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?

Genuinely interested what was endearing about this lay about looser that made you choose to marry him?

More than frustration, isn’t it? It’s a life-changing sum of money that I and my children will lose.

Marriage will always protect the low earner you are in the minority as a male/female couple where you eat more. There are men out there that were higher (only) earners did the bulk of the "wifework" and financially lost out.

@Notbeingrobbed
I'm not sure 50% of people marry a cocklodger or the female equivalent, that's what I meant by the "wrong" person. I think this lies at the heart of the issue and has created the resentment.

I think I am part of an ever growing trend - others on here verify that. Being in a minority should not mean I am penalised!

Talk to Xenia. Your spirit sister. I think she's lonely & really wants to meet the right fella

DP doesn’t want to get married. I don’t think he appreciates how financially vulnerable this makes him.

When we met we both earned roughly the same. But these days I’m the higher earner by quite some way. I could afford to pay the mortgage, the school fees and all the bills on my own. My savings/investments are all in my own name (the only joint asset is the house - I can afford to buy him out if needs be). I will have a much better pension than him.

Despite this, my mother constantly nags me about not being married. I can’t see why I’d want to bother really. The status quo favours me.

On the other hand if you had gotten ill and couldn't work or your industry collapsed and you inadvertently ended up the luwer earner you would walk away with nothing. You don't have to get married if you don't want to take responsibility for your partner but don't act like marriage isn't a benefit to society. Reasonable people go into marriage as a contact for the legal protection it affords and for the increased trust they can exercise as a result. If you went into marriage without considering how it would effect you you only have yourself to blame.

Take some consolation that I was a SAHM for 10 years, raising 2 wonderful children and doing EVERY single chore in the house and out. I worked evenings when I could for “pocket money” for my ex.
We started at the same financial position although I had substantially more in savings, similar equity and salaries, middle management.
When I returned to the workplace, having made a joint decision that we wanted the children raised until school age by one parent, I earnt a third of the salary I earnt before pregnancy. He continued his career and earning potential increased.
When he left me would it be fair that through raising our children and maintaining our family home I should receive 50% of our assets, considering I continue to house 2 children?
I am interested in women’s opinions!

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?

Law applies equally to both Genders. If husband is SAHD or gave up career as wife had higher earning potential then would likely get larger share of assets same as if wife was SAHM or had given up career.

Women fought for decades for equality and got it. So only correct that the Law applies equally. Ge the impression from the many posts that OP is one of those women who think;

Equality is good, but not when it is to my disadvantage.

I suppose the point being made here is whether divorce and, since we are talking hypothetically, separation settlements simply take account of detriment to a party during the period of marriage and limit the scope for betterment ( wealth gain that would otherwise not have happened) arising from preexisting assets or earning potential of either party. I’m not sure I am phrasing that correctly but hope you get the gist.

I think there could be a fairness in this but the vulnerability disproportionately conferred on women because of pregnancy and child care need to be evaluated and protections put in place. I’m not sure if this would ever fairly reflect this contribution.

I think there is definitely a drive towards this with increasing numbers of clean break settlements and the expectation that both parties should maximise their income when divorcing. I don’t think it will be long before divorce and separation arrangements are equalised. In reality a good proportion of people will now have a series of relationships in their life. They will be go through periods of being attached and unattached. Job security is going to be equally fluid with more people have portfolio careers. Lots of people have complex dependencies and don’t want to automatically give up half their wealth. Some just want it to go to their children.

Laws need to recognise this and for that to happen, pre and post nuptial agreements would need to be legal and recognised and clean breaks would be the norm. As in some countries wealth sharing would be limited to that accrued within the period of marriage but allowances would be made for detriments suffered by one party whilst in the marriage.

I am quite torn on the issue. I think that it puts a strong onus on individuals to knowledgeable and considered about life’s big decisions. That would be a good thing but I worry about the overwhelming compulsion some women feel to have children and to home parent. I’m not criticising this, but I am concerned they would just discount the long term implications of a decision to have children and to salary sacrifice.

At the moment marriage laws and obligations are a blunt tool based on a one size fits all model of life. Divorce laws a function of this. It might work for a lot of people but there a questions to made about whether they really are fit for purpose today. I also second the idea that the protections might be an illusion. 50% or more of bugger all is bugger all.

I think there is definitely a drive towards this with increasing numbers of clean break settlements and the expectation that both parties should maximise their income when divorcing.

Correct as many more women now work compared to previous generations as families are generally much smaller than before. ie 2 kids as opposed to 7 or more. Hence more easy for women to work. Also people are living longer so Grandparents can provide child care during school holidays whilst mothers and fathers are at work.

There are cases where Joint Lives Spousal Maintenance is awarded, but rare nowadays. If SM is awarded it is more likely to be for a limited time to allow ex wife to establish herself and become independent.

In the 21st century it’s a luxury for anyone with kids to “stay home” - I’ve raised two and worked all the way through

Being a SAHP is a luxury eh? No, it's a choice, which should be agreed on together by both parents. Yes it's a luxury in that not all couples can afford a SAHP, but you sound like you feel superior for working "all the way through".

Having a SAHP can work very well when the SAHP really does work hard to manage the children and home (I say this as someone with preschool age kids). If your DH was a layabout, then you should not have agreed to him being a SAHP.

If my DH left me, then I would expect to be compensated for having reduced my long term earning potential for the sake of our family.

Not being married was the best thing that ever happened to me and my children. People need to fully understand the implications of marriage and not continue to be told it gives you security. It may do but it could also lose you everything.
Pre-nups should be made legally binding in the UK and the implications of finances in a partnership should be taught in school. Rather than meeting with the vicar before getting married it may be wiser to see a solicitor.

Just my twopence worth, but I this is the crux of it for me:

If my DH left me, then I would expect to be compensated for having reduced my long term earning potential for the sake of our family.

For me, it is society's role to make sure women (and men) are not penalised for having children, through equal (and paid) maternity and paternity leave policies and affordable childcare. It should not be on the shoulders of each individual man to compensate for doing exactly what society expects and compels him to do, ie be a breadwinner while the little woman stays at home and does what she's apparently destined to do.

A more equal society during marriage will mean family courts won't have to do this artificial division post-divorce.

Also, in the meantime, everything @josiebloggs said

My point is when you have two parents, both working, neither of whom is a SAHP, but one has contributed more both in earnings and parenting - kids’ appointments, clothes buying, activities, going to playgroup, school drop-offs and pick-ups, right through to helping with the UCAS application etc etc, (hard to prove maybe but taken for granted when a parent stays home) then maybe each should take away a sum that reflects their contribution.

If one parent stays home by agreement then maybe there should be a different arrangement, although the courts have ruled no parent of a child over seven has an excuse for not doing some work.

As for “equality”, we still do not have equality in the workplace, there is a gender pay gap. Taking time out for maternity leave (a biological necessity) and juggling hours or working part time due to kids still hampers a woman’s career more than a man. Even if the woman is the higher earner.

In fact I worked part time and my ex full time but my earnings were always more and so was my parenting contribution. I would be playing games, painting, swimming, going to the park or to play dates with them in my “parenting” time, he preferred to sit back and let them “find their own activities”.

@josiebloggs hear hear. At no time did marriage offer me security.

Totally agree with this thread. I was an equal earner but had much more saved from an inheritance. My cocklodger seems to feel he's owed a lot of money. Even though he had the affair, he lied and he built up a big debt. I'm trying to focus on being a strong independent woman but giving him money really hurts!

I’m sat outside a county court in my car, about to go into my Decree Nisi hearing and this thread couldn’t be more timely. I’m on my own as it’s uncontested and thankfully everything i own was mine before the marriage and I’ve managed to keep thinhs amicable with my (very reasonable) EXDH but why on earth did I go through with it when I didn’t even really want to at the time. Misery all around. I’m terrified for some reason and I’m representing myself to save some money as I’m now flat broke.

Well done you for keeping your career OP. It will stand to you in the long run xx

I also agree with you op, but I don't think it's gender specific, just the higher earner is always at risk the lower earner will try to take them for as much money as possible if the marriage ends.

Ultimately though I think courts now try to be as fair as possible, they split what came into the marriage equally. And aim for a clean break where feasible, it's no longer a meal ticket for life, and the aim is for the lower earner to avoid undue hardship but not all hardship.

@unclemontyscrumpets
For me, it is society's role to make sure women (and men) are not penalised for having children, through equal (and paid) maternity and paternity leave policies and affordable childcare. It should not be on the shoulders of each individual man to compensate for doing exactly what society expects and compels him to do, ie be a breadwinner while the little woman stays at home and does what she's apparently destined to do.
Right, so you want men and women to have completely equal maternity/ paternity provision despite the fact that it's the woman that is actually pregnant, will give birth and may go on to breastfeed? Maternity leave isn't just to allow a mother to bond with her baby, but also to recover from the whole process of childbearing which can be incredibly tough on a woman's body. I understand the concept that women taking maternity leave currently fuels discrimination however I don't think you can just try to equalise maternity/paternity provisions without acknowledging that it's women who are the one's that carry much more of the biological burden when it comes to having children. Why isn't it possible just to let women have a relatively small break from work to recover and bond with the baby they have given birth to without insisting that the father must have exactly the same time off too? Surely there is another way! I wouldn't expect to have the equivalent time off as my DH if he was healing from a procedure and dealing with the amount of biological issues new mums have to cope with.

Also the "little woman" in your scenario (presumably a SAHM) may well be adopting a role in the family that both parents regard as valuable and important. It's obvious from your post that you think that the answer is for all families to place their DC in FT childcare but many people do not believe this is in their children's best interests and make sacrifices to avoid this. This is a perfectly valid view to hold and if the family unit decides that one parent should be a SAHP/work PT to facilitate this then great, however the breadwinner can't then dissolve any responsibility they have to the partner that has made the financial sacrifice for the family. That would mean that the breadwinner has been unfairly enriched through profiting from the labour of the primary caregiver through having children raised in a manner they deem favourable and then not sharing the fruits of their labour (financial assets) quid pro quo.

In summary contributions to the family extend beyond the financial and the simplest answer is to work on creating a family dynamic where each partner is contributing a similar amount even if the form the contribution takes may differ. This way if a divorce is to occur and assets are to be split, nobody is left feeling resentful or hard done by.

I agree too and now am seeing so many women in the 40-50 age bracket get bitten by this. They either get shafted by a controlling man who earnt all the money and controlled the purse strings or, as in your case, have to pay out for dossers.

I am unmarried with children and continued working, through luck as much as judgement, but I am now very glad about that.

Just to stress - a part time worker can be the main breadwinner too and take a greater parenting role than their full-time working partner! It is not always a question of breadwinner at work, SAHP at home. Maybe there needs to be a different formula for two working parents. And maybe there should be a written agreement if one parent stays home.

I do know men who have had wives who simply refused to ever work, whatever the ages of the children, who did not have careers beforehand and now expect to get the lion’s share. These men feel they had no option but to work. The law can be unfair either way round!