Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Divorce/separation

Here you'll find divorce help and support from other Mners. For legal advice, you may find Advice Now guides useful.

Original poster

Worst decision a woman could make

630 replies

Notbeingrobbed · 18/09/2018 11:16

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?

OP posts:
MissedTheBoatAgain · 09/10/2018 09:21

He has gone and the authorities agree the risk is removed

This is good news.

but it did not come to the stage of them stepping in and saying he should go because I acted first

If you acted first and authorities did not have to step in how do you have a report from Social Services?

Original poster
Notbeingrobbed · 09/10/2018 09:32

They became aware. I didn’t tell them, a third party did.

OP posts:
Original poster
Notbeingrobbed · 09/10/2018 09:34

Actually, are you the judge in this case @MissedTheBoatAgain. I do not want to go into this more.

OP posts:
Original poster
Notbeingrobbed · 09/10/2018 09:41

So I am paying the price and losing a large amount of my lifetime earnings but at least I know I did the right thing - the only thing I could do. And he is laughing all the way to the bank.

OP posts:
MissedTheBoatAgain · 09/10/2018 09:48

So I am paying the price and losing a large amount of my lifetime earnings but at least I know I did the right thing - the only thing I could do

How can you know that in advance of Final Hearing? Might not work out as bad as you think.

No I am not a Judge, but work in Arbitration.

Original poster
Notbeingrobbed · 09/10/2018 09:54

My solicitor says we should try to settle before court. I agree. And 50:50 seems to be the minimum he will get. She does not think the other information is relevant, although it is listed on the petition and he has not disputed this in any way. Never for one moment tried to explain himself and just left and that is it. Not criminal behaviour but extremely dubious and unacceptable as far as I am concerned.

OP posts:
Original poster
Notbeingrobbed · 09/10/2018 09:55

The legal costs are crippling. If be fine supporting myself and the kids were it not for the solicitor bills. So I’d like it over.

OP posts:
Original poster
Notbeingrobbed · 09/10/2018 10:22

I’d be...not if be.

OP posts:
DrCoconut · 09/10/2018 10:23

Me too. I can't and don't want at the moment to discuss the circumstances of my divorce but due to his behaviour my ex now has no input with the kids and pays very little maintenance. I have to work, pay bills, sort childcare etc. My reward for this is to hand the bugger half my pension and get into debt to buy him out of the house so the kids can have their home. We don't have enough equity to split to do much else. My situation was utterly unforseeable and I really think people who do despicable things should forfeit their claim to property if it means taking from their children. By that I mean criminal or morally reprehensible not leaving the toilet seat up or something.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 09/10/2018 11:16

To Robbed

So there was no criminal behaviour after all? That what you put on the petition was not challenged makes no difference. Application for divorce and financial settlement are two separate procedures and possible that applicant for divorce and settlement are not the same partner.

Parents have a duty to maximise their earnings after divorce to ensure child is okay. If the wife was the higher earner possible that courts decide that mother works and father is PWC?

That’s why you should settle out of court. Always the risk judge makes an order that neither partner wanted! Cost of final hearing is big. Don’t expect much change from £10K

Original poster
Notbeingrobbed · 09/10/2018 12:02

What is PWC. I do work, have always worked, he has a job too. My child doesn’t want to ever see him again and is old enough to say so. Did I have to wait for an actual crime before stepping in to protect her from a very damaging situation?

OP posts:
Xenia · 09/10/2018 15:55

PWC probably means parent with care.

DrC similar here. I take on £1.3m of mostly new debt, he gets more than half the assets and can buy an unmortgaged house and hundreds of thousands in the bank, my life savings, all my shares etc etc. I was able to save our own home. We only divorced because of his conduct, even 10 years before the divorce in my diaries I am currently scanning there is all sorts of stuff I had forgotten, cupboards at home he'd smashed in, dropping my whole dinner and its plate on to the floor etc etc and I had the children saying they wanted me to divorce him (one even hopefully jokingly wanted me to get him killed).

That that person then gets loads of money, more than I got, has no obligation to support the children (he pays nothing) and (and this tends to be bigger burden on women) the woman is left doing 365 days a year of the children, their washing, arranding their child care etc is very unfair. Eg he had/has 8 weeks of private school summer holiday off school. I wkould take one off off all summer and take the children on holiday of that one weeka nd then pay 7 weeks of full time child care (he asked for an extra £100k in the divorce settlement supposedly so he could continue to take the chidlren on nice holidays and yet ever took them on one again).

ILovePierceBrosnan · 09/10/2018 17:33

I’ve watched the thread with interest. I was the higher earner and also the primary caregiver for children. He also was completely irresponsible with money often leaving me to deal with his debts. The family were in poverty whilst he bought what he liked.

I stayed in the misguided thought process that it was better for the DC and tbh I couldn’t imagine how we could afford to separate. You need to finance two homes and keeping one over our heads was a struggle due to his spending.

On divorce I handed him 50% of (nearly) everything for a clean break. It was worth every penny but yes it galls that I financed him for years and then post divorce I never saw a penny in CM. I am however financially really sound now. Yes I had to take on a big mortgage but because I’d spent years working hard to keep up with his lifestyle my career really took off and I’m able to support all my DC.

I often read threads on here from women who feel adamant that marriage means their ex should keep them in the manner they have become accustomed to for life and roll my eyes. From my perspective this is totally unreasonable. I have discussed how the shift in more men being SAHD will change everyone’s take on this.

Divorce is always unfair. Always. Someone will have chosen it and the other has it forced on them. One person will benefit financially and the other will have lost. Often the guilty party benefits. The DC will be ‘given’ to one party and the other might grieve for that or the DC might get no support from one parent and they will do the grieving. It’s all shit. But it would still be shit even if you weren’t married.

I think that on marriage everyone should be forced to sit down and write out an agreement of how they see the marital assets. You must agree and be transparent about your financial model e.g. proportionate financial responsibility or 50/50 or total merge. Value must be given to possibility of rearing children and agreement must be made to acknowledge that the care giver has given that financial equivalent. That way you know what you’ve let yourself in for.

Haireverywhere · 09/10/2018 19:35

I also love Pierce.

I do like relationship contracts that set out expectations of both parties for who will do and contribute what during the marriage, financially, practically, as well as any terms wanted, when it will be reviewed and under what terms and what break clauses are agreed. It's all hearts and flowers until someone wants to change the deal that wasn't bottomed out.

MissedTheBoatAgain · 10/10/2018 04:38

one even hopefully jokingly wanted me to get him killed

Might have been cheaper than taking on £1.3m of mostly new debt and losing more than half of the assets?

he asked for an extra £100k in the divorce settlement supposedly so he could continue to take the chidlren on nice holidays and yet ever took them on one again

Did the Consent Order state that the £100k was specifically for children's holidays?

MissedTheBoatAgain · 10/10/2018 04:47

I often read threads on here from women who feel adamant that marriage means their ex should keep them in the manner they have become accustomed to for life and roll my eyes. From my perspective this is totally unreasonable

According to Mostyn as time passes the lifestyle of the past becomes less relevant as circumstances can change and Court Orders can be re-visited. The Wright vs Wright that NotBeingRobbed bangs on about is a good example.

One person will benefit financially and the other will have lost

Might appear that way on the day of the settlement, but orders are meant to take into account potential future earnings, pensions, etc. Idea is that over time things balance out.

I know for certain by time I retire I will be much better off than Ex due to earnings.

I think that on marriage everyone should be forced to sit down and write out an agreement of how they see the marital assets

Sounds like a prenup which at moment are not recognized in UK Law?

Value must be given to possibility of rearing children and agreement must be made to acknowledge that the care giver has given that financial equivalent

Law does not discriminate between Breadwinner and Homemaker. How assets are split is meant to reflect; what is actually available and who needs what in the short term giving priority to children's needs.

Xenia · 10/10/2018 07:28

Missed, on the extra £100k no, not at all. We negotiated mostly face to face at home and verbally agreed one figure and he just kept pushing for more and that was one of the reasons he said he needed the extra money. We both knew he could spend it how he wanted.

I certainly agree with ILoveP's comments above although in our case we did discuss things in advance such as we would both work (which we did), our aims etc

Prenups have indicative force in English law - (Radmacher case etc) but only if both sides have legal advice, it is a fair deal, it is not forced, both sides declare all finances etc etc. (Similar for cohabitation agreements) Even then things change - one partner may become disabled for life or one earns riches beyond what they ever anticipated. I certainly don't want to move a man in here again.

Perhaps this will all become pretty irrelevant as lots of people now actively choose not to marry knowing the legal differences so marriage may just wither on the vine.

ILovePierceBrosnan · 10/10/2018 23:05

Everyone’s situation is so different and yes life changes so whatever you think you intend or want...will change. I just think it’s a good starter to make sure you both have the same intentions right from the off rather than just assuming.

I did a Living Together agreement with my partner when he moved in. Holds no weight in law but does mean we both understood what we agreed to and if either deviates then a further discussion is held. Romantic... Grin

Both of us have been married and both happy to have these discussions. Tbh if someone wasn’t I wouldn’t live with them

In marriage I was disadvantaged as he spent. Upon divorce that wasn’t redressed (didn’t think it would be). I got out, worked hard and am comfortable. He left with more than he had contributed and spent the lot, bankrupt before the year was out. I occasionally have a pang when I realise the difference in our lifestyle and wealth but we have chosen different paths. He gave up work to evade CM

MissedTheBoatAgain · 11/10/2018 00:49

He gave up work to evade CM

Would have thought the Law has a way of dealing with that? If not seems an easy get out for an NRP.

Hideandgo · 11/10/2018 09:42

The law can’t stop someone giving up work no more than the court will make someone pay CM from a salary of zero.

Hideandgo · 11/10/2018 09:43

Lots of people do this to avoid paying CM.

Original poster
Notbeingrobbed · 11/10/2018 10:38

It never ceases to amaze me how some parents seem to think it’s OK not to pay for the cost of raising their child and leave it to the other parent to do it all.

OP posts:
MissedTheBoatAgain · 11/10/2018 11:51

NotBeingRobbed

I am with you on your last post

Pinkpanthershow · 11/10/2018 22:50

Marriage has been financially and emotionally disastrous for me. I am unable to move with my son to live nearer to my family and so feel trapped in my ex’s home town, surrounded by his toxic family. I am also facing handing over a lot of money to my ex H,who has been nothing but a bully to me.

I owned a property before marriage and so paid a large deposit on our home and am the higher earner. This seems to mean my husband will walk away with a lot of money, earned before I had the misfortune to meet him. It is odd that a 10 year marriage, out of a potential working life of 40 years, seems to leave my ex entitled to so much. No one explained that to me when I was looking at wedding dresses!

MissedTheBoatAgain · 12/10/2018 00:45

No one explained that to me when I was looking at wedding dresses!

The decision to marry was yours. Nobody is obliged to tell you what the consequences may be in Divorce as so many things can change between wedding and Divorce. Children may appear and that moves the goal posts big time. One may advance far in their career and end up being the main earner, but at beginning may have been the lower earner?

In UK Divorce rate is 42% (almost half for round numbers). Maybe that explains why many now live together as opposed to marry? However, that can have it's pitfalls too as there is big difference between living together and being married when it comes to moving on.

Swipe left for the next trending thread