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?

My understanding though is the view the courts take now is different. Adults are expected to sustain themselves where remotely feasible, and if they can't then the ex spouse must do what they can afford to do, to avoid that low earner suffering undue hardship, but they do not see this as avoiding all hardship.

With equality and more women working, the pendulum has swung quite far in the opposite direction. It's no longer the case women are expected to stay home and raise babies, in fact 80 percent of mothers now work, as such the courts view has moved with the changes in society. It's well recognised that women can be and often are the higher earner, and are expected to work and earn their own livings.

As such, although there is always a risk to the higher earner, irrelevant of gender, then the courts try to make sure the higher earner isn't penalised for life if they can avoid it. Hence why a clean break is always preferable as it enables both parties to seperate and move on.

So women should get married, to protect joint assets- but women shouldn't get married to protect their own assets? Marriage is a partnership, regardless of who puts in the most financially. Having multiple children, and then separating because you dont agree with the division of labour, is fair enough- but your partner, whether they are male or female is entitled to a fair division of assets. You don't 'deserve' more if you were the female and the lower earner.

@Bumpitybumper the reason I think equal mat/pat leave provision is important is to encourage a position where men and women are seen by employers as equally likely to take time off employment to raise children- as well as being actually equally likely to take it. Until that happens (amongst other things), the gender pay gap will persist.

If we had a society where women and men earned a similar amount in the first place and either (or both) could take time off to raise children and not be financially penalised, we wouldn't need to compensate at the time of divorce.

I get your point about me assuming that the children would be put into childcare- you're right. I totally get that some parents would prefer to not work and look after their children, but I think that has to be the risk of the person taking the time off. Again, this would only work properly in my utopian scenario- right now the reason a lot of women (and sometimes men) become SAHP is because they simply can't afford the childcare to go back to work- they should absolutely be protected now, of course.

@Notbeingrobbed
It would be quite rare though for someone to be able to work PT and make more than their partner who works FT. Usually this is because it's hard to get PT positions in some of the best paying fields and working PT in itself can be a barrier towards promotion and therefore earning more. Of course it's possible but I would predict quite a low percentage of PT workers outearn their partners who work FT.

There should of course be a fair division of assets that came into the marriage during the marriage. With a balance in terms of primary care giver if kids involved where necessary.

The spousal maintenance thing is now somewhat a thing of rhe past, and is somewhat more relevant for people where the kids have additional needs, or are very young, or for the older generation, or indeed if someone is physically and mentally unable to work.

Basically each case needs to be reviewed on its own merit.

This is a blunt reply. But the problem was not getting married, it was your choice of who to marry. You chose, as an educated and strong, independent woman, an unsuitable partner. Unfortunately that gamble has not paid off.

Getting married to someone decent is a wonderful thing. Stable and committed families are fantastic and positive so warning people off making such commitments is not good. Warning people off marrying shit partners is good.

Sounds terrible but education pre marriage is probably a red herring. I don't believe any woman would cancel a wedding on the grounds that she had learned about divorce law.

You can tell people the facts until you're blue in the face, they never think it'll apply to them. The state can't protect women from men turning out to be arseholes.

My original point was do any of us realise at the beginning what we’ve really signed up for? There are the vows, of course, including “til death us do part”, “love and to cherish”, “honour”, “in sickness and in health” “forsaking all others” and “with all my worldly goods I thee endow”. And we all want to believe it will last too.

It seems to me all of those can be broken without the courts giving a damn, except for the property vow.

So it’s just a property ceremony. And it seems to me that it’s fine to share your stuff when you want to be married and are being committed to supporting the other person but at the end you should walk away with what you put in!

There should be a full legal pack including information about how divorce settlements work and written contract at the start. There should not be a big celebration with distant relatives rocking up for a party and everyone in your family saying “well done”. They should say “watch out”!!

Anyone fancy picketing a few weddings?

I always thought marriage was the most stable environment for children. I bought into the tradition. But mine seem happy enough now it’s over.

@unclemontyscrumpets
I understand the logic behind your equal paternity/maternity argument and do agree that it's one way to tackle discrimination, however my concern would be that you either cut women's provision to grant men their equal paternity leave or you extend the overall provision which would be very expensive. I just can't believe there isn't another way where we can reduce discrimination without relying on pretending that men need paternity leave in the same way women need maternity leave. We are biologically different and this is not only inescapable but also wonderful, however I'm very wary of policies that seek to minimise these differences rather than address the discrimination associated with the differences.

I totally get that some parents would prefer to not work and look after their children, but I think that has to be the risk of the person taking the time off.
But what if BOTH parents think that having a SAHP is the optimal model for raising a family, why should one of those adults shoulder all the financial risk whilst the other person is absolved of all responsibility? Surely a key part of marriage is that you merge your assets and also share the liabilities and risks associated with jointly made decisions designed to benefit the family unit as a whole. I think there is a misconception sometimes that people choose to be SAHPs in order to avoid work as opposed to choosing to be SAHPs because ideologically they believe this is the best way to raise children. In my experience the vast majority of SAHPs fall into the latter camp (excluding those that you mention that can't afford childcare which is a different issue).

@MorrisZapp I’m sure your spouse is the most wonderously perfect individual. Or maybe they are having an affair right now and you just haven’t twigged yet?!

@Hideandgo
What happens when your perfect partner has a mental health breakdown and becomes unstable 10 years into a marriage? Or you find out your husband of 20 years is having an affair?Or do such things not happen in your perfect world? If you have the key to knowing how people will behave 5, 10, 20 years down the line please let me know it.

Er that's my entire point. I'm not married but my DP is far from perfect and yes, could be having an affair for all I know.

Would you actually have cancelled your wedding if someone had told you that in the future, divorce would be a nightmare? Presumably not, because like most people getting married you thought you'd always stay together.

@MorrisZapp but that’s why marriage is a bad decision. We go into it because we think it will work. And actually our parents’ generation divorced far less and grandparents hardly ever. But times have changed and so few marriages last. Now believing in a forever marriage is like believing in Father Christmas. We should not be encouraging impossible dreams.

And people do change over a couple of decades. There is probably no other decision from two decades ago I’ve stuck with, other than my line of work, even that has changed!

Well I broadly agree with that. But people really, really like getting married. Especially people who have been told by other people that they shouldn't be getting married :)

@MorrisZapp but that’s because of the impossible dream we are sold from childhood...in every film or TV series or novel or the gossip of our friends or Royal wedding etc. I’m not talking about the dress and the walk-through balloon arch or whatever. I mean the idea that it’s the ultimate confirmation that you have found the “Right One” are “in love” and it will last forever. You will have perfect children, move to a large house in the suburbs or country cottage and roll around in fits of giggles in piles of perfectly-russet autumn leaves, or whatever!! Hormones also have a lot to do with it. All of that should not be behind entering into a cast-iron legal agreement.

Unfortunately there aren't enough good men to ago around so millions of women get lumbered with the substandard ones and feel pressured to marry them. Staying single has only recently become a socially acceptable alternative.

I've always been really pleased that I never married because it meant I got to keep my house. I must have known deep down that the one I fell for (he told a lot of lies) would have happily taken everything from me given half a chance and the law would have backed him up. Not getting married was the best decision I ever made. I don't care that society judges me for being an unmarried mother or a single parent. I do what was right for me and my child.

The law is in favour of the lesser earner, which traditionally would have been the stay-at-home mum.
I was almost stung when I split up with my then un-employed ex for my savings, earnings and pensions - all of which he didn't have. Thank god for our mediator. I will never marry again.

@Notbeingrobbed
It seems to me all of those can be broken without the courts giving a damn, except for the property vow.

In my view this is because marriage followed by divorce is fundamentally illogical- the marriage vows promise forever, and divorce effectively allows you to acknowledge that it wasn't forever, it was just for a bit. The financial settlement then becomes a weird amalgam of those two concepts- you don't continue getting your ex-spouse's money forever, but you don't get cut off immediately either- cos you were promised it would be forever...

Before someone says it I definitely don't think we shouldn't be able to get divorced, we should just acknowledge that as divorce exists marriage is not necessarily forever and we shouldn't pin all of our hopes and arrange our entire lives around it being as such.

@Bumpitybumper
I agree that it's tricky- but if you believe that it's best for children to have a parent at home then you should organise that to not disadvantage one parent in particular- it doesn't necessarily have to be one parent taking 10 years out of the workplace, you could share it. If you're not prepared to take time away from your own career, you shouldn't expect that of your partner.

I think there is a misconception sometimes that people choose to be SAHPs in order to avoid work as opposed to choosing to be SAHPs because ideologically they believe this is the best way to raise children.

At the same time, I think we have to acknowledge that some people do chose to do this, and the benefit they get from not working and getting to spend all that time with their children should be counted, just as the benefit the spouse gets from not having to do it themselves is counted. I have plenty of friends with stressful jobs that cannot wait to take time off to have children!

If we get to a place where taking this extra time is truly that parent's free choice, we should respect that as their decision and not necessarily compensate them for having made that choice.

@NameChanger22 you got it right! Well done for having the courage to defy society and for staying in your own home as a result!

Also in my dream society childcare is amazing and cheap/free, so there would be less need for SAHPs. The choice would still be there, but it would be a preference not a necessity. I appreciate I've taken this into the proper theoretical now...

@unclemontyscrumpets and in the ideal world schools wouldn’t announce at a couple of days’ notice that there is a meeting about some important matter at 2.30pm on a weekday as they assume all parents don’t work or can take time off at the drop of a hat! Plus employers would be totally understanding if you need to take several days off for a child with chicken pox or would help you arrange the non-existent emergency nanny. A lot of things need to improve and the world is never ideal.

Agree with everything you’ve said unclemonty. Free childcare, equal parental leave and a standard 50/50 split of assets on divorce, with everything owned pre-marriage retained. It’s about personal responsibility - if a couple wants one parent to stay home they should facilitate that where possible by saving extra so the SAHP can retain some financial independence. I actually see a huge burden on the WOHP - not only are they financially supporting themselves and paying all outgoings, they’re supporting their child(ren) and another adult. That’s fine if it’s what’s agreed in a marriage but it shouldn’t continue after, either by an unequal split of assets or spousal maintenance (which I’d like to see abolished completely). Presumably the WOHP would work whether their partner did or not, so this idea of unfettered career progression because one person’s at home - I don’t buy it. All I see is them lumbered with sole financial responsibility for another adult, of course it should be assumed they’ll work and support themselves in the event of a split

@Notbeingrobbed oh my goodness yes! My friend's DC's child has an assembly for parents at 2.30pm EVERY WEEK! The assumption that one parent won't have a job is massive.

@Johnnyfinland Yes! I'd vote for time limited spousal maintenance, like in Scotland. Although the 'meal ticket for life' headline is pretty gross, I do think that the assumption that once you get married you will be looked after, either through marriage or divorce settlement, is very dangerous- particularly for women. I firmly believe that you should always have in the back of your mind the risk that you might have to support yourself (and your children)- not particularly romantic, but important!

@unclemontyscrumpets
I think maybe a big part of why we disagree is because we see the SAHP role so differently. You obviously don't subscribe to the theories that support the importance of having a parent at home in a child's earliest years (fair enough, not everyone has to!) and believe that excellent childcare is a good substitute. I also think you view the SAHP as having an easier time of things and not really contributing something of equivalent value to the breadwinner's contribution. A lot of these things are subjective but I would say I disagree with all of the above and would actually counter I have found being a SAHM to my two children (both under schools age) has been immeasurably more difficult and demanding than my previous stressful FT career. I also think however that my contribution to the family unit is of equivalent value to my DH's and facilitates the standard of life we have as a family.

To be honest I don't think such a divergence in views can be easily reconciled as we all have our own life experiences to draw upon and will find different things challenging or worthwhile. What I would say is that the law quite rightly recognises that both parties have agreed to merge financial assets to get married in the first place. This merger remains for as long as the marriage persists so if you are married to someone that refuses to work and you are unhappy with the situation then you should terminate the marriage ASAP. You can't really spend decades married to a SAHP, divorce them and then suggest you were never happy with them being a SAHP in the first place and therefore don't want to split the assets accordingly.

I agree that it's tricky- but if you believe that it's best for children to have a parent at home then you should organise that to not disadvantage one parent in particular- it doesn't necessarily have to be one parent taking 10 years out of the workplace, you could share it. If you're not prepared to take time away from your own career, you shouldn't expect that of your partner.
Having any time out of the workplace to be a SAHP is incredibly harmful to a career so this could scupper both parents' careers which could be extremely harmful to the family unit.

My idea of utopia would be that SAHPs actually have more rights than they currently afforded so that they are not adversely impacted in the long term for a JOINT parenting decisions. However I also would make the decision to be a SAHP a more formal one where both parties would sign documents that outline the long term consequences of commiting to this decision. Maybe if it was spelled out clearly right at the beginning the proposed breadwinner or SAHP may think there is too much at stake and opt not to go down this path at all. I also would end the stingma around taking time out of work to take on caring roles whether it be for children, elderly relatives or sick partners. Of course you can expect to be penalised slightly for not having up to date skills etc but currently the impact on careers of taking a relatively short time out is completely disproportionate. Why should a career break of 3 years out of a total career length of potentially 60 years have such an adverse effect on someone's long-term career prospects? It's madness and makes no sense at all.

Sorry OP I know I've gone off on a bit of a tangent.

Completely disagree with your subject title as a generalisation. For the VAST majority of women in the UK today marriage offers a degree of financial security that cannot be had by any other means.

Whilst you are 1 higher earner than your stbx there are 90 women who are either sahp's , part-time low paid or full-time low paid. Mostly in jobs that pay less for the flexibility to fit in with the care of children. Add to that the number of women who had parity of pay until maternity leave and you are in a very small percentage of the population.

Go to any primary school in the country at 3 pm today and just count how many women are there compared to men. (Without counting childminders/nannies. )
I did this three years ago.
Just a snap shot. One day. 83 women and 7 men. Under 10 %.

That's why marriage is the very BEST thing for the majority of women.

Changing it would stuff women more than they have already been shafted by the lie that living together is a 'common law' marriage. With all kinds of rights.

My best friend was in the opposite situation. Unmarried for 25 yrs to a high earner whose meteoric rise was facilitated by his 'wife' (only he didn't believe in marriage') turns out he just didn't believe in marriage with her - but found a new faith when his 26 yr old girlfriend threatened to leave.

He had a 700k house and over 2m in his pension pot but as only one child still at home all she got was the right to live in her home for 18 months and some child maintenance for the same period.
At 54 she now lives in a rented cottage and works in a garden centre.

Sorry you are feeling taken advantage of but at least as a high earner you can pick up and start again. Others who are not in that position so not have that choice. Marriage , and it's legal implications should be part of the national curriculum. People need to know this stuff then make the decision based on facts.