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?

In my divorce we sold the marital home and agreed to split the equity equally before filing for divorce so by the time we filed for the clean break order, we both had our own homes for roughly the same value and equity. I know of at least 2 other couples who never married but who held joint assets together who went through far far worse and had more financial loss during breakup. I stress there were no children involved which is a huge complication factor, but in a like for like relationship comparison of those three relationships, mine was actually the smoothest to extricate from. It's everyone's own choice to decide if marriage is or isn't for them, but "not" being married doesn't provide any protection from the financial legal disputes that can arise following a break up. All relationships carry a degree of risk whether you're married or not.

The idea that people, as individuals, should take responsibility for their mistakes in marrying a wastrel is a valid point.But do they have to hoover up the repercussions of somebody else's mistakes or oversights? From before they met and to a lesser extent when they are together? The argument works both ways and if one partner decides to minimise their income for spurious reasons they should accept the consequences. Not get it made good on divorce by a bigger share of asset . The problem really is that most couples don't really know or understand the consequences of these types of decisions nor to they really talk about them.

I have read many times on here women saying they are going to give up work because they can get just get by and their husband is okay about it. The justification is the cost of child care and opportunity for benefits. Financially they might be right but I really doubt that they realise or take account of the long-term financial consequences. Never mind that it reinforces traditional roles for the both men and women that are impossible to break from.

Of course you don't have to get married and this has been pointed out. However if you say this on MN, you get called an abusing meany pants. Often by people who assume you are man trying to exploit a hapless damsel whom you coerced into having your children and then tied to the kitchen sink. I think some people are ridiculously judgemental about this and need to wind their necks in, even when commenting on men. Women are not inherently victims incapable of making a decision in their own right and taking responsibility for the consequences.

Otherwise you get told you are stupid not to realise you need the protection of marriage or that the naice middle class man doesn't really love you. FFS, can we not celebrate woman who have broken workplace barriers and ceilings to get to the point where they have true financial independence and control of their life without a man.

Yup - I don’t see how the present law can be feminist when it reinforces the idea that women should stay home and raise kids indefinitely. And if they have juggled it all to shatter a glass ceiling then they must have “neglected” their children and should be penalised for that financially. This isn’t the feminism I support!

Why can’t the law let me earn my own living and reap the benefits of that for myself and my children without giving away a ton of assets to my earning, but lower-earning ex?

So... I'm not going to read all the posts, but I'm assuming the conclusion is: don't marry a lazy waster or they will take you to the cleaners?

I'm a bloke by the way who had a similar thing happen to him. The good news for you though, as a woman, is that it is far less likely your ex will weaponize your children against you and stop you from seeing them in the future to maximize their child support payments.

The courts, manned seemingly solely by old white people, have an antiquated view of family life which plays into a woman who claims to be "a full time mother" very nicely.

I believe that a marriage should be a solum affair like the previous poster mentioned. It's a business contract and a huge commitment. If us women just want children out of a relationship it's ok to go it alone, you don't need to marry or risk your assets. It gets tricky when women make huge suffices for their husbands career, moving for their job or even giving their own to support a business venture. I would advise women not to do this unless they're married to a wealthier man.

Totally agree. I am the full time, higher earner. Exh chose to work part time, did no housework or childcare. I had to pay for and arrange childcare for when I was working, regardless of when he was at home. He wouldn't even do the morning school run.

He now sees one child alternate weekends and one night. He pays £22 a week for two DC.

To get divorced, I had to give him half my pension, as he never had one; half the equity in the still mortgaged house, which he never contributed to; he even wanted half the value of my car.

My situaton is similar to the first poster although when we started we earned the same in year 1 of marriage (not by year 20). I would change the divorce law so that it encourage both partners to work full time and for the very rich couples it is not a 50/50 split but instead ensures the lower earner is housed and has an income as used to be English law before cases like White v White .

We both worked full time but my ex got about 59% of joint assets including my list savings, all my shares (our pensions were similar as I am self employed with no empoyer contributions and he is in the teachers pension scheme so we didn't divide those) and I remortgaged to keep the children housed and had a loan of £1.3m.

He chose just about never to see the children so eg mght have 8 week school holiday and have them zero nights and I would take one of those weeks off for our famly holiday and have to pay for 7 weeks of full time childcare (He pays nothing).

However at least his 589% got me a clean break - he had wanted maintenance for life to equal out to some extent our respective full time earnings and the clean break at over 50% meant at least I was free of future financial claims.

@Xenia

I would change the divorce law so that it encourage both partners to work full time
That would be really difficult for lots of families where one of the parents has a career that involves a long commute, lots of travel or has really long hours. Ultimately someone has to look after the children and not everyone has family support so it could push parents into placing their children into childcare for ever increasing amounts of time and ultimately still result in one parent sacrificing their career to some extent as a result of the other partner's career.

For the very rich couples it is not a 50/50 split but instead ensures the lower earner is housed and has an income as used to be English law before cases like White v White
But what kind of housing would be appropriate in these kinds of cases? A bedsit, a one bedroom flat, a small terraced? What if the lower earning partner is the one with virtually full custody of the shared children, is it then fair that the shared children should live in cramped, undesirable conditions and relative poverty whilst the higher earning partner unhampered by the constraints of lookibg after their own children is rolling around in a mansion building an even more lucrative career? How does the lower earning partner ever better their position or have a chance of equalling their partner in the workplace if they have to negotiate the challenges of being responsible for the children most of the time?

Reading through the posts on this thread I can see quite a few examples where the law has produced unfair outcomes however what has really struck me is that the root cause of this unfairness hasn't been what hours people have worked or their income but instead the fact that a partner simply hasn't contributed enough across all aspects to have "earnt" their settlement. The law assumes that everyone is being productive with their time and contributing as best they can so if they aren't out earning to the best of their ability then they are doing some other activity (childcare, housework, caring for elderly relatives etc) that benefits the married unit. What this thread highlights is what happens when one partner hasn't contributed equally in the marriage and is effectively choosing to leech off their partner who is doing the bulk of everything. I guess the question is should the law have some provision that looks at contribution (not just financial but more widely) to assess what would be a fair settlement or would that be too complicated and lead to inequitable outcomes too? Also and I think very importantly the law should place more emphasis on the custody arrangements for any children and how this is likely to impact the RP's finances and ability to build a career as a result.

I agree. I married someone who turned into a leech after children The courts can take conduct into account but don't. I have no problem with courts giving childcare equal value with work but what's happening is partners who did not do their share earning or at home are still getting paid a disproportionate amount for a contribution they didn't make. Divorce judges should be willing to say those partners who were lazy can't expect to be paid for work they didn't do. Many partners start off with jobs and things being equal and then one takes the piss when the opportunity arises or they get bored with their job or parenting. Ultimately my dh knew he didn't have to bother too much with his self employed business because the only way I could force him to step up would be to put me and the kids and our home in jeopardy. Which he knew I wouldn't do. So he just played at working while fitting in a lot of hobbies. Whats relevant is what you as a couple agreed and whether you both kept your end of the bargain. If it's obvious one didn't that should be recognised - in my case I was the one who gave up a career due to disabled kids and worked PT in a job below my ability to fit round them - so I would usually be viewed as the main carer - but on paper I am still the one who earnt more, paid the mortgage and deposit and built up a (small) pension while he contributed little financially. He was supposed to run his self employed business FT and bring in a proper wage. Instead he applied for carers allowance and did occasional jobs and a lot of cycling. I now have the kids most of the time and still do all the earning and maintenance of kids and home. He has agreed not to sell house until later and we will have to work out his share. I have a reduced pension due to years working PT but he has none. One of my kids will need lifelong care and may need to live with me until I die. I have no idea how a court will weigh up our situation. What % of house and pension is fair when I will never be able to work FT. He's now in a low paid job all his money goes on rent and he can't afford CM (I know I could enforce this but he wouldn't be able to feed the kids when they go there). He will never contribute financially for his kids not for uni or pocket money or school trips. I have 100% of the costs going forward. It was basically like having a non paying lodger or extra child for the last 10 years not a partner. And I couldn't have left sooner because the kids disability needs were too much for me to manage on my own when they were younger.

@northernglam I really hope that because of your very unusual circumstances, that your DC will still need a home to live in and he hasn't paid CM or towards the mortgage since you spilt that he gets nothing very little.

I'm sure had you been able to cope with your DC disabilities sooner on your own you would have kicked him out much sooner!

This is such a great thread. Marriage causes so many problems. The yearning to be married to the "the marriage is broken how the fuck am I going to keep a roof over my kids head?"

We need education on it. I think it should be more expensive to do. I could never understand why it was roughly £91 to marry (2013) and £550 to get divorced. Makes no sense.

These replies are so thought-provoking and I have been surprised and also saddened at the number of people who have had bad experiences.

I started off thinking maybe I was the only one likely to get a bad deal. Or that a raft of SAHPs would pile in and attack me in some way. In fact it seems the law is being extremely hard towards many of the more responsible parents who work hard, earn more and do a lot of parenting.

I just keep kicking myself that I ever took part in that damned wedding ceremony. What was I thinking???

I know, OP, I keep kicking myself too.

The law is there to protect the most vulnerable party in the marriage, i.e the one who is not working/caring for the children/has fewest assets. That's just as it should be the majority of the time - if a couple has agreed that one of them will work fewer hours, or be a FT SAHP, and gives an equal contribution to the relationship in that way, then they should be protected when things go wrong. Nevertheless, this still can lead to the most financially secure person (the one with the assets and/or the higher earner) becoming the most vulnerable and losing a considerable amount, even if their spouse was not responsible in any part for the acquisition of those assets in the first place.

However this can also be abused - you can be married to someone for a few years, do as little as possible, and be financially well rewarded for it. Of course this person will play the game, make all the promises needed and put on an act initially to gain the trust of the person so that they feel loved a secure and the marriage takes place.

Yes, I am cynical, but I see this happening more and more to people, and believe it's a growing problem.

Sorry, that's all worded really badly, hope it makes some sort of sense!

I was a SAHP for 16 years working part time.
At the divorce apparently being a SAHP counts for nothing in the other persons eyes.
The only things guaranteed in life are taxes and death.

I have been watching this thread since it started. It really does make me sad that so many of us invested emotionally and financially in relationships and when they have come to an end, we are sometimes forced to make do with very unfair and difficult situations.

My STBX is one of those self employed business men, who basically likes to say he has his own business but in reality he was just playing at it and worked when he felt like it, because he had me standing behind him to pick up the pieces when he ran out of money. He is motivated to earn money but once told me that he doesn't see the point in working hard so that when he dies his two kids will have some money. Nice.

There are two sides to every story but the injustice of our modern day society is difficult to accept when hard working people (men or women) are penalised for their lazy self absorbed partners and end up losing an awful lot. It does say something for the luxury of living on benefits and never doing a days work in your life. If you have nothing, you have nothing to lose.

So sad.

Mine was hard because my situation was a-typical and I didn't want an emotional blaming divorce. But at the same time my husband had contributed nothing emotionally, practically or financially. Now does not see the children at all, or pay anything for them and yet there is a presumption of 50 50 that you have to work back from. I understand that in most cases this is to the benefit of the most vulnerable yet in my case I am disabled and can not work and he is working. I had inherited a house.

And the worst part is that it will be me who pays for my children all the way to do everything, and so it is them who are losing out.

There are so many different divorce situations it if hard to generalise.

If both work full time and one earns £200k and one £30k (or £2m and £300k) , neither went part time, neither sacrificed career or helped the career of the other, and let us assume no children, I don't see why the lower earner should be entitled to a similar standard of living as they had when they were married to the higher earner now that the marriage is over. Instead they had have had say 10 years married with bumper holidays and aren't being asked to pay back the value of that. Instead we say poor you - you used to spend £200 on your hair or hobby so now you will get that every week after you part .

What makes it more stressful is that the courts are so understaffed that each stage of the process takes months. If the judge queries something then it takes another couple of months before the answer to the query arrives and it goes on and on. Hoping mine might finally be reaching a conclusion

There was typically 3 to 4 months between the hearings in my case. 3 aborted MPS (Maintenance Pending Suit), FDA, FDR and Final Hearing. Entire process took almost 2 year and cost a fortune.

All that I am I give to you, all that I have I share with you.....

Does nobody listen to what they are declaring in the legally binding ceremony of marriage?

Just a side note really because firstly I really don’t think people think as they make these very important declarations of marriage, and secondly, human relationships are complex so you can’t legislate for the reality of everyone’s individual circumstances.

But I can tell you my kids will be given proper tuition from a young age on what marriage actually is rather than learning solely from the TV some idealistic, unrealistic, shallow meaning if it.

Yup. It’s slavery. Tell them that and tell them to never ever get married. As for the vows....the other party can break all the rest of them with impunity so why is the property one so important? Because marriage is an institution of the patriarchy designed to enslave women.

Hideandgo I agree, My mothers generation and catholic education you were brought up to know the sacrament of marriage. "With all my worldly goods I thee endow". Nowadays married couples go Dutch. I don't understand and the fact men feel like this too put me off marriage. There was a thread recently about not wanting to contribute towards a step daughters education I was surprised. Surely it must cross your mind before marrying a man with children that you have to take in that child financially too? If I want to leave all my money to my son, I don't get married.

I had a date with someone online moan about his ex girlfriend and how he got nothing when they split after 10 years as the house was in her name and he didn't want marriage. Surely in ten years together you would think long term about your security? He then said he would be taking a new girlfriend to his lawyer before a long term relationship begun, he lives in flat (no doubt mortgaged) in not that desirable area. I am easily worth five times his wealth, but of course that's not the point he didn't want to share. There is no point in getting married on whole people attitudes have changed and it seems mainstream for a marriage to mean wedding.

@Xenia correct! Once living costs are covered why should the other half expect to be kept in the style to which they’ve been accustomed? They are not married any more, the meal ticket is at an end. I am supporting my kids and apparently my ex believes I must buy him a 4-bed house outright for the children who never see him! I don’t even own the “marital” home outright.

@Neweternal the church has got a lot to answer for...from child abuse onwards. A morally bankrupt institution if ever there was one!