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?

Did I not mention the societal brainwashing and the notion I had that this was the best way to raise children in a stable environment? My parents, grandparents etc were married and happy.

Every Saturday we see white cars with ribbons heading off to celebrations, our friends go and celebrate. The danger was not immediately apparent.

I married before pension sharing became law, before the wives of Oligarchs came to London and made it the divorce capital of the world.

I didn’t realise marriage would be the thing that will strip me of the money I have saved for my children’s future and stability. So maybe I was naive but on the whole I am not a stupid person.

@user1492863869
But the question really is do our current laws do what we want they do for the majority of people and in the public’s interest. The purpose of marriage and divorce law is to provide stable and secure homes for children. They should also protect adults from homelessness, reliance on welfare and poverty in so far as they can do.
Families where the parents are cohabiting do indeed have a higher level of seperation than families where the parents are married, however I think it's really important to understand why this disparity exists rather than assuming that reforming the law to incentivise marriage is the answer. Simply getting married won't necessarily extend the life span of a relationship where the couple would have otherwise remained cohabiting and arguably removing lots of the financial barriers from getting divorced could mean that the average length of a marriage would fall as there would be less of an incentive for people to stay married and work on their relationship. I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing by the way as I appreciate it's not great to stay in a marriage for financial reasons, but my point is that if we want stability and to keep families together then weakening laws around marriage wouldn't necessarily help this.

I think you're right that the level of commitment currently demanded by the law in order to get married puts a lot of people off but I think that this is an indicator as to someone's commitment to the relationship and family unit. That's why in my view married couples tend to stay together longer than cohabiting couple, they're a self selecting group that have decided to make a very strong financial commitment to each other. Of course divorce is still high so marriage doesn't always work out, but at some point there was the enough of a belief that the relationship would work that two people were willing to do this. Diluting the law will remove this element and may well make marriage more attractive for the uncertain/unsure but is that what we are trying to achieve here?

I get that you want to ensure that parenting is valued in society and that is not just seen as financial cost or productivity measure. However does the parenting of children in cohabitation arrangements not matter too? Does the parenting of children of divorced or single parents not matter?
Of course the parenting of these children matters, but not everyone has the same approach to raising children so they may find being a cohabiting couple works best for them where they both go out to work and use external childcare. If you want to have a SAHP or one where on parent works PT to shoulder the burden of childcare then marriage is pretty much the only model that provides the financial security that many people would seek. Why do we have to remove this option for people by diluting the law around marriage? It is overwhemingly women that would be affected by such a change and unless working practices and belief systems radically change then the desire for SAHPs or the need for parents to compromise their careers for the benefit of children will still exist, only these people will no longer be so financially protected. Just one look at the statistics around women becoming mothers and the effect this has on their earnings prove that this is a feminist issue and the need for financial protection in marriage is very real.

@Notbeingrobbed
The SAHM of an investment banker can never be worth half his assets.
Says who? You? I'll say this once again for clarity, you do not hold the definitive view of what a SAHP is worth. You may well compare the role to something you feel offers an equivalent service but many people would argue that an au pair is not the same as a SAHP for many reasons.

You can say that if you were rich then you would never marry a SAHP as you wouldn't be happy to share your financial assets. Nothing controversial there, but stating your opinion as fact is just ridiculous.

The little pseudo feminist rant at the end which was actually just an attack on women was also a bit distasteful.

@bumpitybumper sorry if I might offend your taste levels. It’s a bit distasteful to be in my situation!

OP I think that you are still very angry at what has happened with your marriage.
But you are not directing your anger at the right place.
Your anger shouod be directed at your now exH. Not at the institution of marriage.

What your Ex is doing is what every woman is told to do on this site when they get divorced.
What he is getting is what every woman is told is NORMAL to Get because their H didn’t get money all in their own but because he had a support to do so.
And the way you are reacting is exactely the way so many men react when they get divorced (which btw is then met with a ‘no wonder you want to get divorced, he sounds awful’)
And of course you are purposely avoiding the fact that been married DID give you some protection if you had been ill, has an accident, MH issues etc... The fact it didn’t happen doesn’t mean that protection wasn’t there. No more than the fact you’ve paid for a life insurance in your mortgage and never used it doesn’t mean you never need that insurance in the first place.

Fwiw on paper I would agree with the idea of separating finances if you wanted rather putting everything in the common pot. I would ONLY if there was actual equality between men and women. If men were properly sharing the load at home, if women had access to the same wages than men as their career wasn’t supposed to go in the back burner as soon as they become mothers.
If YOU thought you could make it on your own completely and wouod never ever need support from a partner (financially, emotionally, and practically) then yes, not getting married was probably the best decision for you.
But as this is not the case for most women, then I wouod say that marriage is still an institution which protects women in the UK.

Re been trapped in your marriage.

Just one comment in that.
If you thought you were trapped when you knew you could easily live on your own and provide for your dcs. Because you had the money, a house etc...
How do you think women who have seen their career stall, who went for ‘easier’ jobs because they couldn’t cope with running thenhouse, looking after the dcs AND working etc etc, how do you think those women feel???

You were in a very privilege position when you decide to get divorced. Please at least acknowledge that.
It doesn’t make the process easy. But it does make it a hell of a lot easier.

MyBrexit are you suggesting unmarried partners are incapable of giving financial, practical or emotional support?

"What your Ex is doing is what every woman is told to do on this site when they get divorced."

I thought that too but couldn't find a recent thread to link.

I also agree that he’s only doing what women are advised to do. Doesn’t make it right though! Divorce law as it is disincentivises people, largely women, from striving for financial independence which is something I think everyone should do. Knowing that you can’t fleece your higher-earning partner on divorce might actually make people take responsibility for themselves

Notbeinggrobbed. You seems to have wanted the trapping of respectability marriage gave you. Would you have been ok 20 years ago to have insisted on cohabitation? How would your partner have felt? Out of curiosity where you not brought up to marry up for security? Years ago woman never married "beneath them" (I know that the wrong term but it the term my mother would use). My mother would make it clear she wouldn't have dated a postman, she was a teacher but perhaps 50 years ago woman knew it was to be taken like a business transaction. Just like no sex before marriage (insisting on commitment before risk of children).

Johnny no it’s totally possible to have financial, emotional and practical support if not married.
But only if the other person has decided to do so.
If you are set in having totally separate finances (which I have seen a very good friend of mine doing), then you have no idea of what will happen. They might well decide NOT to support you because you are ‘fleecing’ them (as over OP comment) and you will no way to go against that, regardless of how much you have invested in them/the relationship.

So for example, said friend is moaning because she wants to go in hols. She doesn’t want to go alone. She wants her DP to come BUT he has no money at all so can’t....
Her options with that premise that you should be (always) financially independent etc etc are

• she inst going in hols (which is what is happening atm)
• she is finding somebody else to go with her (that’s what she trying to organise but not very nice for her DP obviously)
• she is ‘paying for him’ and then she is left with the feeling she is a mug.

It doesn’t sound like any of them are a nice option tbh.
And is missing the point that he IS bringing something to her life (as otherwise she wouldn’t still be with him).
This issue imo will always be there j less you are earning very similar wages all through your working life, which is very unlikely.

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

It's easy to blame others for the situation you're in but quite possibly the majority of women in your situation just didn't think it through far enough. For the record I'm the high earner and have been not married for 23 years. You sound very bitter and I think you'd be helped if you tried to concentrate on the good things - you're free of someone you didn't love, you're financially independent with good earning power.

MyBrexit but that scenario could easily happen in a marriage if the couple kept separate bank accounts and one refused to pay towards a holiday. You can’t physically force someone to give you money even if you’re married, and marriage doesn’t magically give you access to their bank account if it isn’t joint? Likewise a non-married couple could set up a joint account and blur the boundaries of who earned what.

That’s kind of the whole point for me. Supporting someone financially should always be a choice and not an obligation. So yes, your friend could choose to pay for both of them if she wanted, but she shouldn’t feel obliged to if she doesn’t.

This is an interesting thread.

About Brexit's example of the friend who wants to go on holiday I'm reminded of another thread a couple of years ago when the woman's cohabitee was going on holiday with a group of friends - the op couldn't go too because couldn't afford it and cohabitee didn't offer to pay for her. There were a variety of views on that I think.

But the op is really about division of assets and income once the relationship has ended. I suppose you might say financially marriage doesn't benefit the higher earner as it protects the lower earner - but then when you get married how do you know which you're going to be - as others have said, illness, accidents, can happen?

Some very good arguments put forward by everyone based on their circumstances and viewpoints. The sad truth is that no law - however fair- will be able to fulfill the needs of everyone - there will always be someone who will be disadvantaged.

The only "fair" outcome in a divorce is to protect the interests and well being of the children and the marital assets are divided to ensure that this takes place. I think most courts try and operate on those principles . Ironically, paying alimony to the lower earning partner was a movement by the feminist movement to protect women. Now that women are becoming the bread winners in relationships, we are seeing the negative fallout of this.

The options are to not marry, have a pre-nup or marry someone with equal assets.

I fall into the third pot. I am also high earning btw so totally understand where notbeingrobbed is coming from.

Option 3 Marry someone with equal assets, yes it's possible to do this although inheritance later on may change the position again - that hasn't been mentioned on this thread I think, although on mn sometimes there are discussions about whether inheritance should be treated as 'mine' or 'ours'.

What isn't possible is to ensure you marry someone with equal future earnings - you can't predict whether someone will decide to go part time, downshift, get fired, or give up altogether. Option 1 is the only protection there - don't marry. But of course then are iht implications of that. Not a simple calculation - and that's even leaving aside the emotional aspects of it all!

What isn't possible is to ensure you marry someone with equal future earnings

As Women are the only Gender that can give birth then unlikely wive's will earn same as husbands. Time taken out of a career to look after children is sure to have an impact unless family can afford childcare or hire live in nanny?

Not surprising that Divorce rate is so high if decision to marry revolves around financial issues.

My parents celebrated their Golden Wedding Anniversary several years ago. Both came from large families where only father worked and mother stayed at home as number of children in family did not enable mothers to work. Neither of my parents can work out how it is possible that couples today who have fewer children and both work end up in financial mess?

Something has seriously gone wrong in the World

@Johnnyfinland
That’s kind of the whole point for me. Supporting someone financially should always be a choice and not an obligation. So yes, your friend could choose to pay for both of them if she wanted, but she shouldn’t feel obliged to if she doesn’t.
But do you realistically think that this kind of attitude would create the foundations for a healthy dynamic in a relationship and for a family? The woman is this relationship would hold so much power over her partner and he would be relying on her benevolence to join her on holiday. I believe relationships only function well when both partners hold relatively equal levels of power as this prevents people abusing their position plus from a practical perspective it all gets very messy, very quickly.

What if children came along and Brexit's friend wanted a holiday her partner couldn't afford, could she just pay for herself and the children and exclude him from the family holiday? That seems incredibly harsh and he would miss out on lots of family memories and time with his children. What if he said that he could only afford a caravan in Scarborough and she wanted two weeks in Barbados? Surely she would be forced to fund his time in Barbados or accept the caravan holiday otherwise it wouldn't be fair to dictate (especially once kids come along) a holiday that he can't realistically afford. What about other expensive purchases like houses and cars? If Brexit's friend is funding the majority of a house purchase does she get more of a say about which house they buy and its location?

It's relatively easy to see how the lower earning partner could lose complete control over areas of their lives as a relationship would develop, people move in together and begin to merge their lives together buying assets etc. There would be a very unbalanced "joint decision making process and the lower earning partner would begin to lose their autonomy. Obviously less of a problem at the start of a relationship, but when you're at the stage where you are merging your lives together but not your finances then this presents a much bigger challenge.

"As Women are the only Gender that can give birth then unlikely wive's will earn same as husbands. Time taken out of a career to look after children is sure to have an impact unless family can afford childcare or hire live in nanny?"

I read somewhere that about 30% of women are the primary earner in a household - don't know if that's true of course, but it seems to be becoming more common.

Yes bumpity I think realistically if the higher earner won't pay for the lower to go on a more expensive holiday I'd be advising the lower earning friend that higher earner is just not that into the other! In a marriage/partnership with dc I think most people would regard that as unacceptable, wouldn't they?

But I think the op is talking about the situation post divorce - the question is why should the lower earner continue to be going to Barbados rather than somewhere cheaper?

I think one reason in favour of an equalish division is that if the broad 'rule' is that lower earner/SAHP has to 'revert' on divorce to his or her lower economic status, the higher earner has a huge amount of power in the marriage - put up with me and whatever I do or you'll be back to where you came from economically, with no pension either.

And indeed that is precisely why some people used to feel they had to stay in marriages where spouses were unfaithful, violent, or abusive.

I don't know if that was the rationale for the change in the approach. I know in theory if the lower earner will have enough to live on it should not be the case, but in reality I think that used to be a deterrent to women leaving - a sharp drop in standard of living/economic status can be a deterrent to divorce even if objectively you are perfectly ok.

@Everincreasingfrequency
the question is why should the lower earner continue to be going to Barbados rather than somewhere cheaper?
Yes you're right of course, my points were more aimed at Johnny's assertion that nobody should ever have any financial obligation towards their partner. I was pointing out the flaws in such an approach in the context of an ongoing relationship especially when children arrive on the scene.

Personally I don't necessarily buy into the lower partner "needing" to maintain the standard of living they have become accustomed to once a relationship has broken down. However as I have stated lots of times on this thread, I think spouses should be entitled to a pretty even split of assets on divorce irrespective of how much individuals have financially contributed. The one exception I would make is where such a split would detriment the children I.e. if the lower earner had full custody then I would think the higher earner should make sure they are housed in a manner that reflects the higher earner's wealth. It would be pretty rubbish knowing that your mum/dad was earning over £100k a year and as their child you were stuck living in a studio flat in a bad part of town with the lower earning parent as that is all their half of the marital assets could afford.

But I think the op is talking about the situation post divorce - the question is why should the lower earner continue to be going to Barbados rather than somewhere cheaper?

If marriage was long and there are sufficient assets and earnings available Judge may consider that both parties are entitled to the lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage regardless of who was the highest earner. However, as time passes it seems to be less of a consideration. Hence fewer cases of Joint Lives SM.

People keep talking about less spousal maintenance. This is true as generally the lower earning party opts for a ‘clean break’. The assets transferred are designed to generate an annuity to keep the lower earning spouse ‘in the style to which they have become accustomed’. There has not been any great shift on the law around this in England.

I think that within a marriage both partners should enjoy the same standard of living; anything else would be weird. However, if the marriage ends, and one party has not sacrificed a big career of their own to stay at home, they should be compensated for their actual sacrifice, not pretend that they are somehow worth a fortune merely for marrying someone rich.

This is the approach taken in just about every country except England, where divorce is a major business.

@larrygrylls
However, if the marriage ends, and one party has not sacrificed a big career of their own to stay at home, they should be compensated for their actual sacrifice, not pretend that they are somehow worth a fortune merely for marrying someone rich.
But how would you compensate people for their "sacrifice"? I will use myself as an example as I would be interested in what you think would be fair in my case.

I gave up a high earning career to become a SAHP as my DH and I both agreed that we thought that this was the optimal way to raise our children. My DH who works in the same industry and very similar role was on a very similar salary at the time of me becoming a SAHP and has subsequently had a few promotions to earn substantially more. It's reasonable to assume that had I carried on working then I would be earning a similar amount now too and be in a position to be further promoted in the future.

So what is the value of my sacrifice? Is it as OP has suggested equivalent to £100 a week as that's what an au pair would be paid even though an au pair would never have been considered as an alternative? Is it the cost of the childcare fees we have saved through me being a SAHP even though I would have earnt many multiples of this if I had stayed at work and we specifically chose to avoid external childcare as we don't consider it as equivay to having a SAHP? Is it the full salary I would have earnt if I had remained in work and what about the effect on my future career prospects and pension etc?

Just to reiterate we both decided together that we thought having a SAHP was the superior option when it comes to raising children so it was a true "joint decision" made as a couple in order to benefit our family.

A few things.

1. A lot of people have said on this thread that divorce law is about protecting children. Actually, divorce law developed as a response to men leaving women as effectively wards of the state. The state did not want to foot the bill for someone with no earning capacity of their own, so they made the husband do it. It is true that divorce settlements are often a lot more generous when children are involved, but this is supposed to reflect the disadvantage suffered by the woman (typically) by doing that- it is not 'for' the children. Arguments in this discussion seem to assume that all marriages produce children, possibly to the end that this is all marriage is for- being pretty offensive to childless couples, and also to non-married couples with children. As others have said, why should children of non-married parents be treated any differently?

2. A few people have said that property held by each partner becomes joint on marriage. That's not accurate, it's divorce (specifically financial settlement) that brings about redistribution of assets as if they had been joint during the marriage.

3. @Bumpitybumper you've already said that we disagree on some fundamental issues- and your latest posts have certainly revealed another one. I'd summarise as follows:

You believe:
Women are intrinsically and biologically inclined towards child rearing- this is inevitable
This means they will generally be at a financial disadvantage
This in turn means they should be protected
A good way to do this is through divorce law

I believe
Women's general inclination (ie the fact that more women do it than men) is because of societal reasons- beyond birth (and recovery), with an annoying grey area of breastfeeding, there is no reason childrearing cannot be shared. Further, believing that women are better placed to do it because of their lady parts/brains is incredibly damaging for women- it means we will never close the gender pay gap. It also does a disservice to men, who are excluded from childrearing as they are told that they are not as good at it, and judged for not fulfilling their caveman destiny
If we sorted this disparity there would be no need for women to be at a financial disadvantage
Even if they were, divorce law is not the right place to correct this

4. @Bumpitybumper I can't buy another of your arguments either, I'm afraid. You say that the value of being a SAHP is subjective, and have conceded (I think) that that makes it hard to quantify. I would argue that it's impossible to quantify- as when do you make the call on what the intentions of the parties are? Is it on the day they get married? What if they start their marriage on an equal footing, and one becomes incredibly wealthy over the course of it- does the value of the SAHP increase in value at exactly the same time the other partner's salary does? Also, I would argue that divorce law is precisely the area of law where we need less subjectivity, not more. One of the most damaging aspects of divorce I have seen from people around me has been the lack of certainty about what you are 'entitled to' on divorce. It leads to conflict, dashed expectations and incredible bitterness. I'm a fan of your idea of explicit agreements, but where most people wouldn't bother we still need to reform the default.

There have been others, but I might be ranting now...

You're right Jonny, it doesn't make it right.

I do think that unless you marry someone of relatively equal assets (excluding unknowns like IHT) then there are more likely to be power imbalances at play in the future, such as the holiday example, deterring the lower income spouse from leaving or upon divorce, situations like the OP. In my experience of watching a high earner get cancer and become the low earner to cope with the permanent fatigue post treatment, and a high earner develop MS and have to stop work at 42, there are no guarantees of future earning potential so all we can do is go into marriage knowing that at some point we both might need to make money and become the high earner and we both might be glad of the protection marriage offers at that point.