At the end of the day the courts are making the best job of outdated law. This applies whether we are talking about divorce or separation. The law should do 2 things; ensure that children have stability and security and ensure that adults are not left destitute or homeless as a result of a relationship breakdown. As far as that is possible and there will always be situations that’s the law can’t account for. Adults also need to be more responsible in their life decisions and how they plan for risk. Collectively in a relationship and individually.
It seems to me that the law has failed to keep up with changing work practices, life choices and economics. For decades the numbers of people getting married has been on a downward trend. The numbers of people cohabiting has increased. That means more and more children are brought up in cohabitation households. We know that these relationships are significantly more likely to breakdown. So we have a situation we’re people are deterred from marriage and entering into a less stable relationship for their children.
Reformers are aware of this and are increasingly calling for changes to marriage and divorce law to encourage people to enter into more stable relationships. At the same time, they are calling for cohabitation rights to be improved. They don’t need to be the same but they should be fit for purpose. To constantly prompt the status quo just because it suits an increasing middle class minority , is letting down a lot of children.
The OPs experience and that some of the other posters are prime examples of why people find marriage attractive. Rightly or wrongly they see a risk of a disproportionate and unnecessary cost associated with leaving the relationship. This is not prompted by financial abuse nor is it prompted by a disregard of their parental responsibilities. Clearly any law needs to deal with this behaviour but not assume it.
Regulated and reasonable prenuptial agreements would deal with this, making martial vows more realistic and relevant. They get a bad press in tv and film and are widely misunderstood. They are agreements that set out an understanding between both parties of how assets and responsibilities will be shared. Indeed they may well highlight potential issues of financial abuse before it can happen. They will reference divorce and separation settlements. However surely it is better to know up front what the shared cost of having and raising a child will be in this event.
I think much of the dissatisfaction expressed by posters on this thread would have been avoided if they had formailed their financial and relationship responsibilities at the start and if the law didn’t interfere with their agreed settlements as unfairly as it did or was able to.
In the case of a woman and man who agree that one shall be a SAHP for decades, a prenup would be a very clear and binding agreement about the financial consequences should they split. Realistically many husbands might be more reluctant to agree to the arrangement but better to find it out at 30 with no kids than at 40 with 4.
The same would apply were one person wants to protect assets and wealth accrued before or after the marriage or relationship.
I get so frustrated by posters who respond to these issues with the standard, well you know or should know what marriage/cohabitation means before you move in/have kids. This is a cop out. The 2 alternatives just are not fit for purpose in a lot of / most cases. That is why people are not marrying. That is why cohabiting families are splitting up in bad circumstances and children suffer.
The smugness does offend but I also know that these women or men are sitting on their own timebomb. Death, debt and divorce are real risks to individuals and children. As a lot of women find out, there simply isn’t enough money to fund two households and two pensions if only one person works. That isn’t going to get better in the future.