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?

@Ss770640 would you be happy with a 20% loss? I know most people would rather I went away and died. But I won’t. Just to be awkward.

@Ss770640 when did I say there was no infidelity? I have not been unfaithful. I can’t say the same for him.

@Notbeingrobbed

I made an assumption.

Yeah that's just sh*t.

Exact same boat as me. I'm the higher earner. STBXW cheated, left, offered nothing for all our joint bills, lied even in the face of blatant undisputed proof, and continues to see her AP. What's worse I'm expected to drop off my son and smile whilst paying for two houses.

I highly recommend fantasising about their torturous death at the hands of a pack of rats. It's cathartic.

i, I didn’t realise 30 years ago that divorce would cost a lot. But at that time I wasn’t earning as much as him. So I knew the only way I could get a house was to marry him. It was my only option to move forward at the time. Back then, I remember the building society manager saying to me that he didn’t care about my earnings, as I would be at home doing the house chores ! These days it would be unheard of !!

It’s hard to believe it was so bad 30 years ago - 1988? Surely not? I have spent my adult life trying to break glass ceilings and taking responsibility for my own finances. So now it is really galling to find that it was all an illusion and all that really mattered was whether I married a man richer or poorer than myself.

richer or poorer

That is one of the vows. So neither party should complain if one earns more than the other and ends up paying more.

I'm sure we all agree that marriage vows are in fact a meaningless waste of time. They benefit only the poorer earner.

Personally I couldn't shoulder the shame and embarrassment of being the cheat who wronged the family. And why cheats often deflect and victim blame.

But you can't write off all the years @Notbeingrobbed

Don't let a poisonous ending infect the memories of the good times.

And take solace it's 20% your losing. Not 50%. Failing that take up martial arts and fight out your anger in the ring 😂

Seriously all the best

@MissedTheBoatAgain

For richer or poorer and in sickness and health.

These vows mean the ups and downs of life. They don't mean "for richer women and poorer men"

😂

They don't mean "for richer women and poorer men"

Correct. That's why both partners have to make the same vows so they apply either way regardless of who ends up being the top earner.

However, that 42% of marriages end in Divorce demonstrates that the vows are not taken seriously and I remember at some time in the past it was suggested the vows were re-visited?

As there are so many things that can happen between wedding and divorce it might explain why people don't bother to think what the result of a Divorce might be?

Even the couple that won 154 Million on the lottery ended up Divorced.

Based on the numbers NotBeingRobbed has given I think as time passes she will be better of than Ex due to earning potential. Some people who have divorced might argue that sacrificing your 20% was worth it if you managed to rid yourself of a freeloader?

My point is just that I’ve felt I’ve gone out there and really done my bit in earning to support the family - and him - while he has sat back and done much less. But that isn’t recognised. It’s not so much about the money (though that hurts) but about my life still being defined only by the man I married. Hopefully some women will understand that.

Yes, I will do better without him in the end.

As for vows, maybe the court should go through them one by one and see who kept more? Did I look after him in sickness and in health? Tick. Did he forsake all others? Cross. Did he love and cherish? Cross. Etc.

I understand the richer or poorer bit is meant to mean you will stick together in bad times. But I really detest the fact that the contract of marriage means that if you marry someone less financially responsible than yourself (without knowing that at the start) and they go out and burn your cash then you will be dragged down by them and have no comeback.

Sorry this has happened, but the financial implications of marriage and divorce are well known.

You had the option of ending the marriage at any time.

if you marry someone less financially responsible than yourself (without knowing that at the start) and they go out and burn your cash

Impossible to know at the start as how the two Partner's careers may develop can't be forecast in advance.

If it was obvious at the beginning of your marriage that the other half was a waster/freeloader/adulterer then maybe you should have pulled the plug sooner? The longer the marriages lasts the less likely one partner will receive a much larger share of assets.

You are an unusual case in that although the wife you earned more and were main carer by the sounds of things.

Very different to my case. Wife only capable of finding work that paid a living wage. She has to be the main carer as I am out of UK most of the time.

Plus (and possibly most significantly) I can earn per day what she can earn per month. So although she never paid towards any of the assets during the marriage, she received about 70% of total. At first that sounds horrendous. However, it will only take me 2 or 3 years to make up the full 70%. After that I will be storming ahead of the Ex.

I’m not on that kind of megabucks money - just a good seniorish salary. Plus I’m still not able to work full time because of my responsibility to my child as my hours can be anti-social. I will be OK anyway.

I don’t think I am so unusual. I am part of a rising trend, maybe just slightly ahead of the curve. If the law stays as it is then I think marriage will die out. I see young married couples now and wonder why anyone bothers.

Since the 70s there has been a slow decline in the the number of people marrying. Particularly among the younger generation.

Go back a generation or two and marriage was a society expectation. Living together was seen as wrong. Divorce also seemed to looked down upon as well?

Plus (without being rude to women) women were often overlooked when it came to employment. So maybe for some women marriage was the only way to achieve some form of stability/respectability?

Wonder how many married the "first decent guy that came along" and received approval from their parents?

Very different World now.

Yes, my parents would have disapproved if I had not married before having kids. But I wish I had ignored that. The world was changing from what they knew.

I think there was still a big pressure on my generation to get married and settle down as a sign of success. I wish I had given myself more time to develope my own true view of whether this was a good arrangement.

I always despised people who married for money. But it seems one went and married me.

I think France has got it more or less right.

Obligatory choice of regime before marriage

1. Community of goods (for those with nothing).
2. Separation of goods (most common). What you took into the marriage is yours at the end.

Child care is hugely subsidized and plentiful. Most parents go back to work after 13 weeks. "School" starts at 3. School day and child care fits around proper working hours.

Divorce can be cheap, you can share a lawyer, but you do have to have legal representation. Your lawyer in these circumstances helps you negotiate a fair agreement. Judge checks and rubber stamps it.

If you go the combative route it is expensive.

Parents are expected to do 50/50 and no maintenance. Any less than 50/50 maintenance is expected. Anyone not paying maintenance is very poorly viewed by the courts regardless of the earnings of the resident parent.

First H walked away with nothing. I kept my house, and my kids. I agreed I would take no maintenance, which gave me absolute freedom to leave the abuse. I was lucky to be the main earner. He took the minimum time with the kids (EOW and 50% of holidays). Divorce was good for me. Far better than marriage.

Second H is a good man. My will protects him and I've shared my worldly goods with him (usufructuaire) and visa versa. He deserves protection. He will protect my DC. Everything of mine goes to them after his death.

It's not a perfect system but it does it's best to be fair. Tax wise it's expensive though.

I was widowed when my children were very young. Thank God I was married.
(However, I intend to never marry again to protect my children. That's more about having been a step child and my late father leaving everything to his wife, who has made a new will favouring her own children and marginalising her step children.)

Marriage would have made no difference at all to me financially had I been widowed.

It’s a good point too about your father remarrying. The same thing could happen to my kids if their father remarries. I think kids should be protected against step parents!!

That's more about having been a step child and my late father leaving everything to his wife

Not related to the subject of this thread, but seems many people do not realize if they don't change their will after re-marriage in children from their previous marriage can easily be pushed to one side.

I think kids should be protected against step parents

Wills can provide such protection, but it seems that some people are not aware and make the assumption that upon their death assets will be distributed equally among the immediate surviving relatives including children from earlier marriage even a will does not exist?

What a bad legal system we have - that your first-born, second-born or whatever children from your first marriage can be cut out by a second marriage. Maybe women see it differently because we actually give birth to them and it’s a life-changing event for us - but my children will be my first priority for life! It’s interesting that my STBEX couldn’t even remember the dates of his kids’ birthdays - he had to ask! Those dates are etched on my soul forever.

children from your first marriage can be cut out by a second marriage

Wills can be made, or later adjusted, to avoid children from first marriage being pushed aside. Issue seems to be that people are not aware.

Lesson is that people should review their will whenever there is a significant change in circumstances. New partner, or further marriage, inheritances, etc., should all trigger a review of their will.

I’m amazed that people think the financial value of a SAHP is equivalent to an au pair... or that people think that a financial value needs to be placed on the role of a SAHP at all! The way I see it marriage is a partnership between two people and that includes assets created during marriage. It’s totally irrelevant that one person makes £10m per year and the other cares for the children. The fact that one party turns out to have been a crap partner or SAHP is unfortunate but is not something the courts can legislate for or you would get some very odd decisions.

Pre-marital assets are different and I do think pre- nups should be binding except exceptionally. Spousal maintenance (which I didn’t realise still existed) I’m also more dubious about but probably needs to be assessed case by case. I tend to agree that it is strange that the higher earner should top up the lower earner forever more.

If you want to make sure that your partner always contributes equally purely financially then you need to choose your partner on that basis or not marry I think. It’s not the way I think about marriage. But totally see that others have a different view.

Maybe there ought to be three or four standard financial ‘options’ people should choose between when they get married which is then looked at on divorce eg ‘share everything’ ‘share everything acquired after marriage’ etc.

FWIW I personally think nannies and childcare is second best to me being at home with my children all day but it is a compromise I accept in the round. But then I place a high value on my role as a day to day carer and parent which funnily enough I can’t fulfil I’m the same way sitting in the office 60 hour per week. And I have had some excellent nannies. If I could split myself in two on forgo the nannies I certainly would and not just for financial reasons.

I’m not sure why these discussion are so black and white sometimes. Different choices come with different benefits and risks.

If one earns £10m a year then comes home, cooks dinner, reads stories, puts kids to bed, does the washing and shopping....while the other watches TV is that an equal partnership? I’d say it was exploitation.

Marriage is a strange institution from a byegone age and I don’t think it can go on in law as it has. Things will change in the end.

Yes a devoted and enthusiastic SAHP could be worth £10m but they don’t produce £10m do they? And there are lots of SAHPs that are not so great. Who gives the SAHPs and annual performance review? Who’s regulating them? Where are their childcare qualifications and police checks? Not all are saints.