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?

The police and social services? Shit. I hope he's keeping well away.

You are complaining about being in the opposite situation most women find themselves in. Those women are told how unreasonable their husband is being if you take a look at the boards. You cannot demand equality only when it suits you, the judge doesn't care what sex you are, they will look at assets and situations before deciding. You being a woman doesn't come into it.

You need to see a new lawyer. I went with my friend to get legal advice and she was told because she had a child who would live with her it should be a 60:40 split. And I sort of got the impression that if there’d been 2 children the recommendation would’ve been 70:30. Also, your STBXH should be paying you maintenance for the children. When you’ve go better advice, do you have anyone who can mediate for you? My friend did this and saved a fortune in legal fees. Other friend spent over £50,000 (he won sole custody of his child though from awful ex so to him it was worth it).

I'm sorry it feels so shit. The only way of departing from an equal division after a long marriage is needs (there are others which are rare such as a "stellar" contribution or an inheritance). Can you argue you "need" more than him because the children won't stay with him? How old/how many DC?

I'm afraid the person who said this is what men get daily in the divorce courts is quite correct. Why should it be different for you as a woman? Having said that, the court is often less generous to a man when it's the woman who has/earned the money because of ingrained sexism.
If your lawyers are good listen to them. If you are not confident they know what they are talking about get a second opinion. Have you seen a barrister yet?

I totally agree with you OP. And no it isn’t only complaining about being in the opposite position as he doesn’t seem to be having the kids resident from what you are saying. It would be different if he had to support the kids and you were working.

Marriage only benefits the lower wage earner. It screws the higher wage earner.

What stage have you reached in the financial proceedings?

I wouldn't say deluded, but perhaps naïve to only just be realizing now that one of the main points of marriage is that you share everything you have.

Typically this protects women who sacrifice career and earning potential to raise children, facilitating men to maximize their earning potential. Unfortunately it has worked out very badly for you.

I can see why you'd be bitter.

It’s early days. I had a lawyer and fired him because I felt the advice was wrong and I couldn’t stand his patronising attitude. OK, really I was angry about my ex and what has been going on.

I am looking for a new lawyer, ringing several a day to ensuite but not getting the advice I’d like - so I guess the first advice was correct.

The way I see it, I didn’t have the luxury of being a SAHM. If you are one, well done, you have won life’s lottery. I was never valued enough by my ex to live like that.

The problem here seems to be your ex was a lazy, selfish, and unambitious loser who has now alienated his children, rather than a problem with the law per se.

In most marriages I think people usually try to operate from a point of both working for what is collectively best for the family, which may include one parent earning less for whatever reason (ability, health, so there can be a SAH parent, so one can have a less intense but still full time or part time job to make family life run more smoothly, or one person being in a lower paying profession despite working full time/to the best of their ability). The fact your ex took the piss and didn't contribute much in any way is very unfortunate but doesn't mean the law should change. If it did, many women (and children) would end up far far worse off overall in the long run.

"Marriage, according to the law of this country is the union of two people, voluntarily entered into for life"

You joined all finances, therefore they should be split equally. It doesn't matter whether you're male of female.

Your children have the right to a relationship with their father, if he chooses not to have that relationship with then, that's his problem. Why did you marry such a twat?

I think you’ll find the generation coming up now have far fewer SAH parents. Things will change in future or NOBODY will get married. Which will save a lot of nonsense about dressed and cakes, thank God.

Why did you marry such a twat?

FFS, what a dumb question.

He didn’t start of advertising himself as a twat!! Conmen generally don’t. That’s how they get away with it.

Yes, maybe I’m just a low value person and this is all I could get as a husband while the rest of you are oh-so-perfect yummy scrumpy mummies.

Ginny,

I think you need to see another solicitor. If your husband will not be having the children to stay (ever), he will not be entitled to 50%.

As far as I understand it, it works like this. The children come first. The court needs to see that they will be adequately housed and provided for. They have a right to see both parents (unless there is a reason not to, which it sounds like there might be in your case). For this reason both parents should get enough assets to house their children. After that (and that is an important point), both parties have a right to enjoy the lifestyle that they have previously enjoyed, in so far as possible. In your case your form E should be showing a lot more needs than your husband’s, as you will be solely providing for the children.

Finally, if the above bar has been met (and for most, it is a high one) pre and post marital assets ARE protected, as are inheritances. You do not need to protect pre marital assets separately if you have sufficient to meet your partner’s future needs without them.

At your wedding do you remember the bit that went something like “all my worldly goods I share”? That.

You put up with a crap spouse who leeched off you - well, you;re not the first and there are as many men as women who’ve put up with that. You say you couldn’t escape earlier - really? If you were the main breadwinner and primary child carer why not? Many of us have cut and run at great short term cost.

Marriage is a legal contract, not a fairytale princess day. Everyone - men and women alike - should read the small print a bit more carefully before they tie the knot.

Your situation sounds similar to mine.
I bought ex out of the family home and gave him half.
Yes, I have been resentful, but I am also bloody relieved that I am able to provide for both my children and that they know they can rely on me.

Larry, you know very little about English divorce law. Stop pretending you do.

Larrygrylls,

You advice is the best I’ve heard. It’s not what I’ve been told in a ringaround. I’ll have to waste many more hours today making more calls.

I think you have a point op and I have said that on here before. I would have been much better off financially if I had not married.

The MN line on marriage is that it protects the woman but that is not the case if you have a career and children.

I had an exh like yours. He was never a sahd but called himself one when we were divorcing. I continued to work even though I wanted a career break as he did not want the responsibility of a 9-5 job.

There are lots of women in my profession in the same situation as me ie work full time while husband is at home.

I don’t know a single sahm. Everyone I know returns to work after children. I include friends who are not in my line of work who work part time or evenings around the children, all contributing financially and doing the bulk of the household chores and bringing up the children.

Come on, we all know marriage was invented by men to enslave women. I knew this too when young. Somehow I then ended up persuaded that simply living together was not respectable or the best for the children and a lowlife thing to do. I wanted to do the right thing and I wanted the kids to have a stable home. That’s when I went wrong.

MrsBert I think the PP that asked why did you marry such a twat? Has got a point actually. It's a fair question. Lots of partners change of course but if more people made a big fuss at the first sign of twattage, there would be less posts like the OPs surely?

Op this is the reality of divorce and it absolutely sucks.

And I didn’t marry my children’s father for just this reason ( I am the higher earner ) and sadly we are no longer together .

I despise people who take half of their ex’s money if they did not contribute equally to the marriage .

Fineline2018. Thank you. At least somebody lives in the 21st Century and sees how things really are. Yes, bulk of chores done by me or by the cleaner I paid for.

Fatandfrigid, you are a wise woman, I wish I’d had the courage to NOT get married.