I am just a chattel

[ginnyweeze]

The advice I am getting from divorce lawyers is making me feel like little more than a chattel. Whatever I have earned is irrelevant, the reasons for the divorce are irrelevant. Everything is split 50:50 with my ex - even if I earned more like 70:30 of it. This is because once married everything is a joint possession and there is no way you can keep your own earnings for yourself.

Surely I cannot be the only woman in Britain who is the main but not sole breadwinner and who is divorcing her husband for unreasonable behaviour?

The children only want to live with me, we need the house yet apparently the “need” of my husband for a home is paramount. I’m told a one bedroom flat would not be good enough for him - yet why would one man who will not have his kids to stay need more?

I don’t think I’m misunderstanding the situation. My life is maybe ahead of the curve but there are many more in my situation. In 15-20 years there will be some sort of “truth and reconciliation” commission looking at this and making compensation.

I am being preyed on by a parasite. Am I the only one angry about this?

You can always seek a second opinion, but the advice sounds correct to me.

Reason for divorce is irrelevant as otherwise the whole court system would implode under extra litigation. The higher earner doesn't get more, often they get less.

Why should it be different if the higher earner is the wife?

I have found that not only the reason for the divorce didn't matter, what you had beforehand the marriage didn't matter, that he lied multiple times on paper and in court didn't matter as didn't the fact that he was the reason we had multiple court dates ending in the judge having to decide everything.

Why should he get my earnings? We have both raised the children. I am NOT the family cow - with my milk being shared equally. My name is on my payslip.

Just to put this in context, I have worked antisocial hours to provide us with an acceptable standard of living while he has sat back doing very little around the house and emotionally abusing the kids. He has his own job and had a chance to save as much as he wanted via a joint account - but didn’t.

Why does the institution of marriage exist? Only to oppress women.

The Married Women’s Property Act in 1883 gave women control of their own property. For example, an author had control of copyright. Yet apparently I have no control over the fruits of my labours.

This might suit stay at home mums but I have never had that luxury. Stbex had an unstable employment history and was unreliable - I needed to make sure we were financially secure. I was a mug to marry him and now I am being mugged.

" Why should he get my earnings? We have both raised the children. I am NOT the family cow - with my milk being shared equally. My name is on my payslip."

Because you're married, and for the duration of that marriage the starting point is that everything is joint. He might have made quite different decisions had you been two individuals with no legal contract between you.

You are in exactly the same position as the higher earner in any divorce.

I can understand your frustration, but unfortunately it sounds right. Could you get another view, could you propose something different?

"Why does the institution of marriage exist? Only to oppress women."

It exists to protect anyone - male or female - who makes decisions about their earnings/career/family that might have been different if they were single. Yes, it is much more common the encounter a SAHM than a SAHD (but that is changing - 2xpart time for example) but the legal protections work the same way regardless which sex makes what decision.

"The Married Women’s Property Act in 1883 gave women control of their own property. For example, an author had control of copyright. Yet apparently I have no control over the fruits of my labours."

You have the same amount if 'control' as a man has. That was the purpose of that Act, not to give married women greater rights than married men,

By the same token, you can read all the threads from SAHM or low-earning wives here who get half of their husband’s earnings, pension,and keep the house. That’s equality, I guess - disadvantaging the higher earner regardless of sex.

Time for a campaign then, ladies!

We’ve been sold a lie from birth. The lie of getting married and having a happy ending. The lie that women could work and earn their own income. And of course, let’s not forget the lie that we might be paid equally in the workplace.

My advice to my children is never, EVER get married. It’s the exact opposite to the advice my parents gave me. They told me marriage would protect me and my children. They paid for a smart wedding and waved me on my way. I loved them dearly and respected their advice. They might as well have made me a pair of manacles and fitted them on me.

My children live with me. My daughter never wishes to see my husband again - but that (and the reasons behind that) is irrelevant. I will support them to the end of my days BUT we do need the family home to live in. If I was a SAHM I might get a settlement that reflected that. But as I have PAID FOR IT MYSELF I will now have to PAY FOR IT AGAIN.

Screw you, patriarchal legal system.

I was a mug to marry him and now I am being mugged.

'Fraid so, marriage exists to protect the lower earner, in the assumption that they will have foregone wages in order to raise children. If this is not the case, I am sorry you have been taken advantage of.

You were a team & you agreed to the status quo until you haven't so you need to play by the same rules as everyone else-I.e if you were a man you would hear that it's fair for funds to be split equally as that what you signed up for.

I can understand it's frustrating-did he not look after dc while you were working though & does he not intend to see them after the divorce? That would be a bigger issue for me. If that's the case then sufficient money for a one bed flat seems ok but I don't know how the law works that out

He wasn’t a SAHD - just a lounge around and let the woman do almost everything dad. Has nobody else encountered one of these. If we both earned then why shouldn’t the amount we earned be reflected? I know women who didn’t earn and ended up with a huge sum - I am being robbed.

You sound like my dh's ex deluded and bitter

Gosh you're very dramatic. As MNetters constantly say when it's the woman who was the lower earner (or a SAHM), it's family money not my money.

He apparently has no wish to see my daughter ever again and she has no wish to see him. Son at uni agreed to see him once in seven weeks for an hour and felt uncomfortable about that. I split from him to protect the kids. I can’t see why he needs more than a one bed flat but yesterday I was told he will need a family home of his home - presumably to fill with hookers!!

Sorry I do think a starting point of 50:50 split of assets is fair, no matter what the sex/earning power/behaviour of each party. If you had assets prior to marriage then they would need to have been protected before the marriage otherwise they’re fair game too. Similarly if you wanted to maintain individual savings within the marriage that should have been agreed and set out legally too. However if you will be the resident parent then you should be facilitated to stay in the family home until the youngest is 18/leaves school, even if that is a delayed agreement ie he retains a defined stake in the house until the children are adults (based on current numbers & base rate inflation, so anything further you put into the house as a single adult remains yours). He will also need to pay child maintenance.

As soon as you were married, in the absence of any formal alternative arrangement, your earnings weren’t your earnings, neither were his, they were family earnings. It works both ways. I’m sorry that your ex is a shithead. You sound well rid.

How am I deluded?

So who watched the kids while you worked those unsociable hours?
I agree, look at some of the threads where the woman was the lower earner and marriage did protect her. Equality surely is that the lower earner of the team is protected, man or woman?

And if you didn't like how chores were distributed it's a bit pointless bringing it up now imagine if they took into account the fact that you're calling him lazy.

People divorcing often sling mud and call the other all sorts. Lawyers and judges will look at basic facts.

It's hard now and seems unfair and awful but in a few years you'll have a new life however you want it to be. Don't let the anger and bitterness win

Also have all of your children left home? Then there is no resident parent and the assumptions about who needs what in a Home may be different

I'm with ginnyweeze on this. I'm in the same position. I used to be a high earner and gave it up to bring up the children. Before I made this decision I saved every penny so I could be a SAHM for a few years and not ask him for money. He continued to work FT. So I made the money, financed our albeit modest lifestyle and raised the children, giving up my income and now I will have to pay him half of my savings, my pension and the house I paid at least 80% of. The law is not designed for this situation. It is to protect SAH parents. Like ginny says it feels like being mugged twice. And I will be left with almost nothing after I buy him out as I have no capacity to get a mortgage and my children are still young so I have limited earning potential. The law needs an overhaul.

"Am I just a chattel?"

No, if you were actually owned by your STBX, then you would have nothing whatsoever if you deserted him (you wouldn't necessarily have the right to a divorce, nor could you expect assets to be divided in accordance with law and practice, it (and you) would all always be owned in entirety by the husband irrespective of circumstances)

Op it sounds like you've been through a load of shit and I'm sorry. I suspect you're going to have to see the money as payment to getting him out of your life and maintaining your own good relationship with your dc.

Welcome to what divorce feels like for a man who is the main breadwinner!

Except, if you were a man, solicitors would be telling you additionally that you have to pay him spousal maintenance and give him 70% of all your assets and concede custody of your children.

The divorce courts don't reflect a patriachal system at all, quite a obverse... you're angry because you are effectively placed in a situation the majority of men find themselves in. You are, however, lucky that you're a woman in the sense that you won't have issues with CAFCASS (who are 86% female), or false domestic violence issues where the system assumes women are good and men are evil, or magistrates and judges who still assume that women should automatically be the primary caregiver.

Until this situation is sorted out, ironically it will be the case that women cannot achieve equality in other areas of life. Men and women need to be considered equally in terms of parental responsibility and earning potential, and given the same opportunities for raising children. Who knows, it might also close the attainment gap between boys and girls at school.

OK the trouble you have is that you clearly (given your children's ages) did nothing about what you now say was an unsatisfactory setup over many years. The Court can't unlock that for you. Had you left him 15 years ago, you'd have had that income for yourself. But you chose to stay.

I appreciate you are probably venting here, but I hope you don't do this at your lawyer. With the best will in the world, clients who keep grumbling about the law being unfair as if you can either change it are really wearing,

In a few years I will be looking forward to an impoverished retirement having been mugged of half my (not very good) pension - not some imaginary wonderful new life.

Who took maternity leave and funded that through her savings? Who worked part time but still earned more when the kids were small? I did. Who watched the kids when he was out working regular hours? I did. And often I paid for childcare if we were both at work. I arranged it all.

Marriage is a rotten institution. Women are being ripped off. Once you’re locked into it you can’t escape. I couldn’t. Not until he was caught doing something so bad he had to go. He then scuttled off without anything to say in his defence and with no wish to see his own child. Police and social services have been involved.

My life is a little ahead of the curve. In years to come I hope there will be justice. Many more women will be in my position. It’s too late for me though.