Worst decision a woman could make

[Notbeingrobbed]

As a working mother with two children to support, my divorce has made me see that getting married was the worst financial decision I ever made.

I have been the higher earner so will lose a big chunk of the money that I have made throughout my life. I also have the kids to support (happy to).

My ex will get a big payout having benefitted from my income as well as his own for years.

Why would any modern woman marry? Oh, because we are all influenced by society (and hormones) to think it’s a good thing.

People say I am arguing like a man. But the law was surely designed to protect a stay-at-home mother with children from a husband who leaves. Not to protect a layabout-at-home father?

@Bumpitybumper when you say you would like to see acknowledgement by the courts of non-financial contributions, do you mean with some sum of money to represent the work they have done and effectively not been paid for, or something linked to the assets and salary of the higher earner?

It's an important distinction- should the contribution of a SAHP married to someone earning £40k/yr be rewarded in the same way as that of an ex partner of a multi-millionaire?

Bumpity, that is what informed the change to a 50/50 split in divorce under White v White. Yet it is unfair. Eg if both of you work full time but one earns £1m and the other £13k and neither sacrificed career for the other or did more at home why should the split be 50/50? If one of you never worked but had a fleet of nannies and never lifted a finger and hardly saw the children why shouldo that person get a massive settlement? Or the couples where the wife drinks all day whilst the baby is pretty much neglected and husband gets home at 5 and does 5 hours of childcare and cleaning just to keep things going. Why should that result in a 50/50 spilt or 70/30 in the wife's favour? It is very hard to get divorce law "fair" to everyone and obviously children come first.

@greenberet you say you are all about “love” while working women are all about money. But you are the one who took money for 20 years in exchange for “love” while we contributed money to support our kids. Real love does not have to be bought but real families cost money. What I am arguing is that the money we leave with when things go wrong is the money we contributed.

I do not buy the argument that sitting at home all day is the same as going to work. Certainly not once children are school age, before that, yes, some time at home by somebody is needed. In my case this was me - I worked part time and made those sacrifices! My children also went to nursery and benefitted from interacting with others.

You other views that women cannot be equal to men are from the dark ages. You are your own worst enemy.

@bumpitybumper surely a non-working parent’s contribution should never be considered to have more value than the most expensive childcare arrangement would cost for the time period when the parent stayed at home?

Yet the millionaire’s spouse expects half of everything and may even have had a nanny!

@unclemontyscrumpets
I think we interacted earlier about this and where the contribution in terms of effort is similar then I would want a relatively even split of financial assets HOWEVER I would also like to see some formalisation of such set ups so that each person is aware of the repercussions of adopting an approach where one partner isn't working/earning radically less than the other. I wouldn't want people to blindly drift into such arrangements but equally I do think that marriage represents the merger of two people's lives together in all aspects. Once merged it's hard to then say at the point of break up that actually the assets were never merged in the first place, especially if a wife/husband has acted on the other's word/promises to their detriment.

@Xenia
Most of the examples you cite are cases where one partner hasn't objectively contributed the same effort as the other partner and therefore in my idealised version of the law, the lesser contributing partner would receive a smaller proportion of the assets.

The example you cite where one partner earns less than the other but both work FT then I would suggest that the higher earning partner shouldn't marry unless they're willing to merge assets. The law doesn't compel people to marry but simply provides a framework for those who choose to wed. For some marriage is something that transcends ring fencing your wealth but is about promising to share all you have. There are no guarantees in life and the higher earner could easily suffer health issues etc in the future and come to rely on the lower earner for financial support or even their care.

@bumpity - I think the disagreement is about more than that. Green beret thinks men and women will never be equal and that single parent families are bad examples for children! It’s quite extraordinary silliness.

Also her arguments about how it’s better to depend on someone else might have more force if her dh (who she depended on entirely for money) hadn’t got tired of the whole thing and ended it. She has now come on a thread with women discussing parasitical ex’s to try to get us to feel sorry for her as she has to spend some of the money her ex gives on her private school fees as he won’t give her extra.

I don’t agree that women should be giving up their careers and expect their husbands to compensate them. That’s nice if you think that’s what you have agreed with your dh but if things break down, chances are he will have a different view. Then you might be reconsidering if that was a good idea.

Of course people do what works for them individually. But it’s funny how (like name changing on marriage) that always seems to end up with women giving up work and doing all the non paid domestic chores and the men getting a free maid and nanny service. Only for the women to end up much poorer if he leaves, dies, gambles it all away etc. I think at a societal level we should discourage this. Men and women should be taking much more equal roles and workplaces etc won’t become more family friendly until they do.

Green beret is a case in point. She placed a lot of value on women not being equal, men make the money women make the tea. he made the money she spent it. Now he’s gone she is mightily unhappy and has no skills and now he doesn’t give her the money she wants and the court have refused to do so too. She looks down on single parents but now she is one. It’s a cautionary tale for anyone with those attitudes.

@Bumpitybumper
We did! I remember as we disagreed but you didn't call me anything horrible!

If compensation were based on actual effort as you suggest, doesn't it make it more difficult to claim that this non-financial contribution is worth as much as a high flying career? A 'contribution in terms of effort' is quite hard to police. What counts as as much effort as a hedge fund manager earning £10m a year? How would you measure it? By proving that you've done every school run? By having made the best costume in the school for World Book Day?

Wouldn't it make more sense if you were to say that regardless of effort assets were split down the middle on divorce? It would mean lower earners who don't participate in childcare (a la Notbeingrobbed) would clean up on divorce, but at least everyone would know where they stand.

@Notbeingrobbed
surely a non-working parent’s contribution should never be considered to have more value than the most expensive childcare arrangement would cost for the time period when the parent stayed at home?
But having a SAHP is definitively not the same as have a nanny or putting a child in a nursery, you may feel that the role would provide equivalent value to your family as these kind of arrangements but I most definitely would not. A loving parent that will be a consistent part of a child's life is in my opinion is far superior option however I accept that this is my (and my DH's) opinion. This isn't how everyone views these kinds of arrangements and that's why I would like agreements on SAHPing to be formalised so that everything is clearly explained at the start and there is less space for resentment/dispute if the relationship was to breakdown.

Sorry @Bumpitybumper one more...

I get your point about doing the childcare role yourself being worth more in your eyes (and your DH's), but I simply don't think that this can be compensated financially on divorce. If you're really doing as a 'loving parent', then surely that's your reward.

I don’t think to be honest marriage should be a lottery ticket. I don’t see any need for high value awards where one party earns substantially more. If there are children I would rather see awards reflect their needs rather than financial parity between two parties who have contributed vastly unequal amounts.

Bumpity- would you have the same opinion if you were the one being fleeced like op? I tend to think not

@bumpitybumper even if you have a nanny or au pair your child knows you are the parent and that relationship lasts for life. My teenage children know I’m their mum even though we briefly had a nanny (who enhanced their lives with another loving role model) they went to nursery and have also had childminders. They are not delinquent because of that!

All this childcare cost a lot but not as much as the family would have lost had I given up my career. My children had a variety of different enriching experiences.

Bumpity- I think uncle monty is right. I don’t agree that children need 24/7 care from a parent anyway. But that care is financially not worth more than good care from someone else. And as they are your children, half the care is your responsibility anyway. Aren’t they just missing out on time with their father? Why in these debates is that never a problem? It’s only the mothers working that’s damaging the children.

In the real world we don’t pay people based on effort. I agree that any compsation for extra childcare should reflect its economic value.

@zsazsajuju
Also her arguments about how it’s better to depend on someone else might have more force if her dh (who she depended on entirely for money) hadn’t got tired of the whole thing and ended it.
But then your argument about being the breadwinner and financially independent would also have more weight if your "parasitic" ex hadn't managed to get such a large share of assets? If dissatisfaction regarding the outcome of a divorce settlement is a measure of how unsuccessful an approach has been then I would suggest that we don't really have a winner here.

I don’t agree that women should be giving up their careers and expect their husbands to compensate them.
If both parents think having a SAHP is important then someone at some point will have to sacrifice their career for potentially a substantial amount of time, that's just the way it is. If having a SAHP is a mutual decision then why shouldn't both parties pay for it? If you think the cost is too high then you should be saying that at the outset rather than once the kids are raised.

Women carry a baby for 9 months, give birth, breastfeed etc, I don't believe it's coincidence that they are most likely to be the primary parent irrespective of whether they work or not. In my view it isn't all about socialisation and I actually think hiding behind that hurts women and mothers. Again possibly an unpopular view but that is what I think.

Green beret is a case in point. She placed a lot of value on women not being equal, men make the money women make the tea. he made the money she spent it. Now he’s gone she is mightily unhappy and has no skills and now he doesn’t give her the money she wants and the court have refused to do so too. She looks down on single parents but now she is one. It’s a cautionary tale for anyone with those attitudes.
I know this isn't aimed at me but you use inflammatory language that offends me. To be honest it seems to have moved away from a debate to a personal attack that's become a bit nasty

@unclemontyscrumpets
*If compensation were based on actual effort as you suggest, doesn't it make it more difficult to claim that this non-financial contribution is worth as much as a high flying career? A 'contribution in terms of effort' is quite hard to police. What counts as as much effort as a hedge fund manager earning £10m a year? How would you measure it? By proving that you've done every school run? By having made the best costume in the school for World Book Day?

Wouldn't it make more sense if you were to say that regardless of effort assets were split down the middle on divorce? It would mean lower earners who don't participate in childcare (a la Notbeingrobbed) would clean up on divorce, but at least everyone would know where they stand.*
Yes you're right and I guess that's why my suggestion about a law that acknowledges effort is ultimately unworkable but I do think it would help cases such as Notbeingrobbed.

I get your point about doing the childcare role yourself being worth more in your eyes (and your DH's), but I simply don't think that this can be compensated financially on divorce. If you're really doing as a 'loving parent', then surely that's your reward.
But this is where I think formalisation of what having a SAHP means for both parents is important. So if at the start of the arrangement you both agree that having a SAHP would mean that the SAHP would have a right to claim 50% or more of assets on divorce then you are effectively giving the role a monetary value. I imagine lots of parents may well be horrified when they realise how this could affect their pension etc and decide that ultimately bit isn't worth it for them, but at least they would be making an informed decision.

Sorry for the repeat posts, just wanted to respond whilst I had some time.
@zsazsajuju
I don’t agree that children need 24/7 care from a parent anyway. But that care is financially not worth more than good care from someone else.
Both these opinions are absolutely valid opinions to hold, however neither are facts. The value of a SAHP is incredibly subjective and will vary from family to family.

And as they are your children, half the care is your responsibility anyway. Aren’t they just missing out on time with their father? Why in these debates is that never a problem? It’s only the mothers working that’s damaging the children.
I don't think mothers working damages children, I just think it's beneficial for a child to have a SAHP (father or mother). I think it's most likely to be the mother because of biology, but I don't think that it necessarily needs to be. A SAHM would not be depriving the father of time with their kids as the father should still be an active parent when they are at home. It doesn't abdicate a father of their parental responsibility.

In the real world we don’t pay people based on effort. I agree that any compsation for extra childcare should reflect its economic value.
I disagree, but think this is a values thing so it's unlikely we will agree.

@Bumpitybumper right ok, I get you.

I think that's fair enough, but I do think how you spell it out as you do:
So if at the start of the arrangement you both agree that having a SAHP would mean that the SAHP would have a right to claim 50% or more of assets on divorce

really highlights the insanity of this as the default position (or at least I think it does, I get that you don't). The two things seem so disjointed to me- I will look after the children instead of childcare, so if we split up you have to give me £40m.

Also, wouldn't this approach effectively discourage SAHP, as no higher earner could ever afford it retrospectively on divorce? If you want to encourage parents to do this, a reasonable rate of compensation might be the better way to do it.

as i said previously some nasty comments on here - i believe in karma too - i expect this makes me a witch!

this Green beret is a case in point. She placed a lot of value on women not being equal, men make the money women make the tea. he made the money she spent it. Now he’s gone she is mightily unhappy and has no skills and now he doesn’t give her the money she wants and the court have refused to do so too. She looks down on single parents but now she is one. It’s a cautionary tale for anyone with those attitudes

i dont know who said this because i cant be bothered to read this thread anymore - but some of you make one hell of a lot of assumptions about me - and are abusive with it !

if you read what i have said instead of thinking what you have read i said work as a team - nowhere did i say women make the tea he earns the money - if your strengths are the other way round and he makes the tea and she earns the money then all well and good - overall its about respect regardless of where and what you do - something that seems to be severley lacking in this thread unless we are all the same

and as usual the bullies congregate together because they haven't got the conviction to stand alone - what a sad world we live in!

@unclemontyscrumpets
The two things seem so disjointed to me- I will look after the children instead of childcare, so if we split up you have to give me £40m.
I think it's interesting that you wrote this as it probably highlights the difference ideology behind approach that I adopt versus most on this thread.
For me being a SAHM isn't just an alternative to childcare as I wouldn't want to use childcare unless I absolutely had to. I acknowledge I'm lucky to have the choice and gave up a lucrative career to do so but I fundamentally believe this is very important for my children. The value I place on this is massive and I do believe my DH when he says the same. I do though see that others view childcare as a great and even superior option and they place little value on a SAHP. Obviously it's a bit of a blow to the old ego when you realise how little regard some people have for the role you have chosen but I accept their opinion and try not to get offended or force them to value the role as I do.

I guess my point is that we all value things differently and for some a SAHP may well be worth £20 million when you are worth £40 million. Who knows?

Also, wouldn't this approach effectively discourage SAHP, as no higher earner could ever afford it retrospectively on divorce? If you want to encourage parents to do this, a reasonable rate of compensation might be the better way to do it.
I don't think we should encourage people to become SAHPs if it's unaffordable or the higher earner is uncomfortable with splitting their assets on divorce.

Being a SAHP has no financial value. That’s what it comes down to for me and many others and we’re never going to be convinced otherwise

@Bumpitybumper
I think we're on the same page in terms of it being an express agreement between the couple to organise their affairs as they see is fair, however I would say as this approach is based on agreement the absence of an express agreement (and lets face it most people still wouldn't fill out the form) should not mean that we assume an implied agreement of splitting assets down the middle. I would say the default should be that the SAHP should be compensated based on reasonable childcare costs, not something linked to the higher earner's assets and salary.

I guess my point is that we all value things differently and for some a SAHP may well be worth £20 million when you are worth £40 million. Who knows?
In short, I think people are free to think this if they want, but I just don't think many people actually do- and the courts shouldn't be assuming that they do in the absence of an express agreement.

Bumpt, most full time working mothers don't put a low value on mothers or fathers who don't work. We all play our parts in different ways.

I am interesting in what is in essence my case or was my case. One on a full time salary which is lower (he is a teacher) and I much higher - 10x hither. Neither sacrificed for the other eg even in his holidays I paid for a full time nanny but because I was brighter or harder working or wiser or greedier or however you want to put it i earned more. We didn't have 50./509 on divorce. We had him on nearly 60% as he wanted maintenance for life to even up the earnings between us for the next post divorce 40 y ears and I wanted a clean break with no obligations to support this full time worker for 40 years so he got more than 50% not withstanding that his full time salary can more than keep him although not to the same standard as my luxury skiing holidays etc higher salary did (not that either of us was particularly materialistic).

That seems unfair - that then urse who marries the £1m a year Ernst & Young partner where both work full time gets an equalisation for life. You could almost argue the opposite -= that the lower earner full time worker had 20 years of a high standard of living and should now pay that back if the divorce was their fault, rather than that they keep that high standard of living. Paul McCartney's wife was assessed at needing £700k a year after divorce so he had to pay a lump sum that yielded that to achieve a clean break, rather than looking at what someone's reasonable needs might be - house to live in and £20k a year income.

@Johnnyfinland
Being a SAHP has no financial value. That’s what it comes down to for me and many others and we’re never going to be convinced otherwise

Actually I think you're the only person to be saying that...

@Johnnyfinland
Then you shouldn't agree to your partner becoming a SAHP neither should you become one yourself, then you don't need to worry.

@unclemontyscrumpets
The first level of agreement is marriage where a couple fundamentally agrees to merge assets. For as long as a couple remain married then this is why the presumption should always be that assets should be split accordingly upon divorce. The secondary level of agreement I suggest for SAHP etc is really just to make sure everyone is aware of what they're getting in to as this may represent a significant change of circumstance from when you first got married. Ultimately if one partner was set on being a SAHP and the other wasn't willing to agree and therefore the second agreement couldn't be reached then this would end up in divorce and the result in the termination of the first agreement if that makes sense?

I think we are all responsible for our own futures and we have to consider that our marriages may fail (for a variety of unexpected reasons) and that our husbands may pass away. I have never been comfortable with the idea of being a SAHM despite thinking it’s one of the most valuable and important jobs in the world. My mum was a wonderful one. I have a secure marriage and do very much trust my DH even in the context of things going bad. But as a grown up, I don’t feel comfortable handing over responsibility for my finances and costs to anyone else ever. I also feel uncomfortable about putting that sole burden on someone else. So I have actively chosen not to.

Ultimately we are responsible for ourselves and the decision to rely on another autonomous adult is a risky strategy for anyone.

@xenia I am still shocked this could happen to you in a court of law. Similar situation to mine except my income is not ten times but more twice as much as his.

Yes, why shouldn’t he pay compo for the more comfortable lifestyle he has enjoyed? It is not justice in any way! Same argument for either gender, I think.