise until a final settlement somewhere between the two positions is reached.

You have a responsiblity to your child to make sure they are adequately housed. So of course you have to think about that when agreeing any settlement. It's impossible for anyone here to say how much you should have. The only thing you can do is take advice from your solicitor.