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?

I sort of get what you mean - it’s not like most men in this situation at all. It’s vanishingly rare for a high earning man to divorce and then be the resident parent while giving his ex wife money to buy a house to knock around in by herself.

However, I’m not sure how the law could be usefully changed. Introducing the concept of blame into divorce in any meaningful way would be impossible.

I think your first thought is probably correct - that perhaps people in your situation shouldn’t marry.

I earn 10x my husband’s salary by the way but he’s gone part time to look after DS and does 90% of the house stuff so it feels more fair. If we divorced my biggest fear wouldn’t be financial, it would be being parted from DS. I would feel (no doubt begrudgingly depending on the circumstances of a split) that I have a duty of care to DH. I can see it wouldn’t be fair to just cut him loose financially having lived as we do for the last 20 years.

Again - HOW OLD ARE THE “CHILDREN”?!

If you didn't want yo share your assets you shouldn't have married. Marriage entails financial commitment to the person you have married. You chose to marry so deal with the consequences. And don't compare yourself to chattel ffs. That is in no way relevant to your situation and yet there are may women in the world today who are literally chattel and belong to their husbands when they get married.

That’s the point splendide and exactly what happened to me.

I was the higher earner and he left the children with me but still wanted more than 50:50 using my earning potential against me.

Btw op at court I eventually got more than 10 times what he offered.

The op mentions the children’s ages earlier in the thread.

Does Xenia still post? She had to give her husband about a million pounds in their divorce I think. Very happy now so far as I know.

14 & 18. The Op already said.

Yes I was thinking about Zenia too, in fact I just checked to see if she had commented, but I think she had 5 children and paid all the school fees as well as a large financial settlement, her x was a teacher. I would be interested to read her thoughts on this thread.

OP, if you were a man and posting the messages you have posted, but about your lazy good for nothing wife, you would be absolutely vilified.

Of course you don't like the outcome now that you're getting divorced. But you married him, presumably stayed married to him for many years (as your DC seem to be uni age) and the consequences for you are no different to the consequences for many higher earning men who divorce their lower earning wives.

Wanda and others , I would feel exactly the same if OP was a man.

OP I agree 100% with every single thing you have said.

I am pretty sure that OP's H has done something so terrible that it feels (to her and probably to others who know) like an outrage against natural justice for him to recieve any money from her. She has, after all, mentioned police and SS involvement. This is not 'just' a lazy cocklodger, by the sound of it.

Unfortunately the law is set up not to take that sort of thing into account, simply because too many people would use such a loophole to disadvantage a relatively blameless partner. I think the advice given to OP years ago was simply sexist and ignorant - women are advised to 'get married to protect yourself' because marriage does give you protection if you give up your career to raise the children/support your partner's career advancement. A lot of the men who resist marrying the mother of their DC know this and this is why they don't marry. The OP's family/friends probably pushed her to marry on the assumption that she would always be the lower earner and the one who took a career break.

There's probably a certain amount of legal leeway OP can employ to make the process as difficult, unpleasant and expensive for this prick as possible, but the right advice will be expensive - and the process will also be unpleasant and difficult for her, as well.

OP, is there any likelihood that what he has done is going to result in a prison sentence for him? (There is no need to give details of what it was, but if he's going to be behind bars for a few years, then you could argue there is no need for you to buy the fucker a house.)

I have a STBEH who thinks he knows the law better than my barrister or indeed the judge. He was laughed out of court and told to stop wasting their time. He is representing himself btw. He has a degree in google law. You remind me a little of him OP although I do get where you are coming from but your attitude is appalling to both the situation and the posters here who have offered you good, honest, experienced advice.

I am not appalling. The law is appalling.

ReanimatedSGB has come close to understanding and summing up my situation.

Might I suggest some of the people posting on here have their own vested interests as they are the ones profiting from this unjust situation.

I think you are quite deluded, extremely bitter and every lawyer's nightmare. Good luck OP, you sure as hell are going to need it.

You might but you'd come across as rude and ungrateful and I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong. People here have taken time to try to understand your situation and to help you.

SGB says that you've mentioned SS and police involvement and approaches your situation from that angle - but I cannot see that information on this thread. We cannot take account of what we do not know.

By all means rant and rave if you feel like it - but doing so does not help other people understand or help you. Don't expect them to, and all's fine.

Blaming people for trying to understand but not grasping facts you haven't shared, is classic cutting off your nose to spite your face behaviour.

Although SGB sums up well the harm that the OP feels she had suffered, I think still more harm would be done if the existing law were changed in the way OP would like.

ReanimatedSGB does indeed sum up the position well. The old societal norms of marriage being required to make Women 'respectable' are indeed completely outdated (along with the casual acceptance of DV which coexisted for so many years). MN has an important role to play in providing information so that people can make an informed decision about what to do when faced with these decisions.

For example, I know a couple (who met at a RG uni, where he was considered brilliant and she capable). They were the first couple i knew to marry. They agreed to remain child free through choice, so that there was no question anyone taking time off for childcare. He took a low status job and continued to plod while her career took off. When he started an emotional affaire and they agreed to split, we were staggered to discover that he was actually entitled to make a claim on her pension, for half the difference between hers and his. I would not have expected that... but recognise that it is important to understand the implications if the decisions we make.

Women wanted equality and that's what they've got. You can't just be equal sometimes when it suits you. I do think the divorce laws are unfair sometimes when the non earner or low earner can screw the higher earner for every penny now and then for any future wages and pension.

As I sit here watching my own dd revise furiously for her exams and I know in my heart that she will go onto a great job, she is intellect, bright and applies herself morning, noon and night. Do I want some layabout walking into her life and cheating her of what wil amount to fifty years of hard work, hell do I?

Op in the kindest way you were badly advised by your parents and were young and in love (naive) if you had married a very wealthy ambitious man you would not be in this position would you? Sending you on your way with a lowlife was not how your parents will remember it but it is true.

My dds will be advised not to marry and not to have children unless the man in question is equal to them in every way and not someone using them as a free ticket to the good life.

I will encourage them to question the integrity and ensure the relationship had longevity before a single consideration of marriage comes along. Many of us have sod ourselves short! Preferring any man to no man. Accepting shoddy relationships, second rate lives.

The future is in Asia where marriage is in sharp decline and women are powering ahead uninterested in being tethered to the stove.

Men have to raise their game across the board. Women have to be more discerning and focus on their careers from a young age, and then we may get close to the equality we all deserve.

Intelligent

Sold

OP you are not doing yourself any favours at all here, posters (with actual legal qualifications) are offering advice and you're being pretty rude.

In answer to some of your rants though, if your exhusband was as lazy as you said, and emotionally abusing your children, then why have you waited until your children are as old as they are before doing something about it. Surely you would've had more of an argument for needing 'more' when they weren't so old. You might want to financially support your son and later your daughter through Uni, but it's not a legal requirement, they can claim loans and work to see them through.

OP I agree with you. This is why I am unlikely to ever get married

You seriously need to calm down and stop shopping around for a lawyer that just agrees with you. My ex tried similar and the end result was the decent lawyers wouldn't take him on and he ended up with a really crap one who milked him dry. And he didn't get anything he wanted at all anyway.

There was also no reason you couldn't have left much earlier you don't need a reason beyond you don't want to be married any more. IF he was as bad as you say (I'm pretty sceptical on that) you'd have had "unreasonable behaviour" to cite. When I was divorcing my ex (he cheated) I couldn't cite the infidelity as I had no legal proof (photos, video, a witness) but I divorced him on unreasonable behaviour in terms of lack of affection, lack of support and criticism of me as a mother, not pulling his weight at home - all accepted by the court.

The law cannot be changed just for you and equality is not an Orwellian "all spouses are equal but some are more equal than others"

If you were a man posting this you would get your arse RIGHTLY handed to you.

I find it very hard to believe your ex did NOTHING and I'm genuinely concerned given your tone and attitude here that there's been parental alienation here, because I find it hard to believe you wouldn't have been and are continuing to massively slate your ex to the DC.

From OP's post at the bottom of p1 of the thread

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.

She also mentions that the DD refuses ever to see this man again. Do I have to spell out what the likely 'something so bad' is?

I think the OP's fury is more than justified, if a little misdirected (the law is as it is to protect the blameless-but-no-longer-wanted spouse who has fewer assets, but must be applied equally.)