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?

@MissedTheBoatAgain
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.
I agree with this completely.

There is a lot of talk about responsibility on this thread, mostly posters talking about how their ex didn't take responsibility for earning enough money or looking after the children or the house. What there seems to be a reluctance to discuss is people taking personal responsibility for the decision to marry in the first place. Yes circumstances and people change, but some people seem absolutely adamant that unless they were given a detailed brief about how their relationship was going to pan out and the financial implications of this in the event of divorce then they were not in the position to make an informed decision about getting married. Divorce law can be complex but one can do their own research or seek independent advice if they are want more information about likely scenarios and settlements.

With the divorce rate running so high, I find it astonishing that so many posters claim that they had no idea about how divorce law works.

To BumpityBumper

It takes two to make a successful marriage and two to make an unsuccessful marriage. I do not believe that out of all the Divorces that have happened in the World one Partner was 100% at fault and the other was 0% at fault.

I was the applicant in my Divorce, but would never say Ex was 100% to blame. Sadly my Ex thought I was 100% to blame and made the Financial Settlement (for which they were the applicant) a case of:

"It was all his fault so therefore I am entitled to everything both now and in the future"

One of the questions asked to Ex during the Court proceedings was:

"If you consider your husband to be 100% at fault and was the cause of the failure of the Marriage why did you not Divorce him?"

Question was not answered even though Ex was under oath at the time. Judge cautioned her, but still did not answer. Judge gave second caution and again no answer. Judge stated that in the absence of an answer they would take that into account when assessing her Financial Settlement application.

My Barrister replied;

"Your honour in my view failure of the Applicant to reply is further evidence that what my client, the Respondent, included in his Divorce petition that his Wife was an excessive spender is correct. Reason Applicant did not want to Divorce her husband as she knew it would be the end of the lavish lifestyle of the past. Hence the outrageous Spousal Maintenance demands made by the Applicant"

All very true, but at same time sad. To this day and to the day I die I will never be able to work out why my Ex could not work out that the more that was spent on Legal the less there would be at the end for anyone no matter how the Judge split things?

Missesd, unless someone is very very much in the wrong, blame is not relevant to children or finances in English law though so I am surprised it came up. Also huge numbers of people don't divorce a partner who is beating them up for all the usual psychological reasons which I am afraid I suspect a lot of men including male judges do not understand so I am not particularly supportive of the judge's comments there. However as blame does not determine finances or contact it does not really matter.

To Xenia

I, the husband, was the Applicant for the Divorce. Wife was the Applicant for the Financial Order.

The blame bit came up when Wife was being questioned about the items and figures she had included in her budget for the amount of Joint Lives Spousal Maintenance she thought she was entitled to. Barrister challenged many items as being non essential and even those that may be considered essential had huge figures against them. More importantly the total monthly amount she sought was more than my net income. When Barrister asked how Wife thought such items and figures were justifiable it was then she blurted out:

"I was all his fault. He divorced me. Not my idea. Why should I be worse off because he divorced me"

Judges comment was probably more aimed at fact that earlier in the proceedings it has been established that Wife had not provided the disclosure directed at the FDA and her failure to answer the bit about why she did not divorce myself cast doubt over the credibility and reliability about her reasons for not being able to provide her bank statements which was:

Wife:

"I asked the banks to provide, but they did not"

Barrister followed up with

"Do you use online banking?"

Wife replied "Yes"

Barrister followed:

"So why did you not print off the statements yourself"

Wife's reply;

"Printer was not working"

Barrister followed:

"But you were instructed to provide 9 months ago"

Wife replied:

"I could not afford to fix the printer"

Judge then intervened and said to my Barrister:

"I understand the point you have made. No need to continue with this line of questions"

However as blame does not determine finances or contact it does not really matter

This is nub of it. Some, usually the ex wive's it seems, think that blame is a deciding factor as to how assets should be split. Particularly if Adultery has been suspected.

I know and I don't think it's wives. I think it's both sides. It is a natural human thing to think the just should be rewarded. Husband abuses me hence only reason I divorce him and he gets a lot of money.

If people can achieve clean breaks without even nominal spousal payments that tends to allow both sides to move on more quickly but most people end up tied together as there is not enough money even to take the higher earner off the house mortgage.

I think you’ll notice that when Princess Eugenie marries today nobody will be talking about whether she has signed a pre-nup first. It’s all “we are in love” etc. She bloody well should sign one! If this was discussed instead of dresses and carriage rides it would set a better example to the nation.

You say take responsibility for the decision to marry but you don’t face up to the fact there is the entire culture that says it is a good, wise, sensible thing to do. And that culture has it wrong.

If I had stayed unmarried in the same relationship with children etc then I would now be better off. Of course, whether my parents would have been happy about that is another matter - they were very traditional about this, I loved them and wanted to do the right thing. I didn’t want to be shunned or cause shame. Even 20 years ago people viewed “living in sin” differently.

This is relevant. Before marriage I had another long-term relationship but was unmarried. When it all went pear-shaped I was told that if only I had “done the right thing” all would have been well. I lost a few hundred quid when he pushed off but it’s nothing at all compared to the cost of being married and then divorcing.

Now I console myself with the thought that when my ex dies my kids may inherit whatever is left of the settlement I give him. Because I know he won’t give them a penny otherwise unless forced to by law.

I know and I don't think it's wives

Judge Mostyn, who has presided over 100's of Divorces, recorded in his well known 2014 ruling that it was usually the wife that submitted over inflated budgets.

It is a natural human thing to think the just should be rewarded

Why? In return for what?

Husband abuses me hence only reason I divorce him and he gets a lot of money

Many men would make the same statement about wives.

To NotBeingRobbed

Sounds like you married due to choices someone else made for you!

Did someone point a gun at your head? Or did you become pregnant and marry to avoid perceived shame?

No. I wasn’t pregnant and I wanted a long-term relationship. I’m not feckless - although many people marry while pregnant and are not feckless either.

I respected the older generation and reasoned that their advice was correct. But it wasn’t. I think they would be dismayed at what’s happening.

I don’t think the law has moved with the times. Women work and deserve to take out a fair share of what they put in. I really didn’t realised that marrying meant surrendering all my future earnings and financial independence as if I was the family cash cow. This is the term my ex uses for me now. Prince Charming.

Re: Justice. Taking out what you put in would be just. Giving away my earnings is not just. Simple.

Bear in mind I am also the one housing and supporting the children.

Considering you're all such successful people you sure find a lot of time to post a lot of inane drivel!

@OP you're correct.
I'm annoyed and disappointed at the wasted time and emotions/support, spent over the last decade.
I used to be the high earner. At the moment there's bare bones. I'd be fuming at the lost money if that was a factor too.
As it is, any money I lose (Not huge but money I can't afford to giveaway) I feel is a small price to pay to be rid of him. That's how I settled my feelings on the matter. Xx

xyz, we just type quickly . Don't worry. I am not letting it get in the way of earning money and my divorce was over 10 years ago so it's pretty much water over the bridge. Every day I wake up without him there is like Christmas though so at least there are enduring benefits.

The issue for higher earner women is that even if we don't want it we often end up with the children, the domestic side, plus full time work plus paying the ex husband which tends not to be what men are left with. I would have been happy with 50% shared care but he chose not to have them one night a year even presumably as that given his lack of economic power was his only way to cause damage to me or lots of other complex reasons why sometimes an ex chooses not to see their family (they think they are useless, they cannot be bothered, they choose to go away or whatever it might be although most people thankfully DO want to see their children).

@xzcvbnm Yes, successful people manage to get a lot of things done quickly. It’s not drivel, it’s a case for marching on the High Court!

As they always say, if you want something done on time, give it to a busy person.

it’s a case for marching on the High Court!

Can the men who were the main bread winners, but lost what they paid for march on the High Court too?

Yes, why not?! The law doesn’t seem fair.

Most of you are arguing about the stronger having to give the weaker. I am in the opposite boat :(

I am going through divorce. Family home joint 50/50. I paid 75% of sizeable deposit. Throughout marriage, I paid (and continue to do so) all of bills and household shopping. STBX only pays 50% childcare costs and mortgage.

In terms of the children post-divorce, we have come to an agreement re: childcare - I will provide care for the kids 40% of the time.

Historically, I gave up a very promising career that I enjoyed immensely to care for kids, as STBX has a very inflexible job. I now have a good job with flexibility, but in all honesty I am not happy with the lack of challenge.

This is the kicker, through exchange of Form Es, I learnt that STBX yearly income is 1.5x greater than mine (and this is with her working part-time!), her fixed asset value is 2.5x greater than mine, her total cash savings 2x that of mine, and has a pension 3x the value of mine. You may be wondering why I didn't know this before - she made a point of telling me that it was her religious right to do what she likes with her income and my religious duty to support the family (I am not religious at all), so I accepted without question for the sake of the kids (they are my life).

Through divorce proceedings, she ticked the form E boxes for 'claim spousal', 'pension share' and wants me to sign the family home over to her. Of course I pushed back on this.

What would I like? 50% of the value of the family home which she could quite easily afford - I don't want to touch her tainted assets with a barge pole. But even that has become a struggle as she is desperately trying to play down the value of the property to minimise any buy-out offer. All-in-all, if I am able to secure 50% of the family home value, that would equate to 18% of the total marital pot.

If I reflect on the whole situation, I wish I had never met the crook. I recognise that I was stupid for having let myself be manipulated into this one sided relationship. But when faced with losing the children or paying for her sushi lunch lifestyle, I opted for the latter.

Never again.

That’s the irony isn’t it. People are not required to contribute equally until the point of divorce. The law will now let you grab her savings though. I paid nearly all bills too while my ex helped himself to the joint account. I was struggling to keep saving a little. He will clear that out now.

auber, that is Sharia law - that the women keeps her money and the man keeps the woman in marriage.

50% of chuidcare costs and mortgage is in most marriage just about most their expenses however! so if you paid each even if you happened to pay for the food extra that was not too much departing from 50/50 surely? Also don't marry someone who is going to work part time - get it agreed in adance you will both always work full time.

Anyway I am sure we can all agree divorce is difficult.

Missed, men have done a lot of marching etc and hanging off rooftops with fathers for justice banners and the like; meanwhile working women with toddlers etc seem not quite to have so much time on their hands. I would gladly have given up the children half the time rather than ont even getting 1 night off a year without them and might have had more time for hanging banners off motorways.

My advice to men and women is don't give up that good full time job whether it's easier to give it up or not. Just don't do it.

@xenia - Religious law or not, when it is applied half way into the marriage, with the threat of divorce to remove the kids from my life if I don't comply stinks. On your second point, monthly outgoing on food, council tax and utilities totals approx £550 per month. That is a significant proportion of all my outgoings in the month, and most definitely makes it a lot more than than the 50/50 you speculate on.

Had I know she would start applying a pick-n-mix approach to the marriage - applying cultural norm, religious practices that support her lifestyle and capitalist philosophy , I would never have married her.

Auberjohn

Get proper legal advice and take what you are entitled to, which is a proportion of everything including savings and pensions. If you decide to forgo a proportion of these because they are “tainted”, that is your problem and mistake. Whether she kept it in her name, being married it is your money too. So don’t be a martyr and don’t get sucked into punishing her by giving up money you are entitled to.

She can ask for what she wants but it is not what she is entitled to.

I suppose my problem is my ex wants half of the house, my savings, my pension but didn’t contribute half - his earnings were less than mine and he was also not willing to pay for as much.

I think auber's problem is that many men have - the wives blackmail them over contact with the children. Mind you in islam I think the father gets total custody from age 7 or perhaps younger even for boys, although it sounds like she's a bit pick and mix as regards Sharia law. I would make sure you know where their passports are and perhaps get a prohibited steps order if she has family abroad.

In our case child care was at least £30k a year (3 children under 4 both worked full time is an expensive business) and my mortgage was £1.3m at one point and cost £90k a year so food was just about nothing compared to those big things and then I was paying 5 sets of school fees. But I can see in your case £550 for those others which was not split 50/50 was unfair. We instead only had joint accounts and shared everything which at least meant we knew everything. I even pencilled in his tax return for him to ink over once he had checked it and we both opened the other's post so no need of any financial disclosure on the divorce or anything complex like that just a negotiation over his %

I think auber's problem is that many men have - the wives blackmail them over contact with the children

Pleased that someone from the female gender has realized that. Seems to happen often. Particularly if the Husband was the Applicant for the Divorce or there is OW involved. How it is thought that depriving any child from contact with their Father is helpful to the child I have no idea?

Only reason I can think of for restricting or even preventing access is if there is a safety risk to either the Mother or Child?