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?

To NotBeingRobbed

If the case was Wright vs Wright how come it was not right. Hahaha

The judge didn’t know Wright from wrong! That’s the point I was trying to make.

The issue of being an SAHP is a different one. If both parents work and do some parenting then why should one get more than their share?

I don’t agree people are “reckless” to get married without foreseeing all consequences and without perfect knowledge - remember the law has changed and two decades have passed since I married.

Giving up a promising career without any thought of how to return to it is pretty reckless though and I personally know women who are now having a very hard time returning to the workplace, even with a generous divorce settlement to cushion them.

Bumpity

My statement isn’t that it is reckless to enter into a partnership to pool resources. My statement is that it is reckless in this day and age to think that you will be together for ever or that you will be able to live like our baby boomer parents. Hardly any industries or sectors envisage having a future workforce that works full time and stays in a job for life.

I appreciate that some couples can afford for one to be a SAHP whilst together and as long as nothing changes. But there are plenty of evidence and stories on here that show they can’t sustain this lifestyle if they split or one gets sick etc. In other words it isn’t resilient and places too many eggs in one basket.

My issue is fundamentally with the advice that if you get married you have the security to be a SAHP. Even with a high earning spouse that doesn’t always work out. Divorce is a probable outcome of marriage so why don’t people plan for it, given how much it costs.

I’m sorry but men and women are equally clueless about the financial implications of marriage, career sacrifice, inequity in wealth and divorce. Sorting this out at the worst point in the their relationship, I.e divorce, is reckless.

Unless you are mega rich, your lifestyle will be compromised if you divorce. That’s what we are talking about, not how you can afford to live when you are married.

Although it depends on income level. If neither of you is ever going to earn over £20k and can pick up a minimum wage job fairly easily if you have to get back into work (we have relatively full employment now compared to a few years ago) then it is not surprising that one person often doesnt' work if neither wage of either of them would cover childcare costs and they can't do split shifts nor both go part time.

@Xenia I wouldn’t like to try supporting a family on £20K, particularly with a partner who isn’t working! I just feel like all my effort in working hard and saving counts for nothing and the person who earned less and also had an easier life walks off with a chunk of that!

I am just having to reconcile myself to the fact that once the parasite is cut out he will not get any more. I hope.

@user1492863869
I am still struggling to understand how what you are saying applies specifically to SAHPs and not just any couple that pools resources. Choosing to have a SAHP is just another choice, like a family with two WOHPs deciding to buy a house that requires a mortgage that is only serviceable with their combined income or committing to send their DC to private school. Divorce will often mean that individuals can no longer maintain the lifestyle that they enjoyed as a couple and things may have to change sometimes quite radically as a result of this.

The Wright vs Wright case was the well known Lord Pritchford “Get a Job” ruling. Ex wife had worked during the marriage, but stopped after the divorce. Ex husband appealed against the Lifetime Spousal Maintenance and the judge agreed that the ex wife could not live off the ex husband forever and ruled that as children were over 7 she could get a part time job.

Not sure how NotBeingRobbed is relating to this case as it was all about Spousal Maintenance?

Divorce will often mean that individuals can no longer maintain the lifestyle that they enjoyed as a couple and things may have to change sometimes quite radically as a result of this

Only time this will not apply is when divorce involves; wealthy business people, celebrity couples, movie star and sports stars. For the average couple earning average money with average assets (very hard to define I agree) the likelihood of being able to divide things up, move on and have exactly the same lifestyle as before is zero in my view.

The issue of being an SAHP is a different one. If both parents work and do some parenting then why should one get more than their share?

Because assets accrued after marriage are considered Joint regardless of who paid.

Can't work out why being a SAHP is different to both parents working and parenting. Such decisions will likely be economic anyway. If the earnings of the weaker earner (usually the wife) would all be swallowed by child care they may as well stay at home.

Likewise if both parents work they have obviously found a childcare solution. When I was a child parents either worked opposite shifts or I was with grandparents. Both worked for a simple reason - they needed the money.

For the long school holidays again it was either grandparents or my own parents taking their annual leaves. Sometimes farmed out to grandparents of my parents friends. For some reason those days seem to have passed?

Don't forget that in order to achieve this superior lifestyle the two partners will have pooled resources at the beginning and also achieved economies of living together. It stands to reason that they will both have to put aside expectations of maintaining current lifestyles.

It stands to reason that they will both have to put aside expectations of maintaining current lifestyles

Correct. Try as hard as you like. You can't cut a cake into pieces in such a way that each piece is the same size as the cake before it was cut.

@ferrier
Don't forget that in order to achieve this superior lifestyle the two partners will have pooled resources at the beginning and also achieved economies of living together
I think this is a really interesting point about resources being pooled at the beginning and leads to all sorts of interesting questions about how early contribution can facilitate later success which would make calculating the value of any individual's contribution impossible.

A RL example I know of this is where one of the spouses has worked all of his life in a relatively low paid career with relatively few opportunities to progress, however crucially he began work at 18 and was earning just enough to help support his spouse through university and to complete the internships/training required in order to start her more lucrative career. As the years have gone on her earnings have rocketed whilst his have remained static. She works more hours than him and also does her share of childcare/domestic work BUT she would never have been able to afford to pursue her current career path without his initial support. Even if he hadn't actively financially supported her, the ability to split bills and avoid the higher costs of living alone would have made it easier for her to build a successful career.

This is why calculating the real value of someone's contribution is impossible as his financial support to her in the early days wouldn't amount to a big proportion of the marital assets, however if he had not provided that support then the opportunity cost to her would have been huge and she would not be on the position she is in now to continue to reap the benefits of such a career in the case of a divorce. Timing was everything!

@MissedTheBoatAgain No, the weaker earner is no longer “usually the wife” - statistics show that women’s earning outstrip men until the point they have children. Childcare costs are not the responsibility of the mother alone - the child has two parents.

These ridiculous 1950s Stepford assumptions do not help understand the real-life situation for modern couples.

I would have been better off without marrying. So, my original point is marriage is a bad institution that does not work and that’s due to the law.

Of course marching on Parliament would be pointless because it’s not elected representatives who have made this law but unelected judges with apparently no comeback.

There is a plan to reform divorce law but it takes none of this into account. Instead it is only looking at “no fault” and making it easier. The law is not interested in fault anyway, only in property.

My ex was definitely at fault. He caused this split, destroyed his family and will now do very nicely out of it. I began divorce proceedings but had no real choice. I am left to pick up the pieces. Maybe fault SHOULD be more relevant.

To NotBeingRobbed,

So if you logic is correct and that assets should be split according to who bought them how come that principle was not applied in the past when husbands were most definitely the financially stronger party? Imagine the uproar from the feminists?

What happened to the equal rights for Women that Women fought for decades? Still get the impression that you are one of those that wants equality, but not when it is to your disadvantage.

The Wright vs Wright case you referred to earlier was a case of the Husband being the breadwinner by a long margin. His appeal to have the SM reduced over time was correct as the ex wife had previously worked in the past.

The law is not interested in fault anyway

Not 100% correct. If there was DV or one had ran up huge debts it would be taken into account.

Maybe fault SHOULD be more relevant

Fault in whose eyes? How would you define fault? How would you demonstrate it other than DV and running up debts?

if he had not provided that support then the opportunity cost to her would have been huge and she would not be on the position she is in now to continue to reap the benefits of such a career in the case of a divorce

Hence there is no distinction between homemaker and breadwinner as possible the roles will switch over time as in the case you mention.

There was a safeguarding issue and I acted in the interests of the children. Apparently this is irrelevant.

There was a safeguarding issue and I acted in the interests of the children

Please elaborate so that we can all understand how your case should be treated differently?

I’m not going to elaborate because I have already disclosed too much. I have a social services report that backs me though.

To NotBeingRobbed,

So you think you are entitled to the largest share over a child safety issue? Does not sound right. If your children were in danger your ex would have been removed from the family home and a restraining order put in place.

If you have the documents from Social Services why are you worried about receiving what you consider to be an unfair share? If there was DV would that not be in your favour?

People are not always removed. They leave when asked to go and do not return.

Although we only divorced becacuse my husband's conduct (he was so bad my children asked me to divorce him) I don't agree with bringing fault back into divorce in the way it was before about 1970 as it just led to every couple dredging up every last thing the other had done wrong so although most people will always feel why should someone who has done wrong - wife or husband had 5 affairs, never cleaned th house once, never worked etc etc it would just be too complicated to bring it back.

On the issue of leaving my husband was advised not to leave our home until the very last point - financial order, remortgage, money hitting his account, decree abosolute so we had to live in the same house right through the 7 months that took which was not very easy at all but i can understand his solicitor's position on the issue and nor did I move out then (or even now as I earned enough to buy him out but he could not buy we out as earned less).

Actually he did never clean the house once but that wasn’t the fault. It wasn’t an option for him to stay until divorce and it was a child who wanted him to go.

Xenia

Sadly in the UK one has to blame the other of something to get the Divorce in motion. Unreasonable behaviour seems to be the most common as it can be almost anything. No fault or irreconcilable differences not possible yet in UK.

My ex too stayed in Family Home for 3 months after money hit her account to give her time to look around for something she could afford. Re-mortgaging against the equity was how she was bought out. She could never have done the same as like your ex did not earn enough.

Still gripes her though that I kept the 4 bedroom house and she now lives in 2 bedroom house with son. Even bigger gripe is that due to the large difference in net earnings (maybe 14x in my favour) she knows it would not take long to catch up as far assets go.

So maybe in the long run the one who paid the most and earns the does end up being better off?

Actually he did never clean the house once but that wasn’t the fault. It wasn’t an option for him to stay until divorce and it was a child who wanted him to go

But your ex was married to you so you had to Divorce him. Not the child.

Still maintain the view that had the children been as risk from your ex's presence the authorities would have moved him on.

Something does not gel with your posts?

He has gone and the authorities agree the risk is removed but it did not come to the stage of them stepping in and saying he should go because I acted first.

I’m sure there are a huge number of cases like this, hidden from view in middle class homes where nobody is relying on the authorities to house them.